Atheism

Every time I think we have the trolls blanked out, they manage to break through again.

Just because something can't be explained by science or reason doesn't make it supernatural. The standard definition of Supernatural has more to do with being "outside of" or "unrelated to" nature. The things you mentioned are all perfectly natural feelings.


If you want to think of those feelings as a religion then I guess that's entirely up to you, but I don't consider feelings of awe and splendor and grandeur to be religious feelings.

I believe and feel many of the same things you described, but they aren't religious feelings to me at all.

And every time the decided shortage of humility is displayed.........

I'm not so sure it's an idiosyncratic definition, as it appears some Buddhists don't consider Buddhism to be a religion either. Indeed, some of the defenses of Buddhism as a religion employ far more idiosyncratic definitions than mine.

Nevertheless, as you'll recall, my definition had two parts. Even granting that a religion need not require a belief in a deity, it still needs an organization. In that respect, Maxdancona's "definition" (what there is of it) of his "religion" is still deficient.


No. If that were the criterion, then a belief in ghosts or pixies could form the basis for a religion.

I might fall back on sensibility and art history if the subject was Jackson-Pollock paintings --- which really are just arbitrary sets of colors splattered onto random sets of canvas. But maybe that's a topic for another thread.

Fair enough.

PS: I do consider the Republican party, as constituted after the resignation of the first president Bush, a religious cult. You should read up on Paul Ryan's and Eric Cantor's faith in expansionary austerity --- it gives transubstantiation a run for its money!

You speak as though the terms were mutually exclusive, which they are not. Your assessment, however, is wrong. I'm far less of an agnostic than people who routinely label themselves agnostics, for two reasons. I am only being honest in saying that i don't know that there is no deity, but i'm about 99% sure there is not, based on never having heard a plausible definition, including prime mover. Apart from that, agnostics are only selectively agnostic. They're only talking about a god or about gods. In all other matters, they are considerably less than agnostic.

As far as the conversation between Joe and Thomas on the subject of Buddhism goes, i am going to stick my oar in and say that i consider it a religion. Several aspects of Buddhism require blind faith belief. The very name of the belief set requires blind faith belief--or at least a belief for which i have never heard any plausible evidence. Siddhartha is called the Buddha because it is alleged that he attained complete enlightenment. I have no problem with people believing that, but it is an undemonstrated, and possibly undemonstrable claim. There is no basis for a claim that there is some special understanding which can be called enlightenment which is more complete and transcendent in comparison to garden variety intellectual understanding. Buddhism also entails a belief in karma and nirvana, both of which are undemonstrated contentions which are very likely undemonstrable. They both require a belief in a cycle of rebirth, another undemonstred contention, which likely cannot be demonstrated. On the basis of an adherence to blind faith beliefs, i consider Buddhism to be a religion.

Two side notes, or observations. I have recently read that the site of a temple which is alleged to stand where Siddhartha was born has been the subject of further archaeological investigation which shows that there is one or more set of temple foundations beneath the level of the current temple, which suggests that a temple was or temples were there for centuries before the date ascribed to the birth of Siddhartha. Certainly there may have been other temples there which had nothing to do with the birth of Siddhartha. However, the legend of Siddhartha's birth says that his mother delivered him in a grove of trees--there is no mention of a temple there at the time of his birth. Of course, the entire story is wrapped in the most egregious superstitions, such as that one of the trees bent down a branch for the mother to hold in her birth pangs, and a gentle rain which fell on mother and child to cleanse them after the event. To me, though, this is just more evidence of the claptrap which adheres to any supernatural superstition such as is common with religion.

The other is in the way of scripture. None of the alleged teachings of Siddhartha were written down at the time that he lived--at least none which survive to this day. In common with all other such religions, one has to take on faith that they are an accurate record of the teachings of Siddhartha and other buddhas and bodhisattvas--none of them are contemporary to the people alleged to have uttered the teachings. The temple at Lumbini (in what is now Nepal) was built in about 500 BCE, with the date of Siddhartha's birth being given as 563 BCE. If, however, the new archaeological evidence is correct, there was a temple there long before that. This throws into question the entire timeline of the life of Siddharta and the recording of the putative Buddhavacana. The Theravada Buddhists date the timeline to 60 years ealier than other buddhist, but that doesn't explain the archaeological findings, and just creates a bigger gap between the time when Siddharta was alleged to have lived and when the texts of his teachings were produced.

All in all, Buddhism is fraught with all the blind faith requirements and all the superstition and uncertainties of all the other major religions. They just like to take a haughty tone; a tone which i find hilarious and unwarranted.

Trolls are bogeymen for adults ed. They don't exist. They are merely a category of leprechaun handy for those with nothing to say but a need to say something.

I presume you mean fellow members of the A2K community with whom you disagree and who have equal status with yourself.

That is only true using a definition of religion which excludes max's definition. Thus the statement is circular.

Modern philosophers define atheism as the belief that the Christian God does not exist and the term is thus inapplicable to other cultures.

Considerations of Buddhism are off topic.

My "assessment" was just based on what you had said previously. You're welcome to define your creed or lack thereof as you wish.

Don't confuse frail human concepts and the things they may or may not refer to. Nothing you can say about concepts says much about the stuff these concepts are supposed to describe. That's the flaw of the ontological argument. Some of the concepts of, say, quantic theory sound improbable but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong.


Is that a reference to the unicorn and fairies argument? If yes, that cuts no cake. Now that we have explored pretty much the entire earth crust, we can conclude that unicorns don't seem to exist on this planet, but they might still exist on another one... And new species are still being discovered, once in a while, like the Okapi... Personally, I just believe that unicorns don't exist and that the narwhal tooth is a good explanation for the legend. Not so sure about the fairies...

And Setanta is never going to hear of a plausible definition if he blots out those who offer one.

God is the personification of the wisdom of the ages. Satan is the personification of unbridled human carnal appetites which are inimical to the efficient organisation of a society or a culture. Satisfaction of those appetites follows naturally when no inhibiting mechanism is available.

The idea that a belief in the non-existence of a Christian God permits those carnal appetites is a non sequitur. What the atheist needs to show is that the freedom of expression of the natural carnal appetites is not harmful to the efficient organisation of society.

Why some atheists on here are reluctant to attempt that is a matter for each one of them but they are being a little self-serving if they think others here have not noticed this reluctance and drawn the obvious conclusion.

It is a cheap trick to pretend that the non-existence of the Christian God permits those expressions or that the inhibition of all of them can be legislated for by transparent democratic bodies.

The matter is entirely pragmatic, earth bound and nothing to do with any possible deity.

This is a patent straw man fallacy and you have been beating this dead horse for years.

Equating atheism with carnal appetites IS a non-sequitur.

Like you have no proof for the existence of god you have no proof that the expression of carnal appetites would be harmful to society.

Most atheists show a self-restraint that many christians are incapable of..

If only that was all he'd been beating.

Altogether, that was a response so feeble that it doesn't merit a response. Arguing for argument's sake is worthless if the content is worthless.

Please don't quote spendius. I have him on ignore.

I did not say they were. Nor would I. I know what Freud said about that. I can show that they are beneficial. I was wondering why you lot can't. It looks like you don't have the courage of your convictions.

I think you have a comprehension problem tim. You should read the posts you are responding to with more care.

God obviously exists when people believe God exists and the belief is a cause of effects. Great effects in the case of our cultural heritage.

Modern science is not causeless. It has appeared in the last 1,000 years of a human history of 2 million years. Some say 4 million.

It would never enter my head that the prescriptions of any belief system were not man made. It is your straw man that they were not.

Aah!! The censorship tendency rears itself up on its hind legs. Again.

Trolls is trolls is trolls is trolls is trolls is trolls.