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

My point was that atheism can and very often is political (no matter how many times one makes a show of retreating to the ramparts of the implicit atheism of chairs and stones)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theism has just as much necessity for a political agenda as atheism

i am simply pointing out how trying to ply atheism as bereft of a necessary political agenda because it is based on "science" doesn't work (and more often than not turns out to be a political ploy)

similarly when lawmakers and politicians govern based on their atheist beliefs, theists and others will fight back against that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since when is Coke or Pepsi a world view?! :bugeye:

 

No. Atheists, by definition, want religion to be separate from politics. (That way, atheists can dismiss the issues of religion without it interfering with the normal running of politics - however the politics work out.) That does not give atheism any kind of political stance - quite the opposite in fact.

 

If you are talking about atheists vouching for some social norm you have politics (which clearly aren't the chairs and stones type of atheists ... before you quickly try and scurry off in that direction) .

Its as simple and as difficult as that

:shrug:

 

aaqucnaona,

And I find it tedious and boring when people constantly apply brakes to the momentum of a discussion, because to remain at the same velocity would reveal a serious lack of the big picture.

Definitions are important in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
''Atheist'' means one does not believe in God, all the other bunkem (strong, weak, 20% north-east) has no bearing on that in the broad sense.
So if I was atheist, my position would be, I don't believe in God, period. Everything else pertaining to that definition, are modern interpolations, which seem to change every fracking day, depending on who you're talking to.

Here's one for a start: Court Rules Atheism a Religion

More importantly, with discussion one can easily determine that the type of atheism espoused by Dawkins and his followers, is nothing more than a replacement of Christianity, and eventually all religions.

[/QUOTE]


You're understanding of religion is a part of your indoctrination.
You just don't get it.

No hair, and, hair, have absolutely nothing in common.
Atheists do not believe in God, and by "God'' I mean the general term as used in the scripture. Why? Because in this day and age, and in our part of the world, that is the basis of all religions, and spirituality. Even a rejection of this, is based on scripture. So the (yawn) boring analogy doesn't even make sense. You are atheist because you don't believe in God, not because God (or the notion) is not in you life, or because you know nothing of God.

Not sure what you're question pertains to.

I didn't say atheism is wrong or bad, and theism the opposite.
You call yourself an atheist, meaning you don't believe in God. But are you really an atheist? Maybe you are, maybe you're not, I suppose you have to be put to the test. The famous atheist, Anthony Flew, thought he was an atheist, and dedicated his adult life to preaching atheism, and attempting to debunk God, and religion, only to find that he wasn't atheist, at the fag end of his life.

You're talking now, making a show of your atheism on an intellect platform, but this all very materialistic, and contrived. There will come a time (it's probably happened already) when your real position will manifest itself.

Regarding religion, you and other atheists here, don't know what you're talking about. In all honesty it's like trying to explain the reason why we can't afford XBox to little kids, who all they have on their mind is XBox. They don't see the bigger picture, just like you.

Hope you don't take that as an insult, as I am not saying you have the same mentality as little kids. That's just how it feels.
You cannot possibly scrutinize all religious claims, and come to a solid conclusion, without actually wanting to arrive at your conclusion to justify your views.

Here again, you're off on a tangent talking about stuff that has nothing to do with ''religion''. Sure, some religions may operate in such a way, but to use that as brush to paint ''religion'' with, only proves my point.


How can one really explain what one feels?
If someone say's ''everytime she comes near me'', my heart skips a beat. Does that mean in order to prove that we consult a heart surgeon the next time, to tell if he is telling the truth?

Or is being ''crazy about someone'' necessarily a reason to be psychiatrically assessed? But nevertheless, these statement merely try to explain what one experiencing, or feeling

The QUESTION is: How did they know these things without modern scientific aids?

A straight answer would be really lovely. Thanks in advance.


jan.

 

Since when is atheism a worldview?! :bugeye:

 

Atheism in and of itself is bereft of political agenda. It does not have a value system or ideals. Some atheists themselves have political agendas, but atheism itself does not. For example, there is nothing about atheism that would preclude an atheist from wanting Christian myths to be taught in public schools.

In other words, a lack of belief in god (or even the belief that a particular god does not exist) does not necessitate the belief that religion is poisonous, or its teachings immoral.

This lack of any kind of political foundation is evidenced by the fact that despite there being a greater number of atheists in the country than Jews or some ethnic minority groups, its political presence and influence is virtually nil.

 

Then we can not do politics. At least not for actual people.

 

JDawg,

Religion pertains to the essence of the human/person.
Modern atheism seeks to change the essence of the human, by elimination of religion. No different to what Christians, and Muslims have tried throughout the centuries. From my perspective, there is no difference between these attitudes.

Wtf, does that even mean?

ou


Then you haven't understood my point.

I'm not. Religion is a simple concept to grasp.

Yeah! By insisting your way is right. Dawkins IS imposing his religion on the world, by dishonest means. No different to other dishones organisation over the centuries.

My point is that one cannot accept the testimony of others regarding theism and atheism, as a definate. They proclaimed to be theist, but were ACTUALLY atheist in reality as their actions (reality) were undertaken without belief.

Actually, I'm ok with that. I was demonstrating the fickleness of modern atheism when dealing with definitions.

Agreed.

This is due to the shifting goalposts atmosphere that we have here.
But I'm glad you say this because at least we can talk about ''atheism'' properly.

I disagree. So maybe you can point it out.

I wasn't aware that there were different categories of ''feeling at home with''.

I'm quite sure I didn't say that.

So why are they trying to destroy religion, making it out to be purley superstition, irrational, unscientific, and all the other pretend reasons they have? How can they really have an affinity with someone who they think idiotic? Don't they understand that religion is much more than what they think it is?

Because the modern atheist is just simply campaigning to become free of religion, as there is no need to. He is campaigning to destroy God (notion), and the means to develop a relationshipt with God. This is all based on nothing. While we can all agree on stopping mad people doing things in the name of God or religion, we don't all agree that that is what religion is, or what it breeds.

The real atheist is not concerned with changing the world to his pov, only in living his life without believing in God. Or having religion shoved down his throat. That's the difference.

I didn't say it did.

While these situations may have been heavily enforced at one time, it is certainly not the case now, save a few pockets of the world. In the west, there is no religion in the mainstream.
I think you are exagerating these claims, to spur you on. That's just my opinion.

Do you know what IS evidence for God?

''Pride themselves in their faith''! Please explain what that means, and how it manifests with every theist.
Otherwise it's just more nonesence.

The thing is, the circuit, standard responses from atheists, regarding God, and religion, only works on people who have not really given much thought to their position, who themselves only spout what's on the script. A bit like the atheists they argue with.
You're all cut off the same cloth. Out with the old, in with the new.
Try answering some of my questions (without the script), and let's see how you do.

The question is as clear as a bell.
In vedic litarature there are numerous accounts of the things I mentioned. The vedas were written thousands of years before, and spoken for millions of years (according to itself). How so?


jan.

 

Even if I granted you the attitudes of atheism and religion were the same (which I'm not), it would not follow that therefore atheism is a religion.

And again, atheism is simply a lack of belief, or if you insist, the belief that a particular god does not exist. It goes no further than that. Atheism does not seek the destruction of religion, or to change the minds of the faithful. Atheism is not a worldview.

You're mistaking the reaction of people of science and reason to the imposition of faith--particularly Christian mythology--upon society for some kind of "atheist doctrine" which does not in fact exist.

I'd also add that atheists do not seek to change the "essence" of anything, though I'm not entirely certain how you mean that word.

In your previous post, you asserted aggression as the defining trait of religion, and through that assertion concluded that because atheism is also aggressive, it is therefore a religion. I disagreed, and stated that your assertion was false.

If I haven't, it's because you have not been clear. I can only go by what you post.

I agree that religion is a simple concept to grasp. However, you are asserting a personal definition--religion as an aggressive collection of like-minded people--which is broad enough to include atheism. I demonstrated the flaw in this personal definition by listing several other groups which would then fit the bill, such as any major corporation.

Here we go again, with yet another personal definition of religion. Now you say that the simple act of insisting his way is the right way makes what he believes a religion. Mathematicians assert that their formulas are right, too; does that make math a religion?

You see how your argument crumbles at the slightest touch?

An insistence upon being right does not make a belief religious. In Dawkins' case, his argument is evidentiary, which is more than can be said of the argument in favor of faith.

I don't disagree that there are many people self-identifying as "religious" who are not in either practice or belief (particularly practice) but this does not seem to relate to our topic.

But as I've demonstrated, the fickleness is yours, not ours. You were the one (of many) trying to stretch atheism to mean things it does not. That isn't to say there aren't different schools of thought regarding varying degrees of atheism (ie strong atheism vs weak atheism) but this would not include worldviews or any other of the uses you've tried to attribute to it.

As I said (and showed), atheists aren't the ones shifting the goalposts. Some try to refine the definitions, but it is largely theists who try to make atheism out to be something other than what it is. Take your insistence upon it being a religion, for example.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Luke 12:46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.​

Just a couple here off the top of my Google. Whether you believe Hell is a physical place, or simply representative of a final and permanent separation from God, the hows and whys of condemnation are not in question.

It's not the definition of "feeling at home" that I was confused about, simply its context. I thought you were saying that ideologically, certain kinds of people can find comfort with atheists, rather than simply socially.

That's exactly what you said: "The feeling of discomfort is usually of a social, political, racial, and material making."

Not all of them are out to destroy religion. Christopher Hitchens--perhaps paradoxically--said that even if he could wave a wand and make religion disappear, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it. He was a lover of poetry, and I think he believed that while faith may not be required to create beautiful imagery, it certainly was the impetus for some of his favorite works. I don't think he would have ever wanted to close the door on that particular inspiration.

However, he did--as they do--that religion is all of the things you say above: unscientific, irrational, and purely superstition. Their assertions are based on evidence, and the assertions to the contrary are, necessarily, not.

And please try to remember that if religion was simply a personal belief system that did not intrude upon society, then no one would be taking issue with it. At least not in the way that they take and took issue with it.

Again, I would correct you by saying the anti-theist is the one campaigning against God, not the atheist. While I roll my eyes somewhat at the pedantic sub-definitions philosophers have foisted upon atheism, there is a need to refine our terms a bit (as well as create new ones). As I've already said (and we've already agreed upon) atheism is not a worldview, and does not make any claims beyond the existence of god; to take the step and say that religion is bad is to do something quite beyond the reach of atheism. This is where the term "anti-theist" comes from. I would personally prefer this term to describe such people as Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens (though Harris does not like any of the labels, and has given many lectures arguing against them, particularly the label of "atheist.") Certainly they are all atheists as well, but the actions you're talking about are those of an anti-theist (sort of like how one can be a Conservative but not necessarily a Republican).

"Real" is not the opposite of "Modern," so I suggest that your terminology needs work. I think I've done a fair job of explaining why "anti-theist" would better suit the people you're decrying than "modern atheist," so I won't repeat myself here. I will say, however, that no one is giving us the option to simply be concerned with not having religion shoved down our throats. For example, the inclusion of Christian myth in high school biology textbooks. The people fighting for this to happen are not concerned with what an atheist might think about it, and so this must be combated.

And this is just one example of the way religion imposes itself upon society. Yes, you can win a measure of victory against these initiatives, but what happens ten, fifty, a hundred years from now, when that religion begins forcing the issue again? Certainly instead of fighting these individual battles, is it not better than to fight back against the source of these problems? You're saying that atheists should basically keep their mouths shut while Christianity tries to destroy science, and then throw a fit when anti-theists hit back? Come on.

Yes you did. You do realize that we can all just go back and look at the posts, right?

Except for the fact that Indiana now teaches Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, Christian propaganda pamphlets are found within every biology textbook in a school district within Alabama (where evolution is taught, that is; many science teachers in the US are too afraid of offending their Christian students to even broach the subject), public criticism of established religion can get you thrown in jail in places in Europe--not to mention what it can get you in the Middle East--and Christian religious leaders have argued that Muslim communities in the west should be able to govern themselves through Sharia law.

And no religion in the mainstream? God is on our money, Jan.

Your opinion is based on false preconceptions, and therefore invalid.

You mean aside from the clouds parting to reveal the giant bearded face of God? I guess the short answer would be any evidence that necessitates a creator. So far, nothing has fit the bill.

Why? Are you saying there is evidence?

It doesn't manifest with every theists, since theists have given up faith for reason. But it does manifest in many, and it is simply what I said it is: a pride in being able to withstand all arguments against religion without one's faith being broken. As an example, I was discussing Dinesh D'Souza with a Christian friend of mine, and I was getting into all the reasons why he lost a particular debate to Hitchens, and at the end I said to him, "Hey, sorry to rip your faith a new one," to which he replied "Don't worry, my faith is too strong for that."

And you mean to say you've never heard a theist talk about the strength of their faith? It's a point of pride for many theists.

An example?

Seems like vague ad hominem. Can't really comment on it unless you want to clarify.

I get the sneaking suspicion that you want me to answer questions in the way you answer questions, which is to make up my own definitions for terms and have little to no understanding of what any of the things we're discussing actually entail. I suppose you call my rigor to accepted definitions and reason "the script," and if so, that's your problem. I'm not going to turn off my brain just so your arguments don't look so foolish.

Human beings have not existed for millions of years, so that's wrong straight away. Secondly, the Vedic period was something like 1500 years BCE, so not "thousands of years before" as you suggest.

As to the scientific merit of the texts, I'm need to see an example. I've never heard it asserted that the Vedas are a source of scientific knowledge. Please share.

 

I disagree. Religion robs us of the one thing that makes us uniquely human, our ability to reason. As long as there is fear of death, people will gravitate towards religion. Atheists have to be realistic about this. We aren't at war with religion, we just want to point out it's fallacies and promote reason in public and personal life.

 

On the contrary, atheist views exclusively rely on reductionist claims that are not evidenced in order to reason that there are no transcendental elements to understanding reality (a very unreasonable approach to the problem ... since its not really expected that a reductionist investigation could hope to impart anything about about transcendental subject matter ... what to speak of non-evidenced reductionist investigation).

IOW much like the reason of any other social movement aiming at establishing a norm, it simply calls upon reason as it is applicable to its own specific world view

Just but one of the many things a reductionist view cannot hope to solve ...

lol
sounds political ....

 

Yes, because religion is political. If stamp collection or astrology were political, us non-stamp collectors and non-horoscopers would be political too. Atheism is a rectionary stance, not a definitive one.

 

When you use the word reductionist, I assume you mean science, which is evidence based. If there is no evidence for the transcedent, then it has no logical basis in objective reality. I acknowledge that it might still be a useful concept in philosophy, but it speaks more to a subjective mental experience. Such ideas are not reality, they are aspects of the mind, which is illusory.

You can't assert the reality of the transcedent without evidence. You can't just invent a special class of phenomenon and say it cannot be proven with science. That's a form of logical fallacy called special pleading:

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption {wiki}​

 

You keep saying this, or some variety of this, but never provide one working example of these supposedly non-evidenced and reductionist claims.

Read Sam Harris and try to say that atheists exclusively believe that there is no such thing as transcendence. Hell, even reading Hitchens will show you the contrary.

Nonsense. And again, atheism is not a worldview.

You say that as if faith offers a workable alternative.

 

At the bare minimum, you must admit that any atheism is a result of, or directly justified by, a specific world view.

Denying the impact of one's world view on an atheistic opinion is moot.