"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

And yet you can't bother to give an actual answer to the question. Case in point:

Which it is, because these are standard topics in Western philosophy, as you say. Seems odd that you never seem to know what the hell anyone means when they ask you directly what it is you believe, or if you believe in an afterlife. Instead, you retort with evasive questions such as the above. If these are such standard questions, how is that you don't seem to understand them? What else could anyone mean by "afterlife?" If there's some other less-obvious definition, by all means, provide it!

But no, you won't be bothered. As usual. How much longer are you going to be allowed to get away with this nonsense?

Just answer the question posed to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What conviction?

Remember that technically, the majority of people are believers. It is because of ''believers'', that you have a scientific method, and are able to adopt a scientific worldview.

I was reacting on your quick change of mind, regarding the oppression of atheism in America, no doubt due to the person (atheist) you were replying to. Amusing, but common, and obvious.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aaqucnaona,

So why the ''we atheists are down-trodden'' BS?

That is your interpolation.
However, you natural default speaks volumes.

So reality gives way to contrived superficiallity.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not, providing the outcome is favorable.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good OP.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I must have missed them, you have been on this forum much longer than I have - perhaps some links or something?

 

IDk, ask him. While atheists may not be very popular, there are certainly neither oppressed nor lonely.

Then what was your intended interpolation? That I am 'religious' if I feed the stray kitten or help the lod lady cross the street?

Once again, my limited social exposure puts me at a disadvantage, as I am unable to extrapole the meaning [or context] for that statement. Please elaborate.

I didnt intend to indicate that nor is that my thought.

Thats not true either - if we are still talking epistemically, that is. But pragmatically and practically [especially in reference to your good=religiousity], that does seem to be true for the most successful [for good or bad] models of action.

 

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", applied to theists would imply the theist is the pushy control freak, to the passive** atheist, who would rather remain anon. This reveals more a lack in confidence of conviction of the former, then a concern of a need to proselytize of the latter.

As to the perspective of who is being isolated:

An infinitely long fence has a point where, a locked gate separates two persons.
Question: How does an observer of this scene establish which person is inside and which person is outside the caging fence.
Answer:The person with the key to the lock.


**-not seemingly passive in their philosophic stance, however.

 

Which you believe is who?

 

www.jhuger.com/pascal

 

aaqucnaona,

I doubt that popularity is dependant upon one creed or world view, except in situations where they are the requirement.
But your statement a requires a complete understanding of the term ''atheist'', and what makes one an actual atheist.

Some people are just anti-religious, theism, god, etc, which doesn't necessarily qualify them as actual atheists, but psycologically they feel at
home in the atheist camp. Here, atheism is nothing more than a name that describes a group, attitude, a comfort zone etc. Not much different than religious groups, which is why modern atheism IS regarded as a religion.

It meant exactly what it said. However, as mentioned, you must strip ''atheist'' down to it's bare-bones to fully understand what is meant.
I'd also like to add that one's testimony isn't reliable, because one can lean towards that which is popular and acceptable, giving themselves a leg up, so to speak.

It's basically approaching the subject matter from a science perspective, meaning the original data must be correct in order make a valid conclusion.

Without proper scrutiny, it all too easy becomes the consequences of such thoughts. The thing is, you guys claim to use science as a guide to what is or isn't knowledge, yet you accept anything which is unfavorable to the object of your anti-ness. Either you are acting out of ignorance of it's essence, or you're not prepared to entertain anything but you're world view on the subject. Either way it is not a scientific approach, and is not based in current, available data.


For example, how could people have known about: The Universe, Planets, Orbits, and Vast Distances between these bodies, thousands of years before the advent of modern science.?


jan.

 

That is an absurd non-sequitur, as well as completely incorrect. Following that logic, then the Elks's Lodge is also religion, as are fan clubs or social groups. "Facebook? More like Faithbook! And don't even get me started on political parties!"

Obviously religion is not simply a gathering of like-minded individuals, or the intellectual compromise of the wandering spiritualist. The term "atheism" may be used as a catch-all for varying types of non-believers, but it certainly doesn't apply to someone who isn't also an atheist. Yes, there are people--myself included--who believe that the world would be a better place without religion, and so I am an anti-theist as well as an atheist. If there is a Christian anti-theist who believes but wishes it weren't true, then they wouldn't feel at all comfortable in the "atheism camp," because atheism does not address their philosophical position. That would be like saying a transcendental spiritualist feels at home in the Sunni Muslim camp. Clearly that would not be the case.

And the only people who consider atheism a religion are people who openly seek to discredit it, usually theists of some variety. But this is typically a witting attack; I can't honestly believe that anyone who says atheism is a religion really believes that it is.

But you haven't stripped "atheist" down to its bare bones. All you've done is liken it to a social club and then offer the non-sequitur "therefore atheism is considered a religion."

No, what we don't accept are claims without evidence.

You mean how did people like Aristarchos form a heliocentric world view, and discern that the stars were unfathomably far away early in the third century BCE? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

 

If atheism is based on science does that mean atheists don't take sides in politics since this is subjective and not based on science?

 

If atheism is finding a voice in politics then obviously "science" isn't the only so-called thing its based on
:shrug:

 

There's no question that science, religion and politics are intimately intertwined. They shouldn't be - separation of church & state - which is why a lot of people need to keep fighting to keep them separate.

Furthermore, the fact that I have a voice about violence against women doesn't mean I'm a woman. Likewise, atheism having a voice in politics doesn't mean it's "based on" politics. you've got cause and effect reversed.

 

If they weren't intertwined there would be no fight

:shrug:

 

That makes no sense. For one, there are plenty of political issues that could be interest to proponents of reason, such as the inclusion of Christian myths in the biology curriculum, or the funding of the sciences, or tax exemptions for politically-active churches. And who says an atheist can't have economical views, or beliefs about law? This is a false premise.

 

JDawg,

Completely!?

I don't see any ''Lodgers'' actively going around trying to destroy other world views, or in the case of Dawkins, openly stating his agenda (to kill Christianity).

As for the 'Facebook' analogy... wtf?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My point is that modern atheism is definately asserting itself in every aspect of our lives, and vehemently trying to destroy every other creed that it deems unfit for the future of human beings. In this way it is most def, a religion, albeit a godless one. Alot of people regard themselves as religious, and purport a belief in God, but their lives don't reflect that, so while they are ''religious'', they don't actually believe in God.

I have talked to alot of people who make these claims, and when their actions are put on the table, they themselves realise that the amount of belief they actually have, is as good as none.

Regarding some aspects of the religions of the world, I myself am atheist, in that (a) I don't believe in what they believe and (b) I think some are flat-out wrong. But my atheism is aimed at their belief system and alot of what it contains, not God, or to be more specific, the oneness of the character and personality of the supreme being we find in scriptures.

IOW, ''atheism'' is alot more complicated than we give it credit for, as is ''theism''. And unless we can strip everything down, all conclusions are subjective.

The thing is, theists can feel comfortable in the presence religions different to their own. The feeling of discomfort is usually of a social, political, racial, and material making. The Christian who says ''if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour'' you are going directly to Hell, is not making a God-based statement, it is a statement he has learned from his religion/group, and so, will come up against hostility if he is amongst a group of muslims.
One only has to read the same scripture he claims to basing the statement off, to realise that is not what it says, and what it does say is NOT offensive to anyone, let alone muslims, who honour Jesus Christ.

There's a difference between ''modern atheism'', and ''atheist''.
A real atheist may tap into ''atheism'' if he is required to give a reason for his views. But otherwise doesn't give a toss. As far as he is concerned he is just going to live is life how he wants to, only paying respect to the law, social etiquette and customs, trying

You don't know what the evidence of God, is, and as such are just using that as a reason for your position (whatever that may be).

[/QUOTE]


No. Read the question again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Agreed.

I love it when people pull the actual definition card to try and redefine terms suiting their argument.

By whom? It is a protected form of belief, but religion entails much more, and look at this, see - you are now missing the actual definition of what religion actually is. Prophets, holy books, Gods, central dogmas, main tenets and beliefs, yes indeed, atheism is a religion just like vin disel's haircolor - bald!

And somehow the same standards dont apply the other way round? And where does the justification for your atheism = basically wrong or bad and theism = right and good, regardless of what the subject may say, come from?

Ok, so the point is?

Wow, wynn first and now you. Tall order, these assertions, very tall indeed. The problem for theism is that we extend the same amount of ruthless scepticism and scrutinity to religious claims as we do to any other. But guess what, thats not how you indoctrinate followers - the loopholes and mistakes are taboo, not to be questioned, blind acceptance is somehow suppossed to be a virtue [it is never explained why this is the case, but anyway, atleast they are consistent in their illogic]. When we cut that crap and bare their assertions to actual claims without any sensationisation, baises and taboos, guess what, all their claims either break down or remain unsubstantiated.

The point here is what? That if A is inexplicable, B is naturally the solution without any need to actually demonstrate why this is so or that it indeed is?

 

And if there were no death, there would be no religions. A pointless statement really, both yours and mine.

 

So when Coke tries to eliminate Pepsi, that makes it a religion? When Microsoft and Apple battle for supremacy, that's a religion?

Just because your faith is aggressive does not mean that aggression is a defining value of religion.

It wasn't an analogy. I was demonstrating the error in your assertion that social groups are religions. If that were true, then Facebook would be a religion, since it fits your description.

You don't get to assert your own personal definition of the term "religion," for one. Secondly, this is a blatant mischaracterization of atheism. While people like Dawkins (and myself) would love to see superstition fall to the wayside, their complaints about religion are not in their existence, but in their insistence upon imposing themselves upon society.

I honestly don't know what the point of this comment is.

Again, you are asserting your own personal definitions of these words, and that's not going to fly. A Mormon is not an atheist as it relates to Catholicism. A Sunni is not an atheist as it relates to Shia. It could be said colloquially that one is an atheist "as it relates to" certain gods they don't believe in, but again, that's a colloquial application of the term (I believe Dawkins used it). It would be like calling yourself a rock star at work; you're not really a rock star. At any rate, this wouldn't change the definition of the word, it would simply be a less-clear way for a theist to explain their beliefs.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It's not a difference of opinion regarding holidays or the which kind of meat you can eat on a Friday.

You make it more complicated than it is by expanding it's definition beyond it's actual definition.

That's right form the Bible, so how isn't it a God-based statement? And anyway, I thought you meant "feel at home" in an intellectual sense. If you're talking simply in a social sense, it's absurd to say that an atheist couldn't feel at home around religious people. My mother's religion, and I certainly don't feel uncomfortable around her. And the bigwigs you like to trash (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) each have deeply personal friendships with not only religious people, but religious leaders.

Nonsense. It is made quite clear in the Bible that if you do not follow Jesus, you're going to hell.

Again, these are stipulations of your own invention. For example, the "atheist who doesn't give a toss" can exist today, so why do you define the proactive atheist as "modern?" Makes no sense. And being a proactive atheist doesn't preclude you from living your life, paying respect to the law and social etiquette. I think if there's one thing a vocal atheist might do differently is ask why faith--which imposes itself upon society regardless of what a person believes--is immune to criticism, and given respect. Questioning these norms does not mean that atheists therefore call babies ugly and ask women their age.

There is no evidence of God. None.

What's laughable about your claim here--and the accusations of theists in general--is that theists, who pride themselves in their faith being strong enough to withstand any argument, are accusing atheists, who have arrived at this intellectual position through reason, of having faith. It's absurd.

No, I read the question. If you meant something other than what you wrote, by all means, clarify.