|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 17, 2012 02:44 AM |
|
|
|
they probably feel something indeed, but how do they know it is god?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 03:57 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
1- Then the US supreme court had a political agenda or made a mistake. Absence of faith can not be identified as faith and by nature our minds have absence of faith on things we observe no reason to believe in. You can't prove there isn't an elephant walking right outside your street right now but if asked you'll say you don't believe so. This is pretty basic logic so please stop trying to convince me otherwise. Just ask yourself of all the debaters here, why is it only you who define atheism as faih. I'll quote a comedian: Saying you dont believe in magic but you believe in god is like saying "i don't have sex with dogs except labradors."
2- Okay, you have a point here. The specific form of ideology mandated atheism. But it wasn't itself "the ideology of atheism." Stalin didn't rule U.S.A.R. but U.S.S.R. People were killed for the sake of a New World Order and being religious was seen as a rebellion to that specific order. Still, I'll say you're not totally of the subject here and i understand the way you examplify things.
3- Going to hell just because you're not a member is not justice, it's simply discrimination. Not being baptised is not a crime.
4- I don't think you're trying to justify it to me. i think you're trying to justify it to yourself. The way you describe a hell for all non-believers as a hell for criminals is a good example of that.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 04:04 AM |
|
|
|
about 3, he might have understood that the concept of hell is violent according to non-believers.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 05:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd say burning a flag is a renunciation of citizenship. The person should not be punished, but should be taken to a deportation center until he can be deported. After a trial that established he in fact burned the flag.
I agree. This is how I would want the government to act. Yesterday, 150 muslims were arrested from violently storming US embassy in Paris. Today news paper report that 148 were let out, only 2 were kept for a trial. Unacceptable. Respect the country who feeds you (for free for most of them) or get out and don't piss people around. Not punishing such acts is a free invitation to all fundamentalists from all over the world.
@Elodin, France supreme court  does not define atheism as religion, thus your argument is nullified a few thousand miles away. You will have to find better arguments, outside the box. I don't know how to define my position, I don't know if God exists, but I don't exclude the possibility of a higher will somewhere, from which we come. So far I have no evidence to believe it exists-nor you have- and no explanations neither for where we come and why are we here. A stand by alike.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 05:33 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:11, 17 Sep 2012.
|
Artu -
First, as far as I know the US Supreme Court has never made a ruling about atheism being defined as a religion in the same sense that Christianity is. Unless I'm mistaken, Elodin is referring to a judgment made by a US Circuit Court of Appeals in the case James Kaufman v. Gary McCaughtry, in which the Ct declared that atheism can be treated as a religion for the purposes of equal protection under the first amendment of the US constitution. In essence, legally speaking, atheists enjoy the same protection of their beliefs as any other religion, and therefore atheism and religions like Christianity and so forth are equivalent - as the law is concerned. The court did not define atheism as a religion as a layperson would, which anyone who bothered to read through the actual court documents would see immediately. There are a few passing references to atheism being treatable as a religion for purposes of first amendment protections in the US Supreme Court records (see Torcaso v Watkins), but some of these only boil down to tax exemptions and such. Hardly a ringing declaration by the USSC that atheism is a religion in a the same sense that Christianity is - only that the law should treat it as such as far as rights and tax status goes.
The claim that US Courts have defined atheism as a religion is a strawman of the first degree. For one thing, the US Courts do not decide philosophical arguments, or even lexicographic ones. They decide legal arguments. Legal definitions of terms quite often differ significantly from common or even scientific ones. To wit, tomatoes have been defined as vegetables by the US Supreme Court - Nix vs. Heddon - even though they are classified by scientists as fruits. So if you and I were having a philosphical argument over the scientific classification of a tomato, citing this USSC decision to support your position would have very little relevance, and indeed would be rather intellectually dishonest if you did so while hiding (either due to ignorance or guile) the reason the court made such a decision in the first place. In point of fact, tomatoes are fruits, scientifically, no matter what the USSC says... but for the purposes of the way they are taxed, they are considered vegetables, even though that's not really what they are.
Beside all that, I'm not sure why Elodin enjoys citing this piece of useless and irrelevant trivia at a board full of people from other countries. Even if we could agree to the absurd position that, in the US, the Supreme Court has final say over the lay or philosophical definition of terms, what the hell would that still have to do with the way the rest of the world thinks? Last time I checked, what the US Supreme Court says or doesn't say has relevance only to the law, and - big suprise - only to US law. They're not the final authority on philosophical truth! Not in the US, and certainly not in the entire world.
In summary, it's a good thing the US Supreme Court has decided that atheists should enjoy the same freedom to express themselves as people with traditional religions, and that atheists should not suffer oppression from Christians (which, ironically, is why the court had to get involved in the first place). But their decision and the language they used to write it really has no relevance in a discussion of whether atheism is a religion in the sence that Christianity or Islam or anything else is. In fact, I'm not sure why Elodin is so hell bent on proving it is - in a way, one might view this classification of atheism as form of validation - and we might furthermore ask him why he's perfectly fine with the US Court system allegedly defining atheism as a religion, but if the Court tries to say that a man can marry a man, he suddenly takes the position that the Court has no right to make definitions of terms like "marriage". Seems like iffy, internally inconsistent logic to me.
@Doom
Well, tact is one thing, well measured arguments another. Dawkins' later works are certainly more sensationalist, and he does come off as an angry, condescending jerk in his public appearances. Frankly, I think that does a disservice to the rest of atheists because it just feeds into the stigma. (Consider what's going on in the world right now and I'd bet the US population would still be far more willing to elect a muslim to the presidency than an atheist.) But if you get past all that, I don't think you can call his work unreasoned or merely reactionary. Agree with him or not (and trust me, I don't agree with him all the time), he has put a lot of thought into his beliefs and into getting them out onto paper. Yes, it'd be better if they were framed as a "this is why I believe this" rather than "this is why what you believe is wrong". On the other hand, as atheists we're kind of forced into that position. Atheists are born into a world where MOST of the people believe in divinity, and we're conditioned by our environment to hold those kinds of beliefs. Becoming an atheist (ignoring the fact that we all start out as atheists until our parents get involved  ) must invariably happen by the process of questioning beliefs that were put into our heads as children. Thus we naturally frame our arguments as "this is why what I believe is wrong". In a way, then, when an atheist says, "this is why what you believe is wrong", what he really means is, "this is why what I once believed is wrong". If that makes any sense...
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 06:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Dude, their stated goal was to destroy [theistic] religion and indoctrinate children into atheism. Atheism is in world wide decline for many reason, including the collapse of the atheistic form of government known as communism.
Decline? Atheism is the fastest growing stance. But I dont blame you, its what you want to believe.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/03/fastest-growing-religion-no-re.html
The only reason Islam is growing is because of extreme birthrates. Christianity on the otherhand is being phased out.
Quote:
That is false. You slandered ALL RELIGIONS. You simply can't resist insulting all religions in virtually every thread. And I responded to your slander. Below is what you said on page 1.
Pff. You came in crashing in this thread,three times already. Each time, you mention Stalin, Atheist murderers and how atheism is a religion.
There was no slander, but if you felt insulted because I put all religions in the basket of non tolerance, then I am sorry. I definitely need a whitelist for the "Real" tolerant denominations of Christianity.
Quote:
Anyone who says all religion are religions of "anything but peace and tolerance" is frankly either a bold faced liar or utterly ignorant of most religions as there is no rational reason to make such a statement.
So you think. I love it how you go to the lowly attitude of calling me a liar. Religion is by definition non tolerant. It does not matter what your holy book says, its what people feel and do when they see an "outsider".
Quote:
Sadly many atheists quite enjoy perpetually making false statements about religion (Dawkins and the late Hitchens enjoyed this immensely) and then they accuse others of derailing the thread when they respond to the falsehoods told about theistic religion. Militant atheists are quite damaging to the reputation of atheists in general and are one reason atheists are looked upon so poorly by the majority of people.
A false claim after another... Actually elodin, atheists are not considered lowly, at least not in europe.
Quote:
It is quite funny mow militant atheists such as Dawkins accuse religious people of trying to ram religion down everyone's throat,
Richard dawkins and Christopher hitchens...two people vs thousand churches/mosques funded by billions of dollars/euros with millions of followers and you find the nerve to accuse these to respected people of "Ramming" religion.
Quote:
It is quite impossible for you to know that someone can't feel God.
No, I can tell quite easily that someone feels "God".
As for the thing with imperfect science tools elodin,the god of the bible and the islamic god are less then perfect.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 06:23 AM |
|
|
@ Cor/ Artu/ Elodin: But of course, the conversation has become sort of, maybe, completely, unquestionably off-topic now... unless someone can explain to me what atheism being a religion or not has to do with the Muslim faith and how people twist and abuse it A better thread for this discussion would be the "Questions about Religion" topic or a new thread dedicated to this topic. Thank you~
Edit: Also, Elodin and Sephiran, please stop bringing up faiths other than the Islamic faith. They are, actually, off topic here. Elodin, no one was bashing Christianity when you joined in the conversation, you took a negligent phrase completely out of proportion. Seph, please stop arguing with him about this on every single thread. I'm starting to feel like I'm getting spammed with the same argument over and over again everywhere I go... 
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 07:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
we all start out as atheists until our parents get involved
That's funny - according to the Muslims every child is born a Muslim but then its parents convert it if they are not Muslims themselves. I'd say that every child's mind is a blank page and that's where everybody's objectivity on the matter ends.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 07:51 AM |
|
|
I don't think we're born as atheists. It's a stretch, too
We're born indifferent, and whether it's culture that imposes religion or not is debatable. It's hard to say if you wouldn't worship thunder if you somehow could grow without society&parents.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 08:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We're born indifferent, and whether it's culture that imposes religion or not is debatable. It's hard to say if you wouldn't worship thunder if you somehow could grow without society&parents.
Well, the thing is if you go back in time every primitive culture worshiped stuff. But they did believe in magic too. So it's consistent that a cave man believed in deities because he explained everything with the super natural. We started out worshiping natural phenomenon itself, we had a tendency for that because since we are a specie which is intelligent enough to be aware of his own consciousness, we had the illusion that everything (especially if they animate) had consciousness. Then (as philological studies show) the first abstraction came, not worshiping the rain but rather worshiping the rain god. These pagan faiths later evolved into monotheistic religions fitting the hierarchic society of agricultural era.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 11:11 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 12:02 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:07, 17 Sep 2012.
|
This post is not a reply to the post above, it is about the general topic of this thread.
A documentary by Adam Curtis which i think is very interesting. Btw, I also suggest the documentary Century of The Self by the same author, which is not about radical islam.
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/17058604/power+of+nightmares?tab=summary
Dont know why but the clicky BB code doesnt work, you need to drag the link to the address bar of your browser.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 01:15 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:23, 17 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
And that's the point - under hard reset, we'd probably go back to worshiping thunderstorms. Hence, it's a stretch to say you're born an atheist imho.
Doom, I'm really sorry - I deleted most of your post. 
I shall crawl away in shame now.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 01:36 PM |
|
|
Yes, but there is no "hard reset" To say that is to be anachronic. A thousand years ago if you said to a neighbour " i think there is a ghost living in the barn" he may have believed you, today he'll think you need to see a doctor. Just because the first reaction had the possibility in our mind-set sometime in the past doesn't mean we are hardwired to believe in ghosts or not believing ghosts today is also faith.
Yet, oblivion is not a very bad word to describe the situation, still, in a way, it doesn't quite fit. I'll have to contemplate on your choice of describing it for a while.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but there is no "hard reset" To say that is to be anachronic. A thousand years ago if you said to a neighbour " i think there is a ghost living in the barn" he may have believed you, today he'll think you need to see a doctor. Just because the first reaction had the possibility in our mind-set sometime in the past doesn't mean we are hardwired to believe in ghosts or not believing ghosts today is also faith.
You only know about doctors via society, too
It's really hard to judge what our "primitive nature" since it's not really possible to check.
My guess however is that we're indeed "hardwired" to assign the unknown to the supernatural by default. Education and society change that.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 03:43 PM |
|
|
|
then society is made of people harwired that exact same way. so how can it teach an individual how to think another way?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 04:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
... hence the "for example" part.
You know I read that and it seasoned my response. <L>
Quote:
Different people will have different reasons, ultimately however the aim is to make the other individual change his mind and start believing in what you believe (or more broadly - in what your religion teaches).
Do you really have people on every side of you in daily life doing this? My experience (the typical short-reach of a single life but fairly well travelled) had very few enounters in 25 years of athiesm. I recall 2-3 occasions. Truthfully, it was the flip-side that droned on and on. Not trying to clip me of Faith because I had none, but always yelling the battle-cry about evil religion and the recounting of every mis-step of the church. My father was a devout athiest and accepted anything as truth that was uttered from the scientific world.
Quote:
Not everyone will have a problem with that but preaching religion to an atheist is usually just as bad an idea as making anti-religious public claims. Discussion is another matter but in my experience it takes a special pair of atheist - religious person to have a fruitful conversation without mutual misunderstanding and underestimation of the other side, not to mention the casual flame war which is the most common result.
Very true and <imo>there is a solid explanation for this result, even though I doubt anyone here is really under a blanket of these mis-guided efforts. The most important point(as clearly you understand) about the above is..."maturity" and being at peace with oneself no matter what's held to be truth.
Here's some science for ya"; <imo> One of the worst results from the internet is; without real bodies behind conversations and present with facial expressions and body-language, the handicapped-communication by typed word has inflamed society's intolerance in general. And if this is the only medium used by a person for constructive dialogue? You know that result.
Briefly, from the Christian side, <imo> the Church has erred in several ways about the role of a member. If you would truly be interested in hearing what a Christian finds disturbing about his own Church, than I can supply the points. Unfortunately, what I have seen here and in the questions about religion thread, is that there are not any questions really, merely emotional baggage that needs (sometimes understandable) ventilation.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 04:22 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:05, 17 Sep 2012.
|
@Doomforge:
Quote:
And that's the point - under hard reset, we'd probably go back to worshiping thunderstorms. Hence, it's a stretch to say you're born an atheist imho.
But people aren't born worshipping thunderstorms. They're not born worshipping anything.
Of course, it comes down to definitions, but if you define as follows:
(1) Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any divine being.
(2) Infants don't believe in divine beings (in fact, haven't the intellectual capacity to believe in anything).
Ergo, all infants are atheists. You may say they eventually discovered God (or whatever) and are converted to Christianity or whatever.
Anyway, I agree this is getting far afield of the thread's topic and in any case it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment to begin with, so there's no need to go deeper into it here.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 05:02 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 17:05, 17 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
Do you really have people on every side of you in daily life doing this?
You can meet all kinds of people. Me? I know hardcore atheists and hardcore Christians as well as many people between these two categories. Of course nobody has ever started a conversation with "I'm an atheist" or "I'm religious" (neither have I), especially if we meet for the first time. I myself never talk about such things in casual conversations so if the other person(s) don't start the topic and provoke me somehow, I won't start it either (that of course does not apply to dedicated discussions). In my experience however a religious person is likely to start making references to his/her religion sooner or later if you speak with him/her more than a few times while an irreligious person just won't say anything. Part of these reference-making people will also try to explain you why they are making these references and eventually start to preach. In any case, the reference alone could result in an argument (for example a simple comment "this is God's work" could raise the tension if you don't agree that God's responsible for what's happening and the other person does not agree with you say - and so on ad infinitum). Shortly put, most religious people don't keep their beliefs private. Of course that's not a problem but if they have short fuse and are not ready to accept the response of the other side, the conflict is inevitable. This topic is exactly about such tetchy people.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 17, 2012 05:08 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:12, 17 Sep 2012.
|
"One of the worst results from the internet is; without real bodies behind conversations and present with facial expressions and body-language, the handicapped-communication by typed word has inflamed society's intolerance in general"
Yes, but in time every platform developes its own etiquette. Internet is young, personally I hate emoticons, but when my 17 year old cousin uses them i learn to use them with her. Without the internet, most of the stuff discussed in here from people all over the world wouldn't be discussed at all anyway.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
