Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Dael you're right. Every one of your statements is correct.
Now what?

It's Miller time!

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Dael you're right. Every one of your statements is correct.
Now what?

It's Miller time!

Miller? Really?

ok, dogma, you are making an effort here, so you deserve a responce in kind.

dogma wrote:
I don't know of any forms of atheism that require anything, its hard to require things when there is no one, or no thing, there to do the requiring. Unless you're positing that something like communism is a form of atheism. That's wrong of course, but not beyond you. In fact I think you've done it before.

Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.
On a practical level due to human nature people defend their belief structures, often with gusto. Fervid indifference doesn't exist.

Too many people claim they have their 'lack of belief' rather than a 'belief of lack', and defend the argument emotively. This indicates that a personal choice has been made, an emotive inclusion in the choice of whether to believe in God or not reveals that a faith choice has been made.

Humans are emotive creatures, thanatonic existentialism is part of our core nature, we forsee our mortal end, we do so from an early age, we have understanding of hope so whether we agree with an afterflife or not and any attendant spiritual ethic we all have personal set opinions on validity of the religious. Those who claim they have not made a faith choice are deluding themselves, at some level or another we have all engaged the question emotively, because that is how man is wired. The best one can hope for with a logical mind is a temporary answer with hope to revise the answer when more data presents itself. whether intended to be temporary or not the answer is given and is a valid faith choice.
You me everyone has a faith decision made already, whether or not they think they will change it or are waiting for a better one..

dogma wrote:
But, assuming they exist, you'll note I never said it was an unfair question, I said it wasn't a hard question. There are many answers to it, most of them very easy. The first that comes to mind is that the removal of religion need not be morally superior to anything to be desirable. The question is only hard if you're arguing that atheism is morally superior to theism of all kinds, which not all atheists do. If you're going to ask a pointed question, you need to know you're pointing it at.

I have little interest in which faith choice is morally superior as the answer is subjective, we also cannot all be right. A Buddhist may think that they have The Way and a Christian might claim to have Light & Truth, an atheist may claim Reason. Each are paramount in their own minds. In fairness ones own opinion cannot be weighted higher than any other, even if one believes on is right. So is another person thinks they have it right and me wrong, i have no moral choice but to respect that if I consider the sentiment genuine.

That was a good question though dogma.

dogma wrote:
As to Muslims, that's a really, really easy question and the answer is "Yes." A hard question would be "What is Jihad?"

Jihad is explained in the Koran, that question can be echoed with a quote or two. Asking for whether an individual believer agrees with jihad as written is something else, it involves a moral choice and some aren't up with that the RAW says.
Same with Biblical comments on homosexuality. Its easy to ask what they are, its harder to justify the theology behind them..

dogma wrote:
No, that's completely wrong. You don't make a faith choice when you do not believe that a thing exists, indeed that's the very essence of the distinction. If no proof is given, and I do not believe, I am not taking anything on faith. Instead I am aware of the absence of proof.

Faith is evidence in the unseen, in the religious context specifically a choice whether to believe in the divine or not. There is no proof of God or proof against. If you do or do not believe God exists a faith choice is made, a category is chosen. I stop short of calling that actual 'religion' though.

dogma wrote:
There is no reason for morality to enter into it as the real issue is one of truth value, not the good, the right, or whatever particular ethical moray you want to reference.
If you mean the question of "Is there a God?" then a perfectly acceptable answer is "I don't believe so, but I don't know." which represents an appreciation of the lack of evidence without committing to an explicit belief on the level of certainty.

That does however remain a faith choice against. Few answers are certain, even those of faith have doubts, even those who make a faith choice to reject the concept of God might question it.. Richard Dawkins tried a model of belief in the divine on a rating of 1-7 with 1 being a firm positive and 7 a firm negative. He placed himself at 6. Despite his firm atheist beleifs he would not say there is definately no God.

dogma wrote:
I'm not guessing at anything, I'm interpreting your past behavior relative to this topic.

Which is to be patient for the most part and state my case firmly but as respectfully as I can. You are no less repetitive.
Of late I had lots of discussions with people who try the one liner dismissal which translates as 'lalala not listening'. When I get those I don't bother with a proper reply anymore, why put in the work if its to be dismissed out of hand.

To your credit you actually bother to post a reply now. We don't get on, but I should at least address your comments when you take the time to make them..
That at least is a form of olive branch.

Lastly on this:

dogma wrote:
No, he [Stalin] killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.

Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'. Reason is a fair paraphrase IMHO. If you disagree I can replace 'reason' with 'Scientific Truth' as its is the phrase the Soviets actually used. To the Soviet Union the party embodied progress and the Soviet Union itself was the model for Scientific Truth, with it replacing all previous belief systems, which are considered erroneous and obsolete.
Stalin being Stalin he didnt put the point across a nice way, but the policy started with Lenin and was echoed by all following leaders until Gorbachev.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.

Again, that's entirely wrong. There is a difference between rejecting God based on the evidence, or lack thereof, that exists and rejecting the possibility that God exists. Rejecting the possibility is a faith choice. Rejecting the evidence, not believing that God exists, is not.

Orlanth wrote:
On a practical level due to human nature people defend their belief structures, often with gusto. Fervid indifference doesn't exist.

Sure it does. When people, such as yourself, try to tell others what they must believe fervid indifference follows naturally. Especially when you start talking about "spirit" and other such aesthetic nonsense as though it were somehow fact.

Orlanth wrote:
Too many people claim they have their 'lack of belief' rather than a 'belief of lack', and defend the argument emotively.

Sure, but others don't, and many do because people like you keep insisting that a faith choice is necessary when it absolutely is not. Even to insist as such is to completely misunderstand what faith is.

Orlanth wrote:
The best one can hope for with a logical mind is a temporary answer with hope to revise the answer when more data presents itself. whether intended to be temporary or not the answer is given and is a valid faith choice.

No, it isn't. If I claim "Given the available data, this must be true." I'm not arguing from faith.

Orlanth wrote:
Jihad is explained in the Koran, that question can be echoed with a quote or two. Asking for whether an individual believer agrees with jihad as written is something else, it involves a moral choice and some aren't up with that the RAW says.

"As written" is an interesting, and not particularly useful, phrase when applied to scripture.

Orlanth wrote:
Faith is evidence in the unseen, in the religious context specifically a choice whether to believe in the divine or not. There is no proof of God or proof against. If you do or do not believe God exists a faith choice is made, a category is chosen. I stop short of calling that actual 'religion' though.

No, it isn't. I cannot explain this more clearly. Not believing in a thing is not the same as believing it does not exist.

Orlanth wrote:
Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'.

Have a quote? Because I don't recall that.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'.

Have a quote? Because I don't recall that.

Only wiki for now....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

You would be right to ask for more, but sorry at the moment no......

Because I dont want to have to buy this:
http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/scientific_truth_and_political_authority_in_the_soviet_union

Ah found one:

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf
pages 45-48 in particular


As for the other issues. I am going to agree to disagree today. We have been over this before, and likely will again.

Anything about the Societ Union written before 1992, should be burned and ignored, cause its probably wrong. Just saying

"As i said before, i wouldnt classify slavery as immoral"
Jeez, Lady, why the hell would you say that?
And the slaves that where treated well?
Where is my rage button?

Orlanth wrote:
As for the other issues. I am going to agree to disagree today. We have been over this before, and likely will again.

Not seeing many direct quotes regarding "scientific truth".

"Scientific atheism" is not the same thing, though the author you're quoting makes that mistake (and is basically just paraphrasing the weak argument you've made before).

not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"

So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well

As to those enraged by the slavery comments... my argument is that, if you want to put a modern term to things, it's an extended Prisoner of War period.... When most people think of slavery, the first thing they think of is the model developed and used in the 17 to mid 1800s, wherein one specific group was targeted and sold... But in ancient days, when you conquered a nation, you further ensured your victory by taking prisoners of that nation and enslaving them, this would further reduce the enemies will and ability to resist your nation, as well as making yours stronger, if only in appearance. So, slavery in that context can be seen as a "moral" act, whereas the more modern version would definitely be seen as immoral. But of course, because the lady who makes her comments has no first hand knowledge of slavery, much less any historical studies background, she couldn't articulate why she thought it would have at one point in time, been ok to enslave people but then it be changed to where slavery was wrong.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"

So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well

As to those enraged by the slavery comments... my argument is that, if you want to put a modern term to things, it's an extended Prisoner of War period.... When most people think of slavery, the first thing they think of is the model developed and used in the 17 to mid 1800s, wherein one specific group was targeted and sold... But in ancient days, when you conquered a nation, you further ensured your victory by taking prisoners of that nation and enslaving them, this would further reduce the enemies will and ability to resist your nation, as well as making yours stronger, if only in appearance. So, slavery in that context can be seen as a "moral" act, whereas the more modern version would definitely be seen as immoral. But of course, because the lady who makes her comments has no first hand knowledge of slavery, much less any historical studies background, she couldn't articulate why she thought it would have at one point in time, been ok to enslave people but then it be changed to where slavery was wrong.

Having a model of expediency behind an act doesn't make it moral. Extended POW? I don't think so.

Has it been 3 weeks since the last thread already?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"

So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well

Unitarians aren't atheists. They're just nondescript theists, very much like Spinoza.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.

It doesnt though does it? I mean, I used to say I was an atheist, now I dont much give a feth, ive mellowed with age, so im pretty much agnostic until I decide otherwise.

The only possible way that an atheist can make a faith choice is if he is a ridiculous atheist, a militant douchebag type of which even Richard Dawkins isn't one because he said "maybe there IS something" out there. I wont deny that there are some atheists out there who are nuts about it, and just seem to like the idea of pissing in peoples chips out of spite, but most people without faith are definately like the vast majority of British people, basically, dont think about it very much-agnostic, who likely have C of E on their birth certificate.

So, that being the case, if most of us, and even RD hasn't made a choice (he isn't 100% certain) surely no faith is required?

I don't definitely think that there isn't a God, I just think its very unlikely, and even more unlikely that the God is the Christian/Muslim one that massively gives a feth about my sex life.

How does that require faith?

You lot just keep going on about it Orlanth (Christians-and creationists especially) because your the ones who are desperate for it to be the case. If we all make a faith choice, then your faith choice looks less silly.

I haven't made a faith choice, I just reckon its likely I am right. I will gladly change my mind if God speaks to me, or I see/dream something that convinces me otherwise!

The only one who is sure mate, is you.

The trouble is matty, so many atheists say they have no faith, its all lack.

If this was so why the fervour. You just cant get worked up over a non-belief, however if a beleif system is engaged then human nature steps in and a proportion rant and rage.

You made a lot of comments in the past about religious this and religious that. You are free to do so, but don't avoid the fact you are emotionally engaged, its not all cold hard reason, if it was you wouldn't write what you do, neither would I. You have made a heart decision to pick a side for one faith set or another, in your case a form of atheism.

Atheists don't fit into boxes no more than Christians or Buddhists do, many believe different things and to different extents, but the full fervour of relgiosity can be found there similar to any other faitch choice group.

I dont care why someone says they are Buddhist, if the box is ticked its their choice. atheists are just the same, but some want to place atheism on a different pedestal, call it all reason and claim to be above religiosity.

Many of the same atheists then bad mouth other faith choices with no less venom than a jihadist.

The dangeorus fallacy, and it is dangerous, is to let atheism off the hook of scrutiny required to keep all people of faith choices on the level. Because the worst kind of fanatic is one who blindly thinks they are reasonable.

Any honest man will need to self assess, heart choices lead to fervid opinions. This is ok, this is human nature, but to be in denial of ones own emotional engagement is risky.

There is no firm reason behind atheism, its a choice, evidence can be seen either way, its how you prefer to view it. Some people will look at testimony and think 'I see the divine in this' other might think 'I see nothing', our choices are not determined solely by the evidence but by our internal jury. We individually have our own standards as to what is admissable as evidence.

You rove his here, you accuse some faith choices as being a 'silly' I might agree with you, over certain ones and term other rational in separation to you. To some denying God in the face of what you se all around you is wshat silly, you might and probably do flat out disagree with that, but both are personal choices, emotive choices, and in a very real way faith choices.

If you put you and I in a room and told to describe what is on the table, we would choose different words. Those words would indicated what we might consider important about what we see. This is human nature. We all choose our own path, and think that reasonable - unless we set out to be deliberately unreasonable, which we will leave out for now.
So even well intentioned people will have different viewpoints with the same information, with an emotive subject like religion this results in emotive argument.

Faith isnt simply a question of God: Yes or No. It goes much deeper than that, if it didnt we would probably all get along, if it didnt different faith groups would, even centuries ago see each others no more than appreciators of a different artform, or as people who have different favourite colours.
Sadly its not like that, faith engages. Atheism engages as much as Islam, if there is a difference in how many go off the wall its because education and ancillary factors are different. If Iran was an atheist state, but run as its run by people brought up as they are brought up now they would be hollering and screaming for the no-God.

Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged. Sure Dawkins isn't 100% certain God doesn't exist, whoop-e-do he still hates enough for several who do. Just look at what he writes and the contempt he holds for others of a different world view. 'Deluded', how can they be deluded if he is not even sure they are wrong, the answer is because he feels they are.

We are all potentially as fanatical as each other, depending on how we act upon our own biases. One of our biases is our spiritual belief system and one of those options is atheism. I am no better than an atheist in this respect, but it depends on which atheist, some understand we are all creatures of desires, instincts and whims, Dawkins himself knows that from his biology days.
However some thing that atheism is a different thought medium not a different conclusion. Please dont kid yourself, those with a 'lack of belief' get to foam at the mouth with the best of 'em. Welcome to the human condition.

Orlanth wrote:
If this was so why the fervour. You just cant get worked up over a non-belief, however if a beleif system is engaged then human nature steps in and a proportion rant and rage.

You can get worked up over non-belief when people make crap arguments that attempt at requiring their necessary faith.

You can also just get worked up over people making crap arguments, especially when they start talking about "human nature" like its a particular thing.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged. Sure Dawkins isn't 100% certain God doesn't exist, whoop-e-do he still hates enough for several who do. Just look at what he writes and the contempt he holds for others of a different world view. 'Deluded', how can they be deluded if he is not even sure they are wrong, the answer is because he feels they are.

Strawman.

How do you not see that what hate is directed at is important? Is the hatred of broccoli sufficient to qualify as the hatred of those who believe God does not exist?

Same old dogma. Why post as reason when you can call an argument 'crap' and walk off.

You get too involved hating the poster its hard to take your post seriously. I could write the most enlightening thing you ever read (not expecting to though, my ego isnt that big). You would probably still wave a hand call it 'crap' and avoid saying why. Its not like you haven't done this many times on many thread on many topics.

We are not too dissimilar in that we both dont know the answers, we just think we do, to our own satisfaction. You made your choice I made mine. I however am not going to sink into the delusion that my faith choice was entirely a rational calculation, its how I choose to read the evidence.

If we knew for certain the truth, not only wouldn't we be having these threads but we could tell straight up who is right and who is wrong. However we don't know, so when you dismiss alternate viewpoints on the same subject as 'crap' you only prove your own bias.

Thats ok, I am biased too. However the difference is I know I am and am happy to admit it. I made my faith choice. I choose to believe a portion of the possibilities, rather than another. By being so dismissive of parts you have chosen part, you might want the remaining part to be as large a part of the whole set as possible to keep options open, but still you have made your choices and engaged your own mind to formulate your own biases.

This is your choice, don't kid yourself its a straight line computation. We just arent mentats, but emotive persons who make emotive choices, that is the kernel of a faith choice..

Except that emotion != faith. The one has absolutely no bearing on the other precisely because, being human, we have the tendency to inject emotion of some kind into all of our actions.

Faith is the belief in something despite the absence of proof. That is the actual definition of it.

You could argue that Atheism is a belief system (albeit one of belief in proof) just like Theism, but I fail to grasp how you can say that it is a faith choice when its the exact opposite.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged......

How do you not see that what hate is directed at is important? Is the hatred of broccoli sufficient to qualify as the hatred of those who believe God does not exist?

Of course what hatred is directed at is important, its half of hate, the emotion and the target are two halves. 'Hating' brocolli and 'hating' another faith viewpoint are two different things. You talk about 'strawman', was it a warning you were about to resort to one.

The point remains, the hatred indicates that the issue is emotive. One hates brocolli or a TV show in a different way to one haters a viewpoint that conflicts with an emotively held viewpoint. At least assuming a fair degree of sanity.
Maybe one could want to preach zealotry against brocolli, but whatever floats your boat.

Still I think I can safely apply Jesus' teachings here, 'you will know them by their fruit'. Its a really good way of sorting out where people are spiritually, and makes philosophical sense to non-Christians too.

If a religion thread appears and and one gets emotive on it (which again isn't a bad thing per se) its a good indicator that it is an emotive issue to one. If its an emotive issue and still one that transcends the limits of where we can draw the line regarding known hard scientific fact then it is safe to say that one is emotively engaged beyond the ability of pure logic to support ones point of view. If logic is not the base for such fervid opinion then the only thung remaining is a personal choice, that choice is faith.

Orlanth wrote:You are free to do so, but don't avoid the fact you are emotionally engaged, its not all cold hard reason, if it was you wouldn't write what you do, neither would I. You have made a heart decision to pick a side for one faith set or another, in your case a form of atheism.

Too true, the thing is, we get emotionally engaged about everything! Be it football, politics or choice of favourite restaurant. The reason I rarely post in these threads anymore is because I am sick of the same old back and forth and I am convicned that nobody will get their mind changed, so whats the point? Also, I get along with most Religious people because most arent mad fethers, and thirdly because my side has won in two out of the main three cases I feel strongly about. I used to get angry as a young lad because I thought I needed to get involved lest things change, but in the UK they wont.

America, maybe I would be more involved.

The three main reasons I would get involved I can easily arrive at.

1. Euthanasia
2. Abortion
3. Sexuality

If Religious people didn't all agree on these points I would have far more respect for them. But its a blanket dogma they all seem to teach, and then pretend that they all really really think about it, but all miraculously arrive at the same conclusion! And that's why It annoys me, and It's also why I've no major issues with the far more forward thinking C of E.

In a nutshell, its cos the gak they do affects me. That's why people are emotionally involved!

After my mum snuffed it following a long battle with cancer, the idea of random Religious people denying her the right to top herself if she wishes it (she didnt want to, so she rotted to death the hard way, but the choice should ultimately have been her and my old mans, and no fether else's)

If I was a chick and I got pregnant, they are my fething ovaries.

If I was gay, its my set of balls.

So of course, Its an emotional involvement, but anything involing other humans forcing their will onto me is. Its hardly got anything to do with a Religious debate has it?!

As I said, I've no real issue with Religion because they aren't going to go banning being gay, or banning abortions. But the simple fact is, small groups of people shouldnt be able to force gak onto everyone else, so clearly that is a good reason to get annoyed!

But, we have done this many times before.. so feth it eh?

PhantomViper wrote:Except that emotion != faith.

Emotion isnt faith. If one weeps or falls in love, that isn't faith.

If one is emotionally involves in a faith issue, thats an indicator that one is personally involved. As it is already known that we must go beyond what is scientifically known to make our personal assumptions on religious choices the emotive content of the opinions is evidence that one has moved beyond a non interest and engaged a personal opinion, that personal opinion as it has no scientific standing tis therefore faith.

Emotional involvement is not the reason why atheist are people with a faith choice, its only the litmus test. The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based. The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all. That rules out everyone on this thread, and pretty much everyone else also.
a not-sure is a form of yes or no depending on which way your personal preference leads you. After all contrary to the way it has been assumed even the most devout, both ways, have an element of 'not sure' in them. I have a strong faith, but am 'not sure' on many issues and certainly cannot make any definitive claim to be right around anything. I have faith, not no certainty.
We are all in the not sure boat, so even I fall into the 'lack of belief' camp to some level. The Bible even expects this: 'I beleive, help me with my unbelief'.

Now some might like to claim they avoid a faith choice by having a 'lack of belief'. Still those people still have religious opinions, and hold them with no small amount of fervour. That is no lack, its personal engagement. The true absolute delimiter at when someone can say my lack of belief denies the inclusion of a faith choice is when religion is an alien concept, an undiscovered concept in that persons life. For everyone else there is a measure of choice, and that choice bears fruit.

Orlanth wrote:Same old dogma. Why post as reason when you can call an argument 'crap' and walk off.

If your argument is good, then explain to me what "human nature" is, specifically.

Orlanth wrote:
You would probably still wave a hand call it 'crap' and avoid saying why. Its not like you haven't done this many times on many thread on many topics.

I generally do explain why arguments are crap. For example, I stated above that your argument was crap because you used "human nature" as a particular thing. This is like claiming that "common sense" is a particular thing. Its lazy, and indicative of a crap argument.

Orlanth wrote:
We are not too dissimilar in that we both dont know the answers, we just think we do, to our own satisfaction. You made your choice I made mine. I however am not going to sink into the delusion that my faith choice was entirely a rational calculation, its how I choose to read the evidence.

You're already lying to yourself, as you said there was no evidence above.

And yes, we are dissimilar, very much so, because I'm not even claiming a faith choice, or stating a belief or absence of (or telling you what you believe). I'm telling you that what you are saying is nonsense because it is fundamentally incorrect.

Orlanth wrote:
If we knew for certain the truth, not only wouldn't we be having these threads but we could tell straight up who is right and who is wrong. However we don't know, so when you dismiss alternate viewpoints on the same subject as 'crap' you only prove your own bias.

This isn't a subject of question. We're not talking about whether or not God exists, we're talking about what atheism is. This is a term with a very specific technical definition that can be reduced to logical necessity. You could talk about it in terms of reason, but you don't, because you (intentionally or otherwise) attempt to co-opt logic in order to support you own blatantly non-logical ends.

Orlanth wrote:
We just arent mentats, but emotive persons who make emotive choices, that is the kernel of a faith choice..

We also make choices that aren't emotive, which means we make choices that aren't based on faith; certainly faith of the religious sort.

Please find a more polite way to phrase your arguments. Do not insult other members. -Mannahnin

Orlanth wrote:The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based.

Completely wrong, especially since you plugged in "religion" instead of "theism".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all.

No, as had been said, there are three answers:

X = I believe in God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.

Whether or not you believe all 3 are equally likely has no bearing on whether or not they're possible.

sirlynchmob wrote:@orlanth
...trolling

And from this we see why atheism needs to be seen alongside other religious options/choices/beliefs etc and watched for signs of fanaticism.

There will always be some who are abusive, and all the worse for claiming to be on the side of 'reason'.
Blanket writing off entire opposing religious viewpoints as"crap", that no respect is due to vocal followers of said viewpoints; and by that 'understanding' think they have a right to go beyond discussion into outright savagery.
Its wrong when religious fundamentalists act this way, its equally bad when anti-theist ones do also.

There are plenty of nice atheists out there, I must remind myself of that, thankfully some are on these boards and on this thread so that is not difficult to do They know we might disagree with each other strongly, but know enough to do so respectfully.

im anti religion i have no qualms in saying it, i dont believe in any god or gods, but do i defend others right to do so? your god damn right i do lol (i get the irony), to give you all an example, my niece wants to believe in god, i have no issue with this, but i do encourage her to think outside the box of the catholic school she goes to, this encourages her to look at it from diferent angles and consider other opinions, if she still chooses to believe and it makes her a better person... great i have no problem with this, she is a very inteligent person (so proud of her) and anything that helps this is all gravy in my eyes.

anyone who picks on her or calls her "stupid" for he beliefs can get stuffed (this applies to both religeous and non people), intolerance from religeon (and other sources) has caused enough harm in history, and Devout (heeheh) atheism could result in the same issues one day

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based.

Completely wrong, especially since you plugged in "religion" instead of "theism".

Care to explain why.

I deliberately used religion rather than theism as the inclusion of a single God or pantheon of Gods is not a sufficient description of religion. After all atheism goes beyond whether the aforementioned God or Gods exist despite the literal origin of the word. Hence the meme 'atheism vs religion' rather than 'atheism vs theism'.
Besides I never liked the word theist, noone calls themselves a theist or is refered to as such, they, we, are religious.


Hence 'noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion' was written to limit the number of hairs that could be split, I know what you are like. In this I was not successful on this occasion. Apologies for the confusion.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all.

No, as had been said, there are three answers:

X = I believe in God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.

Whether or not you believe all 3 are equally likely has no bearing on whether or not they're possible.

There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.

W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.

Orlanth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:@orlanth
...trolling

I'm oblivious and only I can make blanket statements about other viewpoints.

How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.

So how is it respectful to tell others what they think and what they believe? Shouldn't you ask them, and actually listen and hear what their answer is.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:@orlanth
...trolling

I'm oblivious and only I can make blanket statements about other viewpoints.

How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.

So how is it respectful to tell others what they think and what they believe? Shouldn't you ask them, and actually listen and hear what their answer is.

Ditto comes screaming to mind.

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Excellent. The one thing Dakka OT was missing was an anti religion thread. I fell complete now.

To be honest Frazz, the people in that video are pretty stupid. We get anti-religion threads because idiots like them won't keep their mouths shut.

Or maybe we get anti-religion threads because religion brings some pretty awful stuff with it, and not everyone is content with that stuff continuing?

Or maybe some people found a little spot they can all circle jerk about how bad religion is, instead of dealing with much more important and relevant topics like developing your personal Zombie Games plan.