Dave Moral

Pages: 1 2

Discipline - 1-1-2009 at 12:47 AM

Question for you. Are you raising your kid as a muslim? Just curious as I didn't know if your wife was muslim as well. If so, how do you approach Christmas with your little one?

DaveMoral - 1-1-2009 at 03:09 PM

My wife is Muslim too. So we are definitely raising my son Muslim. Christmas is sort of hard since all his grandparents celebrate... we don't ourselves, but we also don't exclude ourselves from their celebrations. So he gets gifts from the grandparents and aunts and uncles, but we are not doing anything with Santa Claus. Funny thing, he knows who Santa Claus is on seeing the character, but I plan to just play it up like I would Batman or Spiderman... he just a character they tell stories about. He's not real.

The hardest thing about Christmas is there are Muslim holidays around the same time usually, so I have to figure out a way to make those appeal to him without Christmas-izing it like Hannukah was Christmas-ized. Which is sort of a brain teaser since Muslim holidays tend to be pretty somber. My biggest thing now is going to be trying to get my parents and my wife's parents to put a little more effort into recognizing Muslim holidays so that my son sees his holidays validated by family and not only see us sharing in Christmas and other such things.

I mean, an example... a couple weeks before Christmas was the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha which is celebrated after the Hajj pilgrimmage to Mecca every year. It's one of the two biggest holidays on the Muslim calendar... but I don't know how to make it more appealing to a kid than Christmas. There's no holiday where presents are given... and I don't want to cultivate the expectation of gifts in my kid either. Also, at the beginning of October we had the end of Ramadan festival Eid al-Fitr... which I can pretty easily turn into a sort of Muslim Thanksgiving sort of thing(which I usually do anyway, with a Tofurky and what not). 4 days ago was the Muslim new year... which being Shi'ites we don't even really celebrate as a festive thing because it marks the beginning of 10 day seige that led to the killings of Muhammad's grandson Husayn and all but one of his sons and all his male companions and the subsequent imprisonment of his only remaining son and all the women of his family. For Shi'ites this is a pretty somber time, though a great Thermopylae-an tale of heroic sacrifice. 73 men against an army of over a thousand.

Anyways, Christmas poses some challenges... but it's also primarily a secular holiday anymore and the things I find most challenging are the Santa Claus myths rather than anything to do with Jesus. Heck, unlike the Bible and Christians Muslims have reason to have a Christmas tree.... even if it is a date palm. In the Qur'anic narrative of Jesus' birth Mary was sitting under a date palm and ate dates from the tree.

Discipline - 1-1-2009 at 04:54 PM

Interesting. I was curious because I knew you weren't raised muslim, so I didn't know if your family understood or respected your beliefs. I can see the Santa thing being hard when your son goes to school because the overwhelming majority of the kids will be all about Christmas, Santa, and presents. It's cool that you're not going to alter your beliefs to appease a holiday.

DaveMoral - 1-1-2009 at 08:02 PM

Yeah, you know... I'm with Charlie Brown on Christmas in a lot of ways, it's over comercialized. Which is why this whole thing with these ultra-right evangelicals braying every years about "they are taking the Christ outta Christmas" and the "war on Christmas" bullshit. Happy Holidays as a greeting at this time of year makes perfect sense in a multi-religious and ethnic society.

In December and January alone you've got Chistmas, Hannukah, Kwaanza and New Year's every year. For a Christian alone it makes sense to say Happy Holidays because they are going to be celebrating Christmas and New Year's a week apart. If you don't know what people are doing or their background, happy holidays.

There's no bigger a threat to the religious conception of Christmas than they way that many Christians themselves make it more about giving and especially receiving gifts than it is about how they view Jesus. Same with Easter, how many people with children... including Christians... actually teach their kids to think about Jesus rising from the dead on Easter rather than have them out doing the seeming totally unconnected activity of hunting colored eggs and getting baskets from the "Easter bunny?" My grandmother goes to church every Sunday and she loves Christmas, but I have absolutely no memory of her ever talking about the religious context of Christmas to any of us grandkids when we were young.

The Santa thing gets to me with the case of religious Christians, because they apparently don't realize who they appended the name of Saint Nicholas who gave money to the poor on Christmas, to the myths and legends of old European pagan societies... like there's a Nordic myth that has Odin giving gifts and candy to kind children in their boots. Dude also rides an 8 legged flying horse. Plus, as the Norsemen are known for... a long white beard. All at the holiday of Yule. It doesn't matter for secular celebrations of Christmas(unless you're atheist, and I'd wonder why you'd teach your kids about a dude that they say "sees you when you're sleeping, knowns when you're awake" and all that), but for religious people it's got to be recognized as being essentially a new god they are worshipping alongside what they already worship. Which, of course, they frown on in any other form. But when you're leaving offerings of cookies and milk beside a tree in hopes that you've been nice enough to get rewarded for your good deeds from a character that's mixed the name of an old Christian saint with a Norse god you're hurting the religious significance of your own holiday. Nobody that that says 'Happy Holidays' for the sake of covering everything that's coming up in the season does more damage than Christians who carry on those traditions. Especially when it involves an image of Santa Claus effectively created and propagated by Coca-Cola. It's been a corporate holiday since the 1930s.

Bah, enough of my ranting. Hope no one takes offense, just getting some shit off my chest.

Discipline - 1-1-2009 at 09:35 PM

None taken. I know how strongly you hold your beliefs, and at least when you speak out as you did in the above post, you do so in a logical manner that is rational.

DaveMoral - 1-1-2009 at 10:55 PM

Haha, yeah, I try not to come off like a raving lunatic! :lol:

tireironsaint - 1-1-2009 at 11:17 PM

Dave, I can definitely appreciate your rant about the commercialized aspect of the holidays as I've done quite a bit of background checking on the sources for all these supposedly christian traditions too. Of course, I'm looking at it from an atheist point of view instead of that of another religion, so this may just be one of the tiny places where our ideas meet, but it's nice to see someone of any faith who has actually done a little research.

As someone outside religion, it's astounding to me just how obvious the source of a lot of these supposedly christian traditions actually are. The church quite literally made a point of lifting traditions as well as holidays from older religions just as a means of bringing "heathens and pagans" into the fold. It amazes me that people can talk so heatedly about how they would never follow tenets from outside their belief while practicing traditions that were blatantly stolen and grafted onto (very poorly, might I add) their religion. Easter is a prime example: rabbits and eggs both being strong fertility symbols were stolen from pagan beliefs and turned into meaningless candy that christians hardly ever even question the origin or meanings of. It's baffling to me that people who search for signs of their god in tears from statues and images on toast are blind to anything that doesn't support their ideology.

MarkV - 1-1-2009 at 11:39 PM

Every Xmas, Easter, Halloween, etc, Nat Geo and esp the History Channel usually have very good documentaries on the development of the these events and how different pagan influences were tossed in.

Dave- I never got the bug up the ass about "happy holidays," either. I always looked at is as Christmas and New Year's Day being a week apart, and a good amount of people having that week off, and it being sort of more of a "national holiday week" than the religious significance of the event.

Siczine.com - 1-1-2009 at 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
Every Xmas, Easter, Halloween, etc, Nat Geo and esp the History Channel usually have very good documentaries on the development of the these events and how different pagan influences were tossed in.

Dave- I never got the bug up the ass about "happy holidays," either. I always looked at is as Christmas and New Year's Day being a week apart, and a good amount of people having that week off, and it being sort of more of a "national holiday week" than the religious significance of the event.

Yeah, I saw that shit about Christmas on the History Channel and they talked about how Christians lifted the winter festivals that were in celebration of the winter solstice from the pagans and turned it into Christmas to try to convert them to Christianity.

MarkV - 1-2-2009 at 12:19 AM

In reality, I believe it's essentially been "proven" that Jesus was born in the spring time, closer to passover, and the early Christian church bumped the date around a couple of times.

MarkV - 1-2-2009 at 12:23 AM

And Halloween, being the amalgamation of Samhain from the Celts, a Roman festival and the All Souls Day traditions, and then more with Mexican traditions once Catholics got over here.

I mean, it does make sense to do, from a "marketing" standpoint of a developing church. Plus, if you do any research on various religions in the world, you'll find a LOT of parallels and almost identical stories/parables. So, it's not that weird to say, "we celebrate THIS day which is very similar to YOUR festival," and incorporate some of the traditions into yours.

DaveMoral - 1-2-2009 at 03:18 AM

Well, the funny thing is that every different major Church or branch of Christianity celebrates Christmas at a different time of year. It's not til like January 6th in Russia.

December 25 is Rome's Christmas and the Protestants stuck with it, after all it was ingrained in their culture by the time Martin Luther came around. Reality is... that was the day the Mithraist cult celebrated the birth of Mithra, a sun god, long before Christianity showed upon on the Roman wacky religion scene. It's no coincidence that the Romans moved the Christian sabbath day from Saturday... as the Jews and Adventists still practice it... to SUNday. Interestingly, they've got alot of the same priestly garb as the Mithraists apparently had.

jonnynewbreed - 1-2-2009 at 09:48 AM

watch the film zeitgiest. Some really cool info on Christianity.

I myself have never been baptized as I was born of an Irish Catholic mother and a prodestant father who's parents couldn't get along. My folks decided not to baptize their kids and I'm sticking to it.

MarkV - 1-2-2009 at 12:05 PM

Jonny-
No offense, my friend, but the word is "Protestant."

Dave-
" the funny thing is that every different major Church or branch of Christianity celebrates Christmas at a different time of year."
Different time of year??? Really???

Discipline - 1-2-2009 at 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jonnynewbreed
watch the film zeitgiest. Some really cool info on Christianity.

Definitely interesting.

DaveMoral - 1-2-2009 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
Jonny-
No offense, my friend, but the word is "Protestant."

Dave-
" the funny thing is that every different major Church or branch of Christianity celebrates Christmas at a different time of year."
Different time of year??? Really???

Well, winter still, but like I said... December 25 for the Roman Churches who hold to the Gregorian calendar, and in Russia they do it on January 7th because it's supposedly when December 25 would be on the Julian calendar. So it's different but the same. Even while still being the day of Mithras' birth.

The Christian Churches of God, which is an Adventist church but I think different than the 7th Day sort, won't even celebrate Christmas or Easter as pagan celebrations. They keep the old Hebrew calendar and all the traditional Jewish Holy Days.

jonnynewbreed - 1-2-2009 at 02:35 PM

What can I say, my lack of religion must have had some effect on my ability to spell...no offense taken. :cool:

Don't get me wrong, I was married in a church and will go to church with my mother in law (she is a very holy gal). I went to my nephews baptism over the holidays and almost jumped up and asked if they would consider throwing some water on my head since they were all set up to do it anyway, but my wife wouldn't let me.

I believe in something, I'm just not sure what it is.

Siczine.com - 1-2-2009 at 07:07 PM

My stance on all religions is that none of them really know what the fuck they are talking about. And atheists I will never get. They hate on a religion because they can't prove that there is a god but can any atheist prove there is not a god? Hell no.

DaveMoral - 1-2-2009 at 08:17 PM

The way I see it is this... religion is a method. It can't give you all the answers. After all, God in Its essence is ultimately unknowable to any but Itself. Thus most of us see facets of Truth via our own imagination because the faculty by which we can recognize the similarity of a thing to ourselves. So we concieve of God in ways that makes It comprehensible to ourselves and our limited means of understanding. Fortunately we are also gifted with the faculty of reason, and by reason we can grasp the incomparibility of God and realize that ultimately the means by which we concieve of God are not Absolute and cannot actually fully describe It... simply because It is indescribable.

Now, each religion has things it can tell you about God... but even describe God as both Just and Merciful are abstractions rather than things you can concretely relate to, and in order to do so we must imagine about God's Justice and Its Mercy and we can only do so in our own human experience of justice and mercy. Reason should tells us that we can't really even comprehend those two qualities on a cosmic scale... let alone a beyond cosmic scale.

In a sense, no religion is necessarily "wrong" except perhaps something like Scientology which is obvious the product of a scamming science fiction writer's imagination.

tireironsaint - 1-2-2009 at 10:30 PM

Siczine, I don't know who the fuck you've been talking to about atheism, but you've got a warped sense of what it's about. It's honestly NOT about "hating on" religion at all. Yes, a good number of people who consider themselves atheists have issues with aspects of organized religion, but anyone who can objectively look at those aspects of organized religion should be able to understand those issues. A good example of that is this thread. Obviously, christianity has adopted a huge number of ideas and traditions from other religions and used them to gain followers in a deceptive manner. If something that is supposed to be pure and true is willing to stoop to such underhandedness, why should anyone be willing to give complete faith over to it?

As far as the proving or disproving god thing goes, atheists believe only in things that can be proven scientifically and as of yet, there isn't a shred of evidence that supports the theory of a "supreme being" or "creator", if you prefer. No, it can't be definitively disproven but should we believe in everything that somebody dreams up just because we have no proof that it doesn't exist? If we head down that road then we should all live in fear of trolls and goblins and thank fairies and whatnot for our good fortune.

DaveMoral - 1-2-2009 at 10:33 PM

I think the thing with atheism all hinges on what to you consider to be reality... the material universe, or is there something underlying reality?

clevohardcore - 1-2-2009 at 10:51 PM

Wait, Santas not real?

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Siczine, I don't know who the fuck you've been talking to about atheism, but you've got a warped sense of what it's about. It's honestly NOT about "hating on" religion at all. Yes, a good number of people who consider themselves atheists have issues with aspects of organized religion, but anyone who can objectively look at those aspects of organized religion should be able to understand those issues. A good example of that is this thread. Obviously, christianity has adopted a huge number of ideas and traditions from other religions and used them to gain followers in a deceptive manner. If something that is supposed to be pure and true is willing to stoop to such underhandedness, why should anyone be willing to give complete faith over to it?

As far as the proving or disproving god thing goes, atheists believe only in things that can be proven scientifically and as of yet, there isn't a shred of evidence that supports the theory of a "supreme being" or "creator", if you prefer. No, it can't be definitively disproven but should we believe in everything that somebody dreams up just because we have no proof that it doesn't exist? If we head down that road then we should all live in fear of trolls and goblins and thank fairies and whatnot for our good fortune.

Your response does not change my opinion and really only solidifies it. What did I say was so off base that warranted your lengthy reasoning of what I said is wrong? Atheist believe there is no god, but how can you say there is no god, which you even said, you can't. From my dealings with atheist they have such disdain for Christian or Muslim beliefs yet won't admit that they themselves are not that different and atheists themselves ARE A RELIGION. They are all religions and all try to act like they know more than the next. Just the fact atheists claim there is no god is the SAME THING as a religion that says what god is or could be.

It's seem from my perspective atheists tend to denounce things just to denounce them. They are just on the opposite end of the spectrum from religions that believe in a god. It also seems that most "atheists" are the most ill informed of what their religion actually is. It seems many of them would fall under the term of agnostic.

So yes, atheist make as much sense as any other religion.

Take a chill pill there tireironsaint.

upyerbum - 1-3-2009 at 01:22 AM

I'm a Gnostic/Dualist. So is everyone else, they just don't realize it. The fact of the matter is most people are only interested in easy answers, which in turn gives those willing to take advantage of a belief system power over them...blah, blah, blah.

Oh, and Clevo, Santa is real.

JawnDiablo - 1-3-2009 at 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by clevohardcore
Wait, Santas not real?

Santa's fuckin real holmes, as I live and breathe
I'll send you his receipts for this season....

JawnDiablo - 1-3-2009 at 01:51 AM

I was raised in a somewhat stifeling religious environment.
I was told not to question this and that and so on, just do as blah blah says etc...
Sorry, but I'm the dude who questions shit.
At this point in my miserable life, and yeah it's been fuckin miserable lately,
I'm just lookin at it as live and let live.
Whatever gets you through the day is fine with me as long as it does not infringe upon my life, and you don't try and ram it down my throat telling me it's right for me and I should conform to it bla bla
I've had people on numerous occasions tell me to open up my heart to Jebus and whatever when I've been really low, and theyve just managed to piss me off and alienate me more from whatever bastardization of whatever religion they claim to be yapping about.
but whatever.
in the end,
whatever you choose to beleive, or not to beleive
just be good to your fellow man.
unless he's a real prick.
then screw em.
i'm goin to bed.
and i love each of you from the bottom of my rotten heart.
May Juan be with you.

JawnDiablo - 1-3-2009 at 01:57 AM

Personally, I am more a beleiver of the teachings of the good Reverend Paul Bearer Esq.
one can't go wrong with that.

upyerbum - 1-3-2009 at 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juandiablo
May Juan be with you.

And also with you. :spin:

DaveMoral - 1-3-2009 at 02:51 AM

You know, it's pretty cool to see where this thread has gone.

From asking me a question about how I deal with Christmas and my kid, to everyone sharing what the do or do not believe in.

Pretty darned cool.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com

Quote:

You seem to be personally offended by atheism, which I find odd. Every time the topic comes up you make this ridiculous claim that atheism is a religion, which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not interested in trying to convert you or whatever, I just find it amusing when people proclaim that people who actually look into things are called ignorant. I don't go out and try to convince people that their religion is wrong and that they should follow my word, I just have investigated and find no truth in religion. I have no problem with people believing what they want unless and until it intrudes on my life. If you want to be the expert on what atheism is and isn't, maybe you should read up on it. I've read plenty on religions from all sorts of faiths and wouldn't think of trying to tell people what their beliefs say or don't say even with that knowledge. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to tell me that my lack of religion is a religion, which makes no sense and has no basis in truth or logic. Not that I think you'll do it, but I would recommend checking out Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens for an idea of what it is that you think you already know.

Discipline - 1-3-2009 at 09:38 AM

I'm with the Saint on this one. (the Tireiron variety, not the Jebus kind of saint

)

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 08:09 PM

Explain to me how atheism is not a religion. You have a rather large group of people that have common beliefs, (but obviously an atheist won't acknowledge belief as as an appropriate word to describe what their opinions are), it seems there are "sects" of atheists, and it does indeed appear to be an institution that is concerned with gaining rights to "express" their views via the 1st amendment.

And don't get me wrong, I'm glad the atheist helped get prayer out of public school but it did seem like it was done for their own agenda, not to help make an egalitarian society.

To me it seems most of the people that say atheism is not a religion are atheists.

http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

On their own website they use how the bible influences dictionaries as a reason why most dictionaries are misleading in their definitions, past and present. Yet use the dictionary in defense of why its not a religion by going by the definitions of religion. And anyone that is somewhat intelligent, knows it is not exactly easy to define religion.

Discipline - 1-3-2009 at 08:18 PM

I don't see atheists as having common beliefs, not in the way religious folks do. I see it as people choosing to not believe in a particular set of beliefs or ideals. I don't believe in fairy tales either, but that doesn't put me and others who don't believe in fairy tales in a group together. Atheism isn't a religion so much as a refusal to believe as others do.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 08:27 PM

And why would I read what other atheist have to say, of course they will say it isn't a religion.

As intelligent as Dawkins is, he is throwing around opinions and beliefs when he states something as absurd as this:

"Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief"

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Discipline
I don't see atheists as having common beliefs, not in the way religious folks do. I see it as people choosing to not believe in a particular set of beliefs or ideals. I don't believe in fairy tales either, but that doesn't put me and others who don't believe in fairy tales in a group together. Atheism isn't a religion so much as a refusal to believe as others do.

You believe to not believe in anything, that is still a belief.

MarkV - 1-3-2009 at 09:18 PM

Siczine
Your logic is really skewed. Not believing in a god doesn't make Atheists a religion in of itself. I'm not even sure how you're coming up with that. People don't believe there's a higher being because there's no proof. There's no core set of beliefs or values there. There's no organization. Atheists don't get together every week and discuss the lack of god or the 'evils" of religion.
A lot of the atheists I know, not only don't "hate on religion" but are very knowledgeable of many forms of it.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
There's no organization.

Really, no organization? It sure seems like there's organization to me.

There is a core belief, that they don't believe there is a god because it can't be empirically proven. But to me that is a belief, you can try to spin it any way you'd like.

You have your opinion, I have mine. And my opinion is that the atheist movement or whatever atheist like to call it is a religion.

Just like how Christians don't like to hear their faith/religion questioned, atheist can't STAND to be associated with the idea of religions, and neither would I but to me (and many others) atheism is damn similar to a religion.

And if its not a religion, not an organization what is it?

DaveMoral - 1-3-2009 at 09:46 PM

There are elements of dogmatism among certain atheists. Of that I have no doubt.

Not sure I'd call it a religion, per say, because I'm not sure what it's "reconnecting with." Which is what religion actually means.

However, a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is easily termed as a belief that there is no god. So I don't think "lack of belief" is actually an appropriate means of describing atheism nor is it an appropriate refutation of someone that would say you do have a belief regarding the existence of a god. It's certainly a belief about god.

Murk - 1-3-2009 at 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
And if its not a religion, not an organization what is it?

it's a label used to describe those who won't follow the pack.

that's it.

society feels more comfortable when everyone has labels.

by definition, a religion is based around believing in some god etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

not believing in a religion doesn't make the non believer an instant member to a new religion.

just because i don't want to play football doesn't mean i'm automatically a member of the "i don't like football club".

it just means i don't want to play football.

by definition, i'm not an atheist because belief doesn't even play into the picture.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 10:10 PM

Religion : 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.

How exactly does believing that there is nothing supernatural about the nature of the universe fit into that definition? Atheists don't adhere to some guidelines that someone has to rely upon blind faith to not question. For that matter, there is NOTHING that should not be questioned from an atheists standpoint. The whole point is that no one should have to rely on an unprovable something to fill a gap in their life. No one needs an unprovable anything to tell them the difference between right and wrong. There is no need to assign an unprovable entity to the role of "creator" or as the one responsible for unexplained events. The basic idea is that even if there are things that cannot be explained at the present time by the scientific method, there is no reason to believe that something unknowable in a scientific sense is responsible for them. Just because we may not have a definitive explanation for something at the current time doesn't in any way mean that we won't be able to explain and/or comprehend that thing at some point in time. How many times in recent history has man accomplished things that were considered impossible or beyond the scope of nature? Let's put it in a short time frame, say a couple hundred years or three or four generations ago. The locomotive was invented in 1804, the internal combustion engine in 1826. Those things were beyond the scope of most people to comprehend in the decades just previous to their invention and look where transportation technology is now. It's progressed so far beyond what the people who invented that technology could have forseen in a few generations. Does that mean that we've stepped outside of the natural world? Of course not. Just because we are now able to understand things which were inconceivable doesn't require any sort of leap of faith. To put it another way, we now understand the causes of diseases which were once thought to be supernatural afflictions or curses. The Greek myths (and many others) were "explanations" of natural phenomena such as thunder and lightning which we no longer need to make up stories to protect ourselves from irrational fears.

From the link you posted, here is a plainly stated argument:
"Is Atheism a belief system or religion?

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.

2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be "true atheists."

The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals."

Is there really part of that open for argument? I can't understand how anyone can read that and still think that atheism is the same as a religion. There's no open ended issue there, no unclear statement. As for your statement that it's not easy to define religion, how is it difficult? I'm not saying that all religions are the same or even similar, but religion itself is a simple concept and not difficult at all to define.

As far as most of the people who say that atheism isn't a religion being atheists, who would you rather hear it from, someone who doesn't know what it means? I don't understand why it's a problem for an atheist to explain what atheism means. If you want to learn the beliefs of the catholic church would you disregard anything a priest told you?

The reason that atheists are concerned with being able to voice their opinions legally is the same reason that any other segment of the population is concerned with that. Every person should have a right to their own voice, just because our country is being taken over more and more by people with a religious agenda is no reason that those of us who don't have a religion should be silenced. There is no atheist agenda simply because atheists are not an organized group. There are outspoken atheists like the two authors I mentioned earlier and there are lots and lots of people who consider themselves atheists who don't have a public voice for any variety of reasons, most people don't have access to publishing, many people just don't want to be told that not believing in the same unprovable entity as the vocal majority makes them "stupid" or "ridiculous" because most religious and even agnostic people don't know what atheism means. Here you are arguing with me about the meaning of what I believe and you refuse to believe that people who call themselves atheists know the meaning of the term. Human history is full of people who think they know what other people are about better than those people know themselves.

The quote about Dawkins isn't absurd at all. It's a very brief explanation of what his book The God Delusion is about. Not that you ever would, but if you read it, you would find that he lays out his explanation of religion as a delusion (the psychiatric definition of the word is " fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact") after giving his arguments to the supposed "proofs of god's existence" given credence by theologians. He very clearly explains why it is almost impossible for a god to actually exist and even goes so far as to explain why it is impossible to completely prove or disprove such a thing.

Lastly, belief in nothing is not atheism, it's nihilism. Beliefs are not restricted in any way to the realm of religion. I belief it's snowing here today and that's not a new religion it's the weather. Atheism is not "belief in nothing" it is not a reactionary thing either, it is simply deciding to believe only in that which is real and provable. Were it possible to prove the existence of a god, atheists would believe in that god.

Murk - 1-3-2009 at 10:26 PM

anyone into Pastafarianism?

Quote:

The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."

The Monster's intoxication was supposedly the cause for a flawed Earth.

All 'evidence' for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith — a form of the Omphalos hypothesis.

When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses that it contains beer volcanoes and a stripper factory. Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale, and the strippers have STDs.

or how about Geppettoism?

Quote:

That's the theory that we were all made of hunks of wood up until yesterday when Geppetto, Jiminy Cricket and the magic fairy all came along and turned us into real fucking boys and girls!

Murk - 1-3-2009 at 10:36 PM

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.

The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.

So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic.

We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all. Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.

Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.

Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Enyo - 1-3-2009 at 10:50 PM

"Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion. "

Agreed

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Murk

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
And if its not a religion, not an organization what is it?

Problem is, its not merely a label. It is an organization in one way or another. It wasn't one person that went to the Supreme Court to get prayer out of school.

And like I said, I am not religious in the least but atheist have no more right saying there is no god as any other religion saying there is a god. How do they know? Not like science hasn't been proven wrong, many, many times. What's right today may be completely false tomorrow.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
Atheists don't get together every week and discuss the lack of god or the 'evils" of religion.

I have seen many marches and conventions held in Philadelphia by Atheist groups/organizations. So how can you make a blanket statement?

EDIT: Perhaps not every week, but lets not act like atheist don't congregate.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:07 PM

I've seen marches from people of various races, does that make them an organization?

People got together to petition the court, that doesn't make them an organization. Also, it's interesting how you went from claiming atheism is a religion to an organization. Are those two words synonymous for you? Even if there are some organized atheists that does nothing to counter the claim that atheism is not a religion, organized or otherwise.

If you read my, admittedly long, last post, you'd see that I said atheists believe in provable things. In other words, atheists say there is no god because it is unprovable (and highly unlikely) that there is such a thing. If it were proven that there is a god, atheists would believe it as a proven/provable fact. How is there an issue of having a right to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god anyway?

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Religion : 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.

How exactly does believing that there is nothing supernatural about the nature of the universe fit into that definition? Atheists don't adhere to some guidelines that someone has to rely upon blind faith to not question. For that matter, there is NOTHING that should not be questioned from an atheists standpoint. The whole point is that no one should have to rely on an unprovable something to fill a gap in their life. No one needs an unprovable anything to tell them the difference between right and wrong. There is no need to assign an unprovable entity to the role of "creator" or as the one responsible for unexplained events. The basic idea is that even if there are things that cannot be explained at the present time by the scientific method, there is no reason to believe that something unknowable in a scientific sense is responsible for them. Just because we may not have a definitive explanation for something at the current time doesn't in any way mean that we won't be able to explain and/or comprehend that thing at some point in time. How many times in recent history has man accomplished things that were considered impossible or beyond the scope of nature? Let's put it in a short time frame, say a couple hundred years or three or four generations ago. The locomotive was invented in 1804, the internal combustion engine in 1826. Those things were beyond the scope of most people to comprehend in the decades just previous to their invention and look where transportation technology is now. It's progressed so far beyond what the people who invented that technology could have forseen in a few generations. Does that mean that we've stepped outside of the natural world? Of course not. Just because we are now able to understand things which were inconceivable doesn't require any sort of leap of faith. To put it another way, we now understand the causes of diseases which were once thought to be supernatural afflictions or curses. The Greek myths (and many others) were "explanations" of natural phenomena such as thunder and lightning which we no longer need to make up stories to protect ourselves from irrational fears.

From the link you posted, here is a plainly stated argument:
"Is Atheism a belief system or religion?

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.

2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be "true atheists."

The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals."

Is there really part of that open for argument? I can't understand how anyone can read that and still think that atheism is the same as a religion. There's no open ended issue there, no unclear statement. As for your statement that it's not easy to define religion, how is it difficult? I'm not saying that all religions are the same or even similar, but religion itself is a simple concept and not difficult at all to define.

As far as most of the people who say that atheism isn't a religion being atheists, who would you rather hear it from, someone who doesn't know what it means? I don't understand why it's a problem for an atheist to explain what atheism means. If you want to learn the beliefs of the catholic church would you disregard anything a priest told you?

The reason that atheists are concerned with being able to voice their opinions legally is the same reason that any other segment of the population is concerned with that. Every person should have a right to their own voice, just because our country is being taken over more and more by people with a religious agenda is no reason that those of us who don't have a religion should be silenced. There is no atheist agenda simply because atheists are not an organized group. There are outspoken atheists like the two authors I mentioned earlier and there are lots and lots of people who consider themselves atheists who don't have a public voice for any variety of reasons, most people don't have access to publishing, many people just don't want to be told that not believing in the same unprovable entity as the vocal majority makes them "stupid" or "ridiculous" because most religious and even agnostic people don't know what atheism means. Here you are arguing with me about the meaning of what I believe and you refuse to believe that people who call themselves atheists know the meaning of the term. Human history is full of people who think they know what other people are about better than those people know themselves.

The quote about Dawkins isn't absurd at all. It's a very brief explanation of what his book The God Delusion is about. Not that you ever would, but if you read it, you would find that he lays out his explanation of religion as a delusion (the psychiatric definition of the word is " fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact") after giving his arguments to the supposed "proofs of god's existence" given credence by theologians. He very clearly explains why it is almost impossible for a god to actually exist and even goes so far as to explain why it is impossible to completely prove or disprove such a thing.

Lastly, belief in nothing is not atheism, it's nihilism. Beliefs are not restricted in any way to the realm of religion. I belief it's snowing here today and that's not a new religion it's the weather. Atheism is not "belief in nothing" it is not a reactionary thing either, it is simply deciding to believe only in that which is real and provable. Were it possible to prove the existence of a god, atheists would believe in that god.

"Atheists don't adhere to some guidelines that someone has to rely upon blind faith to not question. For that matter, there is NOTHING that should not be questioned from an atheists standpoint."

It is blind faith and you aren't questioning. How are you questioning things when your "organizations" main thought is that there is no god.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:10 PM

And as far as congregating, atheists don't have a set schedule of meetings to discuss beliefs. There are certain groups of atheists who may get together in order to work towards some shared goal, but it is not to participate in a set of rituals to reinforce their non-belief in a supernatural being. You're really just nitpicking at every possible meaning of specific words and not the whole of anyone's argument here.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
I've seen marches from people of various races, does that make them an organization?

People got together to petition the court, that doesn't make them an organization. Also, it's interesting how you went from claiming atheism is a religion to an organization. Are those two words synonymous for you? Even if there are some organized atheists that does nothing to counter the claim that atheism is not a religion, organized or otherwise.

If you read my, admittedly long, last post, you'd see that I said atheists believe in provable things. In other words, atheists say there is no god because it is unprovable (and highly unlikely) that there is such a thing. If it were proven that there is a god, atheists would believe it as a proven/provable fact. How is there an issue of having a right to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god anyway?

I still believe atheism is a form of religion in my eyes. And I went on to the whole organization thing because the religion thing will not get settled. I find it funny the only thing I am getting is that atheism is nothing more than a thought, not a religion obviously and not even an organization, which blows my mind.

And why does the atheist website .org instead of .com

And last time I checked the NAACP is indeed an organization.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:13 PM

Are you insanely high? How is reliance on provable facts "blind faith"? What organization are you referring to and what do you not get about the fact that atheism isn't about adherence to anything other than what is or isn't provable?

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:19 PM

Isn't me critiquing atheism the same thing as Dawkins critiquing religion? Why does he have more right than me to state his problems with "religion" yet its such a big problem for me stating my problems with atheism. And you act like I have no idea whatsoever about what atheism is about; its about not believing in god because it can't proven. That is stupid to me.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:20 PM

Believe what you wanna believe, man. Unfortunately, just like with religion, believing something doesn't make it true. Yes, there are some atheist organizations, but none of them are going to require people to belong to them in order for those people to call themselves atheists. I still don't know what the hell the whole organization thing is supposed to mean to you. I'm guessing you got that from the phrase "organized religion", but there are all kinds of organizations both secular and religious and none of that pertains to this discussion.

Where does your mention of the NAACP come into things? I mentioned people of various races marching, not any specific group such as the NAACP. Just because they may march doesn't mean that everybody who marches in a racially motivated march is a member or even of that race.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Are you insanely high? How is reliance on provable facts "blind faith"? What organization are you referring to and what do you not get about the fact that atheism isn't about adherence to anything other than what is or isn't provable?

No I am quite sober thank you very much! But thanks again for stooping down to insults.

Provable facts? It wasn't that long ago that we thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

And how is saying there is no god a "provable fact", that doesn't seem very scientific to me.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:23 PM

It's not the same at all because you are trying to argue something that makes no sense. You say you aren't religious and yet claim it's stupid to not believe in something that can't be proven. What the fuck does that mean? We can't prove that there aren't invisible, incorporeal beings floating around us all the time, but by your logic we should still believe in them.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
It's not the same at all because you are trying to argue something that makes no sense. You say you aren't religious and yet claim it's stupid to not believe in something that can't be proven. What the fuck does that mean? We can't prove that there aren't invisible, incorporeal beings floating around us all the time, but by your logic we should still believe in them.

I said nothing about believing in anything. But you're saying just because you can't see it, you shouldn't believe in it. That isn't logical at all.

"My stance on all religions is that none of them really know what the fuck they are talking about. And atheists I will never get. They hate on a religion because they can't prove that there is a god but can any atheist prove there is not a god? Hell no. "

You got so heated with that statement. You act like I am incoherent and unintelligent but I think my statement has some validity to it. Atheism does hate/have a problem with religion, and the main thing is because that religion can't prove their side of the story but how can an atheist scientifically prove theirs? They can't.

Yet I'm high and have no idea what I'm talking about right?

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:29 PM

Once again, read what I wrote. How many times do I have to say that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it? It's not "believing there is no god" it is NOT believing that there is a god. It is a lack of belief in something, not a belief in a lack of something. I never said it was provable that there is no god, in fact I said it is NOT provable. It is impossible to actually prove that there is and it is possible to prove that it is highly unlikely for such a being to exist, but it is as of yet, impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt either way.

As for insults, you've claimed repeatedly that atheism is stupid. That's insulting, not to mention flat out ignorant. I apologize if I offended you by suggesting you were high, but your avatar and numerous posts on this board all indicate that you like to get high on a regular basis.

Discipline - 1-3-2009 at 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
Problem is, its not merely a label. It is an organization in one way or another. It wasn't one person that went to the Supreme Court to get prayer out of school.

And like I said, I am not religious in the least but atheist have no more right saying there is no god as any other religion saying there is a god. How do they know? Not like science hasn't been proven wrong, many, many times. What's right today may be completely false tomorrow.

Taking prayer out of public schools was a cause supported by many who weren't atheists. The problem people had with prayer in public schools is that only one religion was represented. Many religious groups worked to have prayer taken out of school because it meant their children were excluded and therefore made to stick out. In our oh so tolerant society sticking out can lead to ridicule and prejudice from other kids.

I myself am an atheist, and I support no prayer in school, as not everybody believes in the same things. Church and family are the ones that should be teaching faith to children, not schools, unless it a religious school by charter. At the same time, I don't support taking any mention of God out of Canada's national anthem, from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc., because those are the foundations upon which Canada was created. I fully believe we should respect those traditions because that is our nations history, even if I don't believe in it.

In our courts you only swear on a bible if you choose to. There are oaths for every religion a person may be, and affirmations for atheists such as myself. I had to testify in court once more than a decade ago, and I refused to swear on a bible. The judge asked me why out of curiosity, and I told him that swearing to a god I don't believe in would be perjury in itself.

All things aside, I don't belong to any atheist organizations or websites, I usually try to avoid discussions about religion with people because, like some atheists, I am strongly anti-religion. The only use I have for religion is in a historical perspective, as the history of religions can be very interesting reading. Not believing in god doesn't put me into any religion or organization, it just means I don't believe.

Siczine.com - 1-3-2009 at 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Once again, read what I wrote. How many times do I have to say that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?

That makes no sense! Atheists want to believe in what is provable and they would believe in god if it was proven right? Well then, why don't atheists just say we don't know if there is a god or not, but religion can and often does infringe on others?

Discipline - 1-3-2009 at 11:37 PM

It's hard to believe in anything Christians say, (and I think Jews as well, but I could be wrong) when they claim the Earth is only about 6000 years old when we know without a doubt it's millions of years old.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com

Quote:

Seriously? Where did I say that JUST because you can't see something you shouldn't believe in it? I believe that bacteria and many other things I can't see exist and have NEVER said anything to the contrary.

As for everything else in your post here, you keep going round and round over the same few things that you just seem unwilling or unable to wrap your head around. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, period. It is not a conspiracy out to convert anyone or prove to any person of any faith that they are wrong. Sure, anybody who considers themselves an atheist may be willing to debate ideas with a religious person if asked, but there is no agenda to try to convert anyone.

How are you ok with religious people believing their doctrines, but think that people who disbelieve are stupid? That's an untenable position, ESPECIALLY if you claim to be non-religious. I can understand wanting to say that you don't know whether or not god exists and wanting to leave it at that, I felt that way for many years. However, if you truly feel that way, shouldn't the possibility that there is no god be just as likely as the possibility that there is? How is it more "stupid" to not believe in an unprovable possibility than to believe in it?

I can completely understand the reasoning of someone who is immersed in their faith saying that atheism makes no sense to them. If they truly believe in their god, then someone who does not is going to be hard to understand. What I can't comprehend is why you feel the need to not only blatantly insult the idea of atheism, but to try to define it in a way that is contrary to what those of us who consider ourselves to be atheists would define it.

tireironsaint - 1-3-2009 at 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Once again, read what I wrote. How many times do I have to say that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?

How does that make no sense? Atheist make the choice to believe that there is no god based on the FACT that there is no possible way to prove otherwise. What I said above is that IF there were some way to prove that a god exists then we would accept that proof and change our minds. As you mentioned, people used to believe that the earth was flat, it has been proven that it is in fact round and now people generally believe that it is round.

DaveMoral - 1-4-2009 at 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Discipline
It's hard to believe in anything Christians say, (and I think Jews as well, but I could be wrong) when they claim the Earth is only about 6000 years old when we know without a doubt it's millions of years old.

I was watching a thing once with a Rabbi talking about the 6 days thing in the Book of Genesis and linking it with the relativity of time and all that. Basically he was saying something about there being calculations that on the scale of the universe or the galaxy or something that 6000 years would be right for a galactic or universal year. I can't remember exactly, it was a while back and on some Philly college TV station.

6,000 years but not earth years or something. A year is different for us on earth than it is for even Mars or Pluto... and that's just with regards to how long it takes for them to get around the sun. Let alone how long it takes for our solar system to rotate around the center of our galaxy... and of course the galaxy to rotate around the theoretical center of the universe. And that's just rotations... that's not even getting into the theory of relativity and how the perception of time is actually different depending upon gravity and such.

Anyways... this thread used to be cool.

upyerbum - 1-4-2009 at 02:43 PM

The more I find out, the less I know. Answers lead to more questions, but one thing I have come to understand is that there has to be some driving force, call it what you will, behind the whole mess. The Gnostics didn't even like to use the word god because it immediately conjures an image in our minds. But how can we imagine something beyond our comprehension? I believe science will eventually answer these questions, but I don't think it will be the answer they want, and I don't think it will be the answer the "religious" camps are after either.

defstarsteve - 1-4-2009 at 03:27 PM

as someone who doesn’t believe in shit....
I will let you know there is no secret club of atheists or secret hand shakes...

I don't care what the saint believes
or what any other person believes
but since we both don't believe, does that mean we get tax exempt status...
no not at all....

our lack of beliefs doesn’t mean we are the same, it just means we are not like those who do have beliefs

and anyone can register a web domain, and .org doesn’t mean shit....

just because a group of people who have their Sundays free to play soccer in the park,
doesn’t mean they are speaking of how much they hate religion
they talk about how much they like playing soccer in the park...
does that make them a religion...?

next up for discussion

anarchist...
political party or lack of political party...

vegetarians the next big religion
our lack of a belief in meat eating makes us meat eaters because we refuse to eat meat...

DaveMoral - 1-4-2009 at 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by upyerbum
The more I find out, the less I know. Answers lead to more questions, but one thing I have come to understand is that there has to be some driving force, call it what you will, behind the whole mess. The Gnostics didn't even like to use the word god because it immediately conjures an image in our minds. But how can we imagine something beyond our comprehension? I believe science will eventually answer these questions, but I don't think it will be the answer they want, and I don't think it will be the answer the "religious" camps are after either.

I doubt science will ever be able to answer anything but questions about the material world. If the driving Force were non-material science wouldn't know shit. They'd just be like, "look, we ran up against a brick wall in all this and we know that this final thing we found that underlies all the material things isn't driving it all... we don't have the answer." The interesting thing to me is how much quantum physics is starting to sound like the language of metaphysics and mysticism these days.

You should read some Ibn al-'Arabi stuff dude. Sufis consider him the Master of Masters and that last Muhammadan saint. He's got some pretty cool stuff on the diversity of belief and how our beliefs are all ultimately not the full truth of things because the Absolute Truth is ultimately indescribable and incomprehensible and while we might have glimpses and kernals of Truth in our various beliefs and religions... specifically those believed to have been revealed by the Real to prophets... they ultimately don't tell the full reality of the Essence of God.

That's not even just a Sufi belief amongst Muslims, it's pretty much right out there on the surface for Shi'a Muslims anyways. At least the idea that we cannot comprehend God in full, and to attempt to even contemplate the Essence of God will ultimately mislead us as to the true nature of God.

Sufis had a tendancy to refer to God almost exclusively as "the Real" or "the Truth"(al-Haqq in Arabic). Even the use of "He" in Arabic, and I believe in Hebrew, has more to do with a lack of an "it" in Semtic languages rather than actually wanted to make God male.

Siczine.com - 1-4-2009 at 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
As for insults, you've claimed repeatedly that atheism is stupid. That's insulting, not to mention flat out ignorant. I apologize if I offended you by suggesting you were high, but your avatar and numerous posts on this board all indicate that you like to get high on a regular basis.

I just reread this and realized you've pulled something out of thin air. Nowhere did I say, even once, that atheism is stupid, yet you say I said it repeatedly. I said one thing that you interpreted to be "stupid". I just said it makes no sense, and to me it really doesn't. Just like how I think straight edge is a pointless label to give yourself, others disagree obviously but that doesn't make my disagreement invalid. General society is the one concerned with labels, doesn't mean you have to. So you stooped to insults for no reason. And I don't get why you're so mad about me having a problem with atheists especially if it's not a religion right? It is just a thought process is it not?

I will close on this; you don't agree with me, I don't agree with you. End of story. Sorry it took me so long to say that.

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
Isn't me critiquing atheism the same thing as Dawkins critiquing religion? Why does he have more right than me to state his problems with "religion" yet its such a big problem for me stating my problems with atheism. And you act like I have no idea whatsoever about what atheism is about; its about not believing in god because it can't proven. That is stupid to me.

Siczine.com - 1-4-2009 at 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral

Quote:

Even though I don't agree with sufism, Rumi was an amazing poet and had a way with words. Though I know its much different reading it in english than arabic, it is still impressive.

Siczine.com - 1-4-2009 at 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint

Quote:

ah okay, you got me.

But I don't think me calling atheism stupid is ignorant. That'd be like me getting ass hurt because someone said football is stupid. Speaking of which time to go watch the IGGLES!

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 05:52 PM

Give it up man. You got "ass hurt" because I suggested you might be stoned. You actually like to get stoned, don't you? You, on the other hand, claimed that something you don't know anything about is stupid. Stupid actually means characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless. While atheism is something that is by definition about thinking something through and asking questions.

I'm not angry or "ass hurt" about what you had to say on the matter, just engaging in debate. That's kinda what we do on this board, right? Somebody posts an opinion and other people reply with their own. I'm not here trying to convince you or anyone else that atheism is the path for them, but when someone wants to make ill informed statements about something I actually consider to be a part of my life I'm gonna go ahead and try to explain the truth about it.

Siczine.com - 1-4-2009 at 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Give it up man. You got "ass hurt" because I suggested you might be stoned. You actually like to get stoned, don't you? You, on the other hand, claimed that something you don't know anything about is stupid. Stupid actually means characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless. While atheism is something that is by definition about thinking something through and asking questions.

I'm not angry or "ass hurt" about what you had to say on the matter, just engaging in debate. That's kinda what we do on this board, right? Somebody posts an opinion and other people reply with their own. I'm not here trying to convince you or anyone else that atheism is the path for them, but when someone wants to make ill informed statements about something I actually consider to be a part of my life I'm gonna go ahead and try to explain the truth about it.

I'm not the one that started insults. Me saying atheism is stupid is no more ignorant than when Discipline said something about religion being fairytales and I don't feel either are ignorant.

Have you read every line of every text of all the religions you refute; I fucking doubt it. It's not like the the things I said aren't completely unfounded. You're stubborn in your beliefs as I'm stubborn in my beliefs.

And you still never really told me what atheism is. Again, it's not an organization, not a religion, so what is it?

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 09:50 PM

It's not a thing like that at all. I've explained over and over that all it consists of is not believing in god or anything outside of provable fact. That's it. It's not a set of dogmatic rules to follow, it's not an organized group of people trying to convert others to join them (although as we discussed, there are some groups of atheists who organize in order to achieve some goal or another), it's not a group of people who all agree on their beliefs, it's not even a group of people who necessarily share the same beliefs aside from the fact that they refuse to believe in something that cannot be proven. It's the idea that everything can be explained through natural phenomena, period. It is, as the quote I took from the link you found earlier said, being without god. That's what the word atheist means, that's what it means to be an atheist.

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 09:59 PM

Have I read every line written in support of every religion? No, of course not and neither has even the most devout member/priest/holy man/whatever you wanna call it of any of those religions. It's not possible to do. It's also not necessary. If you read any one version of just the bible, to pick the most popular candidate in this country, you cannot help but run into contradiction after contradiction and unprovable event after unprovable event. The bible itself can't even be used as the moral guide that christians will tell you it is as it's full of instances where people are killed for such things as worshipping a different god. The god in the bible killed everyone in the world except for one family because he thought they were too evil. Do I need to read everything written about that religion to decide that it makes no sense? That's just a ridiculously small bit of info that can be learned in two minutes of flipping through one book and yet the majority of staunch christians would tell you that the bible is the literal word of god and is infallible.

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 10:02 PM

Discipline didn't say that religion is a fairy tale, he used fairy tales as an example of something he didn't believe in to explain that he isn't a member of an "anti-fairy tale group" just as he isn't a member of an "anti-religion" group because he's an atheist.

tireironsaint - 1-4-2009 at 10:05 PM

And whether you agree with it or not, saying atheism is stupid is an ignorant statement. I'm not calling you an ignorant person by saying that, but that's like a kid who gets frustrated in school and says math (or reading, or biology, or whatever subject) is stupid.

MarkV - 1-4-2009 at 10:20 PM

Wow, this got painful. TireIronSaint has done a very good job explaining atheism and why it's not a religion or an organized group.

And, I think it was Discipline that pointed out that most of the major opponents of organized prayer in schools were NOT atheists, rather, people who thought the prayer in school was too heavily judeo/christian (obviously more christian) and left out those of muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc faiths.

Siczine.com - 1-5-2009 at 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
Wow, this got painful. TireIronSaint has done a very good job explaining atheism and why it's not a religion or an organized group.

And, I think it was Discipline that pointed out that most of the major opponents of organized prayer in schools were NOT atheists, rather, people who thought the prayer in school was too heavily judeo/christian (obviously more christian) and left out those of muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc faiths.

I can even agree with CERTAIN reasons why atheism can not be considered a religion but to say its not an organization altogether is absolute nonsense.

I am done with this, I'll think what I want and you can think what you want. I think you're wrong and you can think I'm wrong and ignorant in my views of atheism, whatever. But then again, it's not like atheism has a book or website that I can look to and be like oh, that's what it is without another atheist saying "No, that's wrong, that's not the right idea about atheism" like how a Catholic thinks a Lutheran is wrong even though they are both interpreting the same fucking book. It seems all very subjective and therefore, no definite conclusions can be reached.

tireironsaint - 1-5-2009 at 12:51 AM

It's not subjective at all, but it's more of a LACK of something than anything else. Exactly how you said there's not a book you can look to and get an idea of what it's about, that's because it's much simpler than all that. I've laid out the ENTIRE thing here I don't know how many times and you keep looking for more. All it is and I do mean ALL it is, is this: not believing that there is a god. Nothing more. It's not organized in the sense that anyone who doesn't believe in god is automatically an atheist by definition. There's no rules of who can and can't be one, there's no scripture to adhere to, there's not even a way to get kicked out because it's simply a way of thought.

Look at it this way, if a person believes that there is something out there that they identify as god but they don't believe in the tenets of ANY established religion, then they aren't a member of any religion, are they? If another person thinks that there might be some kind of god, but they aren't sure whether there is or isn't, they'd be agnostic which is really just a fancy way of saying undecided. If yet another person goes a step beyond that and says that they don't believe that there is evidence that god could or does exist, then that person is an atheist. There's really NOTHING more to it than that.

I don't believe that there is a god. I don't believe that there is ANY shred of evidence to say otherwise, nor do I believe that there will ever be any such evidence. However, as I said before, if mankind somehow came up with a way to prove that there is in fact a god, I would believe it is so because of the facts proving that case. I'm not dogmatic in my belief that there is no god because if it could be proven then I would believe. This is not a "blind faith" argument simply because in my personal quest for knowledge I have investigated religions and found nothing in them to convince me otherwise. I have looked for any kind of proof of a god and found none.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in converting you or anyone else to atheism. If someone chooses to believe in whatever religion they like, that's fine by me and none of my concern. If someone chooses to believe that it's an unanswerable argument and that they cannot say whether there is or isn't a god, that's fine by me too. This really isn't (at least for me) about making you believe what I believe, all I've been doing is explaining what atheism is. I never once got defensive about my beliefs because there's nothing to get defensive about, I simply don't believe. This isn't something for you to agree or disagree with which is why I keep coming back and replying after I've explained my point a hundred different ways. You can point out certain groups of atheists as being organized all you want, but that's beside the point entirely. Saying that there is an organized group of atheists means that atheism is an organization is like saying that because there are black christians that christianity is a black religion. It's circular reasoning that leaves out everything not included in it's small cross section. You could go and talk to one of these organized groups of atheists and ask them what they believe and each member of the group is likely to give you an entirely different philosophy. Just because they all disbelieve in god doesn't mean that they all believe anything else alike.

MarkV - 1-5-2009 at 01:04 AM

Well said, TIS, again.

"I can even agree with CERTAIN reasons why atheism can not be considered a religion but to say its not an organization altogether is absolute nonsense. "

This statement is absolute nonsense. It's like saying because I don't like hockey, and I have friends who don't like hockey, that we're some sort of organization. Or that I'm part of some sort of organization because I'm vegan/vegetarian. It's just totally, inarguably, untrue.

tireironsaint - 1-5-2009 at 01:25 AM

Thanks Mark, going round and round like this I almost start to wonder if the words I'm typing are saying what I want them to. Sometimes I'm amazed at how difficult it is for two people who speak the same language to communicate clearly.

MarkV - 1-5-2009 at 01:28 AM

No, you're being very clear. He's just either not understanding it or refusing to change his mind when you've provided plenty of proof he's misinformed.

Siczine.com - 1-5-2009 at 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
No, you're being very clear. He's just either not understanding it or refusing to change his mind when you've provided plenty of proof he's misinformed.

The "proof" he provided is his opinion, nothing more, and the same for you. Much of what has been said in this thread is nothing but opinions.

And like I mentioned last post, how can I be misinformed on something like atheism when like TIS mentioned, one atheist could have a completely different take on it. There are no facts or guidelines on atheism, correct?

And you really did get defensive TIS, you seemed quite offended that to you, I was misinformed on something you seem to hold near and dear to your heart.

"My stance on all religions is that none of them really know what the fuck they are talking about. And atheists I will never get. They hate on a religion because they can't prove that there is a god but can any atheist prove there is not a god? Hell no."
^
Notice in this statement the only thing I said about atheism is what the common thread all atheist have, they don't believe in god. And do not most of all atheist have a problem with religion, sure seems so. Perhaps hate was the wrong word to use but I felt it wasn't that far off.

"Siczine, I don't know who the fuck you've been talking to about atheism, but you've got a warped sense of what it's about. It's honestly NOT about "hating on" religion at all. Yes, a good number of people who consider themselves atheists have issues with aspects of organized religion, but anyone who can objectively look at those aspects of organized religion should be able to understand those issues. A good example of that is this thread. Obviously, christianity has adopted a huge number of ideas and traditions from other religions and used them to gain followers in a deceptive manner. If something that is supposed to be pure and true is willing to stoop to such underhandedness, why should anyone be willing to give complete faith over to it?"
^^^^^
Yet, some reason you came off foaming at the mouth saying "Siczine, I don't know who the fuck you've been talking to about atheism, but you've got a warped sense of what it's about." like what I said was COMPLETELY wrong, replace dislike for hate and I summed up atheism.

DaveMoral - 1-5-2009 at 09:36 PM

One thing I'm going to say about many atheists I have encountered in debates... there's a tendancy to make sweeping condemnations of religion on the whole without experiencing anything but a narrow experience of Christianity and making the leap in assumption that all religions and all demoninations of any religion teach things exactly the same way.

Dawkins and Hitchens go so far as to talk of religion in a way that's obvious they only have any first hand knowledge of, and possibly study of, Christianity and even choose which religions are and are not religions. For instance, I believe it was Hitchens on NPR that I heard saying Taoism is not a religion but a philosophy... which is revealing about the extent of his ignorance on Taoism and its place in Chinese culture, religion and history.

Atheists can be just like any other group of people that have a strong belief about the world.... they can be total assholes about what they do and do not believe in. So you get raving atheists that come off just as looney as raving evangelists or "Islamists" or anyone else from any other religion.

Discipline - 1-5-2009 at 10:03 PM

Quote:

I was guilty of this for many years until somebody pointed it out to me in my early 20's. Since I was a young child I've thought the idea of God was a fantasy. Somebody I was debating with challenged me to do more research before I expressed my atheistic views because, as he put it, I can't argue against something if I don't educate myself first. I'm not going to sit here and claim to have read everything there is to read on each religion, because that's not humanly possible. What I did was read the basic tenets of the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddism, etc) to learn more about them, and then search out more detailed writings I felt were necessary to understand. I can't remember all of it because that was 7-8 years ago I did all of this research.

In the end I was left feeling the same way I did going in. I find no value in religion, at least in a personal perspective, as I can't accept religious texts as being reality based, particularly the bible, but it would take me forever to write out all of the reasons why. When I was younger I would argue religion with people until I was blue in the face. Now I prefer to calmly debate religion with people, because you can learn a lot because people often have their own take on their religion, so talking to different people can give you a broader spectrum of ideas to debate.

The only interest I have in religion is from an historical perspective, as it has helped shape societies for thousands of years. I'd actually like to take a history course in world religions as the amount of knowledge and perspective you could gain is enormous.

I still say atheism isn't a religion or organization though.

DaveMoral - 1-5-2009 at 10:52 PM

You know what might be of interest for you... Joseph Cambell and his writings on mythology and the mono-myth. Specifically Hero With A Thousand Faces or The Power of Myth that is an interview of Cambell by Bill Moyers.

There interesting thing about everything he writes is that he says you know... that the literal historicity of Biblical stories isn't necessarily important and taking them that way can actually be harmful to the point of the stories in the first place. They have mythological symbolic value and myths aren't constrained by the normal rules of the universe. Like the whole Garden of Eden story and such... I take that story as being highly symbolic rather than literal. It's repeated in the Qur'an, but with a variation on what might be considered as assigning blame for the fall to Eve. The Qur'an doesn't do this. Nevertheless, I think the point of the story remains true and it's a point that you find in religions across the board. It's essentially describing, in symbolic language, the trasition from the innocence of childhood/infancy towards adulthood and all that loss of bliss that comes with.

Take for instance in the Qur'an where it talks about God having hands and a face... these words are intented to be taken symbolically rather than literally, and that's been in the teaching from the get-go.

Anyways, I think looking at scriptures... especially sacred histories... in a symbolic sense rather than a literal reading is important for understanding it. Unfortunately "myth" is often used perjoratively these days, when all it means is "story" and usually a story that has religious, spiritual and ideological significance to the tellers of the myth.

upyerbum - 1-5-2009 at 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
You should read some Ibn al-'Arabi stuff dude. Sufis consider him the Master of Masters and that last Muhammadan saint. He's got some pretty cool stuff on the diversity of belief and how our beliefs are all ultimately not the full truth of things because the Absolute Truth is ultimately indescribable and incomprehensible and while we might have glimpses and kernals of Truth in our various beliefs and religions... specifically those believed to have been revealed by the Real to prophets... they ultimately don't tell the full reality of the Essence of God.

Ultimately, all the "mystic" sects of any religion are pretty much saying the same thing. The nine sefirots of Kabbalah are just the nine aspects of god (or Ein Sof) that man can comprehend.
I don't know as much about Sufism as I'd like to, but I have twirled around in circles til I saw god. :rolleyes:

tireironsaint - 1-6-2009 at 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
No, you're being very clear. He's just either not understanding it or refusing to change his mind when you've provided plenty of proof he's misinformed.

Last thing I'm gonna direct towards you in this discussion, siczine. I'm not and haven't been debating my opinion of what atheism is, nor have I been debating atheism versus religion. I've explained what atheism actually is, that's not an opinion, it's a definition. Had I been debating atheism versus religion, THAT would have been my opinion and/or beliefs. Once again, I'm not here to convert anyone and haven't been trying to tell you what my personal opinions on either religion or atheism are aside from saying that I am an atheist. I wasn't trying to say that every atheist will have a different view of atheism, just that every atheist is not likely to have the same set of beliefs in common with every other (or possibly even any other) atheist.

tireironsaint - 1-6-2009 at 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
One thing I'm going to say about many atheists I have encountered in debates... there's a tendancy to make sweeping condemnations of religion on the whole without experiencing anything but a narrow experience of Christianity and making the leap in assumption that all religions and all demoninations of any religion teach things exactly the same way.

Dawkins and Hitchens go so far as to talk of religion in a way that's obvious they only have any first hand knowledge of, and possibly study of, Christianity and even choose which religions are and are not religions. For instance, I believe it was Hitchens on NPR that I heard saying Taoism is not a religion but a philosophy... which is revealing about the extent of his ignorance on Taoism and its place in Chinese culture, religion and history.

Atheists can be just like any other group of people that have a strong belief about the world.... they can be total assholes about what they do and do not believe in. So you get raving atheists that come off just as looney as raving evangelists or "Islamists" or anyone else from any other religion.

I'll agree with you that atheists are just as likely to be rabid about their beliefs as anyone else. Humans as a rule seem to be fairly opinionated in my experience, some much more than others. I don't think that sort of attitude is confined to opinions solely relating to religion or a lack thereof though.

If you've really read Hitchens and Dawkins, you'd know that they both address religions outside christianity and have both studied quite a bit on them. I'm not sure where you're getting the information to the contrary. I didn't hear that particular NPR interview and won't refute what you say you believe you heard, but I've heard Taoism referred to in two different ways, one as a philosophy originated by Lao Tzu and secondly as a religion. Even looking for a definition of it gives two different meanings, so it seems that at least the western understanding is a bit divided on it.

As for your point about a lot of atheists talking mainly in regard to christianity, I think that's because most atheists are from the UK and US and the vast majority of religious people in those countries are christians. I don't think anyone who debates religion thinks that all religions are exactly the same or they'd never get anyone with an ounce of logic to listen to them anyway. On the other hand, most of the religions that are discussed in these sorts of debates belong to some division of one of the three major monotheistic religions and are much more alike than not in the overview. Of course there are differences in the specific traditions and views, but in the same way that people of all races have more in common than not, I see that in these religions.

MarkV - 1-6-2009 at 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
The "proof" he provided is his opinion, nothing more, and the same for you. Much of what has been said in this thread is nothing but opinions.

And like I mentioned last post, how can I be misinformed on something like atheism when like TIS mentioned, one atheist could have a completely different take on it. There are no facts or guidelines on atheism, correct?

It's not opinion. It's definition. And just the fact there are no guidelines on atheism confirms exactly what we've been saying: that it's NOT an organization.

Siczine.com - 1-6-2009 at 01:26 AM

haha okay.

You say it's a definition yet you stated earlier " that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it? It's not "believing there is no god" it is NOT believing that there is a god."

Yet, Dictionary.com's definition is:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

These two statements do not make sense logically:

"Atheism is a lack of belief in god, period"

"How many times do I have to say that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?"

It seems the two statements you made contradict one another. If atheism is a" lack of belief in a god, period" why even say "were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?"

"I never said it was provable that there is no god, in fact I said it is NOT provable."

But I thought atheists believed in what was provable? Yet atheists believe in something they cannot prove. Again you contradicted yourself here.

You sit there and act like I, not an atheist "have a warped sense" of what atheism is (of course I don't know everything about atheism, just like you do not know everything about all the religions you and other atheists critique) yet it seems you, an atheist, aren't totally clear yourself on exactly what an atheist or atheism is.

It's not easy to define religion, nor is it easy to define atheism, yet you thought you did so easily for both, which to me is quite ignorant considering many, many men that are far more intelligent than you and I have debated on for centuries about what religion is. As I said, there are "sects" of atheists; you have pragmatic atheists that do not necessarily deny the existence of gods but don't use it as a tool to explain the dark corners of the earth (and you did not state yourself as being one, simply an atheist) and then you have philosophical or theoretical atheists that debate the existence of god(s) by arguing against man made terms like omnipotence and omniscience but just because Christianity choose poor words to describe their deity as did other major theistic religions, does not mean because you make a deductive argument against a contradiction in a religious book prove there is no god.

In the context of this discussion the only fact that is provable is that we don't know if there is a god or not.

Lastly,

"You say you aren't religious and yet claim it's stupid to not believe in something that can't be proven"

My initial point which you vehemently opposed, was that religious people believe there is a god, atheist believe there is no god, neither can be proven thus both are the arguing something that can't be proven yet atheists are the scientific ones, searching for answers? They argue against the thought of a god because it can't proven yet their central belief is that there is no god which can't be proven either. Yeah, that really makes sense.

If they truly wanted to search for answers and be scientific atheists would acknowledge that they, like religions don't know if there is a god or not.

Siczine.com - 1-6-2009 at 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV

Quote:

It's not opinion. It's definition. And just the fact there are no guidelines on atheism confirms exactly what we've been saying: that it's NOT an organization.

And boy do you know how to ride a coattail!

And I find it outright funny that you and TIS don't even think atheism is an organization. Yet on numerous atheist websites they claim to be organizations, alliances, societies, etc,.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

The Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies. Applications for Alliance membership from independent local, regional or international atheist clubs, groups, societies, organizations, and associations are always welcome.
AAI welcomes individual members. In addition, individual atheists who do not have an already established atheist organization in their area may receive a free membership with Atheist Internet Outreach; Established as a member organization of the AAI, our Outreach Program is designed to assist isolated and/or disaffected atheists with freethought issues of the day...
Atheist Alliance International is registered in the United States as a 501(c)3 nonprofit, educational organization. Donations to AAI are tax deductible for U.S. taxpayers.

Again it's your opinion that isn't an organization and mine is that its an organization. I have found atheist websites that state they are organizations. I haven't seen you provide anything to prove otherwise.

Once upon a time Christianity was nothing more than a man trying to preach values to people of his community and then other greedy men saw it as an opportunity to exploit it by turning it into an institution. Seems kind of similar to what is going on in the atheist community. Its only a matter of time before it becomes more streamlined and the atheists put out their "official" book.

MarkV - 1-6-2009 at 04:31 AM

Dude, we've BOTH said there ARE atheist organizations. That doesn't make atheism in and of itself, an organization. How much clearer do we have to state this??
There's been atheists for as long as there's been religion. And, I'm sure there's dozens if not hundreds of books about atheism.
If it WAS an organization or a religion, there would have been plenty of opportunity to have released some sort of "official" book, but, since it's NOT, there hasn't been.

Enyo - 1-6-2009 at 09:20 AM

Mark and TIS- I agree with you 100%, however, I think you're wasting your breath. He is obviously being deliberately obtuse. It would seem to me that you could show him a red square and he would argue that some website says it's purple. There is no point in trying to have rational discussion like that.

DaveMoral - 1-6-2009 at 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint

Quote:

Eh, it's true... I've never read either of their books because quite frankly... I've no interest.

In interviews they've never come off any more knowledgable about what they speak than some of the encounters I've had with other atheists though. Like I said on the Taoism front... it's religious aspect is much older than what some Taoists have chosen to now called "Laoism" which is a school of philosophy based on Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching. From that perspective, to just say "Taoism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy" is sort of the height of not only ignorance but arrogance. Particularly when one puts oneself out there as not only one of the top voices of atheism... but as an atheist who is supposely rather knowledgable about what he speaks.

It's like me going on polemical tirades about Christianity without knowing alot of particulars and just making blanket statements. Or going on tirades about Hinduism... which is something I know next to nothing about.

Plus, I don't think anyone can make any sort of coherent argument that religion has hurt mankind more than it has benefited. Which is essentially what these guys are up to. There's been no greater proponent in the world for altruism amongst people than religion. Also, the vast majority of the world's wars cannot be directly attributed to religion... and even those that traditionally are attributed to religion don't tend to be purely battles over difference in doctrine and ritual, but battles over who will take possession of certain lands and resources. As are most wars.

Of course, Dawkins and Hitchens both argue that the Soviet Union wasn't, and Communist China isn't, atheist. And that's just bullox. Both regimes are examples of how extremist atheists can be just as danerous... if not more so... as religious fanatics. And I wouldn't take issue with that so much if these dudes didn't insist that the worst examples of Christian, Muslim and any other religion you can think of that they take as representative of the religious teaching on the whole as responsible for death and destruction without allowance for someone to say "hey, they weren't following the actual teaching and were abusing our religious teachings for their own ends." These dudes wouldn't allow a Muslim to say Osama bin Laden is abusing Islam and taking things out of context to satisfy his own agenda, he is to be representative of true Islamic teaching. While atheist regimes like the USSR and red China are not actually atheist at all... it seems rather hypocritical if you ask me.

MarkV - 1-6-2009 at 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enyo
Mark and TIS- I agree with you 100%, however, I think you're wasting your breath. He is obviously being deliberately obtuse. It would seem to me that you could show him a red square and he would argue that some website says it's purple. There is no point in trying to have rational discussion like that.

HAHA. "Obtuse" just doesn't get used enough.

Siczine.com - 1-6-2009 at 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
haha okay.

You say it's a definition yet you stated earlier " that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it? It's not "believing there is no god" it is NOT believing that there is a god."

Yet, Dictionary.com's definition is:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

These two statements do not make sense logically:

"Atheism is a lack of belief in god, period"

"How many times do I have to say that were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?"

It seems the two statements you made contradict one another. If atheism is a" lack of belief in a god, period" why even say "were it proven or provable that there is a god atheists would believe in it?"

"I never said it was provable that there is no god, in fact I said it is NOT provable."

But I thought atheists believed in what was provable? Yet atheists believe in something they cannot prove. Again you contradicted yourself here.

You sit there and act like I, not an atheist "have a warped sense" of what atheism is (of course I don't know everything about atheism, just like you do not know everything about all the religions you and other atheists critique) yet it seems you, an atheist, aren't totally clear yourself on exactly what an atheist or atheism is.

It's not easy to define religion, nor is it easy to define atheism, yet you thought you did so easily for both, which to me is quite ignorant considering many, many men that are far more intelligent than you and I have debated on for centuries about what religion is. As I said, there are "sects" of atheists; you have pragmatic atheists that do not necessarily deny the existence of gods but don't use it as a tool to explain the dark corners of the earth (and you did not state yourself as being one, simply an atheist) and then you have philosophical or theoretical atheists that debate the existence of god(s) by arguing against man made terms like omnipotence and omniscience but just because Christianity choose poor words to describe their deity as did other major theistic religions, does not mean because you make a deductive argument against a contradiction in a religious book prove there is no god.

In the context of this discussion the only fact that is provable is that we don't know if there is a god or not.

Lastly,

"You say you aren't religious and yet claim it's stupid to not believe in something that can't be proven"

My initial point which you vehemently opposed, was that religious people believe there is a god, atheist believe there is no god, neither can be proven thus both are the arguing something that can't be proven yet atheists are the scientific ones, searching for answers? They argue against the thought of a god because it can't proven yet their central belief is that there is no god which can't be proven either. Yeah, that really makes sense.

If they truly wanted to search for answers and be scientific atheists would acknowledge that they, like religions don't know if there is a god or not.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Regardless of whether or not its an organization or a religion, my arguments against the hypocrisy of atheism rings true.

Siczine.com - 1-6-2009 at 04:43 PM

Quote:

I am being deliberately dim witted? Yeah alright.

MarkV - 1-6-2009 at 05:03 PM

There's nothing hypocritical about saying you don't believe in something if you can't see proof. It's very simple.

Siczine.com - 1-6-2009 at 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkV
There's nothing hypocritical about saying you don't believe in something if you can't see proof. It's very simple.

That's an over simplification.

I can't see any proof to say there is not a god, like there is no proof proving there is a god. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around?

And it's hypocritical for an atheist to argue with a Christian about how god does not exist because an atheist cannot prove there is no god.

Jason the Magnificent - 1-6-2009 at 05:21 PM

:borg:

Pages: 1 2