| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
MarkV
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
MarkV
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
MarkV
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
* DRUNKEN MONKEY *
Posts: 11900
Registered: 9-8-2004
Location: Over here
Member Is Offline
Mood: The Alley Dukes
|
|
| 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. |
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.
‘Do you know what a love letter is? It’s a bullet from a fucking gun. Straight through your heart.’
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 3226
Registered: 10-14-2005
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Condemned 84
|
|
| 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. 
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?
|
|
|
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 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. |
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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
tireironsaint
* BANNED *
Posts: 4299
Registered: 5-14-2003
Location: Colorado
Member Is Offline
Mood: Beltones
|
|
| 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.
Veritas odium parit
|
|
|
MarkV
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MarkV
| 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. |
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
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Member
Posts: 337
Registered: 12-6-2008
Location: Va, USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tireironsaint
| 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. |
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
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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. |
I am being deliberately dim witted? Yeah alright.
|
|
|
MarkV
Senior Member
Posts: 728
Registered: 9-16-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
There's nothing hypocritical about saying you don't believe in something if you can't see proof. It's very simple.
|
|
|
Siczine.com
Posting Freak
Posts: 2351
Registered: 9-6-2005
Location: Philly
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
|
|
| 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
Posting Freak
Posts: 3880
Registered: 8-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
|
![[*]](images/thorp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
