Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 31 of 526 (511576)
06-10-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Hi!
I may be nitpicking, but atheism's answer would be more like:" ... ".
It doesn't say anything, it would be your education and your morality that would say: "There's not God, so you don't have any justification that those people are 'bad'"
Atheism doesn't say anything about morality the same way gravity doesn't say anything about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 1:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 32 of 526 (511577)
06-10-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 1:05 PM


Re: Hi!
Religion is a set of beliefs about God.
Not true. There are many religions that have no deity. Scientology is one relevant example. Various Native American tribal religions involved animism or ancestor worship rather than deities. Buddhism does not technically have a deity, either.
Hinduism is a religion that states there are many Gods. Islam is a religion that states there is one God.
True.
Atheism is a religion that states there is no God.
False.
Atheism takes several forms. At it's core, it's a lack of belief in any deities. This means that technically Scientologists, Buddhists, and the Native Americans I mentioned are atheists despite having religions.
I'm an atheist who was formerly a Christian. I have no religion. There are no beliefs that I hold regarding a supernatural anything in the world. I don;t worship anything. I do not state that no god exists; I simply state that I have been shown no reason to believe that any god does exist. Atheism, for me, is characterized by a lack of belief.
quote:
religion
—noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
I simply don't believe in a god. My atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral code; there are no rituals or devotions to observe; I don't have any belief in other supernatural agents other than deities (though some atheists do, see above); my lack of belief in a deity is independent of my concept of the origins of the Universe or the "purpose" of life (on Universal origins, I have to say "I don't know, but science has a pretty good idea of what the Universe looked like in the first moments," and I believe that each person determines their own purpose since no objective purpose to life exists).
Atheists do not have a specific set of beliefs that tie us together beyond a lack of belief in gods, and we don;t even all agree completely on that - some actively deny the existence of deities, holding an active belief that deities cannot (or at least do not) exist, which is different from being simply unconvinced as I am. Some believe int he supernatural, simply not deities. We span the entire range of moral standards and ethics.
There is nothing taken from atheism to "follow" or "believe in." The best way to describe atheism is Santa Claus: my lack of belief in god(s) is identical in every way to my lack of belief in Santa Claus. With no objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, I have no rational reason to have confidence that a deity exists. End of story.
Clearly, atheism does not meet the definitions of the word "religion."
All try to convert people to their religion.
Also false. Jews, for example, don't actively attempt to convert. They accept converts, but they don;t try to convert others at all. Many other religions are the same.
And of course atheism isn't even a religion. Some atheists do try to make religious people see reason, but in many cases I think that what many people identify as "conversion attempts" are in actuality attempts to explain ourselves and gain acceptance and understanding from a majority that fears and reviles us (recent studies have shown atheists to be the absolute least trusted minority in the US). Christians in particular are quite fond of interpreting "I don't agree with you, and here's why" as a personal attack on the Christian's faith. Granted, some of us are quite abrasive - I assume that my comparison of god to Santa Claus is likely offensive to many, but I really see no better way to describe it. I'm open to suggestions.
I also tend to be far more abrasive and direct online than I am in normal life. I don;t go door-to-door with pamphlets telling people of the wonders of atheism. I don't even typically bring up the subject. I debate religion only when someone else brings up the subject (ie, when a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness comes to my door), or on websites like this on that are specifically set up for the purpose. Do I think that religious people are stupid? Some of them; but in no greater or lesser proportion than any other group you could name, stupid people are everywhere. Do I think that religious people are irrational? Definitely, at least so far as their religion is concerned. Faith, by its very definition as a belief that is not based on any evidence, is synonymous with irrationality. So long as that irrational belief doesn't intrude on my own rights (ie, nobody threatens me with imprisonment or job loss or makes me sit at the back of the bus for not believing in god, and nobody forces me to say that I believe something when I don't, etc), then I generally don't have a problem with religious people.
When you set about trying to convert people to your set of beliefs, how are you any different or less dangerous?
I fail to see how attempting to show someone the logic of simply not believing in things without evidence is "dangerous." Particularly compared with religious conversions that in some cases carry moral imperatives to kill unbelievers, or shoot abortion activists. Perhaps you could explain?
There are two issues here. One is the science of evolution. When a group attacks science there is a problem.
I agree.
The other issue is Atheism. You don't have to be an atheist to truly believe in the science of evolution.
Also very true. Statistically most people who understand and accept that evolution is an accurate model of the origins of new species and the origin of the diversity of life on Earth are in fact religious. Even the Catholic Church officially endorses evolution.
I will happily debate an athiest about his set of beliefs,respect but in the end, I'll treat your beliefs with respect.
I respect only a person's right to believe whatever they'd like to believe - I don't necessarily respect the beliefs themselves. If a person believes in talking snakes or shrubberies, or that day and night existed before the sun, or that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, or that spitting in some mud and rubbing it on your eyes can cure blindness, I will openly mock those beliefs in appropriate forums like this one. I see it as absolutely no different than mocking a person who believes in trolls, goblins and fairies - the beliefs are fanciful and based on no evidence, showing that the believer is irrational. But I will never take any action to oppress those who believe they can speak to an invisible man in the sky or hinder their ability to practice their faith so long as they do not intrude on the rights or others.
We all have the right to believe whatever our conscience and intellect direct us to believe, without coercion from others, and we also have the right to speak our minds. Christians tell me I;m going to Hell all the time; it's only fair that I be allowed to tell them they're irrational and believe in fairy tales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 1:05 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 2:23 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 5:10 PM Rahvin has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 33 of 526 (511582)
06-10-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Hi!
Oh, and Stalin didn't murder more people than Hitler, especially the religious, in the name of militant atheism? Mao didn't murder millions of religious in the name of militant atheism? We can both point to our supporters who refuse to harm another and are quite tolerant. We can both point to the opposite camp and find people that committed atrocities. We can even argue that the murderers were not really one of my group, but that doesn't get us anywhere. Tolerant coexistence with friendly debate is good. Intolerant slap downs are not. Don't edit history until it proves your belief.
Atheism is not a religion? You have a belief concerning God. Do you have more evidence on His non-existence than I have on His existence? Without proof, it is a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 1:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Perdition, posted 06-10-2009 2:24 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:24 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 2:30 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 34 of 526 (511584)
06-10-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rahvin
06-10-2009 1:55 PM


Re: Hi!
Rahvin, very well put. I only have one quibble. You seem to be an agnostic, not an athiest. You said "I do not state that no god exists; I simply state that I have been shown no reason to believe that any god does exist." That seems to be an agnostic. An Athiest catagorically states "there is no God" Thus my objection would not apply to you. Yes, feel free to put down those strange beliefs you mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 1:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 2:34 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 83 by Michamus, posted 06-12-2009 7:57 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 35 of 526 (511585)
06-10-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Hi!
Atheism is not a religion? You have a belief concerning God. Do you have more evidence on His non-existence than I have on His existence? Without proof, it is a belief.
We have a LACK of belief concerning God. Religion makes a positive statement, "I believe X." Atheism does not, "I have no reason to believe X, Y or Z." They are the exact opposite, as shown by the "a" at the beginning of the word. Something that is amoral isn't professing a morality, because that is the exact opposite of what amoral means.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves; people claiming that atheism is a religion when it is the exact opposite of a religion. Even worse is claiming that science is a religion, but I hope we need not get into that one.
Edited by Perdition, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 2:17 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 526 (511586)
06-10-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Hi!
Don't edit history until it proves your belief.
You mean like reinterpreting the Bible until its passages fit with modern science?
hypocrite
Do you have more evidence on His non-existence than I have on His existence? Without proof, it is a belief.
How are you going to prove that something doesn't exist?
You have no proof that fairies don't exist so do you believe in them too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 2:17 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 37 of 526 (511589)
06-10-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Hi!
Oh, and Stalin didn't murder more people than Hitler, especially the religious, in the name of militant atheism? Mao didn't murder millions of religious in the name of militant atheism? We can both point to our supporters who refuse to harm another and are quite tolerant. We can both point to the opposite camp and find people that committed atrocities. We can even argue that the murderers were not really one of my group, but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Oppressive regimes can exist regardless of religious backing. The difference is that religions contain moral imperatives that can specifically cause the commission fo atrocities - abortion doctors are murdered specifically due to the religious beliefs of their murderers. Oppressive atheist regimes, on the other hand, are not following any moral imperative from atheism - the cannot, because atheism carries no moral imperatives, no instructions, nothing at all other than a lack of belief in deities.
Stalin and Mao didn't commit mass murder because of atheism; the committed mass murder for power, which they gained by wiping out dissenters and eliminating one of the major competitors for guiding the will of the people.
I can point to multiple cases in the Bible where murder is specifically instructed. The Bible plainly states that all homosexuals are to be killed; that all "witches" are to be killed, etc. The Koran contains similar moral imperatives, as do many other religions. Atheism says absolutely nothing about morality, or who should kill who. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god, nothing else.
Tolerant coexistence with friendly debate is good. Intolerant slap downs are not. Don't edit history until it proves your belief.
I mostly agree, though I still think open mockery of irrational beliefs (religious or otherwise) is acceptable.
Atheism is not a religion? You have a belief concerning God. Do you have more evidence on His non-existence than I have on His existence? Without proof, it is a belief.
Again, this is incorrect. Atheism in many cases is defined specifically by a lack of belief in god, not a positive belief that no god exists. The latter requires faith and is just as irrational as theism; the former is as rational as not believing in Thor, Zeus, fairies, and the monster under your bed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 2:17 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 38 of 526 (511591)
06-10-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Hi!
Rahvin, very well put.
Thanks.
I only have one quibble. You seem to be an agnostic, not an athiest. You said "I do not state that no god exists; I simply state that I have been shown no reason to believe that any god does exist." That seems to be an agnostic. An Athiest catagorically states "there is no God" Thus my objection would not apply to you. Yes, feel free to put down those strange beliefs you mentioned.
I'm not an agnostic - an agnostic says "I don't know, and can likely never know." The atheist says "in the absence of evidence, it's not likely."
My confidence in the existence or nonexistence of god is directly analogous to my confidence in the existence or nonexistence of fairies. I'm dismissive of them, I lack any belief in them, but I acknowledge that there is a chance that they do exist and are using supernatural means to avoid detection. But the lack of evidence makes the likelihood of their existence approach zero.
The differences between various different kinds of atheists and even agnostics are subtle and prone to issues of semantics, but the differences are there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 2:23 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 4:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 39 of 526 (511609)
06-10-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
06-10-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Atheist def
a⋅the⋅ist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I was focusing on the ones who deny that there is a God. Is disbelieves the existence of a supreme being the same as saying that he believes that there is no supreme being? If so, it is the similar to a religious belief. If you doubt that there is a God, that sounds in between agnostic and atheist. Your statement sounds more like a statement I could say, "I doubt the existence of cold fusion, but I'll keep a tiny corner of my mind open in case someone presents much better evidence. Still, I think the chances of anyone doing that is about as likely as proving the existence of fairies." That is intellectual honesty. I was reacting to the people who were saying in effect, all religion is wrong, there is no God and it should be eliminated. I also don't like people that make other groups boogie men. I hate statements that list Jews as the dangerous ones, the Christians as the dangerous ones, or the Atheists as the dangerous ones. Someone wrote that it is the power hungry ones in the group that are the dangerous ones. That is true. I would add, "and the ones that they have manipulated." We can find the fanatics in any group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 2:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 5:12 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2009 5:24 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 526 (511622)
06-10-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 1:05 PM


Re: Hi!
greentwiga writes:
Religion is a set of beliefs about God. Hinduism is a religion that states there are many Gods. Islam is a religion that states there is one God. Atheism is a religion that states there is no God.
I take it you think being a non-lawyer is a profession of the law?
I will happily debate an athiest about his set of beliefs,respect but in the end, I'll treat your beliefs with respect.
I've been hearing this a lot from religionists. I'm an atheist. You mind telling me what my beliefs are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 1:05 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:21 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 41 of 526 (511624)
06-10-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rahvin
06-10-2009 1:55 PM


Re: Hi!
Rahvin writes:
Not true. There are many religions that have no deity. Scientology is one relevant example.
Oh, give me a break. Scientology is a scam disguised as a religion.
Various Native American tribal religions involved animism or ancestor worship rather than deities. Buddhism does not technically have a deity, either.
Tribal religions aren't really religion. They're more like philosophies about how to live your life and treat those around you.
Buddhism is a philosophy on how to live your life and treat those around you. Coincidently, Buddhists believe in my gods and goddesses. They also worship them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 1:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rahvin, posted 06-10-2009 5:28 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 46 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:34 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 526 (511625)
06-10-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Atheist def
greentwiga writes:
I was focusing on the ones who deny that there is a God. Is disbelieves the existence of a supreme being the same as saying that he believes that there is no supreme being?
I'm going to ask a question that someone else already asked once. Is a disbelief in the invisible pink unicorn a religion? Is being a non-lawyer a profession of the law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 4:19 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 526 (511628)
06-10-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Atheist def
I apply the Dawkins test in these cases. Any definition of atheism that means that Richard Dawkins is not an atheist, is probably worth throwing out since most people would consider Richard Dawkins an atheist.
Your definition seems to discount Dawkins as an atheist.
I don't believe in fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leszi, Domovoi, Djinn, Archangel Gabriel, Ghosts, aliens flying around on earth visiting spaceships. That doesn't mean that I claim knowledge about their nonexistence, that I positively deny them. Nor am I simply agnostic about them. I am both agnostic about them (I claim no knowled either way), and I don't believe they exist (why should I believe them?)
There are arguments that suggest that these don't exist, but nothing definitive, since they are often contructed in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 4:19 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 44 of 526 (511629)
06-10-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
06-10-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Hi!
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Not true. There are many religions that have no deity. Scientology is one relevant example.
Oh, give me a break. Scientology is a scam disguised as a religion.
I'm content to let organized sets of beliefs be defined as religions or not religions by those who hold the beliefs. If someone claims their set of beliefs is a religion and it somewhat meets the dictionary definition (and Scientology does), then that's that. Scientology may be more obviously false and ridiculous than other religions, but that doesn't make it not a religion.
After all, is the evil space emperor Xenu and his DC47 starships of volcanic DOOM really more ridiculous than an invisible man in the sky who watches you masturbate? I'm perfectly happy with puting them on the same level - the major difference is that Scientology is more direct about scamming money, has cultish practices that most versions (but not all - see Jehovah's Witnesses) of the major religions don't engage in (shunning family members who aren't in the cult or former members, etc), and the major religions have been around longer.
I'd also point out that, at their heart, I think all religions and cults are essentially scams. The difference is that religions get tax exemption
quote:
Various Native American tribal religions involved animism or ancestor worship rather than deities. Buddhism does not technically have a deity, either.
Tribal religions aren't really religion. They're more like philosophies about how to live your life and treat those around you.
Philosophies regarding human behavior that incorporate beliefs in the existence of supernatural entities (including dead ancestors, or the animal spirits, or the Great Spirit, etc), as well as supernatural origins of the Earth sound like the very definition of religion to me, Taz.
Buddhism is a philosophy on how to live your life and treat those around you. Coincidently, Buddhists believe in my gods and goddesses. They also worship them.
Not all of them. Buddhism is a very diverse religion, even more so that Christianity. Some Buddhists worship gods. Others do not. Most believe in the supernatural - an afterlife, nirvana, reincarnation, etc. Buddha himself was supposed to be a very wise man who attained enlightenment, not a deity. Buddhism is almost as difficult to characterize with broad statements as atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 5:10 PM Taz has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 45 of 526 (511644)
06-10-2009 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-10-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Hi!
If you say "there is no God," that is a belief unless you have proof. Do you have proof that there is no God? If you are an agnostic, then I don't know what your beliefs are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 5:05 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 11:35 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024