When I first heard that, I thought the same as most people... But for some reason it just sorta stuck in my head.
I think that, in some small way, he is right. I mean, if we view Christianity in an overall manner, sure it's a religion. However, if you break it down some, you'll see that it's sort of a binding philosophical premise that many religions are based on. In this way, Catholicism and Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians (its Chuch of England, only in America) etc. are religions that follow the philosophy of Christianity.
In no way am I really trying to defend him, just sharing the thoughts that I had had after seeing that on TV.
For the Fox News Tea Partier crowd, Christianity in't a religion. It's an excuse to bully others. Got raped? Well, I'm a Christian, and I can't give you the morning after pill. It just keeps going on. They are a joke.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: For the Fox News Tea Partier crowd, Christianity in't a religion. It's an excuse to bully others. Got raped? Well, I'm a Christian, and I can't give you the morning after pill. It just keeps going on. They are a joke.
Decent Christians don't believe that way of thinking: only the stupid ones do.
Being on the vestry of a church, I can vouch for the lack of organization...
Sitting on the roof would make people uncomfortable....unless you had a fiddle.
DANGER DANGER
Use of that phrase will start Mrs. Frazzled singing "matchmaker matchmaker make me a match" and other songs I always sleep through. Even worse she might slide into the theme song from Gilligan's Island, and then I'll have to rip my own face off.
He's basically correct, at this point. Americans wave their christianity in the face of the rest of the world, yet know almost nothing about it, nor do they practice it correctly, or fulfill religious obligations.
I'm not a fan of incredibly devout people, but at least they commit to something, and follow through with their oaths and all that.
Captain Fantastic wrote: He's basically correct, at this point. Americans wave their christianity in the face of the rest of the world, yet know almost nothing about it, nor do they practice it correctly, or fulfill religious obligations.
Liberalizing religion has created the effect such that requiring church services is not necessarily mandatory. Believing in Jesus as the Son of God and so forth basically makes you Christian. Following a particular set of beliefs around a Christian faith makes you a specific sort of Christian.
You practice the Christian religion so long as you believe the core tenants of the faith. I do have to disagree with Bill O'Reilly such that Christianity is not a religion and side with Jon Stewart that the religion Christianity has a philosophical aspect too. You can follow the philosophy (interpret as you will between many, many conflicting messages), but the belief in Jesus, God, The Trinity, ect. ect. is religion at its core.
Bill O'Reilly just giving the audience what it wants. A sensible and considered conversation about religion doesn't get ratings. An angry nutjob getting other people angry so everyone ends up shouting at everyone is ratings gold.
I mean, just watch O'Reilly when he goes on The Daily Show. While he still plays the arch-conservative role, he changes it just enough so that it produces good tv for the now liberal audience. He's totally self-aware - it's a complete act.
That said, I'm kind of interested in this idea that Christianity could be just a philosophy. I mean, obviously it isn't, it contains spiritual and meta-physical concepts, and it argues from authority, not from reason. But that last part really interests me - what if Christianity couldn't just say 'this is wrong because it says in our book that it's wrong', but actually had to substantiate why something was wrong. It wouldn't be enough to say 'you should heltp the poor' and 'homosexuality is a sin' - they'd have to explain why those things are true.
I suspect this would cause a rather nice change - all the good stuff that's self-evident, like the idea that we should help the poor, will be easily explained and justified. While the ideas about gay marriage will struggle quite badly to find their own reasonings.
Yeah, you can, I can, and so can everyone that completed primary school, except Bill O'Reilly. A while back O'Reilly was debating Silverman again (because shouty right wing people in shouting matches with smug atheists is ratings gold) and O'Reilly was asked for a proof of God, and he said the goes in, and the tide goes out, and you can't explain that without divine intervention.
It was a moment I kind of doubted my theory above, and thought maybe Bill O'Reilly isn't just putting on a show, and he is just a dumb gak.
Well I guess that settles that folks! Christianity is not an organized religion. You saw it from the grand poobah of the Republican party himself!
Christianity isn't really an organised religion. Christianity is an umbrella term for the catching of various organized religions of the Christian faith. But Christianity itself is not organized.
Well I guess that settles that folks! Christianity is not an organized religion. You saw it from the grand poobah of the Republican party himself!
Christianity isn't really an organised religion. Christianity is an umbrella term for the catching of various organized religions of the Christian faith. But Christianity itself is not organized.
By that definition there is no organized religion though.
Well I guess that settles that folks! Christianity is not an organized religion. You saw it from the grand poobah of the Republican party himself!
Christianity isn't really an organised religion. Christianity is an umbrella term for the catching of various organized religions of the Christian faith. But Christianity itself is not organized.
By that definition there is no organized religion though.
There can be, as was in the post that you quoted, there are indeed organized religions of the Christian faith. Say Roman Catholics and Baptists. But they don't control all of the different branches of Christianity. So Christianity itself is unorganized. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Now while I agree that Bill O'Reilly is at best a shock jock and worst willfully ignorant that doesn't mean that everything he said is automatically false. And while at first glance this would seem to be, it actually isn't. Though I don't really know if he meant it that way or was just being dumb about it.
Christianity is as much an organized religion as Abrahamism or Peganism.
The Southern Baptist Convention is an organized religion, the World Assemblies of God Fellowship is an organized religion, the Roman Catholic Church is an organized religion, the Church of England is an organized religion, etc etc etc.
Now if he was trying to imply that all Christians are loosely organized with no organized framework whatsoverer, then he would be wrong. But there is no single "Christian Religion".
Can someone tell me what the this Bill O'Reilly is saying.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.
Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.
Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.
No, you would obfuscate, because that is what you do. You're doing it right now.
The idea that religion X does not see itself as a religion is not new. The faithful generally do not want to believe they are like others, they want to be exceptional. Not religious, but in a relationship with God*.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.
Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.
Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.
The idea that religion X does not see itself as a religion is not new. The faithful generally do not want to believe they are like others, they want to be exceptional. Not religious, but in a relationship with God*.
Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique. it is however the only major western Religion to think this way. Ritual is of formal importance to Islam and judaism. Eastern relgions are more loose but all have an element of core ritual for proper practice. Christianity as intended was not a 'religion' the formal church came later. Jewsclaim a reltionship with God, but Judaism was always a religion. Christianity originally wasn't, it was a faith concept and message without common ritual.
There are only two rituals in Christianity. Baptism, to be performed once, in a variety of circumstances; so can be passed off as an event. The second, Communion, which is as informal as it gets and literaly requests the faithful to remember Jesus when they eat and not at any set time or frequency.
Everything else is a religious trapping and not core Christianity. Allowing for Jesus' own lifestyle.
Actually it isn't. There are two definitions of religion right there. one is a secular catch-all, the other describes the difference in processes. Religious behaviour means adherence to the trappings of a religion, when properly applied (in other words in theory for most) Christianity has no trappings. Religion per se is determined by its doctrines and trappings, not by its faith. Faith is somewhat separate, and need to have any religious connotations at all.
Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith. As Christians are encouraged to be worldly wise most will refer to themselves as 'religious' even if they personally try to actively avoid religion as part of their 'walk with God'. This is due to transparency as unless explained it is best for a Christian trying not to be relgious to say they are, as the deeper explanation might be ignored in favour of believing the person concerned is denying their faith.
Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique.
I honestly have no idea what you're on about. You connote the word 'religion', saying that few things regarding it are new, and appell the word 'unique' without having used it prior?
Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith.
That is not the colloquial definition of 'religion'. That is the definition of religion adhered to by a British man that desperately wants atheism to be equivalent to Christianity.
Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique.
I honestly have no idea what you're on about. You connote the word 'religion', saying that few things regarding it are new, and appell the word 'unique' without having used it prior?
I have to assume that you're trolling me.
Fair enough that you admit to not understanding thats a start. Just because the subtlties of the subject matter elude you doesn't mean anyone is trolling. maybe your understanding is deficient.
Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith.
That is not the colloquial definition of 'religion'. That is the definition of religion adhered to by a British man that desperately wants atheism to be equivalent to Christianity.
That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll. This has nothing to do with me, nor atheism, or desperation, you are being needlessly personal. Needless to us anyway, you seem to have tjhe need to go on the personal attack when you cant work your way through the counterarguments, its your MO. Perhaps you should take a sedative before posting.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.
Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.
That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll.
Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.
While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is. It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.
If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.
In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.
Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.
That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll.
Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.
This is because you are a troll. The argument is clear enough you just prefer to assume it isn't because it bypasses the need to construct a rational counter-argument.
While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is.
It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.
The mental gymnastics you needs is called 'clear thinking'. Its quite simple.
First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice. I should not be suprised that despite several conversations you refuse to acknowledge what was written. Note that I dont expect you to agree with it, just to properly represent it.
Second by looking at the two definitions of religion Christianity clearly falls into one category but on inspection doesnt necessarily, or better put - ought not to fall into the second.
Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.
While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is. It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.
I understood him pretty well. I mean I don't agree with some parts but his argument was understood.
This is because you are a troll. The argument is clear enough you just prefer to assume it isn't because it bypasses the need to construct a rational counter-argument.
No, I assessed your argument and found it unclear, no assumption was made. I made this assessment because you have not produced a definition of "religion" that excludes nominal Christian behavior.
As regards counter-arguments: How am I to oppose an interlocutor claiming that Christianity has no trappings? Formal ritual is not the only form of outwardly displaying Christian faith.
First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.
Nope, sorry. Most people who are atheist happen to be functionally atheist, in that the idea of god just doesn't factor into their everyday life. Children are born functionally atheist - it isn't a choice. Even for those of us who consider the concept of god/s and reject it, it isn't a 'choice' to not have religious faith. I don't have religious faith because I don't swallow the mythology, not because I choose not to. I just don't believe.
And frankly, as an atheist, I'm getting fairly sick of people like you telling me what I am and getting it spectacularly wrong. We are not in the same boat - you have religious faith, I do not. I can accept that, but you seem to have a problem with it.
No, I assessed your argument and found it unclear, no assumption was made. I made this assessment because you have not produced a definition of "religion" that excludes nominal Christian behavior.
What is known as the 'walk with God' is outside religion. Religion is a set of procedures by which a formalised faith choice is expressed. Pure Christianity, for want of a better term relies instead on an informal relationship. It is possible, even ideal to rely on that rather than any form of religious expression. A good analogy would be to see God as a friend, you don't need any ritual to see your friends, you just do.
Now under the casual definition of religion, this is "religious" behaviour simply because it involves God. Under an technical definition "religion" has nothing to do with it. No set prayers or actions or rituals are needed to converse with the God if touched by the Holy Spirit and they are instead seen as a distraction, even poor theology.
As regards counter-arguments: How am I to oppose an interlocutor claiming that Christianity has no trappings?
Christianity can be followed without trappings. There are strong arguments that it was always intended to, especially looking at the loves of Jesus and his contemporaries.
Formal ritual is not the only form of outwardly displaying Christian faith.
Under a technical definition of religion, displaying faith is not religion, the intended goal regarding what is to be displayed is 'fruit of the spirit' . The 'good fruit' is a series of virtues gained, not tenets to be obeyed.
This is one of the most dangerous fallacies that have arisen regarding atheism: the belief that atheism will end 'relgious' fundamentalist violence and killing. Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God. Many are atheists through non practice, others form large communions, often armed hostile, thoroughly dogmatic and under a red flag. An abolition of religion, not that it could occur, would not far from free man from religious terror, it would change the name of the God for which people are made to suffer from a particular named diety to the concept of no-God. Especially as an abolition of religion would most likely take place under an atheistic faith based society such as much of the world suffered under for much of the twentieth century.
Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se. I can quote numerous times I said that. Its as easy to find under a search as what you just found.
This fits in with the context above, in which atheism is a religious preference and has the possibility of being as dangerous as any other religious preference. I shouldn't have to apologise for the confusion as the correct viewpoint has been issued often enough, to the point that I was unaware that the proofreading error had occurred. However I will do so anyway as the error was made. I amend my above comment to "First you have to understand I never knowingly claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice."
Remember that internet posts are more akin to speech than prose, quickly typed and sent.
Here are examples of my consistency of viewpoint, with links:
Orlanth wrote:
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.
Children are born functionally atheist - it isn't a choice.
There is an argument that very young children are in fact spiritually aware. I certainly was, I remember conversations with God as a baby before I was introduced to religion in any way. This phenonema is not limited to me,
Even for those of us who consider the concept of god/s and reject it, it isn't a 'choice' to not have religious faith. I don't have religious faith because I don't swallow the mythology, not because I choose not to. I just don't believe.
Why dont you believe? Any possible answer indicates a choice made.
And frankly, as an atheist, I'm getting fairly sick of people like you telling me what I am and getting it spectacularly wrong. We are not in the same boat - you have religious faith, I do not. I can accept that, but you seem to have a problem with it.
Actually I am just close to the truth here. I don't have a problem with faith choices, you do. You wish it wasn't there against all logic.
Can you honestly say you never made a choice not to believe in a religion? You might of only if completely unaware of the concept.
Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se.
What distinguishes a religion from a religious preference?
Just to add my two sense to this argument, Christianity is a religion, and Atheism is a religion. Neither are inherently organized, however both have adherents that include those who are part of an organization in relation to their religious preference.
A religion is not dependent on there being a God or Gods, Buddhism comes to mind, what it is is a set of beliefs that explain the cause and nature of the universe, everything else is details.
So you believe in sola fide, and can further note how one can have faith and not behave as though one has faith?
That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.
Christianity has plenty of subtle differences like this. Just as the concept of religion has multiple meanings and definitions wirthin the Christian paradigm. As we see here so does the concept of living by faith.
BTW. I had to look up sola fide, as while I was adequately taught the concepts it was under the title of 'Justification by Faith', most modern denominations feel no need to give every concept a Latin title, so while the doctrine was familiar to me the Latin name was not.
Actually, as I wrote it I can definitively and with consistency say that was not what was meant by the comment. As my posts are often long they are typed quickly. Sometimes an error evades my proofreading before I press send.
Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se.
What distinguishes a religion from a religious preference?
We can use atheism and agnosticism as examples.
Say you take an agnostic/ or atheist who deplores organised religion and has no religion, but may have made a religious preference by choosing 'no religion' or by honouring God outside of religion.
You could also make a case that someone who makes up thier own religion, doesn't follow any set religion but has a religious preference.
This can be most easily described as a simple dataset. Not which religion is followed but, "How many Gods do you worship?" An atheist gets to input a number, same as anyone else. Number of Gods = 0. That number indicates a preference, you could have chosen 1 or 3-in-1, or c200million (for Hinduism). Of course this is no way to do a useful survey, it is just there for the point.
That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.
I see no distinction. If one lives with a faith relationship with God, then one is implicitly justified, regardless of works, by way of sola fide.
I'm not the only one either, sola fide is fundamental to the idea of a personal relationship with God.
Say you take an agnostic/ or atheist who deplores organised religion and has no religion, but may have made a religious preference by choosing 'no religion' or by honouring God outside of religion.
That isn't a religious choice. If it is, then any choice according to belief is religious.
This is beginning to seem like you only have a hammer, and you still have yet to answer the original question.
Ratbarf wrote: Just to add my two sense to this argument, Christianity is a religion, and Atheism is a religion.
I can't help but feel every time I hear a Christian make a claim like this that they're doing their religion a disservice. To make that claim, they're putting "I don't believe there's a God or any other supernatural anything" on equal footing with the whole of Christianity.
As if Christianity was just "I believe in God, and that Jesus is his son" was enough, and all the stuff about moral codes, and thousands of years of history and saints is just detail.
Personally, I think there are beliefs, and in that sense atheism and Chrtistianity and Hinduism and all the rest are beliefs - personal statements about an unknowable thing. But a religion is more than just a belief, it is also a code of ethics, a way of looking at the world, series of rituals, a history, a community and more.
Well I guess that settles that folks! Christianity is not an organized religion. You saw it from the grand poobah of the Republican party himself!
Christianity isn't really an organised religion. Christianity is an umbrella term for the catching of various organized religions of the Christian faith. But Christianity itself is not organized.
By that definition there is no organized religion though.
The term as we know it, Christian, was coined in order to help Kennedy get elected. He wasn't Catholic, he was "Christian." And as such he was just like you Mr. Lutheran/Baptist/whatever.
I can't help but feel every time I hear a Christian make a claim like this that they're doing their religion a disservice. To make that claim, they're putting "I don't believe there's a God or any other supernatural anything" on equal footing with the whole of Christianity.
I'm not sure why it wouldn't be? I mean being a Pastafarian still affords one the same rights as being Christian, and most people would consider Pastafarianism to be much dumber religion than Christianity or Atheism.
As if Christianity was just "I believe in God, and that Jesus is his son" was enough, and all the stuff about moral codes, and thousands of years of history and saints is just detail.
It is for some.
Personally, I think there are beliefs, and in that sense atheism and Chrtistianity and Hinduism and all the rest are beliefs - personal statements about an unknowable thing. But a religion is more than just a belief, it is also a code of ethics, a way of looking at the world, series of rituals, a history, a community and more.
Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates. There is an atheist community. Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.
There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.
Ratbarf wrote: Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates.
Umm, no. News and science aren't rituals. That's just silly. Those are things that every person does in order to learn more about the world around them.
There is an atheist community.
There really isn't. There's a bunch of people who form groups they call atheist communities, but atheism doesn't hold these people together. I mean, what kind of a group would that be?
"I don't believe in God."
"Me neither."
:silence:
:more silence:
:tumbleweed:
Instead what you get is groups that call themselves atheist, that are really just are anti-religion. They spend all of about a minute saying "I don't believe in God" and then the rest of their time complaining about religion and various religious groups.
Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.
There is no 'atheist world view'. Such a thing is impossible. When the various ideologies that have attached themselves to atheism vary from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand, then what you're looking at is a belief that can be attached to all kinds of other things. Now those particular views, like Communism, Objectivism, Liberal Humanism and all sorts of other various athiest isms, those things are much closer to religions. They're still not quite the same, but at least they're closer.
There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.
Well, to be perfectly frank, stop looking with the intent to find silly nonsense. I have already explained that a religion is a belief with a whole lot of other cultural, communal and ethical elements attached to it. Whereas somethings are just beliefs, and nothing more.
I can believe that there is no God, and nothing else comes with it. It's just a belief I have. Just like I can believe that it'll probably rain tomorrow. I might be right, I might be wrong, I'll find out when the time comes.
But if believe that God is the Lord and Jesus is his son, well then there's a whole lot of stuff that comes with that. It will encourage me to read the bible, to take the lessons of the book and apply them in my life, and do all sorts of other stuff.
Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates. There is an atheist community. Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.
There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.
Not all rituals have to do with religion they could be done due to culture for example, also your example could apply to black people, black people have there own history, and they have a history of being persecuted for there race. There is an black community. Many black people enjoy hanging
out together, and even form organizations and clubs for the furtherance of their world views, so I don't see how these attributes make it a religion.
Instead what you get is groups that call themselves atheist, that are really just are anti-religion. They spend all of about a minute saying "I don't believe in God" and then the rest of their time complaining about religion and various religious groups.
That's what I meant.
There is no 'atheist world view'. Such a thing is impossible. When the various ideologies that have attached themselves to atheism vary from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand, then what you're looking at is a belief that can be attached to all kinds of other things. Now those particular views, like Communism, Objectivism, Liberal Humanism and all sorts of other various athiest isms, those things are much closer to religions. They're still not quite the same, but at least they're closer.
Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?
Well, to be perfectly frank, stop looking with the intent to find silly nonsense. I have already explained that a religion is a belief with a whole lot of other cultural, communal and ethical elements attached to it. Whereas somethings are just beliefs, and nothing more.
Haven't you heard? My entire world view and life outlook is based on purportedly silly nonsense.
But if believe that God is the Lord and Jesus is his son, well then there's a whole lot of stuff that comes with that. It will encourage me to read the bible, to take the lessons of the book and apply them in my life, and do all sorts of other stuff.
If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations? Like what is acceptable and what is not? There are many people who completely reject science as the reason to believe anything, just as there are many people who reject the bible as the foundation for any belief in anything whatsoever. Small barn old order mennonite would be an example of this. Possibly also Hassidic/Orthodox Jews. Though I'm not entirely sure on the Jewish part as I haven't met any.
I can believe that there is no God, and nothing else comes with it. It's just a belief I have.
There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts. Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system. So from within everything looks fine, and the models we've built look correct according to what we can observe. But we won't actually know until we explore everything. There also comes with it the thought that everything that everyone who believes in God is wrong.
That said you don't have to do anything, though it would encourage you to do so. (Can one be a bad atheist?)
I think I'm getting to tired to argue coherently. Off to schnoozelund.
Ratbarf wrote: Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?
Because:
1) Belief in god is factually false. It's just like any reasonable person would complain if 80% of the population believed that 1+1=5, or insisted on teaching flat earth theory in schools.
2) The religious majority is busy imposing itself on everyone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, telling them they're going to hell, passing theocratic laws, promoting a default belief in society that to be normal you have to have religion, and anyone who doesn't is lacking in morality/decency/whatever. If religion was entirely something you did in private and kept to yourself then atheists would be a lot quieter outside of debating communities.
If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations?
Not any more than any person who wants to understand things would look into science and philosophy. If you want to get to the moon or cure a disease you get out a science textbook, not a religious text.
There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts.
No more than any religious believer has to. For example, just look at pretty much any ethical debate in society right now and you'll find christians quoting bible verses to support both sides of the debate. You clearly can't make your moral decisions based entirely on your religious text, so you have to have your own independently-justified sense of morality to tell you what parts of the religious text are the sacred word of god, and which parts are translation errors/advice for a different time and place/etc.
(I suspect other religions do it too, but christianity is the loudest majority around here.)
Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system.
That's such absolute nonsense that it's bordering on delusional. If you genuinely believe that the laws of light are magically different then you have serious problems and should seek professional help.
Now accept that group is a subset of atheism, albeit a noisy one.
Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?
That question doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have a view to complain about someone else's view.
If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations?
Not really. One can be an atheist and lurch of into all kinds of philosophical nonsense about a world full of superhumans and hateful looters - ask Ayn Rand about that one. Or one can use science, philosophy, or direct personal experience to figure out the best way to live.
There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts.
No, I don't. I can read as much or as little as I want. I think you might be surprised to know most people spend exactly zero hours of their life reading ethical and religious texts, they just take the default position of their parents, modify it for their personal experience and live their lives.
Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true.
No-one 'has to believe what the scientists are telling you'. Science isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from evidence. The guy at NASA isn't listened to because he's been granted the position of NASA scientist, he's listened to because he's arguing from an informed position, and in the course of making his argument is presenting us with his information.
That's something that everyone does, whether they like to acknowledge it or not.
That said you don't have to do anything, though it would encourage you to do so.
Atheism encourages nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Various ideologies that include atheism, like communism, objectivism, or liberal humanism encourage all kinds of things, but atheism itself means nothing.
(Can one be a bad atheist?)
No. One can be a bad communist, or a bad objectivist, or a bad liberal humanist, but you cannot be a bad atheist.
Just because you can't prove god's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
You can't prove that you didn't torture and murder your mom, but it's still a factually false statement.
(I hope.)
You're right, because if something is a fact it needs to be verifiable and since you can't verify God's existence you can't say it's a fact that god exists, although you can say you believe god exists it just you have no facts to back up you claim.
Fact: Verifiable, believed by many.
Belief: Not verifiable, believed by many.
Opinion: Not verifiable, believed by some.
Preference: Not verifiable, not disputable, believed by one.
Cheesecat wrote: You're right, because if something is a fact it needs to be verifiable and since you can't verify God's existence you can't say it's a fact that god exists, although you can say you believe god exists it just you have no facts to back up you claim.
It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.
It's just like with your history of torture: until the unreasonable claim is supported with convincing evidence the factual truth is that it didn't happen.
As well as not proving the existence of god, we also haven't managed interstellar travel or even getting along together as a species - As we've had a fair amount of time to look into it, does that mean we will never do it? If we extend this even further, then by now we should already know everything there is to know ever, so if we can't do it now, there's no point in trying.
There's the quote in Hitch Hikers Guide about god not proving his own existence because proof denies faith, without faith God doesn't exist so if you prove God exists he doesn't. God then disappears in a puff of logic. Man goes on to prove black is white and is killed on the next zebra crossing.
My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.
An atheist doesn't believe in god, therefore he is not affected by a lack of belief.
If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.
I like the phrase 'live and let live'
And on topic - Christianity is a religion. It always has been.
Atheism is by definition not a religion - But it is a theological standing point. (by that I mean a place to stand to argue against religion)
The only thing I don't like is religions portrayal in the media.
Omid Djalili (the british/Iranian comedian) made a good point.
The mass media always quote the extremists. It's the equivalent of saying
"And now,speaking on behalf of the entire civilised western world, the KKK!"
It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.
What you meant to say is that the absence of evidence gives no reason for any human to make a faith-choice regarding God.
PredaKhaine wrote: As well as not proving the existence of god, we also haven't managed interstellar travel
The difference is that we haven't managed interstellar travel for reasons that we understand very well: it takes a lot of effort to get there. We have a very good understanding of all of the principles involved, what kind of engineering obstacles need to be overcome, and the political reality that keeps a project to develop interstellar travel from ever being funded.
God, on the other hand, has none of that understanding. Every attempt to prove the existence of one has failed utterly, and we're just as lacking in proof as when we started. When you have nothing but failure, and not even the slightest clue about how you could change that failure, it's probably time to just admit that you're not going to succeed.
or even getting along together as a species
You're right on that point. Getting along together seems incredibly unlikely. However, there's one important difference: getting along together is speculation about the future, and there's no way to come to a definite answer until the future arrives. God, on the other hand, supposedly exists right now, so our utter failure to find god suggests that there just isn't one.
My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.
How exactly is it cruel? And by that reasoning shouldn't every religious person who ever tries to convert someone be considered equally cruel?
If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.
If you take a white supremacist's racist beliefs away, they will miss it. It can be psychologically damaging, so should we just let them keep their beliefs if it's what makes them happy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: What you meant to say is that the absence of evidence gives no reason for any human to make a faith-choice regarding God.
No, I meant to say factual truth. Over and over again we apply the label "factual truth" to things which are merely overwhelmingly and beyond any reasonable doubt supported by evidence and reason, even when they aren't absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt true. We don't hesitate to say that it's factually true that I had a waffle for breakfast this morning, so we shouldn't hesitate to say it about the nonexistence of god.
You had to differentiate between 'truth' and 'revelation?'
I'm not sure what you're getting at? "He later revealed the truth." "His statement was later revealed to be a lie." Using the the verb to reveal is usually joined together with a noun is it not?
Now accept that group is a subset of atheism, albeit a noisy one.
Agreed, fault me for pidgeon holing atheists. Much the same as when people say christians they usually mean someone whose actions would seem to be from the Westboro Baptist's Playbook.
That question doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have a view to complain about someone else's view.
A reason is generally required though. If atheism encourages nothing, does it discourage anything?
Not really. One can be an atheist and lurch of into all kinds of philosophical nonsense about a world full of superhumans and hateful looters - ask Ayn Rand about that one. Or one can use science, philosophy, or direct personal experience to figure out the best way to live.
I don't have a coherent argument for this yet. I'll touch on it when I manage to expand the inkling I'm currently exploring.
No, I don't. I can read as much or as little as I want. I think you might be surprised to know most people spend exactly zero hours of their life reading ethical and religious texts, they just take the default position of their parents, modify it for their personal experience and live their lives.
Would that not make one willfully ignorant?
It's an argument from evidence.
And I don't beleive much of the evidence.
To clarify that I beleive it within the make ups of their systems/paradigm. The fact that I subscribe to a different paradigm means that I don't beleive what they call to be evidence is evidence within my paradigm when I'm working within my paradigm.
To further clarify that, 5+5=10. But 5+5=13 is also a correct statement. Provided the latter equation is using base 7.
Atheism encourages nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Various ideologies that include atheism, like communism, objectivism, or liberal humanism encourage all kinds of things, but atheism itself means nothing.
It encourages a beleif in a universal lack of deities does it not? Would that not mean that it would also encourage the rejection of the teachings of those deities?
You can't prove that you didn't torture and murder your mom, but it's still a factually false statement.
Invisible Gardner argument.
Counter argument, one will discover the truth when one dies.
Every attempt to prove the existence of one has failed utterly, and we're just as lacking in proof as when we started. When you have nothing but failure, and not even the slightest clue about how you could change that failure, it's probably time to just admit that you're not going to succeed.
I would use our sentience as proof. And we do actually know how to prove the existence or inexistence of God, however the inability for those who know to transmit the information means that society at large still does not know the answer.
It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.
I'm not clear on your reasoning.
What is "factual truth?" And why is the failure to produce a sound argument for God's existence compelling?
We don't hesitate to say that it's factually true that I had a waffle for breakfast this morning, so we shouldn't hesitate to say it about the nonexistence of god.
I have never heard anyone say "factually true". To my ear it sounds equivalent to "ain't."
And why is the failure to produce a sound argument for God's existence compelling?
Because, like every existence claim, we start from a default of nonexistence and the burden of proof is on the person claiming existence. The more times you try and fail to meet that burden, the more likely it is that you aren't just making some kind of mistake in your effort and the less likely it is that you will ever find proof.
To put it in 40k terms:
If you play your chosen list and lose one game it's a bad sign, but there's still hope that you could win.
If you play ten times and lose ever time it's a very bad sign, but it's not entirely unreasonable to hope that you'll someday win.
If you play a million times and lose every time it's as conclusive as you can get that you're a bad player and/or your list sucks, and belief otherwise is simply delusion.
Belief in god is in the last category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I have never heard anyone say "factually true". To my ear it sounds equivalent to "ain't."
The point is that we're talking about truths that are objectively true (or false) based on objective facts about the world. Not "true for me" or whatever other dodge religious people like to use to attack the idea that "does god exist" is a question that can be answered without resorting to faith.
I beleive he is refferring to your use of a tautology.
If you play a million times and lose every time it's as conclusive as you can get that you're a bad player and/or your list sucks, and belief otherwise is simply delusion.
Ratbarf wrote: Or simply an event with astronomical odds.
And that's exactly the delusion I'm talking about, the belief that somehow it's random chance instead of the overwhelmingly more likely explanation that you're just bad at the game.
You're right on that point. Getting along together seems incredibly unlikely. However, there's one important difference: getting along together is speculation about the future, and there's no way to come to a definite answer until the future arrives. God, on the other hand, supposedly exists right now, so our utter failure to find god suggests that there just isn't one.
But you're stating as we can't do it now, we will never do it.
My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.
How exactly is it cruel? And by that reasoning shouldn't every religious person who ever tries to convert someone be considered equally cruel?
I said 'almost' cruel.It's somewhere between not nice and unfair to try to force it on people (I'm not saying you're doing this, just explaining my own standpoint ) - Christians have learned to use faith as an aid to help in the day to day, life if you take this away, they lose something. If someone has no religion, it's their choice entirely what they do. And forcing religion on someone is also unfair
If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.
If you take a white supremacist's racist beliefs away, they will miss it. It can be psychologically damaging, so should we just let them keep their beleifs if it's what makes them happy?
Yes - as long as they don't act on it, it's only a belief and they are entitled to choose. They probably wouldn't be swayed by me anyway.
That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.
I see no distinction. If one lives with a faith relationship with God, then one is implicitly justified, regardless of works, by way of sola fide.
I'm not the only one either, sola fide is fundamental to the idea of a personal relationship with God.
Sorry, you misunderstand because both concepts include the word faith.
1. Justification by faith (sola fide) is the concept that one becomes saved and goes to heaven only because of faith in Jesus and not because of good deeds you do.
2. Living by faith means that religion is not necessary for your spiritual walk because you have come to an understanding that all the rituals are superfluous if you have a Holy Spirit based relationship with God and talk to Him.
This is beginning to seem like you only have a hammer, and you still have yet to answer the original question.
I am pretty sure I haven't missed out your questions, if you think I have missed one restate it here.
Hammer? My comments are mostly gentle, and I minimise offense caused, excepting only the offense some take if relgion is mentioned at all.
The statements above, assuming you weren't lying about the waffle, are true. True statements are also known as facts. There is no such thing as a "factual truth" that is not encompassed by the word "truth".
Because, like every existence claim, we start from a default of nonexistence and the burden of proof is on the person claiming existence. The more times you try and fail to meet that burden, the more likely it is that you aren't just making some kind of mistake in your effort and the less likely it is that you will ever find proof.
That is correct, but where you go awry is in the derivation of a positive conclusion. It is insensible to claim that X cannot exist because large group Y cannot demonstrate that it does. A sensible position would be to claim ignorance of whether or not X exists, especially if you have not done any research of your own.
1. Justification by faith (sola fide) is the concept that one becomes saved and goes to heaven only because of faith in Jesus and not because of good deeds you do.
2. Living by faith means that religion is not necessary for your spiritual walk because you have come to an understanding that all the rituals are superfluous if you have a Holy Spirit based relationship with God and talk to Him.
I still do not see a distinction. You are only able to have a personal, as opposed to ecclesiastic, relationship with God because of sola fide.
1) Belief in god is factually false. It's just like any reasonable person would complain if 80% of the population believed that 1+1=5, or insisted on teaching flat earth theory in schools.
Care to quantify this. You make blanket denial statement like that. It sounds like: LALALA I'm not listening.
2) The religious majority is busy imposing itself on everyone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, telling them they're going to hell, passing theocratic laws, promoting a default belief in society that to be normal you have to have religion, and anyone who doesn't is lacking in morality/decency/whatever. If religion was entirely something you did in private and kept to yourself then atheists would be a lot quieter outside of debating communities.
And secularists don't impose themselves on everyone else. Relgions effect peoples walks of life so they wish to bring it where they walk. They have no more need of closets than anyone else. if any other geroup can say this is who I am loud and proud, including secularists and atheists, why cant religious people.
Shutting other faityhgroups inclosets qwoulsnrt shut up atheists anyway, it didn't that last time under Communism. Atheists fundamentalists like a power trip like any other form of religious fundamentalist.
The idea thart we will all get along in a rational post religious world is a myth, what we get is Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot or the horrors of Revolutionary France.
Sure not all atheists are like that, neither are those you hate. but this is what happens under an atheist pseudo-theocracy, and if you dont persecute with an iron fist you wont get ridf of relgion. Unless you think you will "educate" it away, which doesn't work unless you mean indoctrinate rather than educate as there are plenty of educated people who find God.
Not any more than any person who wants to understand things would look into science and philosophy. If you want to get to the moon or cure a disease you get out a science textbook, not a religious text.
No more than any religious believer has to. For example, just look at pretty much any ethical debate in society right now and you'll find christians quoting bible verses to support both sides of the debate. You clearly can't make your moral decisions based entirely on your religious text, so you have to have your own independently-justified sense of morality to tell you what parts of the religious text are the sacred word of god, and which parts are translation errors/advice for a different time and place/etc.
Actually we are taught to let the Holy Spirit guide us while reading th bible. All parts are relevant somehow, what isrelevant to the time depends on thr time and situation.
(I suspect other religions do it too, but christianity is the loudest majority around here.)
Also, you have to believe that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system.
That's such absolute nonsense that it's bordering on delusional. If you genuinely believe that the laws of light are magically different then you have serious problems and should seek professional help.
That is harsh, poorly explained - fair enough, delusional - no. You aren't qualified to say. Light is affected by gravity we account for that for such things as gravitational lensing. It is not unreasonable that we will get clearer images of the cosmos by leaving the Solar System, the picture will be clearer detail lost to us now might be revealed but I would be suprised if our viewpoint was radically altered.
A term used to give the impression that there's more to your argument than just ''Theists beleive in things that can't be proven, they are morons!!''.
You know what, I'd like to see Peregrine argue with an existential theist, someone like Emmanuel Mounier. His tears of frustration would probably sustain me for a couple of centuries.
d-usa wrote: So everybody playing the lottery is being delusional instead of just facing incredible odds?
Kind of. People who play the lottery, spend too much money on it, and think they're going to win are delusional (it's a sad fact that lotteries exploit the poor and desperate who don't always have the best financial judgement), people who can afford to throw away $1 a week are just buying cheap entertainment. But in either case at least we know that winning the lottery is possible because someone eventually does. That isn't the case with god, where the absence of evidence (or even a convincing argument) is complete.
===================================
dogma wrote: That is correct, but where you go awry is in the derivation of a positive conclusion. It is insensible to claim that X cannot exist because large group Y cannot demonstrate that it does. A sensible position would be to claim ignorance of whether or not X exists, especially if you have not done any research of your own.
Sorry, but that's just silly. We don't hesitate to state "X doesn't exist" when X is something that the majority doesn't believe in, we only make a special exception for religion because we're terrified of offending people.
=================================
Orlanth wrote: Care to quantify this. You make blanket denial statement like that. It sounds like: LALALA I'm not listening.
What is there to quantify? There isn't even the slightest scrap of evidence for god, therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement, and that "god exists" is a false statement on the level of "1+1=5".
And secularists don't impose themselves on everyone else. Relgions effect peoples walks of life so they wish to bring it where they walk. They have no more need of closets than anyone else. if any other geroup can say this is who I am loud and proud, including secularists and atheists, why cant religious people.
The difference is that you live in a saner country where you don't have 40% of the country screaming about how abortion is murder, the homosexual agenda is destroying america and calling god's wrath down upon us, etc. It goes way beyond having pride in your identity and into trying to impose your identity on everyone else.
Shutting other faityhgroups inclosets qwoulsnrt shut up atheists anyway, it didn't that last time under Communism. Atheists fundamentalists like a power trip like any other form of religious fundamentalist.
That's a terrible comparison. Communism was not primarily a religious ideology, it opposed religion as a rival to the power of the state, but there was far more to it than just an absence of belief in god. On the other hand, atheism as a movement exists primarily in opposition to the dominant religious majority, if you take away the excessive influence of religion then there's nothing left to be loud about and most atheists would join theists in quietly keeping their beliefs to themselves.
The idea thart we will all get along in a rational post religious world is a myth, what we get is Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot or the horrors of Revolutionary France.
Or the "horrors" of secular European countries where religion is marginalized and apathy or outright atheism are dominant. But I guess they have socialism there, so some people would call that "horror".
Sure not all atheists are like that, neither are those you hate. but this is what happens under an atheist pseudo-theocracy, and if you dont persecute with an iron fist you wont get ridf of relgion. Unless you think you will "educate" it away, which doesn't work unless you mean indoctrinate rather than educate as there are plenty of educated people who find God.
Sorry, but the numbers are against you. Education, statistically speaking, correlates with less religious belief (and strongly with less belief in the worst fundamentalist religions). Rates of belief are declining, church membership is dropping, and atheism/apathy-ism are growing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njpWalYduU4
When they went to the moon, the astronauts took their faith with them.
But they got there by using science, not by using religion. Religion was just along for the ride.
Actually we are taught to let the Holy Spirit guide us while reading th bible. All parts are relevant somehow, what isrelevant to the time depends on thr time and situation.
And somehow the holy spirit guides people on opposite sides of the debate in opposite directions? Do you really think that's a more likely explanation than that the "holy spirit" doesn't exist and people just pick and choose quotes from the bible based on their existing beliefs?
That is harsh, poorly explained - fair enough, delusional - no. You aren't qualified to say. Light is affected by gravity we account for that for such things as gravitational lensing. It is not unreasonable that we will get clearer images of the cosmos by leaving the Solar System, the picture will be clearer detail lost to us now might be revealed but I would be suprised if our viewpoint was radically altered.
Except:
1) The claim was that the laws of light are different, not that new information will become available and slightly change our understanding of the universe. One is a delusional idea that the laws of physics magically change at the edge of our solar system just so that we can have the illusion of galaxies and a universe that is more than 10,000 years old, one is reasonable speculation.
2) The laws of physics can't change like that, because everything we have built on them works too well for us to be completely wrong. It is possible that we'll have changes, but on the level of "X specific theory about the life cycle of stars is incomplete", not "the speed of light is different outside of our solar system".
==============================================
Kovnik Obama wrote: A term used to give the impression that there's more to your argument than just ''Theists beleive in things that can't be proven, they are morons!!''.
Sorry, but if you believe in things that can't be proven you ARE a moron. It doesn't matter if that "thing" is god or Matt Ward's writing talent, and the only reason we pretend that god is any different from any other delusion is that religious people are enough of a majority that we have to be polite and not offend them, while people who think that the GK codex is a great work of literature are such a tiny minority that it's safe to laugh at them.
You know what, I'd like to see Peregrine argue with an existential theist, someone like Emmanuel Mounier. His tears of frustration would probably sustain me for a couple of centuries.
Yeah, I'd love to see that too. I predict lots of big words and attempts to sound "philosophical", but no proof that it's anything more than just empty speculation and wishful thinking. The only difference between "sophisticated" theists and fundamentalist morons is that the former are at least able to put up a superficial impression of having a good argument and fool people who don't look at it too closely, while the latter just scream about how god hates you and is going to torture you for eternity.
I have plenty of proof that God exists, you don't have any proof that is convincing to you.
That is really the heart of the matter. Just because you don't have any proof that is convincing enough for you doesn't mean that everybody else is an idiot.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but if you believe in things that can't be proven you ARE a moron. It doesn't matter if that "thing" is god or Matt Ward's writing talent, and the only reason we pretend that god is any different from any other delusion is that religious people are enough of a majority that we have to be polite and not offend them, while people who think that the GK codex is a great work of literature are such a tiny minority that it's safe to laugh at them.
I beleive in the demonstrative power of empirical data. Please, go on, try to prove 'proofs'. Epistemology has just struggled with that conundrum for about a century, but obviously, you have the key to it's resolution, otherwise you'd be yourself a moron in beleiving in science.
Yeah, I'd love to see that too. I predict lots of big words and attempts to sound "philosophical", but no proof that it's anything more than just empty speculation and wishful thinking. The only difference between "sophisticated" theists and fundamentalist morons is that the former are at least able to put up a superficial impression of having a good argument and fool people who don't look at it too closely, while the latter just scream about how god hates you and is going to torture you for eternity.
Honestly, right now, I'd like to see Kierkegaard or Marion destroy you in a boxing ring.
And I'm an atheist. (Oh but you won't beleive that because I'm pro-life and only moronic theists can be pro-life )
d-usa wrote: I have plenty of proof that God exists, you don't have any proof that is convincing to you.
Ok, and what would that "proof" be?
sebster wrote: As I said earlier, there's a difference between believing in something in the absence of evidence, and believing in something despite the evidence.
There is, but both are irrational. We don't hesitate at all to call people delusional for believing in things in the absence of evidence (for example, if I tell you all about my invisible friend Bob who is standing right next to you), and the only reason we make a special exception for religion is to be polite to the majority. It's completely inconsistent to make that special exception, and ridiculous to pretend that there's some kind of philosophical justification for it rather than just politeness.
Kovnik Obama wrote: (Oh but you won't beleive that because I'm pro-life and only moronic theists can be pro-life )
Hey, that's not a fair accusation at all. I'll gladly admit that it's possible to be a moronic pro-life atheist, so if you'd like to claim membership in that group I won't dispute it.
d-usa wrote: I have plenty of proof that God exists, you don't have any proof that is convincing to you.
Ok, and what would that "proof" be?
Plenty of stuff that you have likely heard before and rejected. Feel free to Google and disregard as convenient to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just because this seems like the perfect opportunity to post funny videos:
---NSFW---
(I think the video makes a good point that there are plenty of rational, reasonable, and polite atheists out there as well. But both sides have their crazy loudmouths)
Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
d-usa wrote: Plenty of stuff that you have likely heard before and rejected. Feel free to Google and disregard as convenient to you.
In other words, not proof at all, since all of the "heard before and rejected" arguments fail to come even close to being proof.
When you say there is proof that good exists, I have to think you are using an odd definition of 'proof'. If it were honestly that simple there wouldn't be debates on the subject and faith would be a useless concept.
Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
Seriously? Faith is a weakness? And I'm not just talking about the religious side of faith either...o.O
Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
Faith is the first step in the process of knowledge. In the absence of possible experimentation, you naturally take a stance on speculative matters.
Which is why both science and religion have the same aim ; the production of a universal system of explanation.
I also very much like how you decided to ignore my questionning the fact that your beleif in scientific proof is as 'unproovable' as the beleif in God.
whembly wrote: Seriously? Faith is a weakness? And I'm not just talking about the religious side of faith either...o.O
Entirely serious. Faith of any kind is a weakness, since it is by definition irrational belief in something you shouldn't believe.
d-usa wrote: I used to have faith that my mom loves me and that my wife does as well.
But now my faith is shattered...
You say this as a joke, but that isn't faith at all. You believe that your mom and wife love you because you have good reasons to. You observe how they act towards you, they say things like "I love you", etc. Therefore you come to the reasonable conclusion that they do in fact love you.
Having faith that someone loves you is being the creepy who sits around dreaming about how much that girl loves him and how they're destined to be together forever while she doesn't even know that he exists.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Faith is the first step in the process of knowledge. In the absence of possible experimentation, you naturally take a stance on speculative matters.
That's not true at all.
In the absence of experimentation you speculate. You propose an answer for purposes of investigating to see if it will help gain knowledge, but you always keep in mind that it's just speculation and you shouldn't have any confidence in your potential answer yet.
Faith means that you have confidence in your answer, even though you have no reason to be confident about it.
Which is why both science and religion have the same aim ; the production of a universal system of explanation.
The difference is that science proceeds by dealing with observed reality and bases its conclusions on facts while recognizing where it doesn't have an answer yet, while religion just declares that it has all of the answers and tells you to shut up and stop asking difficult questions. "God did it" isn't an explanation in any useful way, unless your goal is to avoid learning more about the world.
I also very much like how you decided to ignore my questionning the fact that your beleif in scientific proof is as 'unproovable' as the beleif in God.
Sorry, I don't waste time on self-congratulatory philosophy like that. Arguing that everything is unprovable is only interesting to people sitting around smoking pot and trying to impress each other with how "deep" their latest insight is.
whembly wrote: At it's basis, faith is something that is believed with strong conviction. That's all.
That's not true at all. I have a strong conviction that 1+1=2, but I don't need faith to have that conviction because I have indisputable fact. I have a strong conviction that the earth is round, but I don't have faith that it is round because I have evidence that it is round.
Faith only comes up when you don't have good reasons but still want to believe.
whembly wrote: At it's basis, faith is something that is believed with strong conviction. That's all.
That's not true at all. I have a strong conviction that 1+1=2, but I don't need faith to have that conviction because I have indisputable fact. I have a strong conviction that the earth is round, but I don't have faith that it is round because I have evidence that it is round.
Faith only comes up when you don't have good reasons but still want to believe.
That's one definition... but you're anti-religious views are sneaking in...
It can ALSO be: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone
whembly wrote: That's one definition... but you're anti-religious views are sneaking in...
It can ALSO be: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone
Again, without good reason. If I trust that my employee isn't stealing from the cash register I'm believing it without proof. If I have proof from counting all of the cash every day and finding no errors then I don't trust that they aren't stealing, I know that they aren't stealing.
Sorry, but that's just silly. We don't hesitate to state "X doesn't exist" when X is something that the majority doesn't believe in, we only make a special exception for religion because we're terrified of offending people.
Actually we hesitate all the time. That's why researchers say "It doesn't appear as though X exists." as opposed to "X does not exist." It is only when discussing God that people seem to lose their heads, on both sides of the argument. The reason for this isn't terror regarding offense, but terror regarding uncertainty.
dogma wrote: Actually we hesitate all the time. That's why researchers say "It doesn't appear as though X exists." as opposed to "X does not exist." It is only when discussing God that people seem to lose their heads, on both sides of the argument. The reason for this isn't terror regarding offense, but terror regarding uncertainty.
Yes, if you want to talk only about scientific studies which also tend to include estimates about the probability of being wrong. But in everyday language we don't say "your invisible friend Bob probably doesn't exist", we say "Bob is a delusion, go seek professional help asap".
Also, researchers tend to say that because it's early in their research, and they don't want to jump to conclusions. Attempts to prove god exists, on the other hand, have been failing completely for so long that it is no longer reasonable to expect any other outcome, and absolutely reasonable to drop the "probably not" disclaimer when talking about the subject.
dogma wrote: Then why are you presenting yourself as a self-assured atheist?
Yeah, because being confident enough to say that the only rational belief is "there is no god" is the same as declaring that everything is unprovable so we should doubt everything equally.
Yes, if you want to talk only about scientific studies which also tend to include estimates about the probability of being wrong. But in everyday language we don't say "your invisible friend Bob probably doesn't exist", we say "Bob is a delusion, go seek professional help asap".
When I am discussing religion in public I generally say "Your invisible friend Bob probably doesn't exist." I do this because I am not overly judgmental.
Also, researchers tend to say that because it's early in their research, and they don't want to jump to conclusions.
As a professional researcher, I can tell you that is completely wrong. When making a claim from research the author is [/i]always[i] expected to note that the conclusion is derived only from a selected body of information. Sometimes it doesn't happen, but then the reader assumes it was meant to unless the offense passes into egregious territory.
Yeah, because being confident enough to say that the only rational belief is "there is no god" is the same as declaring that everything is unprovable so we should doubt everything equally.
dogma wrote: When I am discussing religion in public I generally say "Your invisible friend Bob probably doesn't exist." I do this because I am not overly judgmental.
And if someone literally started telling you about Bob (not as an analogy for god) would you still be so polite?
Also, congratulations on admitting that it's not about some kind of objective truth/proof/whatever, and whether you say "no god" or "probably no god" is about how polite or judgmental you want to be.
As a professional researcher, I can tell you that is completely wrong. When making a claim from research the author is [/i]always[i] expected to note that the conclusion is derived only from a selected body of information. Sometimes it doesn't happen, but then the reader assumes it was meant to unless the offense passes into egregious territory.
Are you seriously telling me that if a physics researcher is writing a paper they have to put a "probably" disclaimer on F=M*A?
Also, congratulations on admitting that it's not about some kind of objective truth/proof/whatever, and whether you say "no god" or "probably no god" is about how polite or judgmental you want to be.
Are you seriously telling me that if a physics researcher is writing a paper they have to put a "probably" disclaimer on F=M*A?
I'm telling you that when researchers make claims from research that they are expected to note that their conclusions are derived from that research.
If a physics researcher were making a claim about force, then he would need to citeNewton. Much as I need to cite Ken Waltz whenever I talk about realism.
Peregrine wrote: There is, but both are irrational. We don't hesitate at all to call people delusional for believing in things in the absence of evidence (for example, if I tell you all about my invisible friend Bob who is standing right next to you), and the only reason we make a special exception for religion is to be polite to the majority. It's completely inconsistent to make that special exception, and ridiculous to pretend that there's some kind of philosophical justification for it rather than just politeness.
Speak for yourself, because I don't do it just to be polite. I do it because I can see the limitations of my own conclusions, and the lack of evidence for them. And so I think it would the height of arrogance to start condemning someone else for forming a different conclusion on just as little evidence.
dogma wrote: Yes, because such a person is dangerous.
Oh good, so you admit that this is all just about how confrontational you want to act, not how justified the belief is.
I said no such thing.
Yes you did. You cited your desire to avoid being judgmental, not any kind of argument that calling the belief delusion would be unjustified.
I'm telling you that when researchers make claims from research that they are expected to note that their conclusions are derived from that research.
Even when they're stating obvious truths that are completely uncontroversial? Are you seriously telling me that you would need to waste space in a paper citing basic equations like F=M*A, or going back to the original research on calculus before you can solve an integral? Because if that's true, it's really stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Speak for yourself, because I don't do it just to be polite. I do it because I can see the limitations of my own conclusions, and the lack of evidence for them. And so I think it would the height of arrogance to start condemning someone else for forming a different conclusion on just as little evidence.
Yeah, I'm sure you really accept the limits of your own conclusions about someone's imaginary friend, and give serious consideration to the thought that you might be wrong and there might be an invisible person standing right next to you. I'm sure you are very humble and treat this claim with just as much respect as a claim that the earth is round, and aren't just pretending otherwise to win a forum argument.
And sure, I'll admit that it might be true, you might be obsessively polite and nice and hate being judgmental at any time, but most people aren't. Most people have completely different standards for what proves something true or false when they're talking about everyday things vs. when they're talking about their god.
Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
Wow. This takes the cake as the most pathetic and worthless comment I have seen on this site yet. Get yourself a cookie man, no bigger crap has ever been dropped in here.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anyone to give a crap about what you say after this. And yes, that is probably the most polite way of responding to your statement.
Oh good, so you admit that this is all just about how confrontational you want to act, not how justified the belief is.
That isn't what I said, that is the inference you drew.
Someone going on about Bob is strange, and most likely delusional, because very few people believe in Bob's existence. The Bobite is a strange man, the theist is not.
Even when they're stating obvious truths that are completely uncontroversial? Are you seriously telling me that you would need to waste space in a paper citing basic equations like F=M*A, or going back to the original research on calculus before you can solve an integral? Because if that's true, it's really stupid.
No, I am not. I am telling you what I wrote. If you are making an argument with respect to a fundamental principle, you must cite that principle.
dogma wrote: Someone going on about Bob is strange, and most likely delusional, because very few people believe in Bob's existence. The Bobite is a strange man, the theist is not.
Since when does the popularity of a belief matter? The fact that lots of people believe in god just means that lots of people are wrong.
You also didn't make a coherent argument that theism is delusional.
Belief in ANYTHING despite a complete absence of proof, or even a good argument, is delusion. You're out of touch with reality, and believing something out of stubborn refusal to accept a fact that you don't like.
No, I am not. I am telling you what I wrote. If you are making an argument with respect to a fundamental principle, you must cite that principle.
Welcome to academia.
Oh good, so we're changing the subject. We started with a statement that you have to include a "this is not 100% absolute indisputable fact, we could be wrong" disclaimer when doing research, and now we've completely changed that to having to cite your sources. These are two entirely different things.
Since when does the popularity of a belief matter?
The beginning of time? When lots of people believe in a thing, regardless of the truth of the belief, their belief matters and renders what they believe material.
Belief in ANYTHING despite a complete absence of proof, or even a good argument, is delusion. You're out of touch with reality, and believing something out of stubborn refusal to accept a fact that you don't like.
Oh good, so we're changing the subject. We started with a statement that you have to include a "this is not 100% absolute indisputable fact, we could be wrong" disclaimer when doing research, and now we've completely changed that to having to cite your sources. These are two entirely different things.
Why are you using quotation marks? You aren't quoting me, so who are you quoting?
So, again, that is not what I said. I would appreciate it if you took the time to engage me honestly.
dogma wrote: The beginning of time? When lots of people believe in a thing, regardless of the truth of the belief, their belief matters and renders what they believe material.
So when lots of people believed that it was ok to own slaves that was relevant to whether it was? When lots of people believed the sun revolved around the earth that mattered, until the majority opinion changed and moved the sun?
That isn't an argument which deals with theism.
Of course it is. Theism is a belief without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. The only reason we don't call it delusion like any other imaginary friend is because we want to be polite to the majority who suffer from the unfortunate belief.
Why are you using quotation marks? You aren't quoting me, so who are you quoting?
Go read grammar 101.
So, again, that is not what I said. I would appreciate it if you took the time to engage me honestly.
Not in those words, but let's look at your actual quote:
That's why researchers say "It doesn't appear as though X exists." as opposed to "X does not exist."
Can you honestly not tell the difference between your initial quote which talks about stating a degree of uncertainty rather than an absolute "no" and your most recent statement which is talking about citing your sources?
Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
Wow. This takes the cake as the most pathetic and worthless comment I have seen on this site yet. Get yourself a cookie man, no bigger crap has ever been dropped in here.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anyone to give a crap about what you say after this. And yes, that is probably the most polite way of responding to your statement.
I'd like to applaud this as a solid response to an idiotic question. Dogma and Sebster are doing excellent work as well. Peregrine, congrats you've earned a spot on my ignore list for awhile. Maybe when I take you off you'll be more coherent and less bombastic. You remind me of a kid in my high school, found "no god" about our Junior year and was always in people's faces about it.
Always seemed a rather insecure mode of behavior to me.
Can you honestly not tell the difference between your initial quote which talks about stating a degree of uncertainty rather than an absolute "no" and your most recent statement which is talking about citing your sources?
Yes I can, which is why I differentiated between the two.
What is the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: I'm an Atheist and even I find some of Peregrine's views on religion offensive.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, I'm sure you really accept the limits of your own conclusions about someone's imaginary friend, and give serious consideration to the thought that you might be wrong and there might be an invisible person standing right next to you.
A thing with generations of history, thought and reflection is not the same thing as something a person just made up on the spot. Despite what the internet might tell you, Pastafarianism isn't a real religion for a whole lot of important reasons.
I'm sure you are very humble and treat this claim with just as much respect as a claim that the earth is round
No, because that would be a belief despite the evidence. We've been through this.
And sure, I'll admit that it might be true, you might be obsessively polite and nice and hate being judgmental at any time, but most people aren't.
No, I like being judgemental. I'm judging you right now, and it's quite fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: I'm an Atheist and even I find some of Peregrine's views on religion offensive.
Me too. The biggest problem I have with Peregrine's view is that, ultimately, he isn't really arguing for atheism, he's really just arguing against pluralism, against the idea that it is okay if different people form different beliefs on a thing without clear evidence pointing any particular way.
Peregrine wrote: Faith is a weakness, not a virtue. It's just an excuse for believing things you shouldn't believe, and I'm tired of people praising it like it's something desirable.
Faith can be a useful tool - For example, a family friend had cancer. She was told she had 6 months. She had faith that it would somehow resolve itself. She ended up surviving.
I'm not saying her faith healed her - But it kept her getting out of bed every day and not giving up. She believed in something she was told wasn't going to happen, which was based on empirical evidence.
A stubborn refusal to accept things CAN be useful.
What is there to quantify? There isn't even the slightest scrap of evidence for god, therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement, and that "god exists" is a false statement on the level of "1+1=5".
The evidence is there, reams of it. What you are deliberately lacking is definitive proof, because God wants it that way. At first I thought you mistook the words proof for evidence and tried to provide evidence for you. Even to the point of testimony of someone raised from the dead, who I had also met at the start of his ministry after he was raised. However as shown by your reiteration of your mantra that there is no evidence for God doing so is futile. You deny that there is any scrap of evidence because that is your preferred dogma, showing you the evidence, as has been attempted in the past will not get past your dogma. That is not to say that the evidence doesn't exist.
therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement,
This needs looking at further, not just for your befit Peregrine but mostly to help anyone who might be hoodwinked into thinking you had a valid points.
For a start a lot of what we believe in is theory without proof, sometimes theories are proved sometimes they remain elusive but believed. So even in the hard sciences there is room to believe things on the evidence even if proof is elusive, and yes there is evidence for God also (see above).
Even Richard Dawkins, though not many of his rabid disciples, admits that he has no proof God doesn't exist, he simply considers it unlikely. I can respect that opinion.
Most evidence for God is testimonial, very little is experimental. However testimonial evidence is good enough for most forms of burden of proof including in courts of law, so attempts to deny testimony as invalid are futile as testimonial evidence underpins much of our societal bond anyway.
There is just as much proof for God as there is that my parents love me. It's about personal life experiences, yet one is good enough for him and one isn't.
d-usa wrote: There is just as much proof for God as there is that my parents love me. It's about personal life experiences, yet one is good enough for him and one isn't.
So you hear an invisible being tell you that he loves you on a regular basis?
And you had an invisible being feed you and nurture you from the moment you were born?
Because those were the things that my parents done for me that prove to me that they love me. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that any imaginary beings exist, despite the mass delusions of the majority of the human race stating otherwise...
I have yet to see the delusional idiots come into this thread and be dung holes to people that disagree with them and act holier than everybody else. The majority of atheists in this thread seem to manage tolerance and talking about this without insulting everybody that doesn't agree with them.
Pro- tip: if your fellow atheists think you are acing like a fether, then you are probably acting like a fether.
For a start a lot of what we believe in is theory without proof, sometimes theories are proved sometimes they remain elusive but believed. So even in the hard sciences there is room to believe things on the evidence even if proof is elusive, and yes there is evidence for God also (see above).
Proof in this context is a preponderance of evidence.
Most evidence for God is testimonial, very little is experimental. However testimonial evidence is good enough for most forms of burden of proof including in courts of law, so attempts to deny testimony as invalid are futile as testimonial evidence underpins much of our societal bond anyway.
But not all testimony is equivalent. A blind man saying that he saw a black man robbing a store isn't a witness equivalent to a man with 20/10 vision saying the same. Similarly, more credence is given to people who produce arguments developed with the support of experimental* evidence than those who do not. And following the rules of argument will net you brownie points as well.
*This is a key word. Simply doing a thing is not experimental in the scientific sense.
d-usa wrote: I have yet to see the delusional idiots come into this thread and be dung holes to people that disagree with them and act holier than everybody else. The majority of atheists in this thread seem to manage tolerance and talking about this without insulting everybody that doesn't agree with them.
Pro- tip: if your fellow atheists think you are acing like a fether, then you are probably acting like a fether.
Sorry, I don't waste time on self-congratulatory philosophy like that. Arguing that everything is unprovable is only interesting to people sitting around smoking pot and trying to impress each other with how "deep" their latest insight is.
As for the proof of science: it works.
If you don't 'waste time' on philosophy you aren't fit to debate the existence of God. If you cannot see the difference between an argument serving to show that foundational objects are undefinable and unproovable, and an argument that show that everything is unprovable, you aren't fit to sit in a college chair.
And I didn't ask for a proof of science, I asked for an experiment that prooved the demonstrative value of experiments. Unless you are willing to admit that you only have faith in science...
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
What the feth is this gak? Next you'll be saying that dogs have two penises and humans are reptiles.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
Next you'll be saying that dogs have two penises and humans are reptiles.
Nooo! Don't invoke David Icke! if you reference his theories enough on the internet, You become one of our reptile overlords or possibly an alien mason!
And on topic
@ Breotan
Why is christianity not a religion?
Could you explain a little more please?
Are you saying christianity is an umbrella term and the branches you referenced are the religions?
I think the argument made is that Christianity is not one thing, but that it actually contains many different rules and beliefs that can actually be contrary to each other. So I think for some maybe faith has been used as the umbrella terms with the actual rule sets (denominations) used as the actual religions, or maybe some people are taking religion to mean more along the lines of "organized religion" and nothing else.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
You don't get to make up what words mean.
Yes we do. for example:
I am gay.
Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy.
But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..
Religion has a double meaning, in one context Breotan is correct, in another he is incorrect. however he described which sub-context he used the word religion correctly in this case. Outside of a theological thread it would behhove him to say he is "religious" if he is a Christian out of common clarity.
Religion has a double meaning, in one context Breotan is correct, in another he is incorrect. however he described which sub-context he used the word religion correctly in this case. Outside of a theological thread it would behhove him to say he is "religious" if he is a Christian out of common clarity.
However, there are numerous theologians, and other scholars of religious behavior who would propose a definition religion that includes any possible definition of "Christian". And all of these definitions are relevant in a thread about theology.
To hearken back to your comment about the nature of religious preferences in terms of religious principle: How might one determine what separates a religious principle from an ordinary principle without first assigning religion a particular nature that separates it from basic, repetitive action (That is to say, prevents all forms of eating from being religious)? I mean, most atheists do engage in repetitive behaviors specific to atheists, but so do politicians, businessmen, teachers, etc. However, no one would call the unique, repetitive behaviors of politicians, businessmen, and teachers religious, so why do you refer to those of atheists in such a fashion?
To simplify, how can you differentiate between religious preference and religion without creating a definition of "religious" that necessarily turns on any belief, or non-belief, regarding God without implying that Christianity is a religion? Because, honestly, Christianity isn't very much like theism or atheism and if you're proceeding in your nomenclature from the "religions" of Catholicism et al, assigning the phrase "religious preference" to atheism (and presumably theism) seems a bit odd.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
Why is christianity not a religion? Could you explain a little more please? Are you saying christianity is an umbrella term and the branches you referenced are the religions?
Umbrella is a good analogy. Using that analogy, I maintain that Christianity is indeed a faith (a broad, umbrella-like set of beliefs) and not a religion (collection of specific beliefs, orthodoxy, dogma, practicies, and creed).
Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodoxy are the three major religions that make up Christianity. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are also (technically) religions that call themselves Christians even though they are not, but that's a debate for another discussion thread.
Various schisms in these religions over the past 2000 years have led to significant differences in sacraments, views on Heaven and Hell, and even different bible content. For example, Catholic bibles have books that the Protestants consider apocryphal and thus do not have in their bible. The Protestants (mostly) consider the Book of Revalations to be prophesy while Catholics do not. Dispite all the overlap in beliefs, the differences between the religions that make up Christianity are significant and fundamental to the point that they are nearly as distinct from each other as they are from Judaism or Islam.
But, yes, I understand that a lot of people like to view religions only in the broadest catagories possible. It's easier to keep track of things, I guess.
Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from on this.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
Why is christianity not a religion? Could you explain a little more please? Are you saying christianity is an umbrella term and the branches you referenced are the religions?
Umbrella is a good analogy. Using that analogy, I maintain that Christianity is indeed a faith (a broad, umbrella-like set of beliefs) and not a religion (collection of specific beliefs, orthodoxy, dogma, practicies, and creed).
Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodoxy are the three major religions that make up Christianity. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are also (technically) religions that call themselves Christians even though they are not, but that's a debate for another discussion thread.
Protestant is another umbrella term, and is by far the section of Christianity which has the most different sects within it. An argument for the separation of Russian and Greek Orthodoxy could also be made. For the Orthodoxists of Eastern Europe tend to follow the Bishop of Moscow do they not? Where as Greek Orthodoxy follow the Bishop of Constantinople. Though it could be said that actual practitioners follow both to some degree or another. Catholics, even though they have various sects, are all pretty much unified by the supremacy of the Pope though.
Breotan wrote: Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.
Why is christianity not a religion? Could you explain a little more please? Are you saying christianity is an umbrella term and the branches you referenced are the religions?
Umbrella is a good analogy. Using that analogy, I maintain that Christianity is indeed a faith (a broad, umbrella-like set of beliefs) and not a religion (collection of specific beliefs, orthodoxy, dogma, practicies, and creed).
Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodoxy are the three major religions that make up Christianity. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are also (technically) religions that call themselves Christians even though they are not, but that's a debate for another discussion thread.
Protestant is another umbrella term, and is by far the section of Christianity which has the most different sects within it. An argument for the separation of Russian and Greek Orthodoxy could also be made. For the Orthodoxists of Eastern Europe tend to follow the Bishop of Moscow do they not? Where as Greek Orthodoxy follow the Bishop of Constantinople. Though it could be said that actual practitioners follow both to some degree or another. Catholics, even though they have various sects, are all pretty much unified by the supremacy of the Pope though.
You are mostly correct, Sir, although it's the authority of the Holy See, not the Pope specifically that unifies branches of the Catholic Church. I didn't have enough knowledge of the Greek and Russian Orthodoxy to know if they were actually separate religions or not so I just mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy and left it at that.
sebster wrote:Me too. The biggest problem I have with Peregrine's view is that, ultimately, he isn't really arguing for atheism, he's really just arguing against pluralism, against the idea that it is okay if different people form different beliefs on a thing with clear evidence pointing any particular way.
If there is clear evidence pointing in a particular way, then isn't an unfounded belief to the contrary also called willful blindness? I mean, by its very definition.
d-usa wrote:There is just as much proof for God as there is that my parents love me. It's about personal life experiences, yet one is good enough for him and one isn't.
I think this is reaching somewhat. You believe God loves you, despite no demonstrative evidence of such. However, your parents have likely told you they love you directly; and probably have performed countless actions over the years that would at least create a strong circumstantial case. We cannot make that claim insofar as God is concerned.
Breotan wrote: Using that analogy, I maintain that Christianity is indeed a faith (a broad, umbrella-like set of beliefs) and not a religion (collection of specific beliefs, orthodoxy, dogma, practicies, and creed).
How is an umbrella-like set of beliefs not a collection of specific beliefs? Or, how is a set of beliefs not specific?
Various schisms in these religions over the past 2000 years...
So you're saying that Christianity is a religion? After all, modern Christianity is less than 2000 years old, so I must asks which schisms have rendered segments of Christianity religious while others are not so. I would also like to know what those bodies of "religious" thoughts existed prior to Christianity, such that Christianity is not a religion, but those are.
Breotan wrote: Various schisms in these religions over the past 2000 years...
So you're saying that Christianity is a religion? After all, modern Christianity is less than 2000 years old.
I said no such thing and you read no such thing in what I wrote. I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone who wishes to practice contextomy.
Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy. But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..
You have established that words can change meaning, but missed that that has nothing to do with the idea that people don't get to go around changing the meanings of words whenever it helps them make their argument.
"I believe the Ferrari doesn't have a prancing horse for a logo because I think a horse is a kind of hat" is not a viable argument.
Religion has a double meaning, in one context Breotan is correct, in another he is incorrect. however he described which sub-context he used the word religion correctly in this case. Outside of a theological thread it would behhove him to say he is "religious" if he is a Christian out of common clarity.
Religion has many meanings, sure. But it is a nonsense to argue that a thing isn't a religion because it doesn't meet one specific definition, especially when that definition is the most relevant to the discussion at hand. If it meets any of the definitions, it is that thing.
And, in the case of Bill O'Reilly, it's a nonsense argument made to hide away from the simple, obvious fact that Christianity is the dominant religion in the USA.
sebster wrote:Me too. The biggest problem I have with Peregrine's view is that, ultimately, he isn't really arguing for atheism, he's really just arguing against pluralism, against the idea that it is okay if different people form different beliefs on a thing with clear evidence pointing any particular way.
If there is clear evidence pointing in a particular way, then isn't an unfounded belief to the contrary also called willful blindness? I mean, by its very definition.
Sorry, typo on my part there. Should read with as without. That is, it should read, "he's arguing against pluralism, against the idea that it is okay if different people form different beliefs on a thing without clear evidence pointing any particular way."
Kovnik Obama wrote: Faith is the first step in the process of knowledge. In the absence of possible experimentation, you naturally take a stance on speculative matters.
That's not true at all.
In the absence of experimentation you speculate. You propose an answer for purposes of investigating to see if it will help gain knowledge, but you always keep in mind that it's just speculation and you shouldn't have any confidence in your potential answer yet.
You speak as if uncertainty wasn't a part of religious beleif. The thesis of Catholicism, if you take only that particular example, is that there is a universal God that has communicated his love of humanity through his son, Christ, and that this love, amongst many things, is demonstrated by the gift of existence and the immortality of the soul. This thesis will be validated or invalidated for every beleiver once they wake (or not) in God's realm after their death. Because it's not something that can be proven otherwise, it's perfectly admittable to choose your stance. It would only be a sophism if it was argued that God exists because you cannot prove the contrary of the claim (sophism by ignorance)
Many of the beleivers that I know are fully willing to admit that it's entirely possible that God does not exist. But because of p, q, r... they prefer to beleive in his existence. Such a position is perfectly acceptable, unless you can demonstrate that p, q and are are sophisms.
Faith means that you have confidence in your answer, even though you have no reason to be confident about it.
Not at all, it's that you have confidence in your answer despite not having a proof. You can have plenty of reasons and not a single proof.
The difference is that science proceeds by dealing with observed reality and bases its conclusions on facts while recognizing where it doesn't have an answer yet, while religion just declares that it has all of the answers and tells you to shut up and stop asking difficult questions. "God did it" isn't an explanation in any useful way, unless your goal is to avoid learning more about the world.
You know, if your argument relies on lumping all religions togheter and assigning a general bad will to it, then it's hard to take it seriously. I mean, this gives the impression that you are just a angry teenager lashing out at his family for forcing him to attend Church all those sundays...
I really don't know how to approach Christianity in total because I know there are plenty of good christian folks in the world but the wingnut zealots in the bible belt of the U.S. and the insane world history of Christianity make me completely abhor the religion in all of its aspects. I am not the type that goes seeking arguments about this subject but it is hard to take the church seriously when they speak of compassion and such and during the period of the Crusades alone murdered millions in the name of God. And then proceeded during the Inquisition to burn thousands of people to death as witches and for other various religion based offenses that were completely wacko.
I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.
With that said May C'thulu be with you always lol.
If you're going to judge Christianity because of things like the crusades (11th, 12th and 13th century) or the spanish inquisition (1480 - finally abolished in 1834) then why not judge everything by the same standard?
The UK and the USA are both then evil, I'm sure both countries have had too many wars to count which weren't religion based.
I'm not hating either country - I'm just showing why I don't agree with that statement.
If you're going to dislike religion, do it on your own personal experiences.
Christianity (in the UK - IMO) consists of going to church on a sunday, talking to like minded people and helping others.
Would you turn down help on the basis that in the 12th century, someone you've never heard of did something horrible to someone you've never met in somewhere you've never been?
I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.
Fanatics are the problem, not the religion. They also aren't just confined to religion.
Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy.
But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..
You have established that words can change meaning, but missed that that has nothing to do with the idea that people don't get to go around changing the meanings of words whenever it helps them make their argument.
The concept that Christianity is not a religion is as old as the New Testament. Its not a dodge to reclassify religion in order to exclude Christianity.
Please understand that the early church was counter to most religion. Even when not persecuted they tended to meet in peoples houses, there is evidence of women priests at a time when female emancipation of any kind was rare. Though that has to be balanced with an understanding of the counter message in Corinthians that the organised church used to stamp out womens right for centuries.
Christianity started as a movement, only later did it become an organised cyclopean 'church'. Religion is made by politicially minded people, not faith minded people. By the early second century the church was a political organisation as religion was a shortcut to secular power.
For a modern example look at Wesley and the rise of Methodism.
Religion has many meanings, sure. But it is a nonsense to argue that a thing isn't a religion because it doesn't meet one specific definition, especially when that definition is the most relevant to the discussion at hand. If it meets any of the definitions, it is that thing.
Actually when applied at its most elementary level Christianity doesn't have the characteristics of a religion. Religion doesn't necessary mean belief in God or faith, its wider than that and encompasses ritualism. Christianity is entirely practicable without ritual. Good example would be the thief on the cross granted salvation. He did nothing to practice religion, he spent his entire life as a "man of the faith" in a few hours under torturous execution. Jesus said he would make it to heaven anyway.
Now the vast majority of Christians practice religion, and most if not all organised denominations are clearly religious in nature, though some try not to be. This is why I personally find it safer and easier for Christians to say 'yes I am religious' and keep the deeper theology to themselves. It's not a lie to do so, but it's confusing not to.
Christianity is entirely practicable without ritual.
No, it isn't. You've even said that it can't be done. Shocking though it may be, only having two rituals (to ape your words) still means having rituals.
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote: I really don't know how to approach Christianity in total because I know there are plenty of good christian folks in the world but the wingnut zealots in the bible belt of the U.S. and the insane world history of Christianity make me completely abhor the religion in all of its aspects.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of people and religion in the Bible Belt, and maybe of the South in general. The vast majority of us are good people, with a healthy love for God. Please don't lump us in with those Westboro Baptists (which are in Yankee Kansas, not the Bible Belt) or Terry Jones. And really, if those few and extreme examples make you abhor Christianity, then I really have to question whether or not you have even a tenuous grasp of what constitutes our faith.
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote: I am not the type that goes seeking arguments about this subject but it is hard to take the church seriously when they speak of compassion and such and during the period of the Crusades alone murdered millions in the name of God
While there certainly were terrible things done during the Crusades, by both sides mind you, please consider the very simple fact that the Crusades were very much a political response, sadly draped in the frock of religion, to militant expansion by Muslim forces.
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote: And then proceeded during the Inquisition to burn thousands of people to death as witches and for other various religion based offenses that were completely wacko.
So, before we start going all Edgar Allen Poe on the Inquisition, let me ask you a few questions. Which Inquisition are you referring to? How many people do you think were put to death by the Church? I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition, because that was the only one that had any ability to actually sentence people to death, and it was not overseen by the Church, but rather by the Spanish monarchy. Any rational person can see that it was a political tool utilized by the Spanish monarchs to aid them during the Reconquista, because nobody holds a grudge like a Spaniard.
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote: I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.
The catholic Church (being a good Anglican, I am careful with my capitalization ) has never been a perfect institution, but if you are going to pass such a harsh judgement, especially in light of your grasp of the facts, then I suggest you start applying it to everything in your life.
) - Christians have learned to use faith as an aid to help in the day to day, life if you take this away, they lose something. If someone has no religion, it's their choice entirely what they do. And forcing religion on someone is also unfair
)
Seriously? Faith is a weakness? And I'm not just talking about the religious side of faith either...o.O
who sits around dreaming about how much that girl loves him and how they're destined to be together forever while she doesn't even know that he exists.
