Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Religion?

Portal Star wrote:

As an atheist, you are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

That is nothing short of blantant horsesh*t. Atheist is a term applied to me by others, who think they have or can prove something about reality and how i view it. Your examples, apart from having no relevancy, do not demonstrate any analogous case. I deny what others assert, which is not an equivalent and polar opposite contention, it is the denial of the original contention. You won't acknowledge this, because your personal agnosticism is heavily invested in being "right," and, in fact, being "more right" than others. That's a burden you have assumed yourself. Your pathetic "logical" gymnastics do not serve to make black into white.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
As an atheist, you are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

That is nothing short of blantant horsesh*t. Atheist is a term applied to me by others, who think they have or can prove something about reality and how i view it. Your examples, apart from having no relevancy, do not demonstrate any analogous case. I deny what others assert, which is not an equivalent and polar opposite contention, it is the denial of the original contention. You won't acknowledge this, because your personal agnosticism is heavily invested in being "right," and, in fact, being "more right" than others. That's a burden you have assumed yourself. Your pathetic "logical" gymnastics do not serve to make black into white.

Boss I dunno - I don't care what anyone calls ya! I still love ya - dude!

0 Replies

Geeze, Boss, keep it down . . . my Sweetiepie might read this, and then what will we do?

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Aside from some wrathful scenes in the Old Testament, and the scandal in the Catholic Church (I'm actually Presbyterian, which may affect some of my views on religion here....) the entire New Testament speaks of doing only good. Forgiving all, loving all as yourself. How could one criticize these teachings??

I'm not sure the imagery of Revelations is the best source of motivation. For that matter, to my thinking, the notion that we need saving is odious, and the fascination with the crucifixion is morbid and I believe that it leads (for some) to a persecution complex in a number of religious folks that is downright dangerous.

The central image of Christianity is a man nailed to a cross, suffering for our wickedness. Dunno about you, but I can see prolonged meditation on such an image leading to unhealthy obsession, paranoia, and vindictiveness. Now, I don't really go in for Buddhism, either, but the image of a man sitting under a tree and reflecting on the meaning of a rich and varied life seems a little more well-adjusted.

But, then, if the long history of churches of various religions as instruments for social control don't disturb you, a cursory discussion of iconography probably doesn't, either.

0 Replies

So, when Hay-Zeus blasted the fig tree for having no figs, even though the dee-seye-pulls pointed out that figs weren't in season, that was doing good? When he capriciously and arbitrarily destroyed the livelihood of the swineherd who had owned the Gaderene swine, that was doing good?

Pul-leeze . . . Revelations only gets worse--when i read that dogs would not be in heaven, that wrapped it up for me, i'm not interested.

0 Replies

(again, hoping not to gravely offend husker, one of the best virtual-people i virtually know, in spite of my wrongheadedness about religion...)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
As an atheist, you are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

That is nothing short of blantant horsesh*t. Atheist is a term applied to me by others, who think they have or can prove something about reality and how i view it. Your examples, apart from having no relevancy, do not demonstrate any analogous case. I deny what others assert, which is not an equivalent and polar opposite contention, it is the denial of the original contention. You won't acknowledge this, because your personal agnosticism is heavily invested in being "right," and, in fact, being "more right" than others. That's a burden you have assumed yourself. Your pathetic "logical" gymnastics do not serve to make black into white.

I share this opinion with a laywer friend of mine and one of my philosophy professors, so I frequently discuss my views on this subject. Atheism is not just denial of someone else's view (and I think atheists are often atheists out of self defense - against the constant push of agressive religions such as Christianity.) Athiesm is saying you -know- there are no g-ds. You are not saying that other's don't know, you are saying that you know there are no g-ds. When, as I've pointed out, there is no evidence available to support your claim.

Do you see a problem with the analogous case of the non-physical (unsensable) unicorns? If you say you believe in the non-existance of these unicorns, you still need to substantiate your claim - even if you aren't the person who initiated the view. Calling the person who substantiated the claim on burden of proof is simply that - saying that they don't have proof. Their lack of proof cannot be your evidence for it's non-existance.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Aside from some wrathful scenes in the Old Testament, and the scandal in the Catholic Church (I'm actually Presbyterian, which may affect some of my views on religion here....) the entire New Testament speaks of doing only good. Forgiving all, loving all as yourself. How could one criticize these teachings??

My personal view is that there are more than a few wrathful scenes in the old testament. It also seems as though the old testament serves as a backup for some the justify their prejudices. An example of what I mean is this letter that appeared in my local paper's letters to the editor section recently.

Quote:

Defining marriage

Re: the March 14 Guest Opinion "Republicans, Christians should support gay marriage."

Kelly Frieders is among those people who believe that a Christian is all compassion with no conviction.

Jesus Christ was a compassionate man who was unwavering in his convictions.While Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, he did endorse the Old Testament as the unchanging revelation of God's holy standard.

He also defined marriage as between a man and a woman for life as established by God from creation.

A Christian is one who willingly follows the teachings of Jesus as found in the New Testament. His teachings are to be followed every moment of every day, not just while in church or synagogue. Jesus teaches that sin is the single issue that separates people from God and determines one's eternal destination of heaven or hell.

To promote a governmental endorsement of sin in the name of compassion is like allowing a person to drink poison because it would not be compassionate to withhold it from someone who is thirsty.

The person that wrote the above no doubt thinks he is a good Christian. I think he is a bigot that has his head in a dark place and is injecting his intolerance on others.

One problem is that your textbook has not been updated in over a thousand years. Now if you had a way to chuck the old testament, that would be a big improvement. The supposed divine nature of the old testament makes that possibility unlikely.

0 Replies

It may be true that my desk here is really `nothing but' a transient eddy of electrons in the flux of universal process or it might be the creation of some mystical omnipotent diety. Nevertheless, I find that it continues to support my feet, my revolver, and my cigars all day long. What happens when my back is turned I don't know. Or much care. That's no concern of mine. You live your line of fantasy and I can live mine, peacefully thank you.

0 Replies

Geeze, PS, what kind of arrogance do you have to tell me what i think? Don't define me, don't define what i think. You are trying to make absolutist statements, and it is pathetic, because it is all a desparate attempt to validate your contention of a superior comprehension. You are no authority to tell me or anyone else what an atheist is. Keep that horsesh*t to yourself. And keep your naive and disingenuous definition of atheism to yourself as well--it is not an ideology to me, and i'm frankly sick, after all these months, of the conceited and self-serving way you try to shove your hare-brained notions of what an atheist is down everyone's throat.

Your as bad as Frank, and in my book, i couldn't insult you more without violating the TOS.

0 Replies

I believe the Fig tree story was only in the context of showing that anything is possible through faith/prayer if I remember correctly. Revelations is apocolyptic literature.... don't know if I'd consider that as Jesus's "teachings."

But in a larger sense, even if the bible does contain these unexplained passages, does it matter? Is this what ppl are getting out of reading it? Do we read the Bible and think, "I should go out and curse others and they'll burst into flames." .... No, we don't. The main theme of the New Testament is forgiveness and that's what we get out of it. Don't rummage through the pages and pick out certain absurd sections. Even the religious don't take it literally. It's more about MEANING, not details.

0 Replies

It can be debated to eternity who has the burden of proof when it comes to the existence or nonexistence of God. Some may reason that since things obviously do exist, they must have an origin, and that someone, by denying God as the first cause, would have the burden on him/her to come up with an alternative theory about the origin of everything that is more plausible, etc etc.

Anyhow, as I see it, the question is completely futile, because both the statements "God does exist until proven otherwise" and "God does not exist until proven otherwise" are equally erroneous from a standpoint based solely on logical deduction, considering that nothing which we reason from can be proven to be anchored in ultimate reality.

0 Replies

as Dys slams down the bottle of sour mash on his desk of questionable origin thinking to his-self, damn! why is that some people can't abide some other body living in peace with his-self without the need of telling him what his reality should or shoudn't be. You haul your ashes and I'll haul mine.

0 Replies

PortalStar,

I enjoy your posts even when they make me laugh and/or disagree with my POV. I like the fact that you're thinking, even if I don't agree with it.

It comes down to this:

If a guy tells me he caught a fish "this big" and doesn't have a fish to show me - I don't believe him. The reality is - if he can't prove that he caught a fish "this big" - he didn't catch a "fish this big". The burden of proof lay with him because he made the claim, not with me because I don't believe it.

You can talk in circles all you like. But at some point someone said "this is true." That was the start. Because you can't say something is untrue unless someone says something is true first.

Hope you feel better soon.

To all: Believe whatever you like - I'm fine with that. Debate your beliefs with me - I'm fine with that. Don't infringe on my rights with your beliefs and don't wake me up on Saturday morning by knocking on my front door to tell me about "the truth".

peace.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Geeze, PS, what kind of arrogance do you have to tell me what i think? Don't define me, don't define what i think. You are trying to make absolutist statements, and it is pathetic, because it is all a desparate attempt to validate your contention of a superior comprehension. You are no authority to tell me or anyone else what an atheist is. Keep that horsesh*t to yourself. And keep your naive and disingenuous definition of atheism to yourself as well--it is not an ideology to me, and i'm frankly sick, after all these months, of the conceited and self-serving way you try to shove your hare-brained notions of what an atheist is down everyone's throat.

Your as bad as Frank, and in my book, i couldn't insult you more without violating the TOS.

You can think whatever you want, but I'm telling you what the definition of atheism is, and what it means. I took an entire class on the g-d and mind-body problem, and in both debate and philosophy this is how the term atheism is regarded. You are the one labeling yourself as an atheist. You can believe in magical pink bunnies for all I care so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I'm having an argument here because I like to - not because I'm trying to make everyone the same.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

It may be true that my desk here is really `nothing but' a transient eddy of electrons in the flux of universal process or it might be the creation of some mystical omnipotent diety. Nevertheless, I find that it continues to support my feet, my revolver, and my cigars all day long. What happens when my back is turned I don't know. Or much care. That's no concern of mine. You live your line of fantasy and I can live mine, peacefully thank you.

dys - this is a different argument. You are talking about personal viewpoint. The desk would still exist if no one was observing it. I'm talking about things that have no potential to be observed - even theoretically - immaterial things from the cartesian dualist argument (descartes.) Immaterial things are different than material things which are not being observed. Immaterial things - the notion of things which have no matter or space in the physical world - can never be observed.

As for electrons, yes that is probably exactly what it is made out of. We have names for things and organize information in order to better orient out world.

The reason this subject is interesting is because many atheists claim to be logical or know more than many theists - when in reality the know exactly what the theists know - nothing. I think it is dangerous to hold strong viewpoints that are not evidence-based - when these viewpoints mean you are going to impose them on the lives of others. I have a friend who is an atheist on a crusade against theists (supposedly backed by evidence, knowledge, logic - believing they know there is not a g-d), and in many ways that is just as ridiculous as theists crusading against non-believers - believing they -know- that there is a g-d.

0 Replies

PortalStar,

What is your "atheist" friend trying to accomplish? What is his goal?

0 Replies

rofl

0 Replies

What a witless response, PS. Try to bend your mind around the concept that because someone else defines me as an atheist does not mean that i have anything to do with an ideological concept described as atheism. I am defined as an atheist by others, a posteriori. You're so dull-witted, or so it appears from what you write, that you make the simple-minded assumption that as communists believe in and support communism, therefore, atheists "believe in" and "support" atheism.

It is not so. I am only an atheist by the definition of others, and i only refer to myself that way because of the necessity of providing a descriptive term which will be comprehensible to the dim bulbs who can only approach the subject in a dichotomous manner.

It is not axiomatic that someone defined as an atheist a posteriori by theists, or evangelizing agnostics such as you, is automatically an adherent to, a supporter of, a proponent of an ideology which can be described as atheism. Someone purports to me that supernatural beings exists. I reply: "Get outta here--prove it." "You have to believe, you have to take it on faith." "No i don't, and i won't. There are no such supernatural beings, and if you can't prove it, you have no right to expect others to take it on faith." "Oh well, you're an atheist, then."

Get it?--atheist by a posteriori definition. If you weren't so dedicated to your conceit (which is all that it is) that you hold a superior point of view, you might be able to understand why it does not necessarily follow that those defined by others as atheist are not automatically adherents of atheism.

As a side note, it is really pathetic to refer to the course you took, or your putative conversations with a lawyer. Do you think that lends some authority to the tripe you're spewing?

I am heartily sick and tired of your arrogant attempts to shove your point of view down my throat. Have the courtesy never to address any remarks to me again, and i promise to reciprocate. I long ago lost any respect for what you may allege to be your intellect.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

PortalStar,

I enjoy your posts even when they make me laugh and/or disagree with my POV. I like the fact that you're thinking, even if I don't agree with it.

It comes down to this:

If a guy tells me he caught a fish "this big" and doesn't have a fish to show me - I don't believe him. The reality is - if he can't prove that he caught a fish "this big" - he didn't catch a "fish this big". The burden of proof lay with him because he made the claim, not with me because I don't believe it.

You can talk in circles all you like. But at some point someone said "this is true." That was the start. Because you can't say something is untrue unless someone says something is true first.

Hope you feel better soon.

To all: Believe whatever you like - I'm fine with that. Debate your beliefs with me - I'm fine with that. Don't infringe on my rights with your beliefs and don't wake me up on Saturday morning by knocking on my front door to tell me about "the truth".

peace.

side note: deveron says exactly what I am saying.

Thank you for wishing me to feel better, and debating with me (I do this for fun.)

You're right - he would have to prove to you that he caught the fish. That is a single situation with a single instance - and let me add that it is not based on 0 evidence. If it were an expert fisherman you would assume that he did catch the fish based on the evidence that he is an expert fisherman. You judge your friend based on the evidence that he is probably not a good fisherman and lying to brag to you about the fish.

Theoretically, evidence could be gathered (assume all powerful cameras everywere, sound mics, etc.)

But would you go telling all your other friends, with 0 evidence, that he did not catch the fish? By making your own statement about the event, the burden of proof is shifted to you. You tell your friends you are afishist. When they ask you why, you can't say: because I know absolutely nothing about the event. You would say things like: Paul is a lousy fisherman, he doesn't even know how to bait a hook, his eyesight is poor, and he has a tendency to brag.

Even theoretically, you could call up a theoretical videotape of him catching a bluegill and saying it was a giant bass.

But, let's say that this fish is completely immaterial and not existing in the physical world. How would you, even theoretically, be able to assume something about this fish?

0 Replies

Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know