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.

 Peregrine wrote:

So when lots of people believed that it was ok to own slaves that was relevant to whether it was?

Yes. A thing can be both relevant and unjustifiable.

 Peregrine wrote:

Of course it is.

Then use the word 'theism'.

 Peregrine wrote:

Go read grammar 101.

I cannot find a book with that title.

In either case, I did not use those words so the usage of quotation marks was not appropriate.

Perhaps try the phrase "You expressed the sentiment of..."

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

I am also an atheist.

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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 would hope to see the majority of this religion gak removed before I'm an old man, but I doubt it.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

Did you watch him die, and be subsequently raised?

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

Exalted for being true.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

Did you watch him die, and be subsequently raised?

No I didn't, doctors did though.

 Peregrine wrote:

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...

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.

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.

You don't get to make up what words mean.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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.

These are mostly guesses though.

Thanks - that statement makes more sense now.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

PredaKhaine wrote:

 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:

PredaKhaine wrote:

 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.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

 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?

 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, 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.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

 Breotan wrote:
I said no such thing and you read no such thing in what I wrote.

I didn't say that you did, it was a leading question, hence the '?' mark. This implies deduction, or induction, but in this case deduction.

 Breotan wrote:

I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone who wishes to practice contextomy.

If extraneous context meant so much to you, you could easily have applied it.

Also, I would like an answer to this:

 dogma wrote:

How is an umbrella-like set of beliefs not a collection of specific beliefs? Or, how is a set of beliefs not specific?

Edit for proper attribution.

 Orlanth wrote:
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..

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

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."


I've fixed it in my original response.

Ok then.

Bill O'Reilly is such a dumbass. I love the video where he thinks he can outsmart Richard Dawkins.