From a demographic point of view.
Anyway religion goes beyond "God - yes/no". I don't think I know anyone who's not culturally Christian, even though all of them would describe themselves as atheist.
Testify wrote:From a demographic point of view.
Anyway religion goes beyond "God - yes/no". I don't think I know anyone who's not culturally Christian, even though all of them would describe themselves as atheist.
That's because of culture. I can see that. Though, I think they divert from Christian culture if they support gays and women.
In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.[12][13][code]
Testify wrote:From a demographic point of view.
Anyway religion goes beyond "God - yes/no". I don't think I know anyone who's not culturally Christian, even though all of them would describe themselves as atheist.
That's because of culture. I can see that. Though, I think they divert from Christian culture if they support gays and women.
It's like you're trying to push all the buttons...
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Except that Athiests actually are the victims of religious fundamentalism. They can't get elected to public office, and get threaten when they oppose getting infringed on by fanatics.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Pretty much that for me as well.
There are Atheists who want to spread their faith (that there is no God) and want to convert others to believe the same thing they do (that there is no God). There are Atheists who cannot wait for an opportunity to point out to others that they are spiritually weaker than them and that they found the one true faith (that there is no God) just as there are people who cannot wait to point out how they are superior to others because they believe in a spiritual entity.
So on the surface, Atheism meets the criteria for a religion IMO:
1) Have a set faith (there is no God) 2) Have a creation story (everything is an accident) 3) Have a holy text (anything written by Dawkins) 4) Want to convert people.
Testify wrote:From a demographic point of view.
Anyway religion goes beyond "God - yes/no". I don't think I know anyone who's not culturally Christian, even though all of them would describe themselves as atheist.
That's because of culture. I can see that. Though, I think they divert from Christian culture if they support gays and women.
It's like you're trying to push all the buttons...
No, not really. I'm trying not to. I was wondering if I should have added anything to that to explain. Maybe mentioning that it's fanatics who would have a problem with gays and the freedom of women would be better.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Except that Athiests actually are the victims of religious fundamentalism. They can't get elected to public office, and get threaten when they oppose getting infringed on by fanatics.
That's not entirely true, perhaps in some states in the US but it's becoming a shrinking area that will do that.
Some atheists can come near religious levels of fanaticism and devotion to certain scientists they hold in high regard.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:Some atheists can come near religious levels of fanaticism and devotion to certain scientists they hold in high regard.
I think that's more of a personal flaw though. People shouldn't take the word of any one person too seriously without understanding first how they make their conclusions.
Because it suits the "well, evolution is just a theory" fundamentalists to characterise a scientific worldview as "just another belief", and thus to avoid mentioning the unpalatable truth that it is one founded in conclusions rationally drawn from empirical fact, rather than one founded in bronze age myth.
English Assassin wrote:Because it suits the "well, evolution is just a theory" fundamentalists to characterise a scientific worldview as "just another belief", and thus to avoid mentioning the unpalatable truth that it is one founded in conclusions rationally drawn from empirical fact, rather than one founded in bronze age myth.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
English Assassin wrote:Because it suits the "well, evolution is just a theory" fundamentalists to characterise a scientific worldview as "just another belief", and thus to avoid mentioning the unpalatable truth that it is one founded in conclusions rationally drawn from empirical fact, rather than one founded in bronze age myth.
It's a classic example of a false analogy.
I always tell them to jump out of a window, because gravity is "just a theory" too.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
I agree with that. I still take a problem with the really hard core religions people because they want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws, but that's probably them not respecting "live and let live."
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
I agree with that. I still take a problem with the really hard core religions people because they want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws, but that's probably them not respecting "live and let live."
As opposed to really hard core atheists who want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws?
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
I agree with that. I still take a problem with the really hard core religions people because they want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws, but that's probably them not respecting "live and let live."
As opposed to really hard core atheists who want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws?
...Nah. Not worth it. I swear we just had this thread, like, a month ago.
I should have been there, because I was thinking about the issue then. Oh well. It's probably better to start a new discussion since anytime you bring up an old one, 30 people comment on the fact that you're bringing up an old discussion.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
I agree with that. I still take a problem with the really hard core religions people because they want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws, but that's probably them not respecting "live and let live."
As opposed to really hard core atheists who want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws?
But are they wanting to impose those ridiculous and oppressive laws because they're atheists and believe that that's what their god... er... uh, what their.. uh, nothing wants them to do, or is it because they're donkey-caves who like ridiculous and oppressive laws?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I should have been there, because I was thinking about the issue then. Oh well. It's probably better to start a new discussion since anytime you bring up an old one, 30 people comment on the fact that you're bringing up an old discussion.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
I agree with that. I still take a problem with the really hard core religions people because they want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws, but that's probably them not respecting "live and let live."
As opposed to really hard core atheists who want to impose ridiculous and oppressive laws?
But are they wanting to impose those ridiculous and oppressive laws because they're atheists and believe that that's what their god... er... uh, what their.. uh, nothing wants them to do, or is it because they're donkey-caves who like ridiculous and oppressive laws?
So if I do something evil because I think god has told me too...that's worse than me just doing something evil?
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
What oppressive laws are atheists trying to pass?
None, at the moment.
Feel free to google "Stalin" if you want an example of an evil atheist.
Presumably he'd have been even worse if he was doing it in the name of a false god?
But are they wanting to impose those ridiculous and oppressive laws because they're atheists and believe that that's what their god... er... uh, what their.. uh, nothing wants them to do, or is it because they're donkey-caves who like ridiculous and oppressive laws?
So if I do something evil because I think god has told me too...that's worse than me just doing something evil?
No, the individual is still evil, either way. The difference is that if it's legitimately in the teachings of the religion and the one committing the evil is truly doing it in his god's name, then it's a pretty solid case against the religion.
You can't claim that someone's atheistic teachings are what lead them to do something, because there is no such thing.
Its not a religion, christians just like saying it is because if they can convince enough people of it, they can try and remove the teaching of evolution from schools by claiming its a religion.
Just because atheists keep pointing out that you can't put your holy symbols on public grounds does not mean they are preaching no god. they are pointing out that you are breaking the law again.
Religious people keep trying to push their beliefs into law based only on their bible, Because they can not for some reason live and let live. Telling them they're bible does not in any way mean anything to me seems to annoy them. Why can't religious people just follow their own religious laws without it being pushed into secular laws? surely if they won't even listen to god, they won't listen to the cops either.
all atheism is at the core of it is: It is a lack of belief in gods.
I do not accept your god without any proof, please prove he exists or keep your religion to yourself, and out of public schools, and out of public buildings, as ruled by the supreme court.
Evolution is a provable, testable, repeatable theory that explains how life evolves. Evangelists are fond of saying well what do biologists know about god, if you want to learn about god, ask them. but the same is more true on the other foot. learn about evolution from a biologists, not from an evangelists. Hell get a bunch of christians to fund your own research and test the claims made from evolution. because after 150 years the theory still stands because of all the evidence supporting it and all new evidence found strengthens it. Despite the word games evangelists like to play they don't have a shred of proof for their creation story, nor any evidence to refute evolution.
But evolution has nothing to do with atheism. evolution is a theory of how life evolves. atheism is a lack of belief in god.
But are they wanting to impose those ridiculous and oppressive laws because they're atheists and believe that that's what their god... er... uh, what their.. uh, nothing wants them to do, or is it because they're donkey-caves who like ridiculous and oppressive laws?
So if I do something evil because I think god has told me too...that's worse than me just doing something evil?
No, the individual is still evil, either way. The difference is that if it's legitimately in the teachings of the religion and the one committing the evil is truly doing it in his god's name, then it's a pretty solid case against the religion.
You can't claim that someone's atheistic teachings are what lead them to do something, because there is no such thing.
Crap. I got involved.
Right. So when a government soldier puts a bullet through the back of my wife's head, I'm supposed to care whether or not he's doing it because of his leaders' following of church doctrine, or out of sheer spite?
Religion is an output of human expression. Modernity has not changed this.
Now, he's some Dubliners:
It all comes down to how do you define "religion".
If you define religion as "which God, god, or gods do you believe exist", then atheism isn't a religion. Of course, that also means that Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, and countless "pagan" belief systems aren't religions either. (Depending on the sect, of course. Some sects of these beliefs do have a deity figure.)
If you define religion as "how do you define humanity's connection with the universe", then atheism is absolutely a religion.
But, really, this is all just semantics and doesn't really matter.
And, with that said, I'm going to go join the bar crowd. One White Russian please (it's still before noon, too early for the hard stuff).
Testify wrote:
Right. So when a government soldier puts a bullet through the back of my wife's head, I'm supposed to care whether or not he's doing it because of his leaders' following of church doctrine, or out of sheer spite?
Religion is an output of human expression. Modernity has not changed this.
Then I suppose the moral is that donkey-caves are donkey-caves, regardless of their motives, and trying to further analyze it is just sophistic wankery.
Now, he's some Dubliners:
I'll be in the bar, and now listening to Irish music the remainder of the day, thankyouverymuch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
That's hilarious. My dog LOVES beer, but he won't touch hard alcohol, no matter how well disguised it is.
Testify wrote:The replies in this thread are telling.
Athiests are better than other people, therefore they don't have a religion
Well, I can't speak for nonbelievers as a whole, but for myself, I don't think people who do believe are dumber or more gullible then me. Since I don't have faith, I think that might also somewhat circumvent my ability to understand it, so who am I to make judgements about that? If it brings you some comfort or balance or what have you, then good for you. I think militant atheists are just as bad (maybe worse!) then religious zealots.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
As an Evangelical Christian, I take offense here. I have never even stated my religious beliefs here before, while you sir have at every opportunity mentioned your atheism. Please do not paint with such a broad brush.
Some people seem to have a 'religion filter' that seems to require everyone to have a religion and can't undertsnad people who simply don't have/need one.
They then classify atheism/agnosticism as a religion (despite not fitting the criteria) so that all is right with the world.
Some people just can't seem to undertand that at most atheism is a philosophy and that it is definately not a religion.
This type of thread will never, ever amount to anything other than circular bickering along predefined linesl. You may as well make one titled Conservatives, what a bunch of muppets.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
As an Evangelical Christian, I take offense here. I have never even stated my religious beliefs here before, while you sir have at every opportunity mentioned your atheism. Please do not paint with such a broad brush.
Evangelical as in those who believe that everyone should be the same as them and will force people to follow their system, these come from both sides of the fence. The fact you've never tried to spread your beliefs kind of precludes you from that don't you think.
I shall clarify, evangelicals who do not act in an evangelical manner fall under he "live and let live" ideal that I mentioned.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious people do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Evangelicals of every type are idiots. The difference between faith based ones and non faith based ones is that faith based ones often cause more suffering as they make people live by illogical and outdated codes of conduct. But still, evangelicals are idiots, and "live and let live" should be the order of the day.
As an Evangelical Christian, I take offense here. I have never even stated my religious beliefs here before, while you sir have at every opportunity mentioned your atheism. Please do not paint with such a broad brush.
Evangelical as in those who believe that everyone should be the same as them and will force people to follow their system, these come from both sides of the fence. The fact you've never tried to spread your beliefs kind of precludes you from that don't you think.
To a point yes, however, as defined by thefreedictionary.com, I find this a more appropriate definition of Evangelical:
1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
The term you want here is fundamentalism, defined at the same source as:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
As an Evangelical, I believe in the Bible, and Jesus as my Lord and Savior. As a human I believe in Gay rights, that the death penalty is wrong and should be abolished, I am against abortion but will never try to deny anyone the right to have one if they so wish, and lastly I believe in Evolution (Micro, not Macro) and Intelligent Design.
Testify wrote:The replies in this thread are telling.
Athiests are better than other people, therefore they don't have a religion
Well, I can't speak for nonbelievers as a whole, but for myself, I don't think people who do believe are dumber or more gullible then me. Since I don't have faith, I think that might also somewhat circumvent my ability to understand it, so who am I to make judgements about that? If it brings you some comfort or balance or what have you, then good for you. I think militant atheists are just as bad (maybe worse!) then religious zealots.
It's the Anti-theist v. live and let live on religion. I've generally thought it best to have live and let live on believers, though there are a lot of them who don't follow that themselves, promoting more anti-theistic thinking.
Stalin has been dead for nearly sixty years, the Eastern bloc was dismantled more than two decades ago. Right now, in the developed world, evangelical Christians are using the very same disingenuous parallel with which this discussion to teach our children mythology dressed up with pseudo-science in place of biology. Really, where are the atheists/secularists/godless scientists that are interfering in religion doctrine?
@ treadhead Fair point, my understanding of evangelicalism comes from a vicar who used to frequent a pub I worked at. He had issues with what he saw as "evangelical atheists" and I had to agree with him on that point.
Stalin has been dead for nearly sixty years, the Eastern bloc was dismantled more than two decades ago. Right now, in the developed world, evangelical Christians are using the very same disingenuous parallel with which this discussion to teach our children mythology dressed up with pseudo-science in place of biology. Really, where are the atheists/secularists/godless scientists that are interfering in religion doctrine?
The Whitehouse, mandating that they can decide who is and who isn't a religious institution?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
English Assassin wrote:Aww. I was hoping for a zombie Stalin behind that spoiler button.
That would be silly; Stalin is no zombie.
Spoiler:
Or is he?
SHhh! The first rule of the Stalin Vampire Appreciation Society is no one talks about the Stalin Vampire Appreciation Society!
English Assassin wrote:
I think it would be fair to say that in a state-funded educational system, everybody deserves the right to be taught science in their science classes.
If you define religion as "how do you define humanity's connection with the universe", then atheism is absolutely a religion.
But, really, this is all just semantics and doesn't really matter.
This. There is no grand conspiracy by the religious to make evolutionary theory a religious idea so they can ban it. Take off those tin foil hats they look silly without streamers. At the end of the day most people define 'religion' however they please, and the irony of that is that atheism can be described as the anti-religion religion if one so chooses to think of it that way.
Evangelical as in those who believe that everyone should be the same as them and will force people to follow their system, these come from both sides of the fence. The fact you've never tried to spread your beliefs kind of precludes you from that don't you think.
That's not what evangelism is. Evangelism is simply preaching at every opportunity, not forcing. What you're describing is fundamentalism. But hey, most people just throw those words around so what do I know?
Evangelical as in those who believe that everyone should be the same as them and will force people to follow their system, these come from both sides of the fence. The fact you've never tried to spread your beliefs kind of precludes you from that don't you think.
That's not what evangelism is. Evangelism is simply preaching at every opportunity, not forcing. What you're describing is fundamentalism. But hey, most people just throw those words around so what do I know?
The problem comes when you ascribe that to atheists, how can there be an atheist fundamentalist? It's a position that can't strictly exist, how can one adhere to a theological doctrine that doesn't exist. My whole intention of bringing up the subject of evangelism was to show that it's not what people believe but how they act on those beliefs, and I was trying to lump all sides together equally, by using a definition that can only be ascribed to one side I would be against that side and not the other.
This. There is no grand conspiracy by the religious to make evolutionary theory a religious idea so they can ban it.
Then why bring it up at all? If its really just a discussion of what is and is not a religion, then why do theists keep making the claim that atheism is a religion? As no atheists are making the claim that it is.
If the atheists make it a religion like the atheists Buddhists, then its a religion. If they don't make it a religion then its not. Surely the people claiming atheist that categorize it as either a religion or not a religion.
purplefood wrote:Technically atheism is a religious belief...
NO, technically atheism is having no belief in god.
It's believing that no God or higher power exists.
It's a religious belief albeit in terms of denial.
So it's technically a religious belief.
I wouldn't call it a religion though...
English Assassin wrote:Because it suits the "well, evolution is just a theory" fundamentalists to characterise a scientific worldview as "just another belief", and thus to avoid mentioning the unpalatable truth that it is one founded in conclusions rationally drawn from empirical fact, rather than one founded in bronze age myth.
dæl wrote:The problem comes when you ascribe that to atheists, how can there be an atheist fundamentalist?
Not to keep beating the dead dictators horse but, Stalinism? If one chooses to define religion as Gakmar described (which I think is as valid a definition as any other) then an atheist funamentalist is simply an atheist seeking to institutionalize atheism (that of course becomes problematic, as one has to deal with the nuance difference between atheism and secularism, assuming there is one). The Communist Party (in the USSR and in China) did this. Hitler planned to eventually do it in Germany, and Fascist Italy wished they could do it.
It's a position that can't strictly exist, how can one adhere to a theological doctrine that doesn't exist.
If its really just a discussion of what is and is not a religion, then why do theists keep making the claim that atheism is a religion? As no atheists are making the claim that it is.
This is valid if one believes theological doctrines necessary to a Religion. Some sects of Buddhism have no doctrines, and essentially are atheist in their beliefs. This is really kind of an odd debate when one thinks of it. The religious want to claim every human is inherently religious, so they choose to define 'religion' in a manner that allows them to achieve that end. Atheists meanwhile, dislike the religious or the idea of religion, and define it in a manner that allows them to exclude themselves from it.
dæl wrote:The problem comes when you ascribe that to atheists, how can there be an atheist fundamentalist?
Not to keep beating the dead dictators horse but, Stalinism? If one chooses to define religion as Gakmar described (which I think is as valid a definition as any other) then an atheist funamentalist is simply an atheist seeking to institutionalize atheism (that of course becomes problematic, as one has to deal with the nuance difference between atheism and secularism, assuming there is one). The Communist Party (in the USSR and in China) did this. Hitler planned to eventually do it in Germany, and Fascist Italy wished they could do it.
This is valid if one believes theological doctrines necessary to a Religion. Some sects of Buddhism have no doctrines, and essentially are atheist in their beliefs. This is really kind of an odd debate when one thinks of it. The religious want to claim every human is inherently religious, so they choose to define 'religion' in a manner that allows them to achieve that end. Atheists meanwhile, dislike the religious or the idea of religion, and define it in a manner that allows them to exclude themselves from it.
At the end of the day its a debate no one wins.
Communism is a political ideal, not a theological one, so Stalinists weren't atheist fundamentalists, they were communist fundamentalists. Someone's religion does not define their every action.
Well theism is a belief in a deity, Buddism doesn't have a deity, so can quite accurately be described as atheist.
It does however have the teachings of Buddha as a form of doctrine, so can also be described as a religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So what makes a religion a religion then?
Belief in a deity is what I would say, and yes that does preclude Buddhism, Taoism etc.
purplefood wrote:Technically atheism is a religious belief...
NO, technically atheism is having no belief in god.
It's believing that no God or higher power exists.
It's a religious belief albeit in terms of denial.
So it's technically a religious belief.
I wouldn't call it a religion though...
Its just a belief, nothing religious about it.
religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3.scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4.pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5.appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
Religion:
1. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Atheists have no set of beliefs or practices concerning anything save one. they just don't believe in a god, or have never heard of a god. ergo while a belief, not a religious belief. Why is it so hard for religious people to accept not every belief is a religion? or is not believing in santa claus the major religion in the US?
purplefood wrote:Technically atheism is a religious belief...
NO, technically atheism is having no belief in god.
It's believing that no God or higher power exists.
It's a religious belief albeit in terms of denial.
So it's technically a religious belief.
I wouldn't call it a religion though...
Its just a belief, nothing religious about it.
religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3.scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4.pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5.appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...
Grakmar wrote:If you define religion as "how do you define humanity's connection with the universe", then atheism is absolutely a religion.
But, really, this is all just semantics and doesn't really matter.
And when one strives to explain the universe with evidence and reason, it's called science.
LordofHats wrote:This. There is no grand conspiracy by the religious to make evolutionary theory a religious idea so they can ban it. Take off those tin foil hats they look silly without streamers. At the end of the day most people define 'religion' however they please, and the irony of that is that atheism can be described as the anti-religion religion if one so chooses to think of it that way.
There are, however, well-publicised, ongoing efforts by anti-scientific evangelical (or fundamentalist, if you prefer) Christians to use just that argument to have myth taught in our schools as though it enjoyed the same evidential basis as established science.
Communism is but a whole where as I'm talking about a part. Communism created (or tried to create) an atheist society and attempted to institutionalized atheism. In this sense, communism can be seen as fundamentally atheist in its attitudes toward religion.
Someone's religion does not define their every action.
Neither does their political affiliation... Hell, taking kick backs isn't exactly in line with the communist party line, but they tended to do it anyway.
Well theism is a belief in a deity, Buddism doesn't have a deity, so can quite accurately be described as atheist.
Most theologists will disagree that a deity is required for a religion. Usually the requirement is some form of belief in metaphysical concepts about the universe, with beliefs pertaining to the human condition and its place in the universe as a runner up (this one would include atheism possibly as a religion under its banner).
Atheists have no set of beliefs or practices concerning anything save one.
Some theologians have theorized that the atheist dogma is Humanism. Of course, this is also a mixing of actual theologists and sociologists who are trying to create a more inclusive means of describing belief systems that behave 'like religion' but that aren't religion (in their book).
So what makes a religion a religion then?
The theologists will get back to us... someday... eventually... maybe.
Its one of those things that doesn't really have an answer. Hence, this thread.
purplefood wrote:
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...
but when you get to what is a religion
"Religion:
1. 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. "
That in no way has anything to do with atheists. no beliefs on the cause ..., no devotions nor rituals, nor moral codes. its just simple not a theist if you want to get Etymological with it. theists believe in a god, atheists do not.
curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious peomle do. All the same stuff.
Bang on!
Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.
Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.
Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.
Except one of them is right. They can't all be right, but one of them must be. My vote is witb the atheists. And if I am reincarnated before god himself, I'm bellowing "What is your excuse?!" and punching him in the face.
purplefood wrote:
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...
but when you get to what is a religion
"Religion:
1. 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. "
That in no way has anything to do with atheists. no beliefs on the cause ..., no devotions nor rituals, nor moral codes. its just simple not a theist if you want to get Etymological with it. theists believe in a god, atheists do not.
It says 'usually' and 'often' not 'has to'.
Atheists believe it wasn't a supernatural force (God) which is a belief concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe...
It's a pedantic point of view but the argument is there...
IMO, true Athesim is not a religion because they claim to not have a belief in a higher power. Thussly would not be protected under freedom of religion.
Frankly, the whole idea is one big gamble as I shall no demonstrate.
There are only 2 possabilities here, with distinct consequences of believing or not. Either God exists or he doesn't.
If you believe in God, and he exists. You get to go to Heaven when you die.
If you belive in God, and he doesn't exist. You live and you die. Nothing else. Not so bad, heaven would be nicer though.
If you don't belive if God, and he does exist. You get sent to Hell. Definitly bad.
If you don't belive in God, and he doesn't exist. Nothing happens. You live and then you die.
Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.
Communism is but a whole where as I'm talking about a part. Communism created (or tried to create) an atheist society and attempted to institutionalized atheism. In this sense, communism can be seen as fundamentally atheist in its attitudes toward religion.
Someone's religion does not define their every action.
Neither does their political affiliation... Hell, taking kick backs isn't exactly in line with the communist party line, but they tended to do it anyway.
Communism came from the Marx idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, it seeked to remove it as a form of social control, that is it's only interaction with religion. Stalin inherited communist Russia from Lenin, who I note, doesn't get mentioned in these things because he's not as scary. He acted the way he did because he was a tyrant, not because he was an atheist tyrant. After all, I'm sure there have been far more religious tyrants, than non religious ones.
Squigsquasher wrote:If god would send people to hell for not believing in him when he's given us no reliable evidence of his existence, then god is a self-entitled prick.
purplefood wrote:religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...
Atheism is simply the 'belief' that all conclusions should be drawn from empirically tested fact.
The by-product of which is that god (and all other religions) falls into the same category as the Easter Bunny.
It's not about some nebulous concept of 'belief' in a god or not. Atheists would be happy to believe in god, if you could prove to us why we should.
And that's why we can seem 'evangelical' about it: Because we see people drawing incorrect conclusions due to a either a lack of information or willful ignorance, and that makes us sad and frustrated.
Except he hasn't said anything to me. I can't do as he says if he hasn't said anything to me.
Plus, judging by what's in his atrocious book and the way he treats humanity, even if he was telling me what to do, I wouldn't obey, as I have common decency.
ATHEISM NEED NOT BE A RELIGION, BUT IT IS A FAITH CHOICE.
I cannot say isn't because to some their Atheism is a form of religion in the way it fills the faith hole in their lives with fervour. After all religion and faith are not the same thing.
Pouint is, the only way you can be atheist and not in any way having made a faith choice is if you are completely ignorant of the concept or religion. On a practical level that doesn't happen, because of our nature to question there are arguments that it can never happen, if if you raised someone in isolation and gave them no reference to religion in any form. It is in our nature to believe and disbelieve according to our will and personality.
Its wrong to say that Atheists are religious but it is entirely right to say Atheism is a religion because the two concepts are different. Individual atheists are live individual theists, some are fervid, others don't care. However Atheism as a movement or concept has an agenda, the propagation of the belief in the non-existence of the divine. Like with religion this can be done the nice way or the not so nice way.
However this must be remembered as being a political definition rather than a logical/philosophical one because Atheism is a political concept rather than a philosophical one. Let me explain. Individuals may be Atheist due to their own philosophy, but atherism as a whole is a human mass movement, and thus a political one. The same can be said of any other large scale faith group.
It is important that this is understood so that when it comes to human interaction and human politics Atheism is lumped in with all the other religious choices.
This is to avoid the following human problems:
An atheist argument is a scientific argument.. Probably the most dangerous long term. For example a lot of forums have a no-politics, no-religion rule. Atheists can think that this gives them carte blanche to promote atheism on the grounds that is is 'scientific' and 'reason'. Even major public figure atheists who ought to know better use this argument. Atheism must be categorised as a religious group or atheism will seek to publically condemn religion where the religious have no right of reply.
Atheism isn't a belief of lack, its a lack of belief. Poppycock. Atheism is a human definition, people choose to account themselves as atheists. The reason, they tick 'no' to the "do you believe?" box. some might argue that they are an unfirm no based on lack of evidence. This is irrelevant, do you believe is a straight yes/no question. An unsure is either a yes or no depending on where your heart is pointing. Whether someone says no because of lack of evidence or because of a firm belief in the non-existence of the divine is still a no. After all those who answer yes come in many different categories and they are all lumped together.There is nothing in science to disprove God, it always comes down to a faith choice. For any reason whatsoever you either believe or you don't. The one exception being explained above, those who never consider the question.
Atheism has a pure logic base. This is especially important as it helps us all deal with a commonly placed mental trap, the idea that atheism is a cerebral concept. It isn't, its a faith concept and like other faith concepts its an affair of the heart not of the cool reasoning mind. If this is grasped we will all get on better. All forms of religious argument are conscience based, and are thus ruled by human emotion. By claiming that one isn't gives free reign for the darker human emotions to be disguised as logic. This was the problem with medieval Christianity, modern fundamentalist Islam and many in modern atheism. All three believed in the logical priority of their thoughts, the medieval church was 'infallible', the modern Islamist is 'literal' and the modern atheist can be 'logical'. All are mental traps that actually.
We are creatures of emotion, we act on impulse not logic as a species and as individuals. The only way to embrace logic is to embrace your own nature and thus become truly aware of ones own bias. One of the surest ways to be governed by ones own darker emotions is to deny their power and live under the illusion that one is entirely logical in ones outlook. Never underestimate the human ability for self deception, that is a warning to us all and one those who wish to be truly logical must constantly remain aware of.
Grey Templar wrote:
Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.
That's the problem for me though, and I suspect even for a lot of "Christians". Faith isn't a switch you can flip on and off. You can't just "cover your bases".
I DON'T believe. I can't make myself have faith. I've tried. I've even had very compelling motivators for which I've really, really wanted to just be able to snap my fingers and be a good little theist. It doesn't work that way, and, in my mind, no amount of towing the party line would make a difference when standing before God to be judged. If he doesn't know when you're pulling his leg, he's not much of a god, right?
So I do the easiest thing for myself, and I just be sincere. I may suffer the same outcome, but hey, at least I can respect myself for doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
I cannot say isn't because to some their Atheism is a form of religion in the way it fills the faith hole in their lives with fervour.
dæl wrote:Communism came from the Marx idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, it seeked to remove it as a form of social control, that is it's only interaction with religion.
Most social historians reject the idea of Communism being 'religionless' as anything more than rhetoric. All communist states (the two bigs ones anyway) have ever done is replace traditional religion with the 'Communist dogma' and then proceeded to act in a manner akin to a religious institution. Communism was an atheist system that became the religion of the USSR in this sense.
The wall we're currently hitting is the result of atheism being inherently anti-religion (and atheists tend to be anti-religious themselves). Unfortunately, in a push to categorize human behaviors for the identification of patterns across social groups and history, it becomes extremely practical to treat atheism as a (airquotes) religion. Theologians themselves seem to be gradually going the same way in thinking of atheism as the anti-religion religion.
Of course that makes sense to me because atheism has expanded itself far beyond its original premise that of simply rejecting the existence of a 'one true god' into being something much broader. But then I also love irony, and there's nothing more ironic than atheism being considered a religion. Sweet delicious irony.
After all, I'm sure there have been far more religious tyrants, than non religious ones.
Well obviously. Atheism hasn't been around that long as a widely held belief.
Squigsquasher wrote:If god makes me face the consequences of my actions because I ignored what he said to do, then god is a self-entitled prick.
fixed that for you
And the most important thing He said to do is worship Him. You can live a good life treating everyone well but still go to hell for not worshipping Him, while you can get away with all sorts of horrendous behaviour and still go to heaven if you repent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Well obviously. Atheism hasn't been around that long as a widely held belief.
I would say even now, if you look at every tyrant at large today, i'll bet the majority are either religious themselves, or use religion as a tool against their populous.
A king took over a city, and the next day the Imams showed up in shiny new robes and presented a Hadith that read "This new king guy is Alah's favorite. Do what he says."
Grey Templar wrote:IMO, true Athesim is not a religion because they claim to not have a belief in a higher power. Thussly would not be protected under freedom of religion.
Frankly, the whole idea is one big gamble as I shall no demonstrate.
There are only 2 possabilities here, with distinct consequences of believing or not. Either God exists or he doesn't.
If you believe in God, and he exists. You get to go to Heaven when you die.
If you belive in God, and he doesn't exist. You live and you die. Nothing else. Not so bad, heaven would be nicer though.
If you don't belive if God, and he does exist. You get sent to Hell. Definitly bad.
If you don't belive in God, and he doesn't exist. Nothing happens. You live and then you die.
Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.
Pascal's wager:
The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, note 233):
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.
But they are never good enough.
Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.
Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.
I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".
(Disclaimer: I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both.)
Would a 'God' (Jesus, Zeus, Appolo, ETC) not be able to tell you only belived in he, she, because you were scarred you where wrong and did not really believe? If not, God must be gullible.
The argument (call it "PW") may be formulated as follows:
(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated.
(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.
(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.
(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.
(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.
(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.
Here are some objections to PW:
1. It is possible to prove that God does not exist. [See the atheism section of the Secular Web.] Hence, premises (a) & (b) of PW are moot or irrelevant.
2. There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the Argument from Nonbelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.
3. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.
4. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
5. It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
6. To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.
7. Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.
For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.
I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."
d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.
Look, atheists aren't evil anti-god evangelists. We'd be happy to believe in god if you can show us why we should. The problem is, despite your assertions, you just don't have the evidence. You've got lots of people that claim to have seen or felt their god, but why should we believe them?
At the end of the day, it all boils down to "citation needed"
d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.
But they are never good enough.
Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.
Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.
I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".
(Disclaimer: I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both.)
There is some great evidence that could prove god exists, he could make a appearance on Oprah for starters. Maybe a new book, or the rapture would be a good sign.
I'd say the big difference here is can you accept that you are wrong? lets say god does show up and says Jesus was just a con man, and Mohammad is your man, would you switch to Islam? or if he said Hi I'm Zeus, see my son started the Olympics, go team Canada, kick some ass in London. could you stop being a christian?
No one ever said science can explain everything, especially not today. But what it does figure out leads to some impressive things.
Kaldor wrote:I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."
Man, I've heard smart, like, really actually smart people telling me that the Bible proves itself.
d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.
But they are never good enough.
Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.
Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.
I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.
Kaldor wrote:I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."
Man, I've heard smart, like, really actually smart people telling me that the Bible proves itself.
I have the utmost respect for people that believe in God because of the Bible saying he's real. After all, the Bible was written under God's influence, so everything in it is the truth. And, we know God is real because the bible says so.
Sure, it's circular logic, but it is logical (even if it does beg the question).
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.
Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.
When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.
Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.
When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.
So things people believe based on evidence I can't call beliefs?
And I can't refer to science as it?
I apologise profusely.
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.
Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.
Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.
When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.
So things people believe based on evidence I can't call beliefs?
And I can't refer to science as it?
I apologise profusely.
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.
Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:
"Science" is a consensus based on peoples' interpretation of evidence...
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.
Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:
No, it is actually worse, because you're still using "science" like "God".
Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.
LordofHats wrote:Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.
But science is not a religion. why are the christians pushing that every belief needs to be a religion? That's the real question. Or more to the point, why are christians pushing every belief they don't accept needs to be a religion?
Is dakkadakka our religion here? Do you believe the web site exists? well if you believe this web site exists it must be your religion right?
Or do you not believe this web site is here, so that is your religion?
LordofHats wrote:Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.
...and we're back to the same fallacy as page one; it's like these five pages never happened.
To peel away the sophistry again, yes, one could indeed argue that science (or, for the sake of exactness, the scientific method applied to empirical evidence) holds in the modern world the same place religion held in earlier centuries, in so far as both seek to explain the world.
The truth of that particular parallel, however, does not necessarily make any other parallel between science and religion true.
If Jesus existed at all, he existed far too long ago for any supposed witness reports to be reliable.
Also, whilst scientific theories can be wrong, science itself can't be wrong by definition. Science is the study of how the world works. It has no bias, no culture, no grudges-just pure, unadulterated fact.
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.
Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:
No, it is actually worse, because you're still using "science" like "God".
How am I using science like God? Science is a collective of findings that have been proved and then superseded as they were disproved until we reached what we have today. It has created a widespread knowledge base, which most people are at least aware of some basic aspects of. How is that in any way like a superhuman deity?
dæl wrote:
How am I using God like God? God is a collective of findings that have been proved and then superseded as they were disproved until we reached what we have today. It has created a widespread knowledge base, which most people are at least aware of some basic aspects of. How is that in any way like a superhuman deity?
The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.
A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.
For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people
EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.
LordofHats wrote:The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.
A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.
For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people
EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.
You've touched upon the crux of the matter, namely the literalist nature of modern English.
People assume "religious" = follower of an established, named religion, rather than as a part of human nature.
Beer_&_Bolters wrote:It takes too much faith to be an athiest, i stick with agnosticism.
I prefer to use the term "Athorist", or the lack of belief in Thor. It leads to much more interesting discussions regarding religion. After all, who said that atheism only applies to the christian god?
Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the word religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
LordofHats wrote:The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.
A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.
For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people
EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.
The dakka trolls, religiously troll, ergo dakkadakka is a religion because I think it is.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
Do we not all agree to the rules of the forums? Yep. Atheism doesn't even have rules, so dakka is closer to a religion than atheism is.
most of these debates are in christian terms because christians will try and pass x into law because its in there bible (not really but if you read it a funny way they'll say it is). people not of that religion go who cares what your book says. christians claim everyone's being mean to them and violating their freedom of religion and being anti-christian.
Saying you can't put religious symbols in public spaces is not anti-religion.
Using your bible as a basis for anything, brings it up for criticism. Criticizing the bible is not anti-christian when you bring it up as basis for your argument.
You are free to follow your religion, and practice it at your church, there is no need to pass religious laws into secular laws, or bring your beliefs into the public. If its against your religion, then don't do it.
LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).
LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
This is exactly why I am atheist rather than anti-theist. I may have some issues with the actions of organised religion, but I don't wish to deny someone their faith.
No need to get personal lynchmob No one is talking about passing religion into law here. We're talking about the possibility of atheism (or science) being embued with religious qualities.
Point 1: Read my post just above yours. The idea that religion is organized is an almost strictly Abrahamic concept. Most religion is in fact not organized at all. They don't have clearly defined rules.
Point 2: Like I said above, your defining religion in a very Christian sense. Typically I find that inadequate to define religion hence things like 'faith' or 'theism' are not central to something being religious.
LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).
Define acting religious, after all there are no pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum, atheist's don't ask for Darwin's and Newton's birthdays off work, they don't kneel to the concept of Physics.
Big one is "converting others". While many atheists are happy to leave others alone, others want to point out to everyone that they found the "truth" and want to convert them.
Ritual is only key to religious belief for anthropologists (which makes sense, they focus on behavior). Not all religion contains rituals. Many Christians observe no Christian practices. They just believe in god.
LordofHats wrote:No need to get personal lynchmob No one is talking about passing religion into law here. We're talking about the possibility of atheism (or science) being embued with religious qualities.
Point 1: Read my post just above yours. The idea that religion is organized is an almost strictly Abrahamic concept. Most religion is in fact not organized at all. They don't have clearly defined rules.
Point 2: Like I said above, your defining religion in a very Christian sense. Typically I find that inadequate to define religion hence things like 'faith' or 'theism' are not central to something being religious.
I wasn't getting personal.
Point 1, Did you see all the christians rallying and donating lots of money to deny others the right to marry? It was kind of a popular thing these last few years.
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
but if religion is so ambiguous then dakkadakka is a religion.
The real issue is what I'm naming the ugly hat hypothesis.
Say you buy this really awesome hat, and its just awesome.
You take it home and your family/friends tells you its the ugliest hat they've ever seen.
You feel like they are attacking you because you personally because you really love that hat.
It has nothing to do with you per say, they just don't like the hat.
Christians tell me there is a god, I say prove it. christians tell me I'm an atheist. Its never a group I chose to be in. Now here are the christians coming up and telling me that atheism is now also a religion? seriously, wtf?
I am atheist which I define in my own way as anti-idiot-with-(insert holy text)- telling others-how-to-live-by-force-of-law.
I also add definitions to it such as the confidence (not belief) to the fact that science maintains some dignity by producing a broad range of scientists, theories, evidence into one big mould that can constantly be shaped to form a better answer than "god did it". While on the other hand I could believe in one holy text produced so many years ago and translated so badly in order to control the way I live based on this one book.
dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.
Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.
When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.
Actually, it does, kinda... All sets of scientific explanations requires the use of another, larger set of principles, and all given sets of explanations at one given time implies a set (or constellation) of paradigmatic concepts.
More or less, yes, science has beleifs. But, contrarily to institutionnalized religions, you don't have static beleifs ; the sets of scientific facts should grow and that of the paradigmatic concepts should thin. Up until the point where we face a paradigmatic revolution, and then we replace the paradigm with a different one, and so we start anew again.
sirlynchmob wrote:
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
I'm atheist and I say it's a religion.
I think a lot of atheists are saying that actually...
sirlynchmob wrote:
It has nothing to do with you per say,
sirlynchmob wrote:
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
I'm atheist and I say it's a religion.
I think a lot of atheists are saying that actually...
sirlynchmob wrote:
It has nothing to do with you per say,
per se*
Well I am glad you don't speak for all of us. I would like to nominate someone else as spokesman.
Testify wrote:There's a fair parallel with anarchism here. You have a group that claims all the others are wrong, and doesn't believe in a government. Make no mistake though, they are still donkey-caves Religion is used by dickheads, but it's just a manifestation of their dickery - people have been dicks to each other far longer than religion has been around. If you abolished religion they would just use politics or culture or language to hate others.
I think Deadpool once said (regarding erasing races) : it'd still be one less reason so suck.
sirlynchmob wrote:
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
I'm atheist and I say it's a religion.
I think a lot of atheists are saying that actually...
first I've heard of it, is that some UK thing?
Well that makes things more fun, if you make it a religion and I don't join that religion, then I'm not an atheists or a theists.
Isn't there some universial something that all scientist think exists and is constant, and all other scientific findings are based on the core values being true?
sirlynchmob wrote:
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
I'm atheist and I say it's a religion.
I think a lot of atheists are saying that actually...
first I've heard of it, is that some UK thing?
Well that makes things more fun, if you make it a religion and I don't join that religion, then I'm not an atheists or a theists.
You adhere to a strict set of belief, as laid down by authority figures.
You identify and judge others based on whether or not they believe as you do.
I am merely observing this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
first I've heard of it, is that some UK thing?
Well that makes things more fun, if you make it a religion and I don't join that religion, then I'm not an atheists or a theists.
Better to define oneself as Transhumanist ; weither or not there is God or not is irrelevant. Regardless, I want the position.
Better to not define oneself at all. Nothing is constant.
d-usa wrote:Isn't there some universial something that all scientist think exists and is constant, and all other scientific findings are based on the core values being true?
A few things : Causality, non-contradiction and propositionnal identity being the very most basic ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote:Better to not define oneself at all. Nothing is constant.
sirlynchmob wrote:Point 1, Did you see all the christians rallying and donating lots of money to deny others the right to marry? It was kind of a popular thing these last few years.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
point 2,when it comes to if atheism is a religion or not, its only the christians saying it is? shouldn't that be for the atheists to decide? did you see the definitions for religious and religion?
Not really. At the end of the day the people who study these things end up deciding (irony being that if Atheists do not think of themselves members of a religion, and atheism then gets considered a religion, they become a religion of people who do not believe they are religious). Of course I doubt atheism will ultimately be considered a religion. Likely there will be a new category probably called ideology, as its already being called that will encompass all these things.
EDIT: I don't care about dictionary definitions, because they're often worthless for discussing something as complex as religion. Ignoring of course that you didn't even read the definition properly. The first one can actually cover Atheism because its that broad.
but if religion is so ambiguous then dakkadakka is a religion.
Its not ambiguous. Its hard to come up with a definition that covers everything, and of course the ongoing debate about things like Atheism, and even politics, that are at times religious-like in their behaviors and how to associate them together and how far that association should go.
The real issue is what I'm naming the ugly hat hypothesis.
Say you buy this really awesome hat, and its just awesome.
You take it home and your family/friends tells you its the ugliest hat they've ever seen.
You feel like they are attacking you because you personally because you really love that hat.
It has nothing to do with you per say, they just don't like the hat.
I approve of the name of this hypothesis Now, we're going to need a scape goat, a silly looking hat, some surveillance equipment, and popcorn.
Christians tell me there is a god, I say prove it. christians tell me I'm an atheist. Its never a group I chose to be in. Now here are the christians coming up and telling me that atheism is now also a religion? seriously, wtf?
And you say your not taking it personally? This same problem has already been applied to Christianity a dozen times in this thread. Like I said before. There is what something is, and there is what people think it is. Atheists play the victim as often as Christians, because everyone thinks they are the victim regardless of whether they are.
d-usa wrote:Isn't there some universial something that all scientist think exists and is constant, and all other scientific findings are based on the core values being true?
A few things : Causality, non-contradiction and propositionnal identity being the very most basic ones.
...
I was thinking more about cosmic constants and things like that.
LordofHats wrote:And you say your not taking it personally? This same problem has already been applied to Christianity a dozen times in this thread. Like I said before. There is what something is, and there is what people think it is. Atheists play the victim as often as Christians, because everyone thinks they are the victim regardless of whether they are.
The 1st great figure of philosophy was executed on charges of atheism (more or less)... All in all, History has been far less forgiving toward atheists than toward religious figures. Trolls will mention Mao and Stalin, but hey, let's forget that they were vying for complete control over their populations, and saw religions as political entities...
So bringi up Stalin is trolling and insignificant because that was so long ago, by bringing up the first person 2000 years ago that was killed for being an atheist is significant?
EDIT: Also, Socrates wasn't killed because he was an atheist, he was killed because he criticized democracy, and that don't fly in Athens people! That, and he had the arrogance to propose that Athenian society was morally bankrupt. The thought!
d-usa wrote:So bringi up Stalin is trolling and insignificant because that was so long ago, by bringing up the first person 2000 years ago that was killed for being an atheist is significant?
Noboby claimed Stalin insignificant because it was long ago, simply that he didn't do things in the name of "No-God"
d-usa wrote:Isn't there some universial something that all scientist think exists and is constant, and all other scientific findings are based on the core values being true?
A few things : Causality, non-contradiction and propositionnal identity being the very most basic ones. ...
I was thinking more about cosmic constants and things like that.
IIRC, cosmic constants are basically the values given to constantly expressed phenomenon. Like universal Gravity is 1. Now this allows scientists to go and play with the values, and try to see what would happen if, for exemple, universal gravity had been set at 0.9 at the moment preceding the Big Bang. So no, these aren't the 'beleifs' scientists use.
What's a neat thing to mention, one argument offered by Intelligent design is that no other combinaison of Cosmic Constants, amongst all the imaginable ones, could have given not only rise to life, but even to matter. Most of those combination would lead to nothingness, or a big ball of iron.
Stuff like causality and non-contradictions have to be true in order to start thinking about something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:So bringi up Stalin is trolling and insignificant because that was so long ago, by bringing up the first person 2000 years ago that was killed for being an atheist is significant?
No, bringing up Mao or Stalin is trolling (sometimes/often) because none of them used their political position to further their ideology. They used their political position to further their control. Or does anyone need to be reminded that Stalin wasn't a communist?
It's as if one were to mention the Nazi when counting the evils Catholicism brought on this world, because Hitler was a Catholic/Christian/something... (I hope no one is going to GODDAMN mention 'but Hitler was atheist'', I've got the freaking page of Mein Kampf bookmarked at home, I will hit you repeatedly with it, and its an heinously huge book)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
EDIT: Also, Socrates wasn't killed because he was an atheist, he was killed because he criticized democracy, and that don't fly in Athens people! That, and he had the arrogance to propose that Athenian society was morally bankrupt. The thought!
The charge they brought up against him was corruption of the youth and crime against the gods (trying to create new ones). Being critical of democracy had little to do with it (except in the sense that someone who spends his days talking off citizens doesn't make many friends). Despite holding no political power himself, he was pretty close to VERY unpopular young figures (amongst which Plato and Alcibiades), some which were held responsible for the latest failures in the war against Sparta. So that was the 'corruption' part, seeing as Socrates was somewhat a teacher to those.
The charge of crimes against the gods doesn't make sense unless you read Aristophanes play, in French its 'Les Nués, I think that would translate into 'the Heavens'. It was a comical piece published something like 20 years before the events of the Apology. It pictured Socrates as a full-fledged sophist, who could teach anyone to obtain whatever he desired, be it right or wrong. There's a passage in it in which Socrates deny the existence of the Gods. Otherwise, there's really nothing we know about him that would've explained the 'crimes against the gods' part, because from all we know he was really pious. But most people in Athen would have known about Aristophanes's play and little about his true teaching, seeing as Socrates chose his students, and refused to teach to others he didn't like.
So yeah, he got executed for political reasons, but was sentenced for atheism, because those were the charges that would stick in front of a crowd of elderly and crippled (which constituted the jury).
Also because he refused to offer a bribe to the jury, which was a normal part of a trial at the time. Aaah democracy...
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Actually, it does, kinda... All sets of scientific explanations requires the use of another, larger set of principles, and all given sets of explanations at one given time implies a set (or constellation) of paradigmatic concepts.
More or less, yes, science has beleifs. But, contrarily to institutionnalized religions, you don't have static beleifs ; the sets of scientific facts should grow and that of the paradigmatic concepts should thin. Up until the point where we face a paradigmatic revolution, and then we replace the paradigm with a different one, and so we start anew again.
Someone has read too much Kuhn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Also, Socrates wasn't killed because he was an atheist, he was killed because he criticized democracy, and that don't fly in Athens people!
Moral: never make light of people with more money than you, also, swords.
So yeah, he got executed for political reasons, but was sentenced for atheism, because those were the charges that would stick in front of a crowd of elderly and crippled (which constituted the jury).
So you admit he was executed for being a political dissident, not an atheist? Okay then. By your own logic he's no more relevant than Stalin or Mao. Hell, even Mein Kampf wouldn't be relevant because it the populist rantings of a populist. What people do is what's being discussed, not what they say they do. What Stalin and Mao did was create an Atheist system, so of course it will be brought up when one asks for an example of institutional atheism.
Also: Atheism was actually quite common in Ancient Greece. Religion was something for the poor.
So yeah, he got executed for political reasons, but was sentenced for atheism, because those were the charges that would stick in front of a crowd of elderly and crippled (which constituted the jury).
So you admit he was executed for being a political dissident, not an atheist? Okay then. By your own logic he's no more relevant than Stalin or Mao. Hell, even Mein Kampf wouldn't be relevant because it the populist rantings of a populist. What people do is what's being discussed, not what they say they do. What Stalin and Mao did was create an Atheist system, so of course it will be brought up when one asks for an example of institutional atheism.
Also: Atheism was actually quite common in Ancient Greece. Religion was something for the poor.
Humm. Not sure how to handle that post. Socrates didn't defend atheism. He didn't even defend himself... The point of bringing him up was to illustrate that philosophy and science had been constantly ostracized by religion (or recuperated), ever since its birth. The point brought up by 'Mao and Stalin were atheists' is that they killed people to further their goal of an atheistic society. My contention is that it isn't the case, their goal was a society THEY had control over. If they had figured a way to do it through religion, I reckon they would've done it. That's speculation, I admit, but it's dishonest to compare my depreciation of Stalin and Mao as historical figures in comparison to the fact that Socrates, the single person to which knowledge is the most indebted (IMHO), was killed over charges of atheism.
Let's put it this way : It was enough to accuse of atheism one of the most esteemed elderly of a city, before 500 other men, to get a sentence of death. That speaks length to me.
''Also: Atheism was actually quite common in Ancient Greece. Religion was something for the poor.''
Considering that Polemarque also got executed for his atheism, I'm not so sure about this. Simonide also, IIRC...
LordofHats wrote:What Stalin... ...did was create an Atheist system, so of course it will be brought up when one asks for an example of institutional atheism.
There was me thinking he inherited one from Lenin.
dogma wrote:If your argument is that Mao and Stalin weren't motivated by atheism, there are far less esoteric means of proving such.
What wut. I didn't set myself to proving anything. Maybe my last post was a mess, but that's because I had to defend two other unrelated posts... anyway, yeah, that was the point of that post.
The point of bringing him up was to illustrate that philosophy and science had been constantly ostracized by religion (or recuperated), ever since its birth.
This isn't true in the slightest. Relatively few scientists ever had problems with religious officials, even in Western Europe of the Medieval Middle East (hell Muslims made scientific strides that their European counterparts wouldn't be making for centuries, and they were more fundamental in their faith than any Christian of the period). You only got in trouble if you stepped on the churches toes. Otherwise, they might accuse you of questionable beliefs and disagree with you, but they typically didn't go out of their way to do anything about it.
That religions have long opposed scientific progress is one of the greatest myths of history, furthered primarily by extremely vocal scientists and atheists who cherry pick extreme cases that were not the norm, like Galileo.
My contention is that it isn't the case, their goal was a society THEY had control over. If they had figured a way to do it through religion, I reckon they would've done it.
This is true. However they rejected using religion because the political philosophy they were using to achieve their power was an atheist one. I don't know if Stalin or Mao were personally atheist (in the case they're being used here it doesn't really matter), but they were brought up because their governments are historical examples of atheism institutionalized much like one would institutionalize a religion.
There was me thinking he inherited one from Lenin.
Um, between WWI, the Civil War, and his strokes, Lenin didn't really have any time to make a government. Lenin made the philosophy, Stalin made the government. Fun fact, once incapacitated by his medical condition, Lenin was attended to by a middle ranking official of the Politburo named Iosef Stalin who carried out Lenins will to his death. It worked out rather well for a man who was at the time last in line to take over the country.
dogma wrote:If your argument is that Mao and Stalin weren't motivated by atheism, there are far less esoteric means of proving such.
What wut. I didn't set myself to proving anything. Maybe my last post was a mess, but that's because I had to defend two other unrelated posts... anyway, yeah, that was the point of that post.
Fair. I can give props to another drunk philo major.
There was me thinking he inherited one from Lenin.
Um, between WWI, the Civil War, and his strokes, Lenin didn't really have any time to make a government. Lenin made the philosophy, Stalin made the government. Fun fact, once incapacitated by his medical condition, Lenin was attended to by a middle ranking official of the Politburo named Iosef Stalin.
Stalin ignored his philosophy, but was forced to take the view against religion because he could not control it, and thus could not control it's influence on the people. Stalin acted the way he did out of fear, nothing more.
Marx, Engels and Lenin all agreed that there should be complete separation of church and state and that the state should never make laws about religious belief, either to support one religion or to ban another. All three were opposed to arguments that religion should be banned under socialism
So what you saying Dael is that it was Stalin who created the atheist systems of the later USSR? I mean, if Lenin isn't the one who did it (and if Lenin indeed intended to create a secular government instead) why are we even arguing about this?
I do not need to be a Christian to pass a law against gay marriage anymore than I need to be an atheist to ban the church.
The point of bringing him up was to illustrate that philosophy and science had been constantly ostracized by religion (or recuperated), ever since its birth.
This isn't true in the slightest. Relatively few scientists ever had problems with religious officials, even in Western Europe of the Medieval Middle East (hell Muslims made scientific strides that their European counterparts wouldn't be making for centuries, and they were more fundamental in their faith than any Christian of the period). You only got in trouble if you stepped on the churches toes. Otherwise, they might accuse you of questionable beliefs and disagree with you, but they typically didn't go out of their way to do anything about it.
That religions have long opposed scientific progress is one of the greatest myths of history, furthered primarily by extremely vocal scientists and atheists who cherry pick extreme cases that were not the norm, like Galileo.
Cool, I'm sure Gassendi, La Mothe Le Vayer, Cyrano de Bergerac (the philosopher, not the play) would like to know that they haven't been obfuscated from the philosophical curriculum because of their atheism.
Epicure would surely love to know that there hasn't been a dirty publicity campaign lead against him by the religious ever since he was alive. Spinoza would love to hear that he wasn't condemned for orthodoxical fault.
Cristovao Ferreira, responsible for the denunciation of the Jesuit's doubtful teachings, sure wasn't killed and tortured by japanese servants of the jesuits, then!
Hobbes was accused of atheism, but that was only because that was the only insult they could throw at him...
The 'toes' of the Church you refer to, were pretty damn long, even at recent times...
Some day, in the future, people will look back on history and wonder why there was ever religion in the first place. I am sad I wont live to see those days.
Religion didn't stop Leonardo Da Vinci, Issac Newton, or Descarte. Neither did it stop Copernicus (who was also a Catholic Cleric). Ibn Al-Haytham, the father of the scientific method and optics, was not only one of the greatest scientists in history, he was a graduate of a madrassa and a religious official at the court of Cairo. EDIT: And lets not forget all those Catholic monks, who slaved for centuries to preserve music, literature, and art when hardly anyone else was capable of doing so. Or our good friend Gregor Mendel, the friar who invented genetics at a monestary.
And these guys were talking about are just the famous ones. How many scientists and scholars never got their names into a history book?
If your claim is that the church was against atheists, well of course it was. I thought you were talking about scientists in general. Heck, its even more interesting that Atheists and Christians bicker with one another just like members of any other religion.
LordofHats wrote:So what you saying Dael is that it was Stalin who created the atheist systems of the later USSR? I mean, if Lenin isn't the one who did it (and if Lenin indeed intended to create a secular government instead) why are we even arguing about this?
Russia as a state was without religion under Lenin, he created atheist schools to educate the people without the "oppression" of religion. Stalin did not create an atheist(surely secular and atheist are synonymous when discussing a government? they are both fundementally "without religion") system, he inherited one, and once he had he decided to make life rather difficult for the religious in Russia because he realised that religious leaders would see him for what he was and had a power to bring people together against him. And rather ironically the original "oppressors" would have been people's best chance of freedom.
The crux of my argument is that Stalin is brought up as an example of what atheists do to the church, but his motives were not religious, nor were they Marxist, they were oppressive. Because he was an oppressive tyrant.
I did not need to be a Christian to pass a law against gay marriage anymore than I need to be an atheist to ban the church.
Well you'd need other reasons to do either, and none spring to mind, but no you don't.
No, they're not the same thing. Under Stalin rule, all religion was officially illegal (he brought the Eastern Orthodox Church back between 1941 and 1945, but then it went out again). It wasn't a secular system it was atheist (I say this to make the distinction in my usage of these terms clear).
The crux of my argument is that Stalin is brought up as an example of what atheists do to the church, but his motives were not religious, nor were they Marxist, they were oppressive. Because he was an oppressive tyrant.
We bring it up because of what he did not why he did it, as I've said several times.
Well you'd need other reasons to do either
Shrugs. Maybe I just think its weird, idk XD Maybe I'm a political dictator who fears the power of gay love will overthrow me
Descartes didn't publish one of his books because of the Church, and had to notice a request for another one. They are authorities, they don't need to burn people to hurt them, suffice to excommunicate them and you've already influenced 75-80% (okay made up number, but it could be higher, for all we know) of the population. In Quebec the Index was in effect until the mid 50s.As a Philosophy or History, you would get a prime on your paycheck if you had attended church that week. Those aren't measures put in by the Church, since they never had actual control over it. But it did happen...
The Church (and churches, my critic isn't precisely against catholicism) has been historically opposed to empirical rationality, and most rationalities they couldn't recuperate. Empirical rationality leads to atheism, or at least suspension of the resolution of the question. Hence why the historical figures of atheism are philosophers.
Kovnik Obama wrote:suffice to excommunicate them and you've already influenced 75-80% (okay made up number, but it could be higher, for all we know) of the population.
Its actually probably an accurate number say... 600CE to 1500CE (rough estimate). Its a hard thing to gagdue as there really aren't that many credible sources.
I'm not here to claim the church and other religions never did horrible things (they most certainly did). My claim is merely that these situations are horribly overblown in modern culture and heavily ignore, especially in scientific fields, the role of many lower religious officials and scholars in scientific advancement. I mean lets go to philosophy. Thomas Aquinas preserved reason as a concept, and Christian theologians kept it going through the middle ages in Europe.
LordofHats wrote:No, they're not the same thing. Under Stalin rule, all religion was officially illegal (he brought the Eastern Orthodox Church back between 1941 and 1945, but then it went out again). It wasn't a secular system it was atheist (I say this to make the distinction in my usage of these terms clear).
Surely it was anti-theist then, I mean atheism is without religion not against it.
The crux of my argument is that Stalin is brought up as an example of what atheists do to the church, but his motives were not religious, nor were they Marxist, they were oppressive. Because he was an oppressive tyrant.
We bring it up because of what he did not why he did it, as I've said several times.
But then surely it's no different from the religious discrimination the Nazis engaged in?
Well you'd need other reasons to do either
Shrugs. Maybe I just think its weird, idk XD
Fair enough. But what if I think it's weird that you think it's weird? What happens then :S
dæl wrote:Surely it was anti-theist then, I mean atheism is without religion not against it.
A political system against religion is a system without religion (ignoring of course the arguments that the Communists turned their system into their own religion).
But then surely it's no different from the religious discrimination the Nazis engaged in?
Different only as the situations dictate. Stalin and Hitler probably could have been best buddies... You Know. If they didn't hate each other.
Fair enough. But what if I think it's weird that you think it's weird? What happens then :S
My friend says the best way to break an awkward silence is the punch the other guy and run away...
With all this church prosecution of science and knowledge I am amazed that we even have an Internet where we can complain about it. Tool of the devil I tell you.
LordofHats wrote:I mean lets go to philosophy. Thomas Aquinas preserved reason as a concept, and Christian theologians kept it going through the middle ages in Europe.
Thomas Aquinas basically bastardized Aristotle's logic. And the Church recuperated him regardless of his views on prostitution and sexuality because he had produced an working adaptation of Aristotle's metaphysics. They didn't exactly hold in the same regard the other ancients.
I guess I can't really hold against him the fact that he recycled another's philosophy to make his own, that what all philosophers do, none works in a vacuum. But to say that he, as a representative of the Church, shows how well philosophy and religion relate to one another, that isn't the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:With all this church prosecution of science and knowledge I am amazed that we even have an Internet where we can complain about it. Tool of the devil I tell you.
Well, science did speed up ever since scientist have stopped asking the religious authorities to revise their texts.
LordofHats wrote:A political system against religion is a system without religion (ignoring of course the arguments that the Communists turned their system into their own religion).
But, a system without religion is not necessarily against it.
Different only as the situations dictate. Stalin and Hitler probably could have been best buddies... You Know. If they didn't hate each other.
Stalin had far more in common with Hitler than Lenin or Marx. Still, it's probably best they weren't friends.
My friend says the best way to break an awkward silence is the punch the other guy and run away...
I'm English, we need awkward silences like cold blooded animals need the sun, we must bask in them regularly.
LordofHats wrote:No, they're not the same thing. Under Stalin rule, all religion was officially illegal (he brought the Eastern Orthodox Church back between 1941 and 1945, but then it went out again). It wasn't a secular system it was atheist (I say this to make the distinction in my usage of these terms clear).
Point.
The Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin, and China under Maoism are good examples of the dangers of fundamentalist atheism and examples of why we should for the continuing sake of humanity consider atheism as subject to militant fundamentalism as any other faith choice.
While Stalin may have oppressed people because its what he did in the event of his oppression of religious people the tool to do so was most clearly the promotion of atheism. The oppression of people under the rhetoric of removing supposed oppression caused by religion is a good example of this. No religious choice need result in oppression, its always an political choice and almost always external to the core tenets of the doctrine, yet it can still occur. The very fact that in the 20th century, the first century when modern atheism really took root, it was part of a doctrinal bedrock of some of the most brutal regimes in human history, namely Soviet and Maoist Chinese communism; is evidence enough that allowing atheism to seperate itself from other faith choices and thereby evade even handed scrutiny of extremist factions within faith choices would be a mistake.
So, is the fact that you can be a fundamentalist atheist particularly relevant to the question has to why it's sometimes depicted as a religion?
@LordofHats : I don't think the first mover is compatible with the idea of a caring, loving, incarnating God that can judge and do miracles. It's closer to gnosticism, to a point...
Orlanth wrote:While Stalin may have oppressed people because its what he did in the event of his oppression of religious people the tool to do so was most clearly the promotion of atheism. The oppression of people under the rhetoric of removing supposed oppression caused by religion is a good example of this. No religious choice need result in oppression, its always an political choice and almost always external to the core tenets of the doctrine, yet it can still occur. The very fact that in the 20th century, the first century when modern atheism really took root, it was part of a doctrinal bedrock of some of the most brutal regimes in human history, namely Soviet and Maoist Chinese communism; is evidence enough that allowing atheism to seperate itself from other faith choices and thereby evade even handed scrutiny of extremist factions within faith choices would be a mistake.
Firstly, a tool to do so, one of many.
Secondly, should we watch out for Buddhist fundamentalists? Because Pol Pot wasn't the nicest of chaps.
Kovnik Obama wrote:So, is the fact that you can be a fundamentalist atheist particularly relevant to the question has to why it's sometimes depicted as a religion?
I don't think so. Any ideology, religious or otherwise, can be militant. I merely pointed out earlier a misuse of the term Evangelism and then we got here
Buddhist fundamentalists
Yes actually. The Buddhists have had some pretty militant sects in the past
@LordofHats : I don't think the first mover is compatible with the idea of a caring, loving, incarnating God that can judge and do miracles. It's closer to gnosticism, to a point...
I assume first mover is a concept of Aristotle or Aquinas. I'm a history man, not a philosopher I only know their historical significance, less their work in itself.
Oh cool. Well from an historical point of view, yes, he definitely had a role as a preserver. But the contemporary view on Aristotle's meaning holds that it wasn't well interpreted until the last century, even it's latest half. Religious influences in the choice of the translated terms are common, as well as advances in linguistics... The prime mover, I think the English term is, is basically Aristotle's idea of a God, or at least it holds to same role in the universe, it just lacks every human quality but 'intelligence'. The prime mover was the 'being' which initiated the universe and it's first movement, not by touching it, but by being so perfect that everything in the universe had a disposition to move toward it... So there was some vibes that pleased the religious mindset, that's true, but everything Aristotle did was to try to diminish the influence of metaphysical explanations on his science. His gods were the planets and the stars, and the Prime mover was his hypothesis of what made them all move in such a perfect (round) way.
And then Aquinas took all that, looked at the Bible, and decided to play at comparative 'science'.
Secondly, should we watch out for Buddhist fundamentalists? Because Pol Pot wasn't the nicest of chaps.
Yes we should watch for all faith based fundamentalism, this is one reason why letting atheism escape definition as a faith group is unwise.
However Pol Pot to my knowledge didn't use Buddhism as a tool for oppression, didn't he kill lots of monks and close the temples in the name of 'progress' though?
Secondly, should we watch out for Buddhist fundamentalists? Because Pol Pot wasn't the nicest of chaps.
Yes we should watch for all faith based fundamentalism, this is one reason why letting atheism escape definition as a faith group is unwise.
However Pol Pot to my knowledge didn't use Buddhism as a tool for oppression, didn't he kill lots of monks and close the temples in the name of 'progress' though?
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof. I'm not saying it doesn't need to be watched, (well anti-theism should be watched, rather than atheism) but it's not a religion and shouldn't be treated as such.
Pol Pot killed anyone for pretty much any reason, hence how he managed to kill a quarter of the population of Cambodia. And I don't think he was that bothered about progress, what with killing off everyone intelligent.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Empirical rationality leads to atheism, or at least suspension of the resolution of the question. Hence why the historical figures of atheism are philosophers.
Technical atheism, which is to say weak atheism. Really it's closer to an amorphous sort of rationalism.
To get the discussion rolling elsewhere, I would suggest that rituals, in one form or another, would be a necessary component of a religion. I know the dictionary definition puts it as a 'often' but, at the very least, I would differentiate between people who believe in a religion (as in people who mostly acts according to the tenets of the religion) and people who say they believe in a religion. Believing something means you hold that thing to be true, and normally, such beliefs have a moral component, which implies action. Furthermore, beliefs, as all acts of consciousness, serves the fundamental role of orienting our active life of every moments.
Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.
Technical atheism, which is to say weak atheism. Really it's closer to an amorphous sort of rationalism.
Meh, you won't rustle my jimmies over that issue Amorphous describes well my non-faith.
Kovnik Obama wrote:To get the discussion rolling elsewhere, I would suggest that rituals, in one form or another, would be a necessary component of a religion. I know the dictionary definition puts it as a 'often' but, at the very least, I would differentiate between people who believe in a religion (as in people who mostly acts according to the tenets of the religion) and people who say they believe in a religion. Believing something means you hold that thing to be true, and normally, such beliefs have a moral component, which implies action. Furthermore, beliefs, as all acts of consciousness, serves the fundamental role of orienting our active life of every moments.
Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.
I suggest all atheists get the next 50 years off work to celebrate the Enlightenment. We can go round carrying some sort of light source or something.
Could there be an argument that society provides the doctrine for atheists, after all religion gets its morality from it's teachings, whereas atheists must build their moral compass from what they learn from society. After all we are not born with an understanding of ethics.
But atheism doesn't need a doctrine. Contrarily to what Michel Onfray says, we don't need chairs of atheology in our Universities.
As far as the morality by which atheist lives, yes, it's mostly 'empirical' morality. It could be argued that a large part of the morality of religions is also 'empirical', but only disguised has holy. The real contrast is that the moral filter of the atheist is whatever he was brought up with/chose to believe, while the religious filter is somewhat more definite (but still capable of changing, to a point)
Kovnik Obama wrote:The real contrast is that the moral filter of the atheist is whatever he was brought up with/chose to believe, while the religious filter is somewhat more definite (but still capable of changing, to a point)
Which like evolution can lead to some unforeseen and often strange consequences. Perhaps instead of teaching children religion we should be teaching them Utilitarianism.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.
One could suggest the scientific process by which an atheist examines the world and determines truth to be a ritual.
Though I reject ritual as necessary to religion (organized religion yes, all religion no). Take for example Daoism. It doesn't really have any rituals (of course its also debated whether Daoism is a religion or a philosophy). Buddhism (as taught by Buddha) inherently rejects ritual as a means of achieving enlightenment. Of course, a lot of Buddhists, mainly the stereotypical monks and nuns, have rituals anyway, but the typical Buddhist doesn't really have any.
Then of course is the problem that in the west we tend to think of theist religion as the only religion, when in fact theism is not the norm for religions in the world. Buddhists have no god (generally speaking), and Hindu's... Well. Brahman makes my head hurt so I won't go into it, but its debatable if Brahman constitutes a deity rather than a force or amorphous entity.
dæl wrote:Could there be an argument that society provides the doctrine for atheists, after all religion gets its morality from it's teachings, whereas atheists must build their moral compass from what they learn from society. After all we are not born with an understanding of ethics.
LordofHats wrote:Take for example Daoism. It doesn't really have any rituals (of course its also debated whether Daoism is a religion or a philosophy).
Taoists have meditation as a ritual, there are many festivals too.
I wouldn't consider meditation to be all that ritualistic. So someone sits down and thinks about the meaning of life. Most of us do that quite regularly.
LordofHats wrote:I wouldn't consider meditation to be all that ritualistic. So someone sits down and thinks about the meaning of life. Most of us do that quite regularly.
I was under the impression they used it to control chi. It seems they have other rituals too.
dæl wrote:Which like evolution can lead to some unforeseen and often strange consequences. Perhaps instead of teaching children religion we should be teaching them Utilitarianism.
Hell no. I don't want my doctor to chop me in parts to heal the 300 other patients. Best (I say) is normal exposure to all forms of belief, with no complete exclusions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.
One could suggest the scientific process by which an atheist examines the world and determines truth to be a ritual.
Hey hey I like that, I'll think about it.
Though I reject ritual as necessary to religion (organized religion yes, all religion no). Take for example Daoism. It doesn't really have any rituals (of course its also debated whether Daoism is a religion or a philosophy). Buddhism (as taught by Buddha) inherently rejects ritual as a means of achieving enlightenment. Of course, a lot of Buddhists, mainly the stereotypical monks and nuns, have rituals anyway, but the typical Buddhist doesn't really have any.
I don't know what Daoism is, honestly. Maybe it should be called a 'spirituality'? And 'meditating because that how I respect myself because my faith tells me to respect myself' would still fall under the type of small moral decisions we could include under 'religious rituals' as I mentioned. But I have no clue, is that what they do, and the reason they do it?
LordofHats wrote:Taoism is as diverse as Buddhism is. I guess I'm not as familiar as I thought I was.
I don't know what Daoism is
Also known as Taoism and Confucionism (I think? Not so sure I know it as well as I thought now).
Taoism and Confucionism are very much separate I think, Confucionism is very focused on rules and hierarchies, while Taoism is far more to do with nature and going with the flow. But then my knowledge of them isn't what you'd called lots, a couple of books (including the Winne the Pooh one, its awesome) and chatting to a couple of people in Hong Kong.
d-usa wrote:Big one is "converting others". While many atheists are happy to leave others alone, others want to point out to everyone that they found the "truth" and want to convert them.
It's simply a matter of education. Religious people are ignorant, either willfully so or through a lack of education. As an atheist I want to educate them, just as I would want to teach them how to read or write.
Meh, its the only religion that really fascinated me as it's story of creation of modern man is that we used to be far more in tune with nature and could predict natural disasters much like animals, but got more and more obsessed with being better than each other and other such stupidities and lost what we had, thus we became both who we are and spiritually unsatisfied. We could regain our lost innocence, and become happy, if only we stopped caring about "profit and loss." Sort of Buddhism, but without the preoccupation with suffering.
Just thought it was nice.
A Taoist story.
Spoiler:
There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.
One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.
To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"
Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"
Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"
Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"
Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"
Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.
One thing I wanted to add to the discussions around "Things done in the name of religion and/or atheism"...I don't really think such a high number of these cases - Stalin, Pol Pot, the Crusades, every so-called Holy War you can think of - were really motivated by religious beliefs or ideology. They were the result of intelligent, powerful people with the necessary skills to rally people under their banners using whatever tools they could find - be it communist ideals or fundamentalist religion. If you look at the times when the office of Pope was more or less handed around between Italian families and some Popes fething around with prostitutes and getting children...it seems very much to me as if these Popes weren't that religious. They were political people using religion as a tool to influence the balance of power in their country/on their continent.
What I'm saying is, ALL the "Person X did Y in the name of A/in the spirit of B" arguments must be taken with a grain of salt, because I'd wager these people actually just used their "offiicial" religion or ideology as nothing more than tools for personal gain.
LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).
Define acting religious, after all there are no pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum, atheist's don't ask for Darwin's and Newton's birthdays off work, they don't kneel to the concept of Physics.
I know this post has probably been countered by now but I kind of DO go on pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum in London, it's an amazing building.
LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.
One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).
And as I made clear several pages ago, a perceived similarity in one degree does not equate to a similarity of kind. One could point out the commonalities between devotion to religion and, for example, love of one's country, or of the music of Iron Maiden. That would not, however, make being either a patriot or a metaller a religious position.
You engage in another logical fallacy too; the question is one of "atheism" and "religion", not "atheists" and "religious". Their actions (or your perception of them) have no essential bearing on the question of whether the former is a subset of the latter. If you want to demonstrate that to be the case, it is the nature of the two positions that you must address.
In that light, try to respond to the assertion that the two have no commonalities beyond both being opinions on the existence or otherwise of a god or gods (which is not itself a useful epistemological category), since the former is one arrived at by the rational use of evidence, the latter one arrived at by mythologically-justified faith in a particular authority.
Well, we are back in the old standstill where Atheists continue to claim that they are the sole adherents of logic and science and everybody that beliefs in a deity is illogical and basically a Theist version of this guy:
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just for giggles:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.
One could suggest the scientific process by which an atheist examines the world and determines truth to be a ritual.
Though I reject ritual as necessary to religion (organized religion yes, all religion no). Take for example Daoism. It doesn't really have any rituals (of course its also debated whether Daoism is a religion or a philosophy). Buddhism (as taught by Buddha) inherently rejects ritual as a means of achieving enlightenment. Of course, a lot of Buddhists, mainly the stereotypical monks and nuns, have rituals anyway, but the typical Buddhist doesn't really have any.
Then of course is the problem that in the west we tend to think of theist religion as the only religion, when in fact theism is not the norm for religions in the world. Buddhists have no god (generally speaking), and Hindu's... Well. Brahman makes my head hurt so I won't go into it, but its debatable if Brahman constitutes a deity rather than a force or amorphous entity.
dæl wrote:Could there be an argument that society provides the doctrine for atheists, after all religion gets its morality from it's teachings, whereas atheists must build their moral compass from what they learn from society. After all we are not born with an understanding of ethics.
Humanism.
.
first, science and atheism have nothing to do with each other. the scientific process is not a atheistic trait.
secondly we agree that all babies are atheists because we are not born with a religion.
since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.
If anyone in the US still needs to be watched it is the christians. They're still going around using their bible for justification to burn down buildings and kidnap kids and be hateful bigots. Truly a terrorist organization. Because if just 1 person represents the ideals of an entire belief system, then Knapp speaks for all christians right? or is it Phelps?
the mods of the true religion of dakkadakka excluded of course
sirlynchmob wrote:
since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.
sirlynchmob wrote:
since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.
d-usa wrote:Well, we are back in the old standstill where Atheists continue to claim that they are the sole adherents of logic and science and everybody that beliefs in a deity is illogical and basically a Theist version of this guy:
Because at the end of the day, it's true.
Not all the time of course. I've met many religious people who were otherwise intelligent and logical, but when pressed on their religious beliefs resort to circular logic, or are simply satisfied with insufficient or anecdotal evidence.
But I've never met one who could logically and empirically justify their religion.
(I am fully aware I'm not adding anything to this thread)
Automatically fake added next post:
dæl wrote:
A Taoist story.
Spoiler:
There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.
One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.
To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"
Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"
Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"
Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"
Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"
Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.
streamdragon wrote:Apparently, I'm going to need more popcorn...
(I am fully aware I'm not adding anything to this thread)
Automatically fake added next post:
dæl wrote:
A Taoist story.
Spoiler:
There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.
One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.
To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"
Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"
Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"
Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"
Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"
Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.
That is an awesome lesson, actually.
And a very good introduction to some of the key concepts of Taoism.
Calling it a religion isn't the whole picture though. Like Buddhism and Confucianism, it was a philosophy first that gradually developed into a religion. I am a philosophical taoist, myself.
Hold the great elephant,
the great image,
and the world moves.
Moves without danger,
in safety and peace.
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.
And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.
dæl wrote:
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be watched, (well anti-theism should be watched, rather than atheism) but it's not a religion and shouldn't be treated as such.
No it's not a religion, but it is a faith choice, and thus is to be categorized alongside other faith choices, ie religions. Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism, and an unfortunately large percentage of frontline atheists are vocal anti-theists. Those atheists who are not are akin to the quietly religious who don't blow people up, kiddy fiddle, plot to eliminate other faiths or races that favour other faiths, or agitate on the streets.
To deal with the fanatics ethically you must treat all faith groups the same, and thus be equally repellant to the proliferation of faith based intolerance. This can only occur if atheists are lumped in with all other faith choices, and scrutinised the same way according to individual merit sperating the honest believer from the fanatic to let the former express their viewpoint without allowing the latter to threaten the liberty of others.
Atheism needs watching no less than Islam and the Catholics, even in the west. For example its not the Moslems who are calling for closure of (non islamic) faith schools, however many mainstream atheists are doing that (targeting all faith schools). They attack by saying 'we are of reason, you are not, you must change' rather than 'we are the true faithful, you are infidel, you must change'. Both cause division and threaten people with the right to choose alternate worldviews.
An alarming number of atheist apologists use their illusory non-religious status to freely propagate intolerance and discrimination, all the while under the cloak of tolerance and reason. I thought that type of doublethink went out with the Counter-Reformation, please let us not go backwards.
Please go ahead declare yourself atheist if you want to, but dont kid yourself that science told you so. Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.
dæl wrote:
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.
And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.
My default position is that there is no God, there are thought experiments that show the existence of God illogical. Even without proof, there is still logic.
Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism
I don't agree, it's like the difference between amorality and immorality. One doesn't care for morals, the other is against them.
Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.
Logic isn't silent on the matter though.
And for what it's worth faith schools should be abolished, they cause intolerance, and don't allow children to meet other cultures. And indoctrination on those without the maturity to make their own conclusions is more than a bit wrong.
dæl wrote:
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.
And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.
My default position is that there is no God, there are thought experiments that show the existence of God illogical. Even without proof, there is still logic.
Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism
I don't agree, it's like the difference between amorality and immorality. One doesn't care for morals, the other is against them.
Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.
Logic isn't silent on the matter though.
And for what it's worth faith schools should be abolished, they cause intolerance, and don't allow children to meet other cultures. And indoctrination on those without the maturity to make their own conclusions is more than a bit wrong.
well I doubt anyone said faith schools should be abolished. It was probably said, private schools shouldn't get public money. Its really the ugly hat hypothesis affect going on. oh no he said something bad about my hat, he must be attacking me.
sirlynchmob wrote:
well I doubt anyone said faith schools should be abolished. It was probably said, private schools shouldn't get public money. Its really the ugly hat hypothesis affect going on. oh no he said something bad about my hat, he must be attacking me.
I did, children are born without prejudice, and if integrated with lots of different cultures will understand and accept them. Faith schools are a form of segregation.
I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both
QFT
I am also a christian but think evolution and was one of the top science students in my year at high school (One of the other guys was shocked when he found out I was religious)
what I really don't like is creationists, taking Genesis which is largely a metaphorical text and taking it as a literal truth.
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.
And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice....
Please go ahead declare yourself atheist if you want to, but dont kid yourself that science told you so. Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.
You're getting a little carried away with it all there. Science is silent on the existence of god, just as it is silent on the existence of the tooth fairy or ghosts. All those outlandish supernatural claims get bundled into one big basket and filed away. There is no anti-god agenda, just an anti-ignorance agenda.
2000 years from now Christianity will probably be as mythical as the Greek Pantheon is today, but that won't stop something else from becoming the religion du jour in M4. Even the Emperor couldn't stop religion, after all
All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.
Kaldor wrote:
You're getting a little carried away with it all there. Science is silent on the existence of god, just as it is silent on the existence of the tooth fairy or ghosts. All those outlandish supernatural claims get bundled into one big basket and filed away. There is no anti-god agenda, just an anti-ignorance agenda.
How are you or anyone else qualified to make claim that faith in God is ignorance.
This is an example of the error of letting atheist dogma masquerade as reason rather than faith opinion. As a man of faith I may say other faiths are wrong, but that is my own opinion, that goes for every other man of faith, including your own.
Is the existance of God an 'outlandish supernatural claim', by your opinion maybe, but its a very hard claim to make definitively. Thats not exactly being scientific isn't it. You also have to deliberately ignore that a lot of strange stuff that defies normal explanation that occurs through religion. Let me show you a tiny handful. We cannot prove God, but we can indicate that the foundation of Israel in 1948 was predicted in the Bible, to the day. We cannot prove God, but I have met a man raised from the dead, who claims to have been to heaven and seen Jesus. He had enough poison in him from a Sea Wasp attack to kill him several times over, there were numerous sting marks on his body and the Sea Wasp is noted as the most venomous creature alive.
Have you heard of supernatural events being attributed to the tooth fairy? Not even anything on the scale I just mentioned, anything at all. Seriously?
Let me leave you with an example that occurs everyday in many churches, one that you can look at mathematically and therefore scientifically. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. Sometimes a pastor might hear from God that he is to focus on one verse or another and receives revelation on the subject. At face value there is nothing to distinguish revelation from his own intellect and hearting God from ones own imagination. The Bible even warns us of this and asks us to cross reference with another believer. 'By two or three a matter shall be established'. And this is what happens, someone might have insight into a certain verse, and two or three people might not have the same insight, but are led to the same verse. The amount of times I said to my pastor "Hey Bruce I think God has a message for you on [Book Name], [Chapter and verse number]". I am not the only one to do this, and its a weekly event.
You try and recreate that outside a church of people claiming to be spirit filled believers. I will make it easy for you, two or three must guess the same page of a book with 500 pages, and each person in the room, we will give you say 60 can guess. Thats better odds than we see 'pay off' week after week, as those who do not feel the lead to call out a verse don't do so. We can get it wrong, I do. Some might try to write it off as auto suggestion, but there is no correlation, and it doesn't work in neutral settings. Sometimes I even see a small vision in my head that is shared by someone else, and that someone else might have had that vision at another time or place in the week. Furthermore these are not once in a lifetime experiences, they are weekly events. I cannot prophesy outside a group of believers, I don't have that gift and I don't practice because it doesn't work that way. However i am disappointed if at a prayer meeting I get less than five or six. Faith is kind of strange, but there is something very powerful going on.
So you see perhaps I have an advantage, faith in Jesus is rather easy for me to have. But if you are a man of science and have an open mind then multiply 31,000 x 31,000. You get 961 million. That is the odds of three people guessing the same verse in a Bible, omitting those two hundred or so verses over 31,000 the Bible contains. On a per week basis those are the odds of what happens in a church that practices the charismata in this way is of doing so out of co-oincidence.
I am happy for the revealed odds to be slightly less. We can omit one confirmation as two is enough according to scripture and is in fact more frequent, though I have witnesed more that three on occassion. That only leaves us with 31,000:1 in favour of something being up, and these odds pay off time and time again.
If you want to know what go to a church group and find out. I have witnessed double cross references Bible passages in groups as small as five or six people, we don't pay much attention as we expect this as its a frequent event. After all we are more interested in what revelation is offered along with the cross reference.
If you still think you can explain it all away as a group psychosis get some gamers together and try to guess the same sentence in a 40k rulebook. You can cheat and take extra guesses, you probably won't beat the odds and wont do so nearly every meeting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DogOfWar wrote:
All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.
A lot of people in the churches are deeply religious and care deeply, and they can be very productive. Groups like the Salvation Army grew out of the churches, many orphanages and hospices grow out of church donations and volunteering.
There are several ways to be active, you can either bring unity or division. To ignore the large volume of good work people of faith do and to segregate people into those who have no strong faith opinion and those who cause trouble is somewhat twisted to be frank.
DogOfWar wrote:
All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.
A lot of people in the churches are deeply religious and care deeply, and they can be very productive. Groups like the Salvation Army grew out of the churches, many orphanages and hospices grow out of church donations and volunteering.
There are several ways to be active, you can either bring unity or division. To ignore the large volume of good work people of faith do and to segregate people into those who have no strong faith opinion and those who cause trouble is somewhat twisted to be frank.
Good luck with this argument.
Faithful people have a lot of ground to make up considering the millions of people who have died for the various incarnations of 'god' throughout history.
Let's hope you do keep up the "good work," just don't expect me to be grateful for too little, too late.
Orlanth wrote: Is the existance of God an 'outlandish supernatural claim',
Uh, yes.
Orlanth wrote: by your opinion maybe, but its a very hard claim to make definitively.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
I have met a man raised from the dead, who claims to have been to heaven and seen Jesus. He had enough poison in him from a Sea Wasp attack to kill him several times over, there were numerous sting marks on his body and the Sea Wasp is noted as the most venomous creature alive.
citation needed.
Have you heard of supernatural events being attributed to the tooth fairy? Not even anything on the scale I just mentioned, anything at all. Seriously?
Uh, teeth, pillows, coins? Hello?
*a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo about people thinking about the same stuff*
And that's another big 'ole citation needed.
Come on. I want double blind controlled experiments published in peer reviewed scientific journals that document these supposed 'shared visions'.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
Really? Do they? Which ones? What do they say, specifically?
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
Pretty sure magic men in the sky are more outlandish. The Big Bang is founded on a lot of different information and research that is tested and verifiable, and if the information changes, the theory will change. It isn't static and it doesn't say it is right and no one may ever question it. In fact part of the process is constantly questioning it. Saying Magic Mike in the sky did it will never change no matter what evidence or lack of evidence is presented. Of course I don't believe science and religion are antithetical to each other in every way, but you only listed the two options, so that is what I have to work with.
The greater the claim the greater the need for evidence. You claim god exists, you need to prove it. For it to be scientific you need to describe god, then provide proof for his existence, and the proof needs to be falsifiable. the bible predicted the foundation of israel to the day? Prove it, what verse was that exactly where it specifically says 1948? And self fulfilling prophecies aren't exactly hard to make. I predict sometime soon this thread will be locked. hey look I'm a prophet.
if you don't believe in the tooth fairy then that's your religion as well. anti tooth fairy is your dogma and faith.
guessing bible versus? Really? So you didn't see the chalk board when you walked in? so your god is just the god of large numbers?
double cross? So you're all sitting around backstabbing each other? I can buy that.
The salvation army is a huge bunch of bigots. They take their charitable donations and use it to fund anti gay and anti women legislature. They also threatened the state of new york with not helping the poor if they passed marriage equality. Very religious of them.
so after being so wrong about your wall of text, we should just take your word that atheists is a faith and a religion? sorry, not buying it.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
No one is saying the Big Bang came from nothing. It came from a very small, very massive, and very energetic lump.
Where exactly that lump came from isn't clear. But, hopefully it will be in the next few decades.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
god is more outlandish.
which is more likely the universe has always been here in some form or another. or some god type creature has always been lurking around, then outlandishly created everything by magic.
Kaldor wrote:
citation needed.
And that's another big 'ole citation needed.
I just gave you one, and told you where to find others.
Your a man of 'reason' and 'science'. Ok, show us you are. I told you where to look, see for yourself.
No, you don't get let off so easily.
Where are your citations? Such a common phenomena must be easily tested and verified, so where is your evidence? If no relevant studies have been made (remember, they need to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals) then where is your basis for your claim?
Kaldor wrote: citation needed. And that's another big 'ole citation needed.
I just gave you one, and told you where to find others.
Your a man of 'reason' and 'science'. Ok, show us you are. I told you where to look, see for yourself.
No, you don't get let off so easily.
Where are your citations? Such a common phenomena must be easily tested and verified, so where is your evidence? If no relevant studies have been made (remember, they need to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals) then where is your basis for your claim?
Do you know how many studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals turn out to be bogus?
If that is your main criteria for sorting out "truth and reason" from "crazy ignorant belief" then you might need to look at better places.
This expresses my opinion on the matter. Atheism ain't a religion. We don't have holy books we all have to follow to be atheists. We don't have Saints or Holy figures. Being an atheist just means that ya think God is a load of hooey, and that's it. Just because there are a few crazy, zealot atheists doesn't mean we're a religion. There are crazy Warhammer 40k zealots, but that don't mean Warhammer 40k is a religion. There are crazy Tea Party zealots, but that don't mean the Tea Party is a religion. There are crazy Harry Potter zealots, but that don't mean Harry Potter is a religion.
DogOfWar wrote:
Faithful people have a lot of ground to make up considering the millions of people who have died for the various incarnations of 'god' throughout history.
Let's hope you do keep up the "good work," just don't expect me to be grateful for too little, too late.
Are you going to condemn religious people for the actions of others who profess the same faith.
By your logic, society might as well lock you up for the shooting of JFK and the massacre of the Native Americans, after all your an American too. It doesn't work that way.
I have no moral responsibility for the Inquisition, the Crusades or militant Islam now or from the past. Faith groups in general have no responsibility for the excesses of other generations, the medieval church was a political entity and had political ends. That had little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, even so there were some who went against the flow.
The modern churches have no moral responsibility for that past. They do for stuff that happens in the present, the Papacy needs to clean up its act on child protection and other issues for example.
Are you claiming an atheistic point? If so will you practice what you preach and accept responsibility for atheist Communism and the millions it killed, do you consider that your collective moral responsibility. I don't, but if your opinion made any sense it would be internally consistent.
Where is the too little from, where is the too late? Churches have been running orphanages schools hospitals and charities since the time it was founded, and other faiths also. There are food houses in India millenia old set up adjoining temples dedicated to providing for the poor. Perhaps you just don't want to see it, perhaps you just want to see religion as an enemy to hate that does little or no good.
I dont think your intolerance says as much about religion and its ills as it does about you.
Besides what is your solution, moving us all on towards 'reason'. Lenin tried that, the result wasn't particularly reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
citation needed.
And that's another big 'ole citation needed.
I just gave you one, and told you where to find others.
Your a man of 'reason' and 'science'. Ok, show us you are. I told you where to look, see for yourself.
No, you don't get let off so easily.
Where are your citations? Such a common phenomena must be easily tested and verified, so where is your evidence? If no relevant studies have been made (remember, they need to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals) then where is your basis for your claim?
Do you know how many studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals turn out to be bogus?
If that is your main criteria for sorting out "truth and reason" from "crazy ignorant belief" then you might need to look at better places.
The man of science says 'show me'. The honest man tells the man of science where to look. If someone doesn't want to loom for the evidence perhaps they are afraid of what they might find. That isnt uncommon even amongst professing men of science, we are after all human and creatures of emotion as well as reason, and our pet beliefs are often the stronger side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
This expresses my opinion on the matter. Atheism ain't a religion. We don't have holy books we all have to follow to be atheists. We don't have Saints or Holy figures. Being an atheist just means that ya think God is a load of hooey, and that's it. Just because there are a few crazy, zealot atheists doesn't mean we're a religion. There are crazy Warhammer 40k zealots, but that don't mean Warhammer 40k is a religion. There are crazy Tea Party zealots, but that don't mean the Tea Party is a religion. There are crazy Harry Potter zealots, but that don't mean Harry Potter is a religion.
Let us use your prefered analogy. Do you deny the existence of golf, do you wish to prevent the practice of golf or wish it went away?
Besides there is no word for a non-Golf players because Golf is not part of our thanatonic experience. People may go through life without wondering if they should play golf. Humans are mortal, we know we are going to die and we question about our fate in a different way to a golf game. One way or another we come to personal conclusions of what our fate is, this is the basis of religious preference.
Its hard to know for sure, the most we get are promises, take them or leave them. Spiritual unsurety is one constant for humanity and for that we make our own conclusions. Those conclusions no matter how you dress them up are a faith choice.
The man of science says 'show me'. The honest man tells the man of science where to look. If someone doesn't want to loom for the evidence perhaps they are afraid of what they might find. That isnt uncommon even amongst professing men of science, we are after all human and creatures of emotion as well as reason, and our pet beliefs are often the stronger side.
There's some nice projecting of your faults onto others.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural. .
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
Already covered but anyway...
It did not come from nothing, it came from a singularity which mathematics cannot describe, so using the mathematics of astrophysics and cosmology we can trace things back to that point, but not before, because maths cannot describe what was before.
I really didn't want to have to spell out the illogicality of religion, because it sounds preachy, so I shall spoiler it so as not to seem as though I wish to force my beliefs onto anyone. Please don't open if you think you might be offended.
Spoiler:
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil. And the good bit is debatable because often times he treats humanity with the a sort of emotional blackmail. Why exactly are the first four commandments so self obsessed, would a God care more about false idols than murder? I am no psychologist, but it seems that level of insecurity is entirely human in it's origin. And then you have the idea that He is an Interventionist/Non Inerventionist God, who will show himself to his prophets while letting millions of children die every year from stupid preventable diseases. The assertion goes that God created man, well imho it's the other way round, and the whole idea has served it's purpose, for a very long time now religion has killed far more than it has saved. MODS- if you feel this too inflammatory please just remove it.
So you see the big bang is based on Maths, an empirically provable discipline, while religion is based on books, that people wrote, full of logical inconsistencies. Therein lies the difference.
Orlanth wrote:Let us use your prefered analogy. Do you deny the existence of golf, do you wish to prevent the practice of golf or wish it went away?
Besides there is no word for a non-Golf players because Golf is not part of our thanatonic experience. People may go through life without wondering if they should play golf. Humans are mortal, we know we are going to die and we question about our fate in a different way to a golf game. One way or another we come to personal conclusions of what our fate is, this is the basis of religious preference.
Its hard to know for sure, the most we get are promises, take them or leave them. Spiritual unsurety is one constant for humanity and for that we make our own conclusions. Those conclusions no matter how you dress them up are a faith choice.
So you're logic is this...
Deciding not to have faith is a choice regarding faith.
Thus it's a faith choice.
Thus, because I put the word faith in there, it means you have faith.
That means you're religious.
It's almost as if, somehow, that doesn't make any sense.
Orlanth wrote:Let us use your prefered analogy. Do you deny the existence of golf, do you wish to prevent the practice of golf or wish it went away?
Besides there is no word for a non-Golf players because Golf is not part of our thanatonic experience. People may go through life without wondering if they should play golf. Humans are mortal, we know we are going to die and we question about our fate in a different way to a golf game. One way or another we come to personal conclusions of what our fate is, this is the basis of religious preference.
Its hard to know for sure, the most we get are promises, take them or leave them. Spiritual unsurety is one constant for humanity and for that we make our own conclusions. Those conclusions no matter how you dress them up are a faith choice.
So you're logic is this...
Deciding not to have faith is a choice regarding faith.
Thus it's a faith choice.
Thus, because I put the word faith in there, it means you have faith.
That means you're religious.
It's almost as if, somehow, that doesn't make any sense.
This. A choice about faith isn't necessary a choice of faith.
Orlanth wrote:Let us use your prefered analogy. Do you deny the existence of golf, do you wish to prevent the practice of golf or wish it went away?
Besides there is no word for a non-Golf players because Golf is not part of our thanatonic experience. People may go through life without wondering if they should play golf. Humans are mortal, we know we are going to die and we question about our fate in a different way to a golf game. One way or another we come to personal conclusions of what our fate is, this is the basis of religious preference.
Its hard to know for sure, the most we get are promises, take them or leave them. Spiritual unsurety is one constant for humanity and for that we make our own conclusions. Those conclusions no matter how you dress them up are a faith choice.
So you're logic is this...
Deciding not to have faith is a choice regarding faith.
Thus it's a faith choice.
Thus, because I put the word faith in there, it means you have faith.
That means you're religious.
It's almost as if, somehow, that doesn't make any sense.
This. A choice about faith isn't necessary a choice of faith.
There's also a difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist.
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
So god is unknowable and so alien we can't discern anything about her or her desires. Well that helps.
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
So god is unknowable and so alien we can't discern anything about her or her desires. Well that helps.
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
If you take the Jewish interpretation yes absolutely, God works in mysterious ways as they say. The Christian one is somewhat different though, evil exists because of free will and the choices of men is the crux of it, should I remind you of the forbidden fruit, something, btw, God knew would be eaten from the time he created it.
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
If you take the Jewish interpretation yes absolutely, God works in mysterious ways as they say. The Christian one is somewhat different though, evil exists because of free will and the choices of men is the crux of it, should I remind you of the forbidden fruit, something, btw, God knew would be eaten from the time he created it.
Just because you know something doesn't mean you can change the outcome of it
Yet god is supposedly omnipotent. If he KNEW it was going to happen, but could not change that, then when Adam and Eve did eat the apple, he should have said "Truth be told it's not your fault, it was going to happen regardless of what I or anyone else did, I'm sorry. Here, have a divine muffin."
Squigsquasher wrote:Yet god is supposedly omnipotent. If he KNEW it was going to happen, but could not change that, then when Adam and Eve did eat the apple, he should have said "Truth be told it's not your fault, it was going to happen regardless of what I or anyone else did, I'm sorry. Here, have a divine muffin."
The thing is, even if he already knew how it was going to happen, it was still their decision. That doesn't make it not their fault. If you knew someone else was going to do something no matter what anyone else did or what else happened, would that make it any less their fault or any less their decision?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Just because you know something doesn't mean you can change the outcome of it
Omnipotence says you can. All powerful doesn't sit well with "I couldn't do anything to change it."
But of course, he could have changed it and simply chose not to.
Squigsquasher wrote:Yet god is supposedly omnipotent. If he KNEW it was going to happen, but could not change that, then when Adam and Eve did eat the apple, he should have said "Truth be told it's not your fault, it was going to happen regardless of what I or anyone else did, I'm sorry. Here, have a divine muffin."
The thing is, even if he already knew how it was going to happen, it was still their decision. That doesn't make it not their fault. If you knew someone else was going to do something no matter what anyone else did or what else happened, would that make it any less their fault or any less their decision?
God created them, and their environment, it was never their decision.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Indifference makes you responsible, to a point, yes.
In certain cases I agree, but does it ever make you more responsible than the person who actually made the decision, or absolve them from the responsibility of making that decision? I would argue that it doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:Yet god is supposedly omnipotent. If he KNEW it was going to happen, but could not change that, then when Adam and Eve did eat the apple, he should have said "Truth be told it's not your fault, it was going to happen regardless of what I or anyone else did, I'm sorry. Here, have a divine muffin."
The thing is, even if he already knew how it was going to happen, it was still their decision. That doesn't make it not their fault. If you knew someone else was going to do something no matter what anyone else did or what else happened, would that make it any less their fault or any less their decision?
God created them, and their environment, it was never their decision.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Indifference makes you responsible, to a point, yes.
In certain cases I agree, but does it ever make you more responsible than the person who actually made the decision, or absolve them from the responsibility of making that decision? I would argue that it doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:Yet god is supposedly omnipotent. If he KNEW it was going to happen, but could not change that, then when Adam and Eve did eat the apple, he should have said "Truth be told it's not your fault, it was going to happen regardless of what I or anyone else did, I'm sorry. Here, have a divine muffin."
The thing is, even if he already knew how it was going to happen, it was still their decision. That doesn't make it not their fault. If you knew someone else was going to do something no matter what anyone else did or what else happened, would that make it any less their fault or any less their decision?
God created them, and their environment, it was never their decision.
So you're saying free will doesn't exist?
jadam and eve was just a metaphor. it never really happened. it was just a made up story from some tribesmen somewhere.
What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural. .
yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??
Already covered but anyway...
It did not come from nothing, it came from a singularity which mathematics cannot describe, so using the mathematics of astrophysics and cosmology we can trace things back to that point, but not before, because maths cannot describe what was before.
So you see the big bang is based on Maths, an empirically provable discipline, while religion is based on books, that people wrote, full of logical inconsistencies. Therein lies the difference.
So just to be clear:
If I believe that there is this big bang that came from a singularity (which you say is based on Math and at the same time you state cannot be explained by Math) and I cannot explain the reason why stuff was always there but it was, then I am perfectly logical.
If I believe that there is this big bang that came from a singularity (which you say is based on Math and at the same time you state cannot be explained by Math) and i cannot explain the reason why stuff was always there except I think that God had something to do with it, then I am an illogical man who needs 'salvation' from my religious ways?
I believe in physics, I believe in science, I believe in evolution, etc. My only difference is that I think "For all these equations to work, the speed of light must be this or gravity must be that" and I think that these cosmic constants have a certain value because of an outside influence.
If "stuff just always was that way, no reason" makes you a learned man and "stuff just always was that way, God made it that way" makes you an idiot in your eyes (you as in atheists in general not that particular poster), then there is nothing I can do to make you change your mind.
I don't think religion should be used to explain science, and science cannot be used to explain religion. Yet fundamentalist religious groups want to fight science and fundamentalist anti-theist groups want to use science as a weapon against God. To me science is amazing and I believe that it can be used to explain how God created things and how He made the universe happen.
Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:
Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change. Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That is really it. I don't know why there has to be this battle between science and religion except that both sides want to keep it going because they either feel threatened by the other.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Indifference makes you responsible, to a point, yes.
In certain cases I agree, but does it ever make you more responsible than the person who actually made the decision, or absolve them from the responsibility of making that decision? I would argue that it doesn't.
It would if they were mentally handicapped, which is what we would be in relation to God.
Hordini wrote:So you're saying free will doesn't exist?
If an Omniscient deity exists, no, it cant. Because when they created everything they would have seen everything mapped out ahead, thus everything is predetermined, thus no free will.
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
Orlanth wrote:Let us use your prefered analogy. Do you deny the existence of golf, do you wish to prevent the practice of golf or wish it went away?
Besides there is no word for a non-Golf players because Golf is not part of our thanatonic experience. People may go through life without wondering if they should play golf. Humans are mortal, we know we are going to die and we question about our fate in a different way to a golf game. One way or another we come to personal conclusions of what our fate is, this is the basis of religious preference.
Its hard to know for sure, the most we get are promises, take them or leave them. Spiritual unsurety is one constant for humanity and for that we make our own conclusions. Those conclusions no matter how you dress them up are a faith choice.
So you're logic is this...
Deciding not to have faith is a choice regarding faith.
Thus it's a faith choice.
Thus, because I put the word faith in there, it means you have faith.
That means you're religious.
It's almost as if, somehow, that doesn't make any sense.
So you're logic is this...
Deciding not to have faith is a choice regarding faith. - You cant decide not to have any form of 'faith' as in a 'chosen belief system'. At some level you have a conclusion, even if it is a temporary one while searching for a sceintific proof or a religious revelation. It doesn't matter, one way or another you choose for now whether or not to believe. You confuse yourself because there are two defintions of faith, one if the presense of a form of belief, the other is a substitute for the word religion, you are using both and assuming I think they are one and the same.
You can reject all "faiths" (religions) and still have made a faith choice (form of belief).
Thus it's a faith choice. - Correct.
Thus, because I put the word faith in there, it means you have faith. - This is where understanding what the word faith means helps. The practice of Faith equals believing in the unseen. With proof there is no need for faith. Do you have proof there is or is no God? You dont, so you end up with an assumption, that is a definitive faith choice.
That means you're religious. - Actually no. Consistently throughout the thread I mentioned that atheism isn't a religion per se, but it should be categorised with others forms of religious preference because atheism is a faith choice and those that follow that faith choice are as susceptible to fundamentalism and extremism as any other.
Hordini wrote:There's also a difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist.
Precious little with regards to making the decision of a faith choice. Both are admittedly different, I don't deny that, but both are unequivocal faith choices.
Kovnik Obama wrote:This. A choice about faith isn't necessary a choice of faith.
Incorrect any choice about faith is a choice of faith because it is made without the presence of proof and relies on a subjective opinion set by the individual.
This is important to understand because extremism is a problem for anyone. Only by understanding that ones own, and everyone elses, view of the universe with regards to religion is based on at least in part a human emotive choice and not pure reason can one shield oneself against the error by which one assumes that ones own solution is definitive. Once people go down that road other faith choices become errors to bypass or remove, by one means or another.
Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That is really it. I don't know why there has to be this battle between science and religion except that both sides want to keep it going because they either feel threatened by the other.
No, just the theist side wants to keep it going. Science could care less. Science is not threatened by religion, but certain religions who take the bible way to literally are threatened when science can prove they are wrong.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Indifference makes you responsible, to a point, yes.
In certain cases I agree, but does it ever make you more responsible than the person who actually made the decision, or absolve them from the responsibility of making that decision? I would argue that it doesn't.
It would if they were mentally handicapped, which is what we would be in relation to God.
Hordini wrote:So you're saying free will doesn't exist?
If an Omniscient deity exists, no, it cant. Because when they created everything they would have seen everything mapped out ahead, thus everything is predetermined, thus no free will.
I don't know if comparing a human's relationship to God to that of a mentally handicapped person in relation to a non-mentally handicapped person is a good comparison. We have the ability to make our own decisions, so if God made us, he made us with that ability. Since Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they also gained the ability to tell the difference between good an evil and decide for themselves.
In another post you said that it was never their decision because God created them and their environment. So is there no free will because everything is predetermined, or no free will because everyone is affected by their environment (which doesn't even require the existence of God)? Or both?
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had something to do with it though.
Kovnik Obama wrote:There's also a difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist.
Precious little with regards to making the decision of a faith choice. Both are admittedly different, I don't deny that, but both are unequivocal faith choices.
Hordini wrote:This. A choice about faith isn't necessary a choice of faith.
Incorrect any choice about faith is a choice of faith because it is made without the presence of proof and relies on a subjective opinion set by the individual.
This is important to understand because extremism is a problem for anyone. Only by understanding that ones own, and everyone elses, view of the universe with regards to religion is based on at least in part a human emotive choice and not pure reason can one shield oneself against the error by which one assumes that ones own solution is definitive. Once people go down that road other faith choices become errors to bypass or remove, by one means or another.
You mixed up the quotes, just to let you know. I'm the one who wrote "There's also a difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist," and I didn't write the other one.
Why, if God is omniscient, and knows all, does evil exist. And the free will argument doesn't work, because He'd know every choice you would make. Therefore God is not good, but both good and evil
This is applying human morals to a being (Which whether you believes exists or not) which transcends human logic and morality so the whole God is good and evil argument is flawed as well
So god is unknowable and so alien we can't discern anything about her or her desires. Well that helps.
You might choose to think so. Many faith groups including Judaic religions claim to have at least a partial understanding of God and his desires. I cannot speak for eastern religions but didnt Buddha and Krishna both claim some form of understanding of God?
@ d-usa, Singularities in Maths are where Maths breaks down, they are when one side of an equation becomes infinity or close to, it just does not compute. They still exist, black holes are singularities for example.
d-usa wrote:
Atheist: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Rational Theist: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information and we are open to new data and new hypothesis, but no matter what, God had something to do with it though.
Theist: Everything is this way because of god.
Getting closer. Generally speaking, atheists wouldn't think to bring god into it at all.
And of course by God, I think we all know we are referring to Vishnu.
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had something to do with it though.
Nope, because organised religion generally already has its rules written down somewhere. They don't get changed until they absolutely have to. See the Copernican model of the universe, or Darwin's Origin of the Species.
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
dæl wrote:@ d-usa, Singularities in Maths are where Maths breaks down, they are when one side of an equation becomes infinity or close to, it just does not compute. They still exist, black holes are singularities for example.
I know they exist and I don't really have a problem with them existing. It will be exciting when we find out though. For me, science is a way to find out how God created the universe. That might make me crazy, but I feel that as our understanding of science grows so does my awe of the complexity that God has created. I don't discard anything science finds, or look at a new finding and think "crap, another nail in the coffin for God".
Orlanth wrote:Many faith groups including Judaic religions claim to have at least a partial understanding of God and his desires.
Son of Sam had a partial understanding that a dog was telling him to kill people. Doesn't mean a dog actually was.
Buddha and Krishna would possibly use the term godhead*, but really the use of the words would be so different than the context of the discussion that it would really apply.
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
Fixed that for you.
Oh yes, excellent solution, we just won't bother with all the theists that don't think that way. Does that mean even atheists are capable of ignoring information too?
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though. Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
Fixed that for you.
To play your game:
Where is your proof that every single theist pisses on science? -citation needed-
Either you are letting your prejudice of theists cloud your world view or you have definitive proof that there are no theist scientists.
Of course you could just be trolling as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The updated quote by Ahtman:
Ahtman wrote:
d-usa wrote: Atheist: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. Rational Theist: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information and we are open to new data and new hypothesis, but no matter what, God had something to do with it though. Theist: Everything is this way because of god.
Getting closer. Generally speaking, atheists wouldn't think to bring god into it at all.
And of course by God, I think we all know we are referring to Vishnu.
I might disagree on Rational Theist though and may prefer if Rational Theist was changed to Theist, and Theist was changed to Irrational Theist.
What would the distinction be between a Rational and Irrational Atheist?
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
Fixed that for you.
To play your game:
Where is your proof that every single theist pisses on science? -citation needed-
Either you are letting your prejudice of theists cloud your world view or you have definitive proof that there are no theist scientists.
Of course you could just be trolling as well.
now you want to start talking about proof? Nice. Where is your proof that all atheists belong to a religion? Surely if christians get to tell all atheists what they believe and what religion they are in without proof. I can do likewise to all theists without proof.
but how about some proof that the bible or your religion has been changed over the last 2,000 years to accept new scientific data?
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?
Orlanth wrote:Many faith groups including Judaic religions claim to have at least a partial understanding of God and his desires.
Son of Sam had a partial understanding that a dog was telling him to kill people. Doesn't mean a dog actually was.
Not everyone can be right, or mentally healthy. The utterings of isolated lunatics are unfair parallels to place alongside any major world philosophies. Charles Manson had claims on Christianity and atheism both. I wont quote them, there is no point or value to them.
Ahtman wrote:
Buddha and Krishna would possibly use the term godhead*, but really the use of the words would be so different than the context of the discussion that it would really apply.
*Translated
Would you like to link a psycho killers ideologies to these faith groups?
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
Fixed that for you.
To play your game:
Where is your proof that every single theist pisses on science? -citation needed-
Either you are letting your prejudice of theists cloud your world view or you have definitive proof that there are no theist scientists.
Of course you could just be trolling as well.
now you want to start talking about proof? Nice. Where is your proof that all atheists belong to a religion? Surely if christians get to tell all atheists what they believe and what religion they are in without proof. I can do likewise to all theists without proof.
but how about some proof that the bible or your religion has been changed over the last 2,000 years to accept new scientific data?
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?
I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.
Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.
d-usa wrote:Atheists: Everything may be this way becuase of something we have studied, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.
That seems a bit more accurate. Science isn't that absolute and is constantly...evolving.
So it would be this:
Atheists: Everything may be this way because of something we have studies, but we need more information, and we are open to new data and new hypothesis. God had nothing to do with it though.
Theists: Everything may be this way because we refuse to study, but we have no information, and we are not open to new data and new hypothesis. God did it.
Fixed that for you.
To play your game:
Where is your proof that every single theist pisses on science? -citation needed-
Either you are letting your prejudice of theists cloud your world view or you have definitive proof that there are no theist scientists.
Of course you could just be trolling as well.
now you want to start talking about proof? Nice. Where is your proof that all atheists belong to a religion? Surely if christians get to tell all atheists what they believe and what religion they are in without proof. I can do likewise to all theists without proof.
but how about some proof that the bible or your religion has been changed over the last 2,000 years to accept new scientific data?
Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?
I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.
Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.
And last I checked christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well
I didn't know all theists think the earth is flat and the earth is only 6000 years old? Unless by theists you mean fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians. Then yes, that particular group does think that and I don't agree with them just as many other theists (Christians and otherwise) don't agree with them.
Last time I read the Bible it was actually pretty silent on scientific data.
And last I checked fundamentalist young earth creationist Christians are still trying to get their bible taught in school, and ensure the theory of evolution does not get taught, and global warming as well
Fixed that for you.
Again, that particular group does not speak for all Christians and certainly does not speak for all theists.
sirlynchmob wrote: Just because you can accept science, would you mind telling your fellow theists that the earth is not flat, and the earth is over 6,000 years old?
Surely noone actually thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round (and even measured it) otherwise navigation at sea would have been impossible. We get told people thought that at school because it makes the whole Columbus thing a bit more romantic, but its pure BS. If you watch a ship coming over the horizon the mast appears first.
)
Amorphous describes well my non-faith.
