| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
JawnDiablo
Posting Freak
Posts: 12139
Registered: 4-21-2005
Location: 1902666
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 12139
Registered: 4-21-2005
Location: 1902666
Member Is Offline
|
|
Personally, I am more a beleiver of the teachings of the good Reverend Paul Bearer Esq.
one can't go wrong with that.
|
|
|
upyerbum
Posting Freak
Posts: 3226
Registered: 10-14-2005
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Condemned 84
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by juandiablo
May Juan be with you. |
And also with you. 
Well, its this place where nobody works, and the pigs don\'t give you any shit. Everyone smokes weed and gets drunk all day. Its a place where
cunts like me and you can truly take it easy and relax. Know what I mean?
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Siczine.com
| 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. |
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
Discipline
* DRUNKEN MONKEY *
Posts: 11900
Registered: 9-8-2004
Location: Over here
Member Is Offline
Mood: The Alley Dukes
|
|
I'm with the Saint on this one. (the Tireiron variety, not the Jebus kind of saint )
‘Do you know what a love letter is? It’s a bullet from a fucking gun. Straight through your heart.’
|
|
|
Siczine.com
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
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
* DRUNKEN MONKEY *
Posts: 11900
Registered: 9-8-2004
Location: Over here
Member Is Offline
Mood: The Alley Dukes
|
|
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.
‘Do you know what a love letter is? It’s a bullet from a fucking gun. Straight through your heart.’
|
|
|
Siczine.com
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Member
Posts: 337
Registered: 12-6-2008
Location: Va, USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
"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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Murk
| 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. |
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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?
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
Siczine.com
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
Siczine.com
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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?
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/thorp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
