Re: Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Relig
Thalion wrote:I find it odd that many go about PROMOTING atheism. They go out of their way to spread their views and try to convince the religious to change. I am not saying that they shouldn't argue that they disagree with religion. We are all intelligent people, let us debate intellectually. I am merely curious why some people go about trying to convert others to atheism and take every oppurtunity to bash religion as if they are converting others to their own religion. If someone is religious, isn't this a good thing? If they truely believe in God, shouldn't it make them a better person (ideally, not always the case, but it does sometimes)? I had always taken it that atheism was a lack of religion, not something to preach. Again, to avoid being attacked, I am NOT saying that people should not defend their views. We are here to debate, let us debate.
That's funny I seem to have to shooo away mormons and jahovas witnesses away from my door on a regular basis....not the evil athiests
Re: Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Relig
Blank wrote:That's funny I seem to have to shooo away mormons and jahovas witnesses away from my door on a regular basis
I let The Puppies do that ... they enjoy it so.
What, they make it up your drive? Drive as the pure snow, they are...
patiodog wrote:Key difference:
Religion requires that people take action on the basis of something that cannot be observed.
"Atheism" makes no such requirement: it implies that a person does not take action on the basis of something that cannot be observed.
So, if you don't believe in evolution, then are you an aevolutionist? If if you are aevolutionist, do you blame your view on the lack of evidence?
I think if you were aevolutionist, you would point out flaws in existing arguments, and lack of support for existing arguments. You would also draw counter arugments of your own.
Otherwise, there is no productive debate. The burden of proof is only applicable in formal debate when someone else is asserting a view. So basing your belief system about g-d (yes, any belief system about g-d is a religious one) on someone else's lack of proof is an unfounded belief system. It is simply citing the slack on the other side.
A rational person would not accept a lack of evidence for evolution as a case against its existance. The same goes for the g-d problem.
There is a difference between having some, but not all the evidence to support a thesis, and having no evidence whatsoever.
I would venture to say that your variety of agnosticism is a religion with you PS, you cling to it with a fervent irrationality to match the most flamboyant holy roller . . .
Setanta wrote:There is a difference between having some, but not all the evidence to support a thesis, and having no evidence whatsoever.
I would venture to say that your variety of agnosticism is a religion with you PS, you cling to it with a fervent irrationality to match the most flamboyant holy roller . . .
You're right, I am fervent. But it has nothing to do with g-d. I have a deep love for logical processes. I don't think it's necessary that they always be followed, but it is so nice to have formulaic moves to help humanity be rational when it needs to be. I trust in these moves, and my agnosticism stems from my desire to adhere to them in formal and semi-formal debate*. (Ex: logical processes, having evidence to support a view, non-contradiction, the scientific method.)
* I wouldn't need this process in, say, evaluating what makes one poem better than another poem. I would use elements of logic, but also emotion and intuition.
On the basis of having evidence to support a view, non-contradiction and the scientific method, when someone urges me to believe that there are deities, i decline; your appeal to rationality here is your constant conceit. The statement: "So basing your belief system about g-d (yes, any belief system about g-d is a religious one) on someone else's lack of proof is an unfounded belief system."--is yet another example of you twisting the description of reality to fit what you allege, without substantiation, to be some universal, verifiable logic. In fact, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you by me and others that we don't believe, and that is not a belief system. You come up with some real comic book, tortured statements about what an atheist does or doesn't believe, for the simple reason that your "logic" collapses as soon as you acknowledge that my position in all of this is not to accept a belief system, as opposed to having a belief system such as you would like to shove down everyone's throat.
God, how simple-minded and specious can you be? How obtuse. Despite obvious intelligence and education, you cling desparately to the need to define atheists by your terms, and no other, and then to claim a universality of definition, and of logical process, in order to shore up the superiority of your point of view. You're as bad as the most vehement proselytizing religionist.
If it were - it would be
If it was - it might be
But as it is - it isn't
That's logic
L.B. Carrol
Heard something interesting during our buddhist pilgrimage in Japan for ten days that ended on Monday. Christians know they can't become god, but buddhist's believe they can become buddha.
truth
C.I., nice. But I would make a qualification: Buddhists know they ARE already Buddha, they only need to realize it, most easily in meditation.
Agree, with Thomas and others.
Setanta wrote:On the basis of having evidence to support a view, non-contradiction and the scientific method, when someone urges me to believe that there are deities, i decline; your appeal to rationality here is your constant conceit. The statement: "So basing your belief system about g-d (yes, any belief system about g-d is a religious one) on someone else's lack of proof is an unfounded belief system."--is yet another example of you twisting the description of reality to fit what you allege, without substantiation, to be some universal, verifiable logic. In fact, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you by me and others that we don't believe, and that is not a belief system. You come up with some real comic book, tortured statements about what an atheist does or doesn't believe, for the simple reason that your "logic" collapses as soon as you acknowledge that my position in all of this is not to accept a belief system, as opposed to having a belief system such as you would like to shove down everyone's throat.
God, how simple-minded and specious can you be? How obtuse. Despite obvious intelligence and education, you cling desparately to the need to define atheists by your terms, and no other, and then to claim a universality of definition, and of logical process, in order to shore up the superiority of your point of view. You're as bad as the most vehement proselytizing religionist.
Clearly my view only applies to my definition of atheist, the one in which assumptions are made about the non-existance of g-d. I haven't made any arguments about the other definitions, but would be interested in discussing them.
Cicerone - the difference is probably that most buddhists don't believe that buddha is a g-d. They see him as a prime example of a human being.
Maybe in order to be a g-d you need have some quality that must remain above and beyond human?
[quote="Portal Star]So, if you don't believe in evolution, then are you an aevolutionist? If if you are aevolutionist, do you blame your view on the lack of evidence?
I think if you were aevolutionist, you would point out flaws in existing arguments, and lack of support for existing arguments. You would also draw counter arugments of your own.
Otherwise, there is no productive debate. The burden of proof is only applicable in formal debate when someone else is asserting a view. So basing your belief system about g-d (yes, any belief system about g-d is a religious one) on someone else's lack of proof is an unfounded belief system. It is simply citing the slack on the other side.
A rational person would not accept a lack of evidence for evolution as a case against its existance. The same goes for the g-d problem.[/quote]
I think you miss my point. What I'm saying is that religiosity is an active state. Areligiosity is a passive state, defined only by adherence to religion elsewhere. A person does not need to do anything to be an atheist.
Oh, thank you, Patiod. I keep feeling this call to arms..
and rolling over clutching my blanket.
truth
Patiodog, I've made the distinction repeatedly, in describing my position-- that there is the passive atheist like myself who simply turns away from theism because it makes no sense, and there is activist atheist who "believes in a No-God and worships Him". I came across a book today, The Case Against God. It was written by a philosopher (?) who bored me to death with arguments that rose only slightly above the level of rhetoric of fundamentalist Christians. If something is meaningless, I say, ignore it, don't challenge it with counter-meaninglessness.
"Counter-meaningless." Love that word. Will save it for future use.
Maybe the author's view was: Dooty deserves to be refuted with more dooty?
I don't mean to suggest that the rest of us should sit idly by as, say, attempts are made to regulate governmental function according to Christian doctrine, mind you. (And 'twas not an original post by any means -- just reiterated the oft-made point that atheists do not set themselves up in opposition to theists; theists, by adopting the notion of a God (and anthropomorphizing it to boot) frequently set themselves up against everybody who does not believe similarly. I've never suggested to religious family members that they stop doing having their Sunday dress-up seminar and brunch, but they have suggested to me that I am immoral and beneath them because I do not live according to their strange strictures. "Living in sin," and such.)
Thalion wrote:Wow - more respones than I'd expected. Maybe to rephrase my question. Why do atheists question others about their religious views? They may seem absurd, and quite often their "explanations" are absurd, but religion cannot be explained. If someone believes in God and believes that they should do what is right, shouldn't one just leave them be? I understand that their views may seem absurd from a rational point of view, but is there a point in trying to attack (not violently... not obnoxiously, just at all) something which is not rational, cannot be thought about rationally, and is naturally good for people? Those who believe in God find their reason to "convert" others because of their faith... they believe that God exists and that He will make others better people. But what advantage is their to trying to undo religion, despite the absurdity that one might see in it. If you do not believe in God, defend your view if someone asks you why. But I don't see a reason to voice that when religion should make those who believe in it better people (not saying that those who do not believe in a religion are not good people.) Even if the idea is absurd, isn't it worth people believing anyway?
This question is easily answered. The problem that I have with religion, and the belief in God, is that there are waaaaayyyyy too many religions in the first place, and all of these religions think that they are "right".
So what does one religios group do when they realize that there is another reliogous group spouting beliefs that are contrary to their's??? Well the go to war of course, because that is what God has "told them" to do.
This is why athiests and agnostics may feel that religion is "absurd".
