Children must be taught religions

There is a distinction, just like there is a distinction between a person who believes in astrology and reads his horoscope and a person who doesn't do either.

They are promotional, not indoctrinator posters - like god loves you or join our church or god needs your money. They are no different from political promotional posters - if you can define religion such that political ideologies become religions, you really need to refine your definition.

When applied to intellectuals and theologians, of course its a strawman. But for the common average person it is actually how things really are.

If some atheist actually is stupid enough to do that after being smart enough to let go of god, he deserves all your critique.

Of course not. Go ahead, convince me or prove me wrong. I am ready to accept the better arguement, whether it comes from you or me, whether it supports you or me.

Ad hom alert!

That definition is essential because without it any grand ideology is religious. Should I go to the curch of gravity?

No. Take the creationist and miracle stories out and trust me, no atheist will ever bother a christain again. That is the reason why atheist support, rather than condemn buddhists.

Atheism is a STAND. Its not a belief. A stand is an opinion on an existing belief. A belief is that claim that god doesn't exist. Atheist take the stand of not believing the belief that claims that existence of god but they dont maintain that god doesn't exist - he might.

Any argument for god doesnt in any way prove that jesus is the god or allah is the god that might be proven. It doesnt even prove that god cares or intervenes in the life of humans. It only proves, if it does, that there might be, given certain assumptions, a cosmic superpowered being - its not something any religion can go on.

Ad hom alert 2! No faith in irreligion, not even a speck. If we cant be proven something, we dont believe it. You call that faith, dogma? Go ahead, its useless. That is the basic assumption required to make a rational, sensible argument.

Agreed. Most atheists would never become theists if they reason and think about god's existence without any bais. Because god is not necessary, much less indespensible. Gravity is indespensible to keep planet in orbits, the bulletproof glass is essential to the pope - God isnt. Why do you think that might be? Maybe....we are correct, eh?

Agreed. No use of delusional unless proven so. Point taken, apology given.

There is no irony. The seeking of truth is exactly got atheists to not believe in religious deities - which is another distinction theists dont make. Atheists do not belief in the religious deities - they are still open to the proposal that some other kind of god might exist. Which is why atheists are largely apathetic to spinozist, pantheists, deists, panentheists and non deity religions like buddhism. I am an atheist but also an apatheist and a spinozist.

Oh no! First you stretch the definition of religion to include marxism and then you claim all religions to not be relgions. These logical and semantic acrobatics are not helping my twisted ankle at all.

Which does nothing to actually prove that the religion is true, that god exists and the religious scripitures are the word of god. It only shows that which we all know - religion is useful, [for both good and bad, I must add.]

Faith in the religious sense means undying trust and belief in your deity. By definition, in a confrontational situation it becomes a belief despite contrary evidence.

Straw man alert!

Faith in the religious deity can only be achieved through ignorance of the things we now know about the universe and life or through non-parsimonious, baised reasoning. Faith in god can come from reason, but it cannot be applied to a religion or its deities.

Its not belief without evidence. Its trust without knowing. Its belief that something is true, regardless of whether it can be proven as such. Its the belief that something is true even if there may be some evidence to the contrary.

The quote wasn't to prove a point. It was making a point, which, if he wants to, spidergoat might substantiate or ignore from this conversation. Besides, it only says "Faith is the belief and trust in something which we cannot understand or prove". Do you not agree with this definition?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheism is not the only reasonable path. Not being fundamentalist or dogmatic is. And most of the professional intellectual subjects are spiritually devoid because the world and the universe is as such. Btw, literature, art and the humanities - philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, cutural studies - are all very passionate and spiritual subjects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is though and Atheism is spiritual as well

the Human Spirit

the Universe is not Spirit devoid at all

where did you get this idea ?

they are

but of what spirit ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes Atheism can be spiritual.

The universe isnt spiritual because it isnt humane. Even a rat or an insect isnt spiritual. Life on earth is like a thin coat of paint on the surface of this planet, which is a tiny bit of rock circling one of trillions of stars. The universe isnt human or humane and it isnt like what humans are or what we would want it to be.

They are of the humanitarian and humane spirit that is so missing the world and the universe and the empirical sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.

 

the Universe isn't about Humanity

but what the Universe is about is existence

energy existence , spirit is an energy

 

AAQ-

This is a Strawman. It doesn’t logically follow. The reason there is no distinction between a Religious person and an Atheist is because Religion is not defined as belief in a god. The way you out it, the difference between a Religious person and an Athirst is like someone who believes in Astrology VS those who don’t, but that still doesn’t make sense. An Atheist is someone who believes there are no gods. This is not the same thing as being non-Religious.

How on earth is it even equitable?


Atheists are Religious because they hold to various “life Philosophies’, which while many would be insulted that I call those Religions, are Religions precisely because they do the same things religion does. Simply not believing in any god is not really the same ass not having a Religion, Religion and Theism are distinct, not Atheism and Religion.

1: it’s God, not god. I am really incapable of thinking someone is Rational when they spell god in lower case just to show off their Atheism.

2: My definition of Religion is not broad, it is however accurate. Atheism is not the opposite of Religion,. Religion is not the same thing as Theism. Religion is any set of beliefs that defines how we understand the nature of our existence, irrespective of if we believe in gods or not.

Er, the same applies to Atheists. You may prefer to think an Atheist is “Smart enough to let go of god’ but, most online Atheist posters aren’t exactly the height of intellectual achievement for Humanity.


I mean, the Christ Myth theory, the stupid claims about the Dark Ages, spelling god in lower case, Paedophile Priest jokes, am I really suppose to think that Atheism on the net is a good representation of intelligent souls spreading Reason?

However, Spider was not discussing only this message board but all “Religious people”, and following Dawkins lead. It is a Strawman.

Then you deserve my critique as you are just that stupid. I am not using an Ad Hom, but god in lower case and the suppositions you made here don’t add up to convincing me of your supreme intellect. I also still find it arrogant for an Atheist to assume that Atheism is arrived at when one is smart enough.

So, smart enough to let go of God but not smart enough to recognise when I was speaking to a different poster?

Factual statements do not qualify as Ad Hom.

Strawman alert!


Gravity, by the way, is not a Grand Ideology, so your statement is also a nonsequiter.

Actually John Loftus, Dan Barker, and Sam Harris all complained about Christians who did not take the Bible literally and even rejected Eternal Life and a personal God. EG, Harris said they enabled the Fundamentalists, and Loftus and Barker still berate them as intellectual cowards who refuse to let go for emotional reasons, which of course makes them the strong, superior ones yet Again…

I don’t believe this one, sorry.

No, it is a belief. It is a belief that no gods exist. I m also not confusing Strong and Weak Atheism, but the fact is, you either believe something exists, or you believe it doesn’t. Once a concept is introduced though, you can’t “lack belief”. You can be uncertain, but you can’t utterly lack belief.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

As for Atheism being a Stand, that’s just meaningless Rhetorical nonsense.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist; it is not a stand on someone else’s opinion.


Also, it’s still God, not god.

By the way, Allah MEANS “THE GOD”. Allah is not the name of the Muslim god, and Islam worships the same God as Christians and Jews. Now you make the same mistake Evangelicals do, acting as if there is a Muslim god named Allah who is distinct from the Christian god called God.

If the Christian God exists, the Muslim God exists because they are the same God.

This is basically like me saying “Just because you can come up with an Argument for Light Speed being Constant doesn’t mean that you have Proven the Big Bang Theory.”

While what you said is True, its irrelevant. Spider said there were no rational arguments for belief in God, and I said there were and told where to Find them. I don’t have to, in this context, go beyond showing that Arguments for God’s existence have been advanced by Rational persons.

This is a talking point, not really EVIDENTIAL. If Dawkins defines Faith as belief without Evidence, then if Dawkins believes in something there is no evidence for he has Faith by his own definition. As Dawkins believes that one day in the future we will have a Sceintifically advanced Utopia if man doesn’t destroy himself via Religion, he has Faith in the inevitable advance of man if unhindered by Memes.


I’m sure if I look at Dawkins writings some more I can find a litany of examples of things Dawkins believes in without Evidence.

The Trite “I don’t have Religion so don’t need Faith” f\refrain only works with the cheerleaders for the New Atheism, everyone else see’s through it nowadays.


Best to only discuss what you can show to be True, not assert talking points and articles of Faith from you.

Else, I will ask, why should I believe that Dawkins is Irreligious and has no Faith? Because he said so? Because you say so?

That’s a nice sentiment but its not True. There are plenty of examples in Dawkins work in which he expounds ideas he believes in that he has no evidence for.

The same applies to you I’m sure, simply because you are Human and Humans are limited in Knowledge, so often fill in gaps with deductions, not all of which based on Evidence, some on supposition.

I call it hogwash and don’t believe for a moment that the Atheists like you or Dawkins use only pure Logic all the Time and only believe hat evidence shows. I think that you lot just tell yourselves this as part of there Cultural identity and you never question if its True, because its too central to how you think of yourselves to dare ask. In the end though, you often make illogical arguments, or suppositional ones that rest on no evidence.


I mean, Dawkins thinks that Scientists who believe in God must compartmentalise. They never subject their believe in God to Logical Scrutiny, but when doing Science work never think of God. Well, how does Dawkins know this exactly? Has he any viable evidence beyond his personal Biased view of Theism?

Of course not. He’s not even a Psychologist. He believes, without evidence that Scientists who believe in God compartmentalise in order for him to make sense of hem. He doesn’t want to toss away the Science VS Religion Paradigm and the connection in his Mind between Science and Atheism, so he makes up an excuse that makes the observation fit. Those Scientists who believe in God must compartmentalise. They are Atheists when they do their Science.



You do the same thing Dawkins does.

Simply claiming you don’t believe anything unless thre is evidence doesn’t really make it True, and I don’t buy it for a moment.

Then you aren’t Agreeing with me at all…

…I am sorry you lack basic reading comprehension…


Go ahead and issue another Ad Hom Alert, but your comment is disingenuous twaddle.

God is indispensable if God exists. Right now its considered indispensable to think of the Universe in terms of Relativity, but before Einstein this Theory was not seen as indispensable. I really don’t think that what is and is not Indispensable at there moment is a good measure of Truth in this context.


I also don’t think that an Unbiased Atheist will always be an Atheist if they look. An Honest Atheist can become an Honest Theist by dispassionate examination of the Evidence. Your just being arrogant again if you think this is impossible.

Very well.

I’ve read too much History to buy this. You are again presenting the Mythology of modern Atheism, not the Reality. A lot of Atheists in the French Revolution had Political or Philosophical motives derived from a desire to overthrow the Church and Monarchy. Several Atheists today present their stories of how they became Atheists and the impetus is emotional. EG, John Loftus tells how he became an Atheist and its purely Emotional in Character, not Rational and rooted in an honest quest for Truth.


While I am not saying it’s utterly impossible for someone to honestly look at the Evidence and become an Atheist, it’s not really True that this is the way it always, or even usually works for most. It’s also not True that Theism is the result of emotion and ignoring the Truth. There are plenty of Honest Theists who were once Atheists who changed their minds based on study of Facts and Logic, NOT emotional appeals.

I don’t buy this. I’ve spoken to too many, and know several who insist that no gods can exist. I’m sorry but this generalisation is based on an Idealisation of Atheists that forgets that Atheists are just as Human as Theists and just as prone to protecting a favoured view, and they aren’t always open minded.

Actually it has to do with the development of Modern Atheist thought. Contrary to the Propaganda, Atheism is not a mere lack of belief in a god. Modern Atheism got its start in the Enlightenment and developed into today’s form in the 19th Century.


The reason Atheists tend to argue against Christianity but not Buddhism, or for that matter Islam, or even Wicca with more gods added, is because the culture that built around is basically created the two camps, Christians and Atheists. That, and some groups like Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans actually got started off the same root, though they generally branch off in the Romantic Period.


The hatred of Christianity is endemic to both Neo-Pagans and modern Atheism though, because its pat of how those movements defined themselves. Its now just passed along as a Cultural Tradition.

You really need to learn Reading comprehension. I don’t think you even understand what I’m really saying above.

By the way, I didn’t stretch the definition of Religion, I sued the standard one. I just like to note that the Standard definition doesn’t say a god is required for a belief system to be classified ass a Religion.

Which was all I was addressing at the Time. I can’t address all points at the same Time.

Presuming the Religion has a deity. I remind you, the definition of Religion doesn’t make Theism a necessity.

Also, this is not True as many Religions also teach Faith in yourself, and others, and Humanity in General.

Or, in abstractions like Justice. Or in Nature.

Not really, as many of the writers I could name present arguments for God’s existence.

No, accurate assessment.

His post was unconvincing to me.

And I should believe this unsubstantiated declaration from you as absolute, proven fact why? Because quiet frankly you saying that belief in a religious deity can’t be Rationally supported by those who know Modern Science is not convincing. Why on earth should I believe you? What real evidence do you have that your statement here is True?

Why not? Because you said so?


On what do you base this assertion?

No, Fidese simply means Trust or confidence, it doesn’t mean Trust without Knowing.

According to…who?

If a writer clearly didn’t mean it that way should we project your definition onto his words? If so, are we really debating his ideas? Are we seeking Truth, or just our own opinions verified by our wiles?

If I post quotes from various Saints and Church Fathers would that make a point? Or would they be dismissed as invalid Authorities?

No, I don’t, because Historically its not been used that way.

 

@Zav - I write god not God because God refers to religious deities, god refers to any kind of supernatural or superpowered cosmic/creator being. Reply to the rest later.

 

AAQ- Actually God refers to a name. As I explained, the G Vs g connotation is not about respect, its about Grammar. If I called you God I'd have to capitalise it, not because you are a Supernatural creator, but because God would be your name, at least as far as the sentence goes.

Capitalising the G is not because it’s a Religious deity, its because you use the word in such a way that it identifies a specific person, place, or thing. If you said a god, or the god, then it’d not need to be capitalised. But just saying god makes it a reference to a specific person, thus improper to leave the G in lower case.


To illustrate with a different word, I will use mother VS Mother.


Mother is not usually a proper noun, but becomes one if used as a name substitute.

So if I said “ I bought my mother a new scarf for her birthday” the word mother is not normally capitalised. But if I instead said “ I bought Mother a new scarf for her birthday” then the word Mother is capitalised, because my mothers name, in the sentence, is Mother. The word Mother is used as if it is her name thus is her name.

The same grammar rule applies to god. You can’t say you don’t believe in god, leave the G lower case, but say “I didn’t mean religious deities” and expect that this makes the grammar violation legitimate.

 

I did not mention arguments from inference because these aren't based on evidence. If you like, pick one of these and I'll address it's flaws. Note that these guys were not aware of quantum science which shows that things can indeed happen without a cause and something can come from nothing.

 

Spider, do you know that mny Modern Theologians are aware of Wuantum Mechanics and even incorporate it into their Theology?

And how does Quantum mechanics disqualify the Theology of, say, Tillich?


You really prove my point. This is not about objetively seekign the Truth, its about supporting Atheism at all costs and refusing to see any other point of view as valid.

 

you cannot possibly believe that there is an all knowing, all powerful, "being" out there full of love and compassion for humanity.

look around dude, how many innocent lives has been shattered?

don't even start with the "this is a test" bit, so much for love and compassion eh?

 

I agree. For no other reason than to protect themselves from nut jobs. And its an historical part of human development

 

Leopold-

1: You do not know what my beliefs are. Its presumptuous to assume I believe in a god of Compassion and Love simply because I don’t buy into the general Atheist arguments I see online. I also reject the general Christian ones, so what does that mean?

2: f you tell me not to say “This is a test” and ridicule the idea, do you really think I should see you as open to that idea?

3: If this is a test, then why not allow suffering? If looked at from a specific Theological perspective, our lives on this Earth aren’t what define what we truly are. If we are all, in reality, Immortal, indestructible beings and this world is simply a game of sorts in which our weak bodies are capable of being harmed specifically so we can be threatened or experience loss, but in the end we loose nothing and re not damages, how is that inconsistent with Compassion and Love?


Only if you assume that the totality of the person rests in the body, and this life is the only one we get does your argument really stand up. If this life is not the only one, or even the most important one, and if in the end our bodies are tossed aside and we gain better ones that are unharmed, then the allowance for Harm in this life to our temporary bodies isn’t all that cruel.

***


That said, I will illustrate with you one thing that I find problematic with modern Atheism. You reject he idea that this life is a test, or at least that God can be compassionate and yet allow suffering, and the Test argument doesn’t work because it still offers real Suffering. It seems to me that this argument is not well thought out as it doesn’t really allow for the implications of the test claim to be examined. Those who say this life is a Test also don’t think this life is our only one or our material bodies the Real us. Thus, injury to our bodies, and all thee suffering we experience in this Life, is both Transitory and illusory. It’s not the Real person that suffers, only a temporary Host that played a role in a Grand Play. At the end, the real person walks off the Stage unharmed, but having learned valuable lessons. In order for God to not be compassionate, this life would have to be the only one, which is clearly not believed by those who say this life is a Test. That’s why your dismissal of the argument doesn’t work.

Now, I haven’t proven that this life is just a Test, not that God really exists. I don’t need to. My complaint is that your argument is not Logical, not that the actual Test argument is True. The point is, you obviously want to depict God as not being compassionate, with either a Cruel God or a non-existence one being the only options, but your argument fails because you don’t take into consideration the actual beliefs you counter.

 

ceded.

okay, i can agree to that.

i find it difficult to reject things without proof of impossibility.

idea of what?
that "god" is performing some kind of "good versus evil" test?
i don't know about your god, but MY god wouldn't do such things.
MY all powerful god would crush satan and all that he stands for like a cockroach.
my analysis?
it's highly improbable that god, as portrayed in the bible, exists.

see my analysis above.

first of all, what gives you the idea i'm an atheist?

second, so god allows suffering for what? an ego massage?
yes sir, me big chief bad ass.

 

I may be right or I may be wrong. I can only say that I am uncertain but lean strongly towards atheism.

This discussion with you has let me understand that I am too harsh, negative and baised away from religion. Thank you pointing out my flaws - I might have never found them myself. I will try and be non-partisan, objective and look both ways in these conversations.

 

Leopold-

You know, the “Here’s how I’d do it” argument doesn’t work. For one thing you aren’t allowing yourself to examine the actual idea that this life is a Test and are simply rejecting it out of Hand, based not on any sort of thought but just because you decided its wrong. You’ve oversimplified it and that can be done with anything. I’ve seen Creationists oversimplify Evolution in exactly the same way, and it doesn’t prove Evolution is wrong.

It is also meaningless for you to say “I wouldn’t have done it hat way”. So what? That doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist or that God didn’t do it that way, or that he isn’t compassionate. It just proves that you would have preferred him do something else.

You may as well prove that Politicians don’t exist because most are windbags.

 

AAQ-

Thanks. That's really all I'm trying for here.

But as this is the internet and we can't have pleasnat conversrion by the hih and mighty internet law, I am obligated to call you an idiot and say you suck now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then, if I follow th Traditoonal net route, I get me some :m:, but tend not to do that in real life so...

 

okay, for the sake of the argument let's hear your side.

BTW, i have grave reservations about an all powerful god using his creations as lab rats in some vast experiment.
that statement in itself, if true, proves god is not all knowing.

 

Leopold, if you decide that you will refuse to accept that God exists no matter what, then this is as much Blind, misguided Faith as a Fundamentalist deciding that God does exist no matter what. The palpable problem with most Atheist arguments I encounter these days is that they rely on the reader o listener accepting that, because an Atheist has issued the argument, it must then be Logical, and Rational, and based on nothing but a dispassionate examination of the idea via Logic.

However, most of the Time Atheist arguments rest on cheap emotional Tricks or on misrepresentation of an idea. You, here, have jumped from "God can't be compassionate because I don't personally like the idea of it as a test, and if it is a test how dare god put us through a world of pain and suffering. it proves he doesn't care" to "He can’t be all knowing as this makes us lab rats".

The gapping holes in your argument mainly stem from the fact that you leave out huge, vital parts ofthe other parties presumed arguments. EG, the test model you critisised assumes that our Souls are ultimtley unharmed by the problems we face in this Life. Your critisism of God as not beign compassionte are thus mooted because you focused only on this Life as if God only could care about out material well being in this Life.

The same problem exists for the Lab Rat claim. its not so much that people think God doesn't know something and is running an experiment to find out how we'd react, rather people propose that we are given this life so that we can be given the opportunity to develop moral Character and virtues by placing us in a world where we can feel loss and pain and allowing us to learn how to cope and how to be compassionate and loving in that Context.

The same people see God as Eternal, and thus not seeing Time flow from past to present. To them, God see's Abraham at the same Time that he see's us. It's all simultaneous.

This is less a lab experiment with Humanity as lb rats here to tell God how we'd respond because he doesn't know, rather Life is a School in which we pass or fail depending on how we choose to lead our lives.

If you can't even get the Theology itself correct or think through the implications, then you aren't really arguing against it.

And that presumes just one take, what happens if we discussed Calvinism?

 

i haven't decided anything.
whether god exists or not i have no clue.
like i said though, i find the prospect highly unlikely.

yes i focus on this life, what other life is there?

this is crazy, anyway i feel "god" should be relegated to the philosophical and moral aspects of life.
and more basically on society in general.