This is topic Atheism as a religion? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=022504

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
I heard about this last week but can't seem to....ok ok, haven't really tried to find any more information on it, but did anyone else hear about this?

The proverbial "they" want to recategorise Atheism as a religion, and different levels of atheistic 'belief' as different denominations.
I'm sure last time i checked Atheism was a general description for lack of religion or belief neh?
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Seeing as there's no Church of Atheism whose structure one might conceivably hope to change, "they" have windmill issues.
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Different levels? What, am I a class II atheist and a level IV vegan?

Life is starting to seem more and more like an RPG...
 
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Atheism, doesn't that literally mean "without god"?

I guess you could form a religion from it. But no athiest that I know would be interested.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would LOVE to become an ordained atheist preacher. I wonder what our creed would be, and whether people who are secretly agnostic -- like me -- would be punished with an eternity of nonexistence in the afterlife, or simply permitted to share nonexistence in the afterlife with the rest of us.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I admit I once considered atheism a religion -- or at least a faith -- and annoyed quite a few atheists with my innocent insistence that they were too religious. They had beliefs on the soul, the afterlife, the existence of a higher power, etc, with none of it provable in any way. That's faith in my book.

But atheism does not supply rituals or codes of living, and I've come to accept that those are integral parts of a religion.

So now I consider atheism as a philosophy, a belief system, or a determined guess, depending on whom I'm talking to.

We apatheists just sit back and shake our heads...

[ March 17, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Tom - maybe a modification of Zelazny's classic Agnostic's Prayer?
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Atheism is more like a class of religions.

Something like Atheism + Evolutionary Theory + Humanism would be more of a religion.

[ March 17, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I think you'd have to devise a new religion based on atheism, evolutionary theory and humanism. There's not really one now, or at least nothing organized. I could use a summer project...

Believing in evolutionary theory doesn't mark you as atheist, there are an awful lot of Christians who have no problem working theories of evolution and natural selection into their faiths. Obviously they are Christians who do not subscribe to the inerrancy of the Bible, but knowing how something was done doens't necessarily lessen the impact of why something was done, and by Whom.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
A religion doesn't really need to be organized. Many Christians don't belong to any church specifically, or don't even go to church, but still have their religion. Some even have very unique, self-made religions.

A religion is just a set of beliefs defining how you view the world and should act within it. Atheism is really just a single belief, but an inidividual would combine atheism with a variety of other beliefs about the world and morality (doesn't have to be humanism and evolution) to make his or her atheistic religion.

Some object to this and argue that religion is a term reserved for supernatural belief systems. My view is that that's a pretty arbitrary line to draw, but if people want to draw it then at least we can say that atheist belief systems are the equivalent of religions in function, whether or not we can technically call them 'religions.'

[ March 17, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Atheism, imho, is not a religion.

It is the lack of it.

However the current popular understanding of the word is a more militant view...as in not just an unbeliever in the supernatural, but someone who goes out of their way to disprove religion.

And the new term for the old atheist is now called agnostic.

Of course I might be wrong. In my house being an atheist didn't imply hostile feelings towards religion. Now we use agnostic as our call sign.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Well, if you're an agnostic you don't believe God doesn't exist - so you can't really be an atheist if you are an agnostic. Don't misuse terms just to avoid being lumped with atheist extremists - any more than Muslims should stop calling themselves Muslim just to avoid being lumped with Al Qaeda.

But, yes, agnosticism is more along the lines of religionlessness. However, I think to be truly without religion you would have to also have no stance regarding what is right or wrong, no stance regarding the origin of the universe, and no stance regarding the true nature of the universe.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
That's what I'm saying though... is that atheism didn't mean extremist in the past. I still don't think it does. But many people think it does so I use the word agnostic. [Smile]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I love it when this circular argument comes up occasionally.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It's a religion without an institution, meaning it's tough to pin down exactly what "codes" they live by. However:
Therefore, atheism falls cleanly into the category of a religion. It's not a tightly-based religion, and there is little in the effect of loyalty to any institution (save for the ambiguous "science") in the religion, but those are not requirements for it being a religion.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
However, I think to be truly without religion you would have to also have no stance regarding what is right or wrong, no stance regarding the origin of the universe, and no stance regarding the true nature of the universe.
What? Aren't you in school for philosophy or something, Tres? Do you have even the slightest clue of how ignorant this statement is (though I'm sure you've semanticized it out enough to satisfy yourself)? Right and wrong are not inexorably linked to religion, they are linked to mores, which are not mutually exclusive from religion, but are not necessarily dependant on it, either. A discerning agnostic can recognize and accept the mores of any religious influence they like, but to be agnostic, they simply don't accept that these mores are the end-all-be-all of the universe.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So we should nail down the base terms first.

What is a religion?
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive).
Says who? not believing in God because you have no evidence of it is NOT faith. I don't believe there is someone in my closet with a knife, but its not FAITH that makes me believe such.

quote:
Atheists periodically change some of their arguments to fit modern knowledge of why and how things work, yet ignorantly assume other religions don't do the exact same thing. Sounds a whole lot like dogma to me.
Ummm, who says an athiest need to conform to whatever modern theories are out to argue that God doesn't exist. The only argument needed is "there is no evidence that he does".

quote:
If an atheist wants to have a regular set of "life rules" from which to live, there is an option: it's called Humanism. Not all Christians belong to a single church for their theism—are they not still Christians? Depending on who you ask, the answer would be "no," mostly from the crowd who defines their Christianity by the church to which they belong. However, these people believe in a god, and they specifically believe in the Christian God. Atheists believe in the non-existance of that and any other god, and most don't have affiliation with any specific institution—does that make them less of an atheist?

Not sure where you are going with this. Just because a person believes in a certain philosophy as another person it makes them part of a religion?

quote:
It requires just as much faith to believe there is no divine as it takes to require in the existance of the divine. Neither can be had without a leap of faith included in the belief.
Thats bullcrap. To believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence DOES NOT require the same leap of faith as believing in something DESPITE there not being evidence for it!

By the way, I do not consider myself an athiest, but come on, its not a religion and doesn't require religious faith.

[ March 17, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Right and wrong are not inexorably linked to religion, they are linked to mores, which are not mutually exclusive from religion, but are not necessarily dependant on it, either. A discerning agnostic can recognize and accept the mores of any religious influence they like, but to be agnostic, they simply don't accept that these mores are the end-all-be-all of the universe.
They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent.

quote:
Says who? not believing in God because you have no evidence of it is NOT faith. I don't believe there is someone in my closet with a knife, but its not FAITH that makes me believe such.
But it IS faith, since you believe there is noone there with a knife but don't have any proof. What is faith if not that?

[ March 17, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Well then Tres it is FAR less needing of faith in any event.

Or lets use a more concrete example. Consider the belief that there is an invisible person who walks around with you and makes sure nothing really bad happens. Lets go further and add that the belief includes that the invisible guy's name is Fred and he is green.

Which requires faith, believing in Fred or not believing in him?

If you say that it requires faith to disbelieve in him, then at least admit that the amount of faith required is FAR FAR less.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
And the defensive replies begin. Xavier, I'm not insulting you if you're atheist, but don't get defensive when your beliefs are called into question. It just supports my calling it a religion (fervency of belief is a large factor).

quote:
quote:
Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive).
Says who? not believing in God because you have no evidence of it is NOT faith. I don't believe there is someone in my closet with a knife, but its not FAITH that makes me believe such.
The difference is that you are trying to compare the potential creator(s) of the universe with a human being that isn't in your closet. You can go and look in your closet for the assurance that there is no man in there, but there is no way to have assurance of the belief there is no god. And not to demand you prove a negative, either: it's not a matter of "prove god isn't there," it's a matter of "you believe, from the evidence you are aware of, that there is no god." Since you can't prove it yourself, you assume it is not true. That is a conscious decision you make without full evidence one way or the other.

quote:
Ummm, who says an athiest need to conform to whatever modern theories are out to argue that God doesn't exist. The only argument needed is "there is no evidence that he does".
No, that's the only argument needed to bait religious folk into saying "there is no evidence he doesn't." I have no need of either argument, because the fact is that there is no conclusive proof in either direction, and yet both atheists and theists believe that there is definitely enough to believe one way or the other. You can hypothesize one way or the other, but as soon as you place faith in either direction, you are removing yourself from the speculative and entering the realm of dogma. Just because you cannot prove fully the existance of something does not mean it doesn't exist, it means that you don't have enough information to believe it exists. The moment you assert that your belief is more valid than someone (or some institution) that has experience to counter what you have found, then at what point does it have to reach to finally become real faith, Xavier? What point does it need to reach to become dogma? What do you honestly believe is the nature or the universe? Its beginnings? Where man came from? All of these are included in atheist faith as well, because they all hinge on the existance or non-existance of a deity.

quote:
Not sure where you are going with this. Just because a person believes in a certain philosophy as another person it makes them part of a religion?
No, it makes them part of a belief system. The core of a religion is dependant on a certain belief system, which atheism has.

quote:
Thats bullcrap. To believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence DOES NOT require the same leap of faith as believing in something DESPITE there not being evidence for it!
That's bullcrap only if you think the only argument against atheism is the "prove a negative" argument. It is not. It doesn't have to have the same leap of faith, it has to have a leap of faith that is based on each conclusion. Obviously, since the conclusions are not the same, the leaps necessary will be different. Just because they're different does not make them unnecessary.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Xavier: sure it does. You do not know for a fact that there's no one in your closet. You have a guess, based on solid knowledge of the historical events surrounding your closet and the likely probablility of there being anyone in there, but you do not have proof. You have faith.

Granted, your assumptions give you an excellent chance of being right, so your faith is probably justified. But it's still faith.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I love arguing with you Leto [Smile] . Just wanted to point that out. There are certain people I like debating with for the sake of debate, and you are certainly one of them

Anyway, I am about to go eat, so won't reply just yet (wanted to leave like an hour ago).

I will say before I go though that I am not, in fact, an athiest.

My belief system right now would be that I don't really have one, and am kind of lost in my spiritual journey, and have no idea where I will end up.

I just am aguing because I think you are wrong [Smile] .

[ March 17, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent.
Tres, do you seriously make every moral decision you ever make based solely upon the nature of the universe? If so, you must be incredibly slow in making decisions. When the nature and origin of the universe does not influence the way one's mores are chosen, you cannot claim that the mores chosen are based on the nature and origin of the universe. Really, that's silly. Perhaps you should learn to understand the beliefs before you judge them as amoral.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Xav, those questions I asked still count in that if you ask them from a rhetorical atheist POV, you'll see what I mean in how they are required in the belief.

And yeah, I gotta run, too. Gonna go see Hidalgo today! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Thats bullcrap. To believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence DOES NOT require the same leap of faith as believing in something DESPITE there not being evidence for it!
Are you defining atheism as not believing in the existence of God or as believing in the non-existence of God?

If it's the first, than your closet analogy may be accurate. But I don't think that's atheism - I think that's reserving judgment on the matter.

If you are using the second definition, then it is an act of faith to be an atheist, because there is no more evidence of God's non-existence than there is evidence of his existence. Why does one require more faith than the other?

Dagonee
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Which requires faith, believing in Fred or not believing in him?

If you say that it requires faith to disbelieve in him, then at least admit that the amount of faith required is FAR FAR less.

Yes, it requires faith but FAR FAR less faith.

quote:
Tres, do you seriously make every moral decision you ever make based solely upon the nature of the universe? If so, you must be incredibly slow in making decisions. When the nature and origin of the universe does not influence the way one's mores are chosen, you cannot claim that the mores chosen are based on the nature and origin of the universe.
I base every moral decision on my view of the nature of the universe, which includes the nature of right and wrong. How could this not be the case, unless I'm just randomly calling things right and wrong? Does anyone NOT base their moral decisions on how they view the world and how they view right and wrong? Who?

quote:
Perhaps you should learn to understand the beliefs before you judge them as amoral.
I know I didn't say anyone was amoral.

I said some people were actually religious, even though they were atheists or agnostics - but that hardly makes them amoral.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Dagonee, am I believing in the non-existence of Fred or not believing in Fred's existence?

It comes down to the same thing. They are the same belief. The only difference is in the degree of certainty as far as I can see.

Yes, I agree that if an athiest's position is that "I do not believe in God, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, now and in the future" then yes, they are using faith as their rational, and could be considered a religion.

Is that really what they think though? Seems to me that most of them think about it logically and come to the conclusion that God does not in fact exist because there's no evidence that he does (and perhaps also thinking there is evidence that he doesn't). Just as none of us believe in Fred because there is no evidence he exists.

We could say though that there is an equal amount of evidence that Fred does and does not exist. Thats just semantics though. It requires LOGIC to assume he doesn't (but a small amount of faith to believe with certainty that he doesn't), it requires FAITH to believe Fred does.

[ March 17, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I believe in Fred.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dagonee, am I believing in the non-existence of Fred or not believing in Fred's existence?

It comes down to the same thing. They are the same belief. The only difference is in the degree of certainty as far as I can see.

No, they really aren’t the same. An agnostic can be said to not believe in God, but to also not believe in the non-existence of God.

Suppose you and I are standing before a door and I say, “There’s a man named Fred behind this door.” There are three general possible reactions concerning your belief of that statement:

1.) You believe that there is a person named Fred behind this door.
2.) You believe that there is not a person named Fred behind this door.
3.) You decide you do not have enough information to decide if there is a man named Fred behind this door.

quote:
Yes, I agree that if an athiest's position is that "I do not believe in God, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, now and in the future" then yes, they are using faith as their rational, and could be considered a religion.

Is that really what they think though?

I’ve never claimed that this is what they think.

quote:
Seems to me that most of them think about it logically and come to the conclusion that God does not in fact exist because there's no evidence that he does (and perhaps also thinking there is evidence that he doesn't). Just as none of us believe in Fred because there is no evidence he exists.
Right – you believe that God does not exist – i.e., you believe in the non-existence of God. This is very different from stating that you do not believe in God. There are three levels of belief in God: belief there is a God, belief there is no God, and uncertainty. Not having a belief in God can be based on either of the last two.

quote:
We could say though that there is an equal amount of evidence that Fred does and does not exist. Thats just semantics though. It requires LOGIC to assume he doesn't (but a small amount of faith to believe with certainty that he doesn't), it requires FAITH to believe Fred does.
Whoa! All logical proofs of God’s non-existence require at least one unproven premise – in your case that God would not exist without leaving evidence of himself behind. It requires LOGIC to go from that point to “There is no God.” But it requires FAITH to get to “If God existed there would be evidence of it.”

Dagonee
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Tres, you're refusing to separate right and wrong from the nature of the universe. Since you don't have the ability to distinguish between the two (or are intentionally refusing to try), There's not much that can be accomplished from trying to explain to you a concept which you are refusing to even try to understand. Suffice to say, it's in the accepting that right and wrong are not definitely, completely, and inexorably linked to the nature and origin of the universe that allows an agnostic to still have a sense of right and wrong without knowing how the universe and man were created. It's not some incredible, mind-boggling skill, it's just the acceptance that no matter which way it really is, one does the best they can with what they have. If the world was not so dominated by one faith in lieu of another, I can gaurantee the mores would be vastly different (not just with the agnostic sense of things, but with everything). No religion, no faith, just like no man, is an entity solely of itself ("no man is an island"). That's why there are still mores in the absence of a belief in any religion.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Dags, I'll be damned if the two statements don't look like the exact same thing to me, too. Edit: Also, I don't believe uncertainty is the same thing as saying there is no God. Isn't it possible for belief to be in a kind of null state, neither positive or negative?

[ March 17, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods.

The key word is belief. Theists believe in god, gods, or God, as the case may be. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist.

There is some breakdown among atheists who call themselves "strong atheists" (believe there is no god) versus "weak atheists" (lack belief in a god)

The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.

Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.

As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism, but there are also groups such as the North Texas Church of Freethought, some Secular Humanists think of themselves as religious. Michael Newdow (the pledge of allegiance guy) is an atheist who argues that he is religious, and that atheism should be on equal footing with religion. The idea of atheism as a religion generally gets a less than warm reception at atheist gatherings.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
While that is the origin of the word agnostic, I have never heard it used that way. Today, it means:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Also just because the root of the word atheist is a-theist, that doesn't mean that's what the word means today.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree with mph about the definition of agnosticism.

[ March 17, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dags, I'll be damned if the two statements don't look like the exact same thing to me, too. Edit: Also, I don't believe uncertainty is the same thing as saying there is no God. Isn't it possible for belief to be in a kind of null state, neither positive or negative?
You're edit makes the same point I was making...
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Then I am confuzzled as to how your point makes the two statements under discussion say different things. uncertainty is not the same thing as a *belief* in non-existence/that something doesn't exist as far as I can tell.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite of something.

"I believe God exists."
"I don't believe that God does not exist."
"I don't believe God exists."
"I believe God does not exist."

Four different statements with four different meanings, althought he middle two probably reflect a very similar state of mind.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
O.K. I understand your point now. [Smile]

I would put a modifier in your statement of

"Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite of something." and make it "Not believing something is sometimes not the same as believing the opposite of something."
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Tres, you're refusing to separate right and wrong from the nature of the universe. Since you don't have the ability to distinguish between the two (or are intentionally refusing to try), There's not much that can be accomplished from trying to explain to you a concept which you are refusing to even try to understand. Suffice to say, it's in the accepting that right and wrong are not definitely, completely, and inexorably linked to the nature and origin of the universe that allows an agnostic to still have a sense of right and wrong without knowing how the universe and man were created.
The universe is, by definition, everything. Therefore any claim about the nature of right and wrong is a claim about the nature of the universe. What would it even mean to separate the two? That's like saying that claims about the earth are not claims about the solar system, when the earth is part of the solar system.

quote:
While that is the origin of the word agnostic, I have never heard it used that way. Today, it means:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I think these defitions are too broad.

(1) includes almost anyone from any religion, except those who claim there is no possibility that their religion is wrong.

I think the true definition of agnostic should be one who leans neither way, or doesn't care.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
This is a semantic ambiguity in English that really bugs me. When people say "I don't like A", what they really mean is "I dislike A". This is unfortunate, because it is so easy to say "I dislike A", and now there is no simple way to say !(I like A). We lost part of our language and got nothing in return.

I think that it might be my engineering background that has turned me into such a literalist. In engineering, it's important to say things in such a way that it can only be interpreted in one way. I have offended more than one person by saying that I don't like something when all I really meant was that I do not actively like it. *sigh*
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Storm, how about, when someone says "I don't believe in X," they might mean "I disbelieve in X?"
 
Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
 
I just knew this would turn into a battle of pointless defining and redefining of terms. It sounds so much like the old creationist argument that evolution is a "theory" where "theory" is redefined as "unsubstantiated guess" instead of "tentative conclusion based on available facts". Atheism is as much a religion as creationism is a science.

Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the worship of a supernatural being or beings; it requires belief in the supernatural. Atheism requires only belief in the natural: that which can be detected and quantified using our five senses, and by extension, machines that we have invented to detect elements of the natural that our five senses cannot.

Because I come from a conservative religious background and became an Atheist later in life, I think I can help clarify the issue for those who have not had the experience of "losing your faith". A person becomes religious usually through some type of "religious experience". Mine was not dramatic, just a warm feeling born of a desire to please my parents at an early age before I really knew what was going on. Later I had a variety of "religious" experiences, which in hindsight I can identify as "emotional" experiences. They were interpreted by me at the time as "feeling the holy spirit" or something like it, and usually occurred after periods of intense prayer and emotional coaching by other like-minded individuals. In a few cases the emotional feedback caused what I can only describe as altered states of consciousness.

Ironically enough, it was an interim pastor at our church that started me down the path toward skepticism. He was always pointing out the ridiculousness of other religions, and some of the things he called "brainwashing" were things I had experienced in that same church!

After I started college, I began to seriously doubt the truth of my experiences. I set out to disprove evolution, but ended up shocked as the arguments that I had been given and told "no evolutionist can answer this" had in fact been disproven years before. Being a biology major, it was a slippery slope. Once my mind started to open a little, I began to see many things that I had accepted as truth being destroyed before my eyes. I found out that some people had black skin because their ancestors came from Africa, not because they were descended from Noah's cursed son.

So the point of this whole thing is: I became religious because of an emotional experience, and I stayed religious because of an emotional feedback system. I became an atheist because of education. I remain an atheist because no evidence (other than emotional) exists to support belief in the existence of a god.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You became an atheist because you could not reconcile the scientific facts you were learning with the relgious beliefs you already had.

Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion. It's one thing to consciously decide that you won't believe in anything you can't detect with your five senses (augmented by machines or not). Each person has to analyze the world and make his own decision on such things.

It's another to claim that anything in your education "proved" there is no God. At most, your education caused you to reevaluate your beliefs. You said it yourself - you were "shocked" by what you discovered about evolution. Sounds like an emotional experience to me, even if it was triggered by an education.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
But don't you see Dag?

MoonRabbit became an athiest after LOSING her faith! Not gaining faith!

Its so hard to accept that you guys can't see this basic fact.

Why do you care so much anyway? Isn't having faith supposed to be the amazing fulfilling thing in religion that sets it apart? Do you really want not believing to be considered faith too? Wouldn't you then have to shut up about how great faith is?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Xavier, you can't possibly believe that there is only one type of faith, or only faith in one thing.

She lost her faith in her particular religion. It doesn't mean she didn't acquire faith in anything else.

Personally, I don't care about whether atheism is classified as a religion or not. What I do care about is this idea that atheism is based on "evidence." There is no more evidence for atheism than there is for theism.

Dagonee
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I've got to agree that atheism isn't a religion. Religion is more than just believing in something.

But I also agree that it is an act of "faith" to say "I believe that there is no God".

YMMV
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Xavier, you can't possibly believe that there is only one type of faith, or only faith in one thing.

The question becomes how to qualify the faith such that we can filter out the 'real' religions, eh, Dags? *significant look*
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Storm, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
[Smile] It hearkens back to our discussion of freedom of religion and what that meant.

For instance,

quote:

I've got to agree that atheism isn't a religion. Religion is more than just believing in something.

To further expand on his point, by the same token, saying 'I believe in God.' isn't a religion, either, though atheism and theism can be parts of religions.

[ March 17, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed. [Smile]

As I said before, I don't care if atheism is called a religion in some semantic online debate.

Dagonee
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods.

The key word is belief. Theists believe in god, gods, or God, as the case may be. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist.

Wrong. It seems the modern English language disagrees with you. "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." In other words, believes the opposite of what theists believe. While your intended definition may be convenient, it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.

quote:
There is some breakdown among atheists who call themselves "strong atheists" (believe there is no god) versus "weak atheists" (lack belief in a god)
There is some breakdown among Christians who call themselves "strong Christians" versus "weak Christians." Strike two.

quote:
The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.

Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.

Only when regarding the Christian God. You'll notice I mentioned the divine. If you believe there is no divine, then you are atheist, hence:
quote:
As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,
You must not understand Buddhism enough to understand that while there is no concept of god like Christians believe, there is indeed a divine existance. You should learn to stop defining everything from strictly Western Christian points of view.

quote:
but there are also groups such as the North Texas Church of Freethought, some Secular Humanists think of themselves as religious. Michael Newdow (the pledge of allegiance guy) is an atheist who argues that he is religious, and that atheism should be on equal footing with religion.
This is because atheism is slowly gaining an institution, though there is no institution in and of itself... yet.

quote:
The idea of atheism as a religion generally gets a less than warm reception at atheist gatherings.
And the name "Christian" used to get less than a warm reception in the days of the early church. Atheism in its beginnings was not a religion, because it did not have the qualifications to incorporate dogma at first. Now, it does. This may burn the bottoms of some modern atheists, but it's already a religion (funny that you mention "atheist gatherings" while not calling it a religion).

quote:
Also just because the root of the word atheist is a-theist, that doesn't mean that's what the word means today.
See above link. Yes, it does mean that today.

quote:
The universe is, by definition, everything. Therefore any claim about the nature of right and wrong is a claim about the nature of the universe. What would it even mean to separate the two? That's like saying that claims about the earth are not claims about the solar system, when the earth is part of the solar system.
Tres, when you use your computer, do you have to have secure and positively absolute opinions as to how the computer was designed, built, and the software written? Sure, for everything you do, you can look up its origins, but to do so would require effort that is generally counter-productive and ultimately useless outside of actually designing and creating software and hardware. When I decide what is right or wrong behavior, I do not require the knowledge on how the universe was created, where the origin of man lies, nor whether or not there is some kind of divinity in the universe to make a decision. That you are implying I do shows a lack of understanding on your part.

quote:
I just knew this would turn into a battle of pointless defining and redefining of terms. It sounds so much like the old creationist argument that evolution is a "theory" where "theory" is redefined as "unsubstantiated guess" instead of "tentative conclusion based on available facts". Atheism is as much a religion as creationism is a science.
Since creationism is a science, you must agree with me. Otherwise, your disregard of creationism as not being a science is a pretty adequate display of your own dogma—the dogma that only science that supports atheism is a valid science. How convenient (much the same as creationism is to many Christians).

quote:
Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the worship of a supernatural being or beings; it requires belief in the supernatural.
[Roll Eyes] Wrong. Pay close attention to definitions 2 and 4. Only theist religion requires the belief in a creator, and not all religions believe in the supernatural. See Glen Arnold's examples of religions that do not (like Humanists).

quote:
Atheism requires only belief in the natural: that which can be detected and quantified using our five senses, and by extension, machines that we have invented to detect elements of the natural that our five senses cannot.
Really? Can you see a double-helix of DNA? Can you feel the void of space? Do we even need to get into quantum mechanics? I mean, there are scientific methods of displaying these things, but one's five senses aren't involved until after mock-ups are created. Mind you: I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying that they are not always "natural" in concept of proof. Also, considering the plethora of unexplainable natural phenomena kinda makes your "it's only natural" somewhat weak.

quote:
Because I come from a conservative religious background and became an Atheist later in life, I think I can help clarify the issue for those who have not had the experience of "losing your faith". A person becomes religious usually through some type of "religious experience".
A person becomes an atheist usually through some type of "losing your faith" experience. In fact, with only a few exceptions, all atheists do. It is the same kind of set of experiences that one goes through when they "find religion."

quote:
So the point of this whole thing is: I became religious because of an emotional experience, and I stayed religious because of an emotional feedback system. I became an atheist because of education. I remain an atheist because no evidence (other than emotional) exists to support belief in the existence of a god.
Except that'snot what you described. What you described is noticing the hypocrisy of your church, and becoming personally disenchanted with the church. That you equate "open-minded" to atheism implies you equate "closed-minded" to theists, hence you believe atheism is better. Gee, that's just another example of dogma. More specifically, the example of one religion thinking it's better than others (ironically, something you accused your former preacher of doing).

Xav:
quote:
MoonRabbit became an athiest after LOSING her faith! Not gaining faith!

Its so hard to accept that you guys can't see this basic fact.

No, she lost her faith in one thing, and gained faith in another. That's what I don't understand why you aren't seeing this. I've been there already, and it requires the same amount of effort in faith to be atheist as it does to believe in a god. My problem is that I don't have sufficient faith for either, which is why I am neither, and remain agnostic for lack of faith in anything. I didn't spring from the womb this way, and as with everyone, experience has everything to do with leading me to where I'm at. The logical effect of losing faith in one religion is the finding and attaching of another. Even as an agnostic, I still find myself drawn to various faiths, with the only thing keeping me from any of them being a lack of ability to invest any faith in full. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't. However, the difference between agnostic and atheist is that an atheist actively disregards any theist religion, and an agnostic does not rule any out.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Tres, when you use your computer, do you have to have secure and positively absolute opinions as to how the computer was designed, built, and the software written? Sure, for everything you do, you can look up its origins, but to do so would require effort that is generally counter-productive and ultimately useless outside of actually designing and creating software and hardware. When I decide what is right or wrong behavior, I do not require the knowledge on how the universe was created, where the origin of man lies, nor whether or not there is some kind of divinity in the universe to make a decision. That you are implying I do shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Except I never said or implied that you needed to know EVERYTHING about the nature of the universe in order to make moral decisions. You may not not need to know how it was created, or if it was created, or whether there are little green aliens somewhere in it.

But that doesn't change the fact that a moral claim still implies SOME unjustified assumptions about the nature of the universe and how we should interpret it.

I said some assumptions, not assumptions about everything from the origin on. I sais some, as in certain assumptions about what should be valued and what shouldn't, and what actions can be done to achieve what is valued.

[ March 17, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Dag,

quote:
Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion
You know, normally I might agree with you, but I think you may have to qualify that statement:

quote:
Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible
There! Now it all makes sense.

--DOG (Go, Paluxy!)
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
You're trying to turn it into a matter of dancing with semantics until the original point is lost, Tres. The point is that I do not require affirmation for or against the existance of the divine in order to make moral decisions. You are saying that I require such affirmation to make moral decision. You are now trying to drown what you said into semantics. All one needs to make decisions based on mores is a personal interpretation of the world around them, not why things are the way they are. People do it all the time.

quote:
quote:
Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible
There! Now it all makes sense.
You know, I get really sick of seeing everything defined by the Christian faith. This is just a good example of just how much atheism has more of a religious dogma (mostly against Christianity) than anything else. Way to go, dog.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
This discussion on atheism has been a very fascinating read. A lot of interesting points made. I have had discussions on this topic, but not to this depth.

After reading it all, if I were to bet on a horse in this race, it would be Leto. Still not sure exactly what I think, but the argument is pretty convincing.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
The point is that I do not require affirmation for or against the existance of the divine in order to make moral decisions. You are saying that I require such affirmation to make moral decision.
Where did I say that? That's not my point.

My point was what I said in the original quote you responded to:

"They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent."

Nowhere does it say anything about needing to know whether or not the divine exists in order to have moral views. I only said, and only intended to say, that you need some assumptions about the nature of the universe, in order to judge right from wrong.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Creationism.

A science? I see no such listing at this site, which you used for your previous definitions, John L. "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."

This is what comes of arguing on the basis of semantics.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tres, I assume you are a theist? Then you believe that the best moral system is one based on God's laws. I think we all can agree that an agnostic can have pretty good morals based on their perceptions of the good of the individual and society.

But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.

A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God. An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached. They draw their own conclusions as best they can. Different ways of looking at the universe.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Someone I'm sure has made this point on this thread or others like it. Most atheists I've known (people who don't believe in god or a religion) weren't even raised in a religious household. They don't even self-identify as atheists. I think it would be a stretch to label such folks as atheists.

Logic and definitions of religion aside, the issue here is the "need" to label.

I don't have the time, interest, or social need to watch football. what does that make me?

(a freak, obviously)

fallow

[ March 17, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Hmmm...

Real world example (I'm serious--for once)

My kids firmly believe that there is a guy living in our basement. In fact, they claim to have seen glimpses of him moving around and hiding, when they turn on the basement light and prepare to go into the basement.

Needless to say, it's very difficult to get them to go in to the basement. By themselves, it's absolutely impossible. Such is the strength of their belief.

I want to believe everything my kids tell me. If I am going to doubt them, I so far have had the guts to let them know directly that I doubt them. I tried for a while to ridicule their belief that a guy is living in our basement, but it only pissed them off. I don't do that any more. (Man! There are so many great analogies here to how I've debated religion in the past!)

So, with them standing at the top of the stairs, I took one of those million candlepower flashlights, and looked all over the basement for him. I shone a light into every corner--even in the crawlspace under the mudroom (where, I am firmly convinced, we've got some Mafia guys buried--but that's another story). I looked for evidence that we have a guy living in our basement--candy wrappers, piles of poop, things put in places that I didn't put them there, footprints in the sand (I'm sorry--dust), you name it.

I have never been able to find the guy supposedly living in our basement. That would be a lack of direct evidence. I have also been unable to find any indirect evidence of a guy living in our basement (candy wrappers, etc.).

It's not enough to say that "I don't believe that there's a guy living in my basement," that's like saying "I don't believe it's not butter." Of course it's not butter--I just don't believe it. This statment implies that there may be a guy living in our basement, but I just don't believe it. That would scare my kids.

It is far more acurate to say that "I believe that there isn't any guy living in my basement."

Because, you know, there isn't.

How many of you believe (I almost said "think"--sorry) that there's a guy living in my basement? Also, how many of you believe that I should act as if there's a guy living in my basement?

After all, just because I cannot find any evidence that he's living in my basement doesn't mean that he's not living in my basement!

How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?

What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?

And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.

DOG

[ March 17, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
fallow -- I'm with you. I don't even know why. My father loved watching football. I just never picked it up. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Gee, eslain, since your link does not say whether it's a science or not, what is your point? How about this or, better yet, this one? I don't necessarily agree with it, but creationism has been adequately worked down to a science. Even they think so. How convenient (yet again!) that atheists deny it vehemently.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto,

Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?

Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.

Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")

Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.

The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.

But, I'm more than happy to be correted on this. Because, even so, my point still holds.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?

What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?

And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.

[Roll Eyes] And yet again, you show conclusively the contempt atheism holds for Christianity by comparing their concept of a divine creator with a human in the basement (or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or choose your imaginary-being-of-a lesser-cosmic-scale). I'm sure all Christians thank you for your contempt and disregard.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I propose a small, but significant, difference between belief and faith. Faith is believing in something enough that you act according to those beliefs. I have faith in God. That means I believe in Him enough to confidently act as though He exists. I pray regularly. A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.

An agnostic chooses the middle of the road, usually leaning towards non-belief (reminds me of Dog's guy in the basement) because they generally believe it is more likely that God does not exist than that he does, but their actions can vary a great deal from individual to individual. Do some agnostics pray? I would assume so. Probably not often and only in times of great stress, but they do not rule out the idea of God's existence, so they might (at times) act as though He does exist. (Prayer being used as my example.)

[ March 17, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.
Well, no, I don't think God-based morals are superior. I'm a theist, but I don't believe anyone should do anything just because someone tells you God said to do it. Maybe if God tells you Himself, but that rarely happens. Otherwise, I think you should do, first and foremost, what seems right to you.

And I don't really think this has to do with the disagreement. I'm just saying any moral views entail assumptions about the universe, meaning anyone with moral views must be to some extent religious - which Leto disagrees with, although possibly only because he thinks I'm saying something I'm not saying.

quote:
A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God.
I'm a theist and I don't believe that, and I think many theists don't believe that. I do not believe in very much absolute knowledge. However, I trust what I can judge for myself, and I judge for myself that God probably exists - thus I am a theist.

quote:
An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached.
Well, no, I think an agnostic (if they are actually agnostic) does NOT trust what they can judge themself - at least not when it comes to God. They don't judge either way - exist or no exist. To do so and trust it would be faith, and agnosticism is the rejection of believing things just based on trust or faith - not taking a stance at all instead.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tres, everyone has faith. I wouldn't turn on my light switch if I didn't have faith that the light would turn on. Even agnostics have faith that the sun will rise in the east each morning.

Edit for clarification: My point being, I don't think having faith in the sun rising is religious. Faith does not need to be religious. You can make judgements on the universe around you with out being religious.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto,

In all fairness, love, and honesty, please feel free to bite me.

It's a true story--it really is. It can be discussed on its own merits. It does make a lovely analogy to the theory that God exists, but when I started telling the story, I wasn't thinking of how closely I might make it fit the analogy.

It was not an attempt to show contempt or disregard for the Christian (or any) faith.

I will, however, express my contempt for your response.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?
In case you didn't know it, modern astronomy is based on the work of many faiths. Mathematics owes much to work done by Islamic peoples. Science has been tied to many faiths throughout its whole existence.

quote:
Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.
There is a divine existence inherent in Buddhism. Maybe your not being an expert has something to do with this, but your inability to separate "the divine" from "the Christian concept of God" is your problem here, not the way the religion defines the nature of the universe (which does contain more than simply scientific resources to define).

quote:
Judaism?
Are you seriously saying you don't know? I find this incredibly hard to believe.

quote:
Mohammedism?
How very insulting. It's called Islam. Islam. And yes, there is an Islamic view, as well.

quote:
Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")
Actually, you've shown that you don't just hold Christianity in contempt. Your "Mohammedism" remark shows you neither care to understand nor have any understanding of Islam, while making a judgement on it before understanding. Are you seeing your dogma yet?

quote:
The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.
Only because you don't understand the origins of most sciences.

So, are you really able to stand corrected, or are you just blowing smoke? Science is not separate from religion, nor does it exist to disprove any religion. Most religions don't have their own offshoots of science, but Cristianity isn't the only one. Just because it's the most easily arguable does not make it the only one.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
It was not an attempt to show contempt or disregard for the Christian (or any) faith.
No, it was your attempt to equate the Christian faith in their god to your child's fear of the unknown. You are implying that atheism is better, more "adult," and more intelligent than Christianity. That is a sign of contempt. I'm sure you hold no open contempt, because it's too thoroughly ingrained in your dogma.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Tres, everyone has faith. I wouldn't turn on my light switch if I didn't have faith that the light would turn on. Even agnostics have faith that the sun will rise in the east each morning.
Yes, well, this is just what I would say to agnostics. Why have faith in that other stuff but not in God (or in God's nonexistence)?

I suppose, though, that they would answer that some small leaps of faith is reasonable, whereas other big leaps of faith can be just jumping to weak conclusions.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
There should be a running commentator and color-guy for this debate.

fallow

PS (and I'd like to nominate Tom D. or Slash as commentator, and T_Smith or dream-team candidate Scopatz as color-guy. Thor as the bleacher-creature.)

one can dream.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, and Tres, I believe that everyone believes their morals are superior to anyone who has differing morals. Otherwise, why would we disagree? When we disagree it's because we think, "I'm right, you're wrong." You can think your morals are superior without having any contempt for someone else's morals. (It is difficult, but possible.)

When it comes to preferences, that is another matter entirely. I like blue best, someone else likes red best. Do I have to think my preference is superior in order to disagree? No, it is just a preference.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tres, here's a thought from an agnostic I know. He says that he believes there is not enough evidence to think the existance of God is likely. So he lives his life as though it is unlikely. He believes the sun rising is far, far more likely. In the same way, agnostics create their own morals based on what they believe is most likely to be true. God is pretty far down on their list.

I think agnostics are far closer followers of logic than atheists.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
John L,

I still don't see my dog, ma, in any of this.

Do you see yours?

I never said that I didn't think ther was a "divine existence" in Buddhism. I said that I didn't believe that Buddhists made any strong claims as to how the physical world was created, or how it works. To be honest, neither did you state how Buddhists believe the world was created, and how it developed. I'm not going to give you grief if you don't know--I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any claims.

Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith." I tried--so shoot me. And I know that a lot of astronomy and numerical methods were developed in the Arab world. And you're still not answering my question. These ancient Muslims believed that one way to honor Allah was to learn as much as possible about the wonderful world He created. And I have not read the Koran (or Ku'ran, or whatever the PC transliteration of its name is these days). Do followers of Islam have a non-scientific belief system as to how the world was created, or how life developed and changed over time? (Something to compare with "Creationism", let's say). I tend to think, "not."

Biologically, I am a reformed Jew. Heck, some of my best friends are Jewish! Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.

quote:
Science is not separate from religion
Care to expound upon that? Just because religious groups tried hard (and sometimes succeeded) at various scientific explorations does not mean that the two are inseparable. The creation of the Arabic numbering system works just as well in the hands of an atheist as it does in the hansda of a theist. Newton praised God in the forward of his Principia Mathematica, but Newton did all the work (well, not really--he stole a lot of it from others. He was the Bill Gates of his time). And some say that Newton added that dedication just to keep from being imprisoned for heresay.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
It does make a lovely analogy to the theory that God exists, but when I started telling the story, I wasn't thinking of how closely I might make it fit the analogy.
Then why did you post it in a thread where we were talking about the belief/nonbelief that God exists?
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
John L,

My parable (ooh! Gotta love that Freudian slip!) was intended to explore the depth of a-religious faith, nothing more.

[edit--"nothing more" is probably incorrect--but you still refuse, apparently, do discuss the issue. You're spending most of your energy calling me "contemptuous"]

You read my "contempt" into it, I'm afraid.

Here, let me help you, I think you have something in your eye...

[ March 18, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
MPH,

Yeah, this is one of those "special" threads that stays laser-focused on its topic.

I do believe that people were discussing the meaning of "faith" and "belief", both in the context of God and religion, and outside of that context.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
That's why I can only participate up to a point. I'm a devout apatheist -- "don't know, don't care" -- and watching everyone split hairs gets repetitive after a while.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
More dogma for you/from you, John L:

quote:
nor does it [science] exist to disprove any religion
I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)

Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.

But don't ask DaVinci.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
"As you can see, these teams are rarin' to go."

*steps past frothing DOG*

"ma'am!"

approaches Beverly with microphone.

"What brings you out tonight?"
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*Fallow looks into the camera, confused*
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I just follow what fascinates me most, fallow. Parts of this discussion are a lot more fascinating than others.
 
Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
 
Just because I live in Portland and have a wife, doesn't make me a she. I'm not even a she-male, just a plain old male. Sorry to burst your bubble. [Embarrassed]

quote:
Since creationism is a science, you must agree with me
Reminds me of a joke I heard in grade school:

Q: If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, why is a cat like a sidewalk?

A: Because neither one can play the piano.

Science is a term used to describe the process of accumulating data, then forming an idea based on the data. Then collecting more data, and modifying the idea to fit the data. Then trying to figure out a way to test the data, in case any of the data were wrong through some kind of error. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually you reach a point where new data doesn't change the idea too much and you can say with some degree of certainty that the basic idea is probably right. Despite decades of research into all types of biological science, no data has been observed which contradicts the basic idea that living things change over time. When an extraordinary claim is made (cold fusion comes to mind), it is subject to testing by large numbers of independent investigators.

Creationism starts from the assumption that the world was created in a finite amount of time by a sentient supernatural being. Everything a creationist does is an attempt to prove that. Facts which can be "reinterpreted" to support the preexisting assumption are retained, and those which do not support the preexisting assumption are rejected or ignored.

What advances in biology, medicine, technology, or any other science have come about as a result of practical applications of creation science? If disease is caused by evil spirits and not bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites and prions, as the scientists would have us believe, then why does medicine work? Shouldn't prayer and exorcism work better?

I'll close by saying that while I loved the Star Wars movies as a kid (Yes, I stood in line on opening day to see Episode 4, which was then called, simply, Star Wars), when I went to the theater to see the "enhanced edition" and Luke Skywalker shuts off his computer because a voice says "trust your feelings, Luke", I found myself wanting to yell "What a crock of S***! Turn your computer back on, you idiot!" [Evil]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Soooo, if Creationism is bad science, is it still a science?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Biologically, I am a reformed Jew.
o_O

And Reform Jews are biologically different from other Jews how, exactly? Perhaps you mean you were born Jewish? Or come from a Reform Jewish family?

quote:
Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.

You might want to learn about more about the very WIDE spectrum of beliefs in Judaism.

Start by googling Gerald Schroeder. While I personally have issues with both his science and his theology, he is proof that your statement simply indicates that you need to meet more Jews. [Wink]

[Wave] Hi, I'm Jewish and I believe that the Torah has quite a lot of good science in it -- and a fair amount of allegory. Figuring out which parts are which is what makes it fun! [Big Grin]

[Edit: noun, adjective -- whatever]

[ March 18, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
"Fascination!"

*fallow makes bug-eyes into the camera"

"You heard it here folks. Intrigue. CUrioSITY. FAsciNATION!"

*approaches DOG*

"Mr. DOG?, or can I call you K-9?"

*DOG spews frothing saliva on fallow. wipes jowels on jersey and pysches-out the competition*

"Mr. DOG? It's been a long hard season of training sir. I understand you've even given up toilet-bowl lapping in favor of preparation for tonight's event. What do you visualize as the outcome of this game?"
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
DOG -- yeah, I guess you're right. I stand corrected.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, and to those of you who can't imagine why we would argue over such a silly topic, I think Dagonee put it rather well.

quote:
Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.
You see, when people argue over seemingly trite issues either they just love to argue or they have an agenda. If I may be so bold, I think the agenda of the theists is: If declaring there is a God is religion and therefore can be removed from the government, than anything that states there is no God should be treated exactly the same way. To repeat Dag, if wearing a T-shirt that says "God is dead" or such is freedom of speech and therefore protected in schools, than so is wearing symbols of faith in God.

I am not one to fight tooth and nail to keep the 10 commandments on schoolhouse walls because, well, the whole separation of church and state thingy. While I would personally love to see them stay up, I think it represents a time when Judaism/Christianity ideals were more widely accepted, I believe in following the Constitution.

Oh, and I guess I'll throw in that while I think it may be inappropriate for someone to say a public prayer in school, I think that private prayers should be just fine, along with the whole freedom of speech thing.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lucky for everyone then that symbols of non faith are protected and not protected just as much as symbols of faith in schools.

Actually, symbols of faith are more protected, but only slightly (a school can ask students to take off specific items which do not violate a particular general rule, but not if those items are faith related).

edit to add: and private prayers are fine and legal.

[ March 18, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Fugu, that is a good thing. But the recent change in law in France, ugh. That just shows such contempt for what many hold sacred. As we all know, France is not America.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
While symbols of faith may be more protected than symbols of non-faith, the ideas of faith certainly are not protected more than the ideas of non-faith.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It is not the government's job to protect the ideas of religion. For one thing, trying to protect all religious ideas would certainly exhaust the resources of the government.

It just doesn't make sense.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
"Use only as directed."

cut to:

*Fallow stands on a deserted playing field - shrugs*

"Well, folks..."

*coughs into "god is dead" teeshirt sleeve nervously*

"as you can see..."

*points big foam finger at the sky*

camera pans and zooms to follow fallow's foam finger to a blank spot in the sky.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Tres, here's a thought from an agnostic I know. He says that he believes there is not enough evidence to think the existance of God is likely. So he lives his life as though it is unlikely. He believes the sun rising is far, far more likely. In the same way, agnostics create their own morals based on what they believe is most likely to be true.
In my view, that's not agnosticism. That's just what everyone does.

Your friend, I would say, is an atheist, because he lives his life as though it is unlikely that God exists. The fact that he admits the possibility that God might exist does not make him an agnostic, any more than my admittance that I may be wrong about God existing would make me an agnostic - it just makes him an open-minded atheist.

I think an agnostic would have to say that there is no evidence one way or another, and live life as if he or she truly had no idea whether or not God existed.
 
Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
*cough* Um... wow, so many replies and, unless i missed it, still not one answer to the original question.
God, I love Hatrack, where else can we get into such intense theological debate about a story someone mentioned to me in brief passing over a week ago and only in vague memory.

So, has anyone actually heard anything about this reclassification proposal?
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
[froth, froth, pant, pant]

I'm sorry..there was a question?

[goes back to sniffing the back end of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog...thinks, funny, this smells like...an elbow!]

[ March 18, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
John L, much better. At least you're backing up your statement now.

Don't expect me to go find links to support your argument.

[ March 18, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Rivka,

Born to a Jewish mom and an atheist dad (with miscellaneous and Jehovah's Witness genes floating around within).

Raised a moral atheist (not "amoral" atheist, wise guy!)

But how do you determine which part of the Torah is allegory, and which part is science...?

(Note: it's a loaded question)

--DOG
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.

Actually, my point of the previous discussion was that there was no way to really know if something was really a religious feeling and deserving of special protection under freedom of religion, or not. Therefore, the term freedom of religion has no real meaning, and it would be more precise to look at it under the paradigm of freedom of speech.

edit: As I think this thread shows?

[ March 18, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Storm, there are aspects of religious exercise that go beyond speech. For example, wearing a headscarve is not viewed as a speech by those who do it - it is a modesty action. The right to avoid being drafted for religious reasons is not speech.

Speech protection is not enough to protect free exercise of religion.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Storm, there are aspects of religious exercise that go beyond speech. For example, wearing a headscarve is not viewed as a speech by those who do it - it is a modesty action. The right to avoid being drafted for religious reasons is not speech.

Speech protection is not enough to protect free exercise of religion.

There are plenty of 'modesty actions' which have nothing to do with religion and there are plenty of people who want to avoid the draft for non-religious reasons. Why should the 'non-religious', for the moement defined as those who do not claim religion, not be as free as the 'religious', for the moment defined as those that do?

I admit that I probably don't want to use the term 'freedom of speech' as it is too restrictive. Perhaps freedom of conscience and expression?

[ March 18, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't think there's any need for that. Athiests many times have claimed freedom of religion. We just don't need another term.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The position the courts have taken is that if someone reasonably asserts something is part of their religious beliefs, it gets protected as a religious practice.

Easy to determine religious assertions involve: religions that have many members and a published body of doctrine, religious practices that the person has been known to consistently follow, that sort of thing.

There is the problem of the courts deciding what somebody does for religious reasons and what someone does for other reasons, but as religious expression is what is protected (implying a need to discriminate what is religious expression), and rights for religious expression can only excede the rights given free speech, there seems no particular reason to limit it to what may be determined to be protected by free speech. More religious expression will always be protected by freedom of religion, since if it was already protected by freedom of speech there wouldn't be a need for the idea of freedom of religion.

That the courts/laws decide what consitutes religious expression in the state's view is not so bad, I think. Or at least, it is necessary that someone perform the ascertainment, just as with other freedoms. It is impossible to have a freedom to do something under a government without there being a definition of what that something is, and the only body that may be logically empowered to perform such an ascertainment is the government.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
I never said that I didn't think ther was a "divine existence" in Buddhism. I said that I didn't believe that Buddhists made any strong claims as to how the physical world was created, or how it works. To be honest, neither did you state how Buddhists believe the world was created, and how it developed. I'm not going to give you grief if you don't know--I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any claims.
The typical Buddhist idea for how the universe works is not able to be adequately put into a timeline of "this happened, then this happened" as far as how the world was created, which is why it rejects creationism theory and generally does not argue against evolution theory. However, unlike atheism, Beddhism believes in the divine, which atheism rejects, which is why Buddhism isn't even close to atheism, which is the rejection of the divine. Buddhism is not concerned with creation of the universe in the same sense Christianity and other (more Western) faiths are. I didn't state how Buddhism feels because it's not explainable in the context you are trying to claim it, but I can assure you that there are sciences Buddhism has contributed to. They are, however, not the "hard sciences."

quote:
Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith."
No, that would have been insulting, too. And the fact that you give a dismissive apology instead of a real one makes me want to talk to you even less. If you can't even respect the validity of other faiths, all you're doing is showing how you are so sure that your own is better than all the others, thus showing you have atheist dogma concerning other religions, thus showing the "religious-ness" of atheism. In other words, you're proving my point with every dismissal, along with being insulting to a faith I have grown to love dearly.

Oh, and it's not just "in the past" when Islamic Arabia contributed to those sciences. There are still universities—the first universitities in all of history—that still do much work in those and other fields. And if you don't understand how intrinsically connected the religion of Islam is connected to culture, government, and science, then you are just speaking from ignorance. In fact:

quote:
Do followers of Islam have a non-scientific belief system as to how the world was created, or how life developed and changed over time? (Something to compare with "Creationism", let's say). I tend to think, "not."
You'd be wrong. Islam follows a similar creation theory that Judaism does, also similar to Christianty. You have yet to admit that you were wrong. I await your apology.

quote:
Biologically, I am a reformed Jew. Heck, some of my best friends are Jewish! Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.
In other words, you don't know a thing about Jewish theories. Once again, your ignorance is speaking, not facts, not knowledge, only dogma.

quote:
quote:
Science is not separate from religion
Care to expound upon that? Just because religious groups tried hard (and sometimes succeeded) at various scientific explorations does not mean that the two are inseparable. The creation of the Arabic numbering system works just as well in the hands of an atheist as it does in the hansda of a theist. Newton praised God in the forward of his Principia Mathematica, but Newton did all the work (well, not really--he stole a lot of it from others. He was the Bill Gates of his time). And some say that Newton added that dedication just to keep from being imprisoned for heresay.
Science viewed as a separate entity from the religious institutions that created and pushed them forward is a relatively new phenomenon. Science does not exist to disprove religion, and never has. In fact, the questions behind most science (the "why" and "how") come directly from religion.

quote:
My parable (ooh! Gotta love that Freudian slip!) was intended to explore the depth of a-religious faith, nothing more.

[edit--"nothing more" is probably incorrect--but you still refuse, apparently, do discuss the issue. You're spending most of your energy calling me "contemptuous"]

You read my "contempt" into it, I'm afraid.

Here, let me help you, I think you have something in your eye...

Let's see: you use Christianity as the sole basis for comparing the disbelief of atheism in the divine to, you compare the Christian God to a human in your basement imagined by your children, you insultingly call Islam "Mohammedism" and make excuses for calling it such instead of just apologizing (and, in fact, then go on to use "Moslem" instead of Muslim or Islam... do you realize the pejorative of what you keep choosing to call it?), you display absolutely no knowledge of the Jewish outlook on creation and science (and the "reformed Jew" remark is questionable as far as intent), and you demand I put Buddhism in Western terms of scientific outlook, when Buddhist theology simply does not work that way (if you like, I can direct you to books to educate you, provided you really want to learn... so far, every post of yours indicates otherwise).

quote:
I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)
And there are sciences that are still tied directly to religions. Furthermore, scientific findings are only used to "disprove" religion by one group of people: atheists. Sure, there are theological details that science has been brought up to debunk by many people of many faiths, but the only time I see science as a whole being used as some kind of "disproof" of religion has been by self-identifying atheists. This is not a coincidence, nor is your misconception that religions don't have science. It's the same kind of self-perpetuating dogma that "my faith is the Right One" that all religions have.

quote:
Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.
Without religion, it's easily arguable that science would have never begun, since all sciences have origins in religion.


Chris:
quote:
That's why I can only participate up to a point. I'm a devout apatheist -- "don't know, don't care" -- and watching everyone split hairs gets repetitive after a while.
[Smile] Welcome to debate on teh intarweb.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and Eric, I'm currently on a dial-up connection (I'm far away from home this week [Smile] ), so both sifting through my few thousand links and pulling up definitions from online dictionaries (because pics of my own dictionary would be just as difficult [Wink] ) becomes time consuming and inconvenient. I don't really expect anyone who feels atheism isn't a religion to change their mind, any more than I expect any atheist who doesn't already (there are a few who do) have respect for other religions as valid beliefs to change their mind. I'm just pointing out the obvious errors in "knowledge" and "logic" within atheist arguments.

And MoonRabbit, I apologize. I don't know why I thought you were a she, but I stand corrected. However, I already pointed out how creationism is a science, it just is a science that you do not believe or support. That's fine. However, denying that it's a science is rather hypocritical, considering your previous post regaling us of your experience with your former pastor telling everyone how everything else was wrong and inferior. Do you get what I'm saying? Maybe you don't view it that way, but looking at the way you put it from outside your own point of view, that's exactly what you've gone and done.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and I have two brothers who are atheist, and while they still won't admit that atheism is a religion, they do admit that it requires faith that God does not exist (at least one of them is even shaky on that). David Bowles also agrees with me about the faith part, though he's been much too busy to post.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
fugu, but my question is, if religious expression and belief is, for all practical purposes that I can see, really indistinguishable from non-religious expression and belief, why confuse the issue? You make the point that the state can decide and this is cool. O.K. Does this not still beg the question?

The *only* defining feature that I can see of 'religious' thought is that you have enough people get together that say 'this symbol or thought is important to me, and if you don't get out of the way and let me wear it/eat it/potray it, me and all my friends are going to go jihad on your ass.' From the point of view of individuals, or people in the minority, I think this definition a little troubling.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We institute the different treatment because it is constitutionally required.

Make no mistake, religious allowances are just that, allowances. The idea is that the government has the power to control many things, but only where they do not impinge upon religious beliefs. The reasons for this are many, and include such things as not being able to crack down on people of certain religions by making laws which conflict with their religions.

So instead of having to judge the intent behind the law and only allowing laws which aren't designed to persecute religious people, the government is merely not allowed to interfere with any religious expression which may reasonably be accomodated in a civil society.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Creationism isn't a science for any commonly accepted definition of science. It is not falsifiable on any account, it does not make verifiable predictions, it is not based on evidence, and it has no experimental basis.

To quote the lay definition, science is
quote:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
The key part is "experimental investigation". There is no possible experimental investigation in creationism. I cannot create a scientific experiment to test whether God could create the universe, and no one can. its definitionally impossible. For one thing, first I'd have to find a scientifically determined God to use as a subject.

edit to add: and Intelligent Design, while closer, has the same problem. There is no experiment to test if God is influencing the natural progress of this world, no falsifiable predictions from it, et cetera.

[ March 18, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I cannot create a scientific experiment to test whether God could create the universe, and no one can. its definitionally impossible.
There are many things that "real science" teaches that are equally untestable.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Um, fugu, read the FAQ I linked to. While the conclusions that have been drawn are questionable, the techniques used are not used to show whether or not a god created the universe in the "fingerprinting" sense, but to correlate a timeline given in the bible by coming to scientific conclusions through hypothesis, experimentation, recording results, and repeating said experiments. It follows scientific method, it just comes to conclusions that one may or may not find incredibly questionable. So, what you say doesn't discount it as a science, it means you don't like the results of said science. And as I already pointed out, Christians aren't the only ones to conduct this kind of science.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
One may apply the scientific method to something and not have all things related to it be science.

It is within the realm of science to investigate the possible correlation of the Bible and known history and prehistory.

This, however, is not the whole of creationism. Creationism inextricably entails the idea that the world was created by God. While specific areas "under" creationism may be scientifically investigated, the domain as a whole is not science, as it is not scientifically investigable.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
For instance, creationism includes the idea that animals exist today. I can scientiifcally test this. This does not make creationism science.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
It is within the realm of science to investigate the possible correlation of the Bible and known history and prehistory.

This, however, is not the whole of creationism. Creationism inextricably entails the idea that the world was created by God.

The part of it that is science is quite well within the confines of modern science. However, it's a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences. One can argue that vested interests are influencing the science (in fact, I do), but you'd have to first accept that they are conducting science to begin with.

If you want to say creationism as a whole is not a science, that's fine. Creationism as a whole is both science and religion. However, creation science is a science.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'd say that there are certain areas of creation science which fit the definition of science (though they are usually prime examples of bad science, being fraught with bad logic, false assumptions, and generally atrocious methodology).

However, creation science is usually just a veneer of a title given to creationism in an attempt to appear scientific, and as such most creation science is not science.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
You're entitled to believe that, but it doesn't make it any less of a science than many others. It just makes it a science with vested interests. There are still plenty of sciences that have schools (of thought) with vested interests. In fact, most people use them in debate when their (sometimes questionable) results match their preconcieved hypothesis.

Are we going to get into a hierarchy of sciences now? What would be used as a barometer for it? (I can see the vested interests lining up for dibs now) [Wink]
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Incidently, science is much more of a religion than atheism is.

After all, science has it's own dogma that scientists must abide by and accept or else they get called "unscientific" by the scientific community. It has divisions and sects along the lines of major disagreements within that dogma, although it has no official organization. It tackles most major religions questions, with the notable exception of morality, which it tends to stay away from. It offers explanations of how the universe came to exist, what it's nature is, and how it functions - some of which are even more bizarre and seemingly supernatural than the God explanation.

Atheism, in contrast, is really just a single position on a single issue.

[ March 18, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
:dedicated atheist Bowles leaps into the fray:

Okay, really quick- atheism requires faith, as John has predicted I would say. It takes faith to say, definitively, that no deity exists. Atheists who pretend otherwise open themselves up to attacks they cannot sensibly defend against.

Here is the essential difference: the leap of faith for a theist is significantly larger than the one an atheist makes. As there is no hard, conclusive, objective evidence of a god's existence or NON-existence, it is simply easier (and, I would argue, more logical) to conclude that one DOES NOT exist. But this conclusion, based on it is on ABSENCE, is most definitely a leap of faith. I know my atheist friends are frantically shaking their heads at me, murmuring about polka-dotted dragons and such, but they know as well as I that even EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED theories are, at the end of the day, liable to be falsified... that is the heart of empiricism.

So, I declare as an atheist, I theorize the non-existence of god. I BELIEVE he doesn't exist. And the means of falsifying this belief are out there for the theists to utilize. If they do, if religious people can use logic and science and other objective methods to demonstrate the existence of god, my belief will change.

As for religion, I hold a deep respect for it. At its best, it creates a memetic framework for human existence, embuing our lives with meaning in a way that simple awe at discovering the universe has been unable to match. I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.

More later.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?

As for whether or not its bad science, the reasons for it typically being bad science I gave are objective (the atrocious methodology not in all cases, but its a superset of the other two, anyways).
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.
Are you by any chance a big fan of the Dune series (Frank Herbet, not the new stuff)?

I'm just curious, because, while he was way more cynical about it than you seem to be, he was interested in the purposeful creation and manipulation of religion.

Dagonee
Edit: Just to be clear, you didn't sound cynical at all.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
Well, yes, I've read all of Herbert's works. But that's not quite what I mean. I'm not talking about using religion to manipulate people, but creating a religion that will evolve with us and that will have as its sacraments and tenets the healthy survival of humanity, the broadening of its understanding of humans and the universe they live in, and the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I didn't think that's what you meant - I just meant the idea of religion that's truly human-created being a good (or at least acceptable) thing is fairly uncommon - Herbert is the only in-depth presenter of that idea I've seen.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
:nods: I see that. I'm curious what you think about the idea, its feasibility and its desireableness.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, since I believe in a divinely revealed religion, I'm not overly anxious to see it implemented. From a political science/psychological/anthropological perspective it's fascinating. From a religious perspective it's anathema to me.

Analyzing the specifics, neither the healthy survival of humanity nor the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe is particularly high on my priority list from a religious perspective. And of course, I believe that the broadening of humanity's understanding of humans and the universe they live in is best served by a combination of science, divine revelation, and reason.

So there's probably little common ground between us on this idea.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?
Actually, neither creationism or evolutionary theories are science, because neither are falsifiable. Both are hypothetical extrapolations of science, which cannot be proven or disproven with experimental data. Science can only talk about present data, because that is all it can experiment on - and cannot extrapolate about the past or the origins of things.

So, yes, technically creationism is not science. But then you'd have to throw out a bunch of other things people like to call science. If you are going to call extrapolations of scientific data science too, like evolution, then you must also include creationism, and every other potential explanation of scientific data.
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.

Jesus, you say the most bizarre things sometimes.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Yeah, Dag, David isn't the huge Herbert fan. I am. [Wink] (hence the name "Leto" which I used to use... after Leto II, the ultimate God Emperor)

Oh, yeah, and David:
quote:
Well, yes, I've read all of Herbert's works. But that's not quite what I mean. I'm not talking about using religion to manipulate people, but creating a religion that will evolve with us and that will have as its sacraments and tenets the healthy survival of humanity, the broadening of its understanding of humans and the universe they live in, and the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe.
That's what most of the groups who knowingly manipulated in Herbert's works believed, too. [Razz]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Kurt Vonnegut's works, particularly Cat's Cradle, but truly most all of his work, has a similar idea of human-created religions (and is probably much funnier to read than the Dune series; though I hear the latest stories are unintentionally humorous [Smile] ).

-Bok
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Cat's Cradle was a good book. But I thought his handling of religion was superficial at best. It dealt with the sociological benefits of religion, especially for people with little material comforts available, but glossed over the moral implications of a religion. I know that was partly his point, but I still found it an incomplete treatment.

I'm sure, judging from your handle, that you disagree. [Smile]

Dagonee
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well, I think he only addressed the moral implications implicitly, which is okay, because to be explicit about such things makes for bad satire [Smile]

I think he believes that someone will be the good guy, someone the bad guy, always in any society. If there aren't, society will either collapse, or "invent" one.

-Bok
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto,

quote:
However, it's [creationism is] a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences
quote:
Science has been tied to many faiths throughout its whole existence.
quote:
Science is not separate from religion
So, is science tied to religion, or isn't it?

I refer to the Christian approach to claiming "Scientific bragging rights" because they are currently the only group in the United States that is making any claims whatsoever in that category. The Jews aren't. The Muslims aren't. The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't. Maybe it's just a matter of who has "power" to try and impose change; maybe it's a combination of power and desire. Maybe its that the other groups understand the difference between scientifically provable hypotheses and allegory.

I get the sense, though, that my ideas aren't going to be discussed to any great depth here--for whatever reason. Perhaps I've been a bit too trollish.

BTW, Leto, I do apologize for the "Mohammedism" reference. I apologized in my earlier post, but I don't think you "got it." The "Moslem" reference was intended to echo a common, classless, ignorant (but, hopefully, not offensive) reference to the Muslim faith.

I also apologize for not knowing more about the Hebew faith. But I stand by my statement that there is no Jewish push to teach Jewish "science" in secular schools (and I'd love to hear of pushes for Old-Testament Creationism in shuls).

The reason I pick on the Christian faith is that the Christian faith, specifically among the other faiths, has had the financial ability to support research into the sciences, but has usually chosen not to pursue them.

Doing a little research, I reminded myself of how Da Vinci (who I used as an example of what positive things can happen when the Catholic Church supports the sciences as well as the arts) was thought to have used his "mirror script" (writing backwards) out of a fear of Christian persecution. Similar persecution, I might add, that we are all familiar with regarding Galileo.

What research projects is the Vatican currently pursuing (besides how to safely restore old paintings)?

I will acknowledge that many faith-based universities currently support scientific studies. Notre Dame, for instance, extensively supports scientific inquiry. They are a Catholic University, but they are not the Catholic Church.

I will incorporate that into my dogma, however. For next time.

That the Islamic faith has supported scientific studies, there are no doubts. Heck, I'm sure that there are lots of Muslims pursuing scientific studies even now--but where is there support coming from? From religious/cultural centers? Not from madrassas, certainly. From governments? I'm sure the Saudi Arabian government is supporting a lot of petroleum research. Do you want to make a case for it being a religious thing? I think not.

If a [place religion here] University is supporting of the sciences, is that sufficient representation of the religion itself? Or is that just because the University has chosen to pursue both? I honestly do not have an answer.

Since I can both support and refute my statements, I would ask the same of you, Leto; for the sake of open communication.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.
Well, presuming we have no time machine, how would you go about disproving it any better than we can disprove creationism?
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Tres,

All we need is for God to create another animal, from scratch, like he did when he created the world.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.
He did. Paul didn't do it because he didn't want to become what Leto II became. He was afraid.

DOG:
quote:
So, is science tied to religion, or isn't it?
Some are, and some aren't.

quote:
I refer to the Christian approach to claiming "Scientific bragging rights" because they are currently the only group in the United States that is making any claims whatsoever in that category. The Jews aren't. The Muslims aren't. The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't.
What part of the link to the Islamic science books did you not understand? What part of rivka's statement did you not understand? This is what is making me start to wonder your motives for posting in this thread, because you have been clearly shown the error of this claim, yet you continue to make it.

quote:
BTW, Leto, I do apologize for the "Mohammedism" reference. I apologized in my earlier post, but I don't think you "got it." The "Moslem" reference was intended to echo a common, classless, ignorant (but, hopefully, not offensive) reference to the Muslim faith.
Allow me to be the one to inform you that it is indeed offensive.

quote:
I also apologize for not knowing more about the Hebew faith. But I stand by my statement that there is no Jewish push to teach Jewish "science" in secular schools (and I'd love to hear of pushes for Old-Testament Creationism in shuls).
Um you only just began making this assertion. The original point of conflict was you saying other religions didn't have schools of scientific thought in any official capacity.

quote:
The reason I pick on the Christian faith is that the Christian faith, specifically among the other faiths, has had the financial ability to support research into the sciences, but has usually chosen not to pursue them.
Are you seriously saying you believe that? Not all Christians (or even whole denominations) are extreme creationist theory pushers (and some don't even support it). Perhaps you should look into the number of schools where much research is done, and find out how many are either a religious(ly based) school, or how many get funding from religious institutions. You display vast amounts of ignorance if you truly believe what you say.

quote:
What research projects is the Vatican currently pursuing (besides how to safely restore old paintings)?
You mean outside of the historical research? You mean outside of the Vatican-endorsed research around the world? I know you'd like to believe that the Catholic universities are not the Catholic church, but they are endorsed and supported (in part) by the Vatican itself. To assume otherwise is the height of ignorance.

quote:
I will incorporate that into my dogma, however. For next time.
I have a suspicion you already have. Your blatant ignorance in spite of the evidence to the contrary shows you refuse to accept facts contrary to your preconceived notions.

quote:
That the Islamic faith has supported scientific studies, there are no doubts. Heck, I'm sure that there are lots of Muslims pursuing scientific studies even now--but where is there support coming from? From religious/cultural centers? Not from madrassas, certainly. From governments? I'm sure the Saudi Arabian government is supporting a lot of petroleum research. Do you want to make a case for it being a religious thing? I think not.
First, you have a serious problem not understanding how Islam is not some church entity like the Vatican or the Baptist Convention or the JW Watchtower or the LDS bishopry. Second, I already showed you a link with books for sale on Islam-based science. Get over it, admit you are in error, and move on. The only thing you have to lose is your self-centered pride.

quote:
If a [place religion here] University is supporting of the sciences, is that sufficient representation of the religion itself? Or is that just because the University has chosen to pursue both? I honestly do not have an answer.
If that religion created that university and continues to support it, you have a serious problem if the answer is not evident.

quote:
Since I can both support and refute my statements, I would ask the same of you, Leto; for the sake of open communication.
Since repeated evidence showing the error of your claims has been shown, and the fact that outside of your references to Galileo and DaVinci you have shown no real evidence and vague innuendos, I would ask that you finally admit that you were previously unaware of what I have shown you, and admit that you were wrong in your assumptions. However, since I have the suspicion you will not, I'll have to assume that you're going to continue to disregard what's being shown and post continually more trollish posts.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Thanks, Leto.

I asked for information, stating my lack of it, and you respond by calling me ignorant.

I mention and acknowledge that there are Catholic universities with strong scientific research going on, and you just happen to quote my statements before and after, but not that one--the one that screws up the point you want to make (the point, I believe, that I'm an ignorant troll).

By your stating that "a religion created the university and continues to support it" do you mean the people who follow that religion, or the central representation of that religion (in other words--was Notre Dame created and is it now supported by donations from businesses and individuals, or by the Vatican or major US and international Roman Catholic churches?). "Religion" in and of itself is not an "acting" entity.

quote:
Allow me to be the one to inform you that it is indeed offensive
To also quote you, "get over it." I apologized.

quote:
The original point of conflict was you saying other religions didn't have schools of scientific thought in any official capacity
You know, I think we're discussing two different things. I'm not saying that religions and their representatives (and representative bodies) are not capable of scientific thought, or scientific pursuits. What I thought I was saying (and I'll go back over my previous posts to determine if I was clear or not about this) is that the Christian religion (and again, what I haven't said and should have is that it's primarily Christian fundamentalists) is the only one I'm aware of (please, have fun!) that is trying to dress up religion in the guise of science ("Creation Science" for instance), and force it upon the supposedly secular political, intellectual and educational environment.

I've never had a problem with--nor have I posted that I have any problem with--religious or any other institutions supporting legitimate scientific research.

And, you know what--I really don't have any difficulty (not that anyone really cares about what difficulties I have) if they even go and pursue "illegitimate" research, such as finding a real basis for "Creation" Science" or "Intelligent Design" or paranormal phenomena.

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it! If they can figure out how or why it works, even better. But first, let them show that it's real. Because, you see, in my foolish DOGma, I firmly believe that stuff isn't even real.

BTW, I also believe that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron, and is bad science, if it is "science" at all. I know you know this, and I know you disagree. Strongly. If you want to start or reopen an appropriate thread for that particular dead horse, let me know--I'll meet you there. I'm not going to derail this thread any further by going off onto that tangent here.

--DOG

[ March 18, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!
You've been given proof of the existence of the different schools of thought. You refuse to acknowledge them. I'm not going to argue whether or not creation science Jewish science or Islamic science is true or not, because I don't belong to the faiths. I'm saying the sciences exist.

And I'm not calling you ignorant without basis. You (basically) said first that religion had no science, more specifically Buddhism (which does), Judaism (which does), and Islam (which does). You kept changing what you "meant" with your argument to sidestep your ignorance. You still refuse to accept that religions outside of Christianity have science communities.

Your lame username puns aside, your dogma is astounding. I feel it's necessary to thank you for showing exactlty what I mean when pointing out the religious fervency of atheism, though.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
BTW, Leto, thank you for the links to the Islamic/Science books. The look interesting, and I'll look into them some more.

From reading some of the sample pages, I can't say that I agree with them wholeheartedly, but they make some interesting philosophical stamements---even some that I may consider as valid (or truthful, whatever--let's not get into a fight over that).
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto (Posting after your response).

The purpose of this particular username is to point out the fervency of atheism. Hello!

quote:
Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?

Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.

Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")

Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.

The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.

I think that's where I started my descent, eh?

Re-read it, if you please, from the point of view of a person who is thinking about various religions trying to impose their world views (origin of the universe, the world, the species) on secular society by claiming "scientific" backing for their belief systems. That's what I meant by "Scientific bragging rights."

You'll find that most of my other threads follow this train of thought. There is some Church-bashing going on, admittedly (re. Galileo, and later Da Vinci--sorry for overusing them), but the kernel of my presentation has always been the fight against religious imposition of faith-based doctrine or dogma upon what I thought was supposed to be a primarily secular public environment.

[added in edit] I'm not saying that they don't have science. I never did. Or, if you thought I did, then I didn't present my ideas very well (and I will always apologize for that!). What I am saying is that, of all the religions out there, most of them do not attempt to portray their belief systems (such as origins of...) as "fact" or "scientific truth" and try to get them taught as "fact" or "scientific truth/theory" in the secular school system. Christianity--specifically Fundamentalist Christianity--does.

[end edit]

quote:
quote:

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!

You've been given proof of the existence of the different schools of thought
I don't get it. For a really bright guy, you continue to miss the point. I NEVER said that there was no proof of the existence of the different schools of thought. What I said (re-read it; calmly now...) was:

quote:
And, you know what--I really don't have any difficulty ... if they even go and pursue "illegitimate" research, such as finding a real basis for "Creation" Science" or "Intelligent Design" or paranormal phenomena.

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!

Proof for the existence of paranormal phenomena, for instance...get it!?

And if I can't make fun of my chosen username, who will? You? I think not--you're too busy calling me contemptuous, dogmatic and ignorant to have any real fun!

--DOG

[ March 18, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I wasn't arguing whether or not any of the divine was real or not, and your demand that I show you proof of something I have no faith in is silly and divergent from the topic that was being discussed. If you're so adamant about debating the proofs within these other beliefs, make a thread about it. This thread is discussing whether atheism is a religion, and the many things that qualify it as such. That's been my single point from the get-go.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
John L.

Is theism a religion?
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
Tresopax,

I invite you to return to the alt.origins FAQ and look at the instances of natural selection enumerated therein. But, just to shut you up, let me list the bedrock layers of evolutionary theory, each of which creationism or whatever else has to explain away, falsifying scientists' current theory as to how these elements tie in together

1) fossil record showing gradual changes over long periods of time, trending toward more complexity and diversity
2) genetic relationships between organisms that can be best explained by postulating a common ancestor and gradual mutation
3) bauplan similarity, i.e., similar bone structures (even number of bones) even in creatures with widely divergent superficial characteristics (humans, bats and whales all having nearly identical appendage bone structure, with bones adapted to each environment)
4) ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny... a human fetus recapitulates evolution over the course of nine months of development.
5) artificial selection- the ease with which humans have altered through breeding hundreds of animals and plants

And so on. Bah, I don't even know why I bother. Enjoy your dark-age sillines, Tres.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
All we need is for God to create another animal, from scratch, like he did when he created the world.
That just proves God could do such a thing. But it wouldn't disprove evolution. It is entirely possible that both God can create things from scratch and that life evolved from single-celled organisms.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
John,

I can see that little vein pulsing brightly on the left side of your temple again. Glenn, you're not helping any.

What proofs were (was?) I demanding from you again?

And, as to the original question:
Atheism is *not* a religion (I go with the "definitional" approach on that one: no deity, no religion).

It is a belief system, however (and, must I add, obviously). IMNSHO, it's a more self-consistent belief system, and therefore better than theism. It certainly relies on far fewer assumptions to operate than theism.

And, for some reason, I have come to believe that it's important to (1) possess a self-consistent set of beliefs that (2) involve a minimum number of assumptions to operate, and (3) hold together well enough to incorporate--or, if need be, accomodate--new facts as they are introduced.

BUT THAT'S JUST ME. YOUR ACTUAL BELIEF SYSTEMS MAY VARY.

--DOG

Unmaker,

quote:
4) ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny
Except for the fact that it's incredibly fun to say, I have never understood why that one's important. It's interesting, and all; and I'd be frightened if we passed through a larval or lobster phase during our prenatal development, but it always reminded me of the Subway Train theory of evolution--get off at whatever stop you want.

[ March 18, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Tres,

quote:
It is entirely possible that both God can create things from scratch and that life evolved from single-celled organisms
And it's equally possible that flaming barnacles can shoot out of me pants!

Really, you're not allowed to just make this stuff up as you go along.

And please, let's not go into the "Everything not proven impossible is therefore possible" thread again. That world's a world of pure chaos, and trust me--you don't want to go there.

--DOG
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
it's a more self-consistent belief system
In what way is it more self-consistent?

Dagonee
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
But, just to shut you up, let me list the bedrock layers of evolutionary theory, each of which creationism or whatever else has to explain away, falsifying scientists' current theory as to how these elements tie in together
David,

All of those are just as consistent with forms of Creationism as they are with Evolution. All the Creationist has to do is say "God made it like that" or some variation of that. Thus this evidence is just as easily used as proof for certain types of Creationist theories as it can be used for Evolutionary theories.

So, if this evidence makes Evolution scientific, it makes Creationism scientific too.

Science can't just decide on an arbitrary best way of interpretting the same evidence, and say that is science and everything else is not. Science is not supposed to be arbitrary (although the scientific community may be just that sometimes).

And you can call this "dark-age silliness" if you want, but it may be something impacting schools around the country - and I doubt calling it names is going to do much to convince those wishing to add Creationism to the curriculum. They're gonna expect a reason why one theory should be called science and the other should not, and I don't think there's gonna be one.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
And please, let's not go into the "Everything not proven impossible is therefore possible" thread again. That world's a world of pure chaos, and trust me--you don't want to go there.
But we are there. I'm not going to write off possibilities for no reason just to fit your argument - ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that many Christians probably DO believe that both God can create things from scratch, yet chose to allow things to evolve. Those that believe in evolution believe this.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
A primer.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

I don't think anything new has been covered in this thread.

DOG: I may not be helping, but just what am I hurting?
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Glenn,

I was momentarily afraid that your response might actually cause Leto's head to explode. I didn't think that it would be a good idea for his head to explode, again. That's all.

Dag,

I'll work on that, and get back to you.

Tres,

Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.

And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things. If, of course, it were possible that he really existed.

BTW, in your response, I would ask you not to write off possibilities for no reason other than just to fit your argument. Thanks in advance.

--DOG
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Glen, there are many theisms.

DOG, you're just trolling now, tossing personal insults because you have no more "facts" to give. Glen's own link is a perfect example of vested interests veiled in "logic," which is ironically just the same as more than one person has accused creationist science of being. How apropos.

At least David's logic is making more realistic sense. By the way, David, what do you think of my claim that atheism is a "religion without an institution (yet)?"
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
quote:
Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.

And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things. If, of course, it were possible that he really existed.

This is a good point that should not be easily dismissed. A lot of organized religions like to harp on the fact that God is mysterious and unknowable. Some of those same organizations have gotten upset in the past when people make serious, methodical inquiries into things that were previously mysterious or assumed to be a certain way.

The only word that we have that a given religion's God is a certain way, is its own writings. So, in fact, it's logical not to rule out that God could be a prankster, or malicious, or jealous, or given to any other type of personality outside of the stereotypical "full of infinite love and mercy."
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
John,

Pick one and answer the question.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Wasn't the Norse god Loki cruel, capricious and silly? Really?

Leto,

You really need to lighten up.

Trolling? Because I used a humorous reference to point out inconsistencies in Tresopax' statements?

I may have been trolling a few days ago; but not now.

Thank you, Sevumar.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
You know, I can't tell the players without a scorecard. John L is Leto? ok

My name is Glenn Arnold. I try to keep it that way. It's less confusing.
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
As far as I recall, Loki was something of a trickster. To me, that's one of the interesting things about the old polytheistic religions, they had deities who were good, some who were evil, some who didn't care about humanity, some who enjoyed toying with it, etc.

To me it seems to make more sense that Divinity would have such sides to it, instead of reading like the definition of Lawful Good from the D&D Player's handbook.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Oh, and my link is nothing more than an explanation of what it means to be an atheist, from the atheistic perspective.

"Vested interest veiled in logic?" All it does is define terms, from an atheistic perspective.

John, your definitions are all basically copies of the one written by Noah Webster, a Calvinist minister. Atheists reject this definition for the same reason that Black people reject the definition that they are only 3/5 human. It isn't true. It does, however, smell strongly of "vested interest."
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
Oh, and my link is nothing more than an explanation of what it means to be an atheist, from the atheistic perspective.
Which is better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths how? And the "atheist perspective" has a very colorful outlook as far as other religions, at least equal to the accusations against Christianity.

Like I've already said, atheists have to maintain a faith that there is no divine, and that it does the same thing most atheists claim Christianity—not coincidentally usually their former faith—does in spades. There are institutions forming, and Glen's infidel.org, as well as other sites of similar content, are simply another proof that this is happening. Right now, the only viable argument an atheist has that it is not a religion is the lack of an institution, which has been changing drastically over the last 20 years.

This thread is amusing only in that every argument for why atheism is a religion has turned into an argument about Christianity in general or all religions but atheism together. There has been no valid arguments made in this thread about atheism not being a religion, and all DOG has done is fall back into personal insulting when running out of argument (because it's all fun, right?).

Glen, when I registered here three years ago, I registered under an assumed name called "Leto II." I don't post using it any more, and John is my real name (last name beginning with "L"). I sure hope you weren't implying I'm being insincere around here, and I sure hope you aren't being pretentiously superior for using your real name, a habit I would not encourage some to do.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
Atheists reject this definition for the same reason that Black people reject the definition that they are only 3/5 human. It isn't true. It does, however, smell strongly of "vested interest."
Right, because black people aren't less of a person, only those who are fooling themselves to believe in the divine, right? I find it funny that most of those who are self-avowed atheists who posted in this thread have exhibited the same behavior as the "black people are 3/5ths a person" that you are claiming only those who disagree with what you believe are doing.

Vested interests, indeed.
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
This is taken from the link that Glenn provided:

quote:
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.
And then the document goes on to further discuss the difference between people who just don't believe and those who put a lot of effort into not believing (the author calls them "weak" and "strong" atheism).

My contention is that if you're a person who is aware that there are organized groups of people with common rites and belief systems who venerate their own divine being, but don't care, and the lack of those beliefs plays no major role in your life, then atheism isn't a religion for you.

In contrast, if you're a very outspoken person who can't wait to tell everyone God doesn't exist and that's the Real Truth, and you are a member of an organized group with meetings and t-shirts, and coffee mugs, who all get together at some point to affirm the non-existence of god as an important point - I can understand calling that kind of atheism a religion.

I think the latter is much less common and represents a vocal minority.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
And I already addressed this: there are a great deal of people who are self-identifying Christians who belong to no church. Are they not associated with a religion?

Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it not so.
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
If a self-identifying Christian is really a believer of core Christian doctrine, he still can be identified by certain beliefs and behaviors. He has accepted Christ as the savior of mankind, he understands the role of christian scripture and accepts that it comes from a well-defined source held to be holy. He aims to live his life a certain way and abide by certain standards of conduct. When you "opt-in" to being Christian, there is a still a core set of defining beliefs common to all forms of christianity and people with no official affiliation.

A casual atheist has no scripture, no confession of faith, and no religiously inspired ideal lifestyle.

[ March 18, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Sevumar ]
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
John,

1. No, I wasn't implying any disingenuity, only that I can never figure out how the rest of the people on this board keep track of who each other are. Dog obviously knew who you are, but I didn't.

2. If you look at my original post that you're railing against, I first defined atheism, and then pointed out several religions that incorporate atheism, and/or atheists that consider themselves religious. I'm not claiming that atheism cannot be an element of religion.

3. You still haven't answered my question about theism, which I DO consider disingenuous. What are you trying to avoid?

4. When did I claim that atheists describing our own viewpoint is "better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths?" Chistians are entitled to define their own religion. I never claimed that I was entitled to define Christianity, because I'm not a Christian (not a theistic one, anyway). What I'm saying is that You and Noah Webster have no business telling us atheists what we believe.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.

And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things.

Well, yes, that is possible. Or it is possible that he is perfectly good, and has a perfectly good reason for arranging the "evidence" the way it is - a reason that may not be obvious to us.

I just know that I'm certainly not going to go around judging whether or not God is silly.

I do suspect, though, that a world in which God's existence was obvious to all would not be all that great of a place - or, at least, not a place where people would be very free to act without worrying about God looking over their shoulder.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Glenn,

It's "DOG," not "Dog." As far as I know, there is no "Dog." [Wink]

Tres/Xaos:

Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have. It's not "nasty" judgemental (you know, like me calling God "silly," or Leto/John calling me "an ignorant slut"), but it is still judgemental.

And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.

John/Leto,

I don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.

Yes, I started off a bit trollish. And I was insulting (I do seem to recall telling you to bite me, but it was only that once, and you had posted a nasty response back to me...so there). But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.) You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.

Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.

You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.

Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.

And then we can all get back to work/school/whatever.

--DOG

[ March 18, 2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
I'm a little lost.
 
Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
 
I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.

I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.

This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.

One of the key things people are missing (or ignoring) is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. I think Carl Sagan came up with the analogy: If I said that the rings of Saturn were inhabited by tiny purple men, would the burden of proof be on me to prove that they exist, or on a skeptic to prove that they don't? If you say that there is a god, one which cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, or otherwise perceived by any instrument known to man, is the burden of proof upon you to offer evidence of his existence, or is the burden of proof on me to prove that the undetectable being does not exist? It's a ridiculous argument.

One of the books that really influenced me was Food of the Gods - The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution by the late Terence McKenna. He has an interesting theory about the roots of religion and how it was intertwined with human evolution. Some of his thinking is a bit new-agey for me, but I found the concepts he proposed to be very interesting.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
moonrabbit,

can you expand a bit?

curious.

fallow
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
There has been no valid arguments made in this thread about atheism not being a religion,
Can you argue the non-existence of anything? Is that possible to do?

A possible definition of a religion: A set of core spiritual values, rituals and practices passed down from one generation to the next. As noted, this would include Christians who don't attend or follow any particular church. The fact is, we aren't born knowning the story of Jesus, how it is different than Judaism, how it is similar, what holidays to keep "holy" or whatever. It had to have been taught at some point, either at home or at church or at school (if a religious school) etc. It isn't a state of being that comes naturally (though I think the need/desire to create mystical reasons for why things happen in the world IS natural...one can assume humanity has made a career out of creating (and then later abandoning or destroying) religious beliefs.

Atheism, on the other hand, has no dogma, no creed, no core values, etc. Are people who don't believe in Santa a part of a relgion? The ASantas? Are people who don't believe in extraterrestrials a relgion? Aextraterrestrials? The lack of something cannot really define anything. That is ludicrous. It is an important term, though, especially in the US of A which is desperate to cling to its religion to the point of crossing that line of church and state (another thread, I am sure).

That said, athiests can belong to religions. I am a practicing Unitarian Universalist, as is my family. As a somewhat hazy athiest (leaning towards some sort of agnosticism...getting older? I don't know), I practice weekly gatherings to celebrate life, humanity, community, etc. We have all sorts of rituals that can include folks of all faiths or of no faiths. Does that make athiesm a religion? No, but it shows that religion and anthiesm can go hand in hand. I can only assume that not all people who are a part of religious institutions actually believe in god or the divine.

Interesting discussion, when folks keep to it.

fil
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

Can one prove absence? Can one prove randomness?

fallow
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
Can one prove absence? Can one prove randomness?
No, one can't prove absence (at least, I don't think one can). Randomness? Not sure. You would have to ask someone with statistics as a background for that. Not to be rude, but what does randomness have to do with athiesm as a religion? Just curious.

Thanks!

fil
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

taking up the "proving" core of lotsa logically bitchin' arguments. one can't logically prove absence, nor can one logically prove randomness.

fallow
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
taking up the "proving" core of lotsa logically bitchin' arguments. one can't logically prove absence, nor can one logically prove randomness.
Sounds good to me. It is interesting that so much of this thread has diverged into proving and disproving in terms of god, not religion. I think the proof we are wanting is this: Is Athiesm a relgion? I have seem some interesting legal discussions around it (meaning protections for those who don't believe in a world of people who do) but the scientific discussions have been around proving the existence or non-existence of god, which is really a moot argument for this.

My question would be is when does the belief in ANYTHING make it a religion? As DOG noted, no one has really worked from a consistent definition of the word "religion" and this could easily lead the thread astray. I believe Joss Whedon to be one of the best tv writers. It is not a belief that leads to religious practice, though.

Same goes with non-belief. Do those that don't believe Joss to be a great TV writer fall into the category of religion? Even if there are a lot of them (the lack of great ratings on his shows could point to the existence of a LOT of people who do not believe in his work). Does this large group of non-believers make them a religion?

fil
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.

I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.

This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.

MoonRabbit, that analogy came from me. At least in my case, I disagree that faith involves believing the impossible. I can't speak for other people. I do view my religious faith as being similar to the light switch idea. Here's why: I believe that as I fulfill my promises to God that He will fulfill His promises to me. I have evidence of this. I do the act, promise is fulfilled. Lightswitch.

Granted, some of those promises I don't expect to be fulfilled right away, so I am not refering to all cases. So because I am describing a lightswitch that may or may not come on right away, it requires a great deal more faith than a physical lightswitch. My point is there is expectation based on experience, but it is much more spiritual (atheist read: emotional) experience than physical.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have.
Is there something wrong with making a judgement about what I think is probably right about God? I mean, I take the Bible and supposedly divinely inspired claims given by Christians as evidence that God is good, as well as the fact that it just seems to me that any all-knowing being would know that being good is good and thus would be good. And I base an opinion or theory on that.

Is there somebody I am imposing this theory on, or something?

quote:
And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.
Well, firstly, that's an idea I thought up myself - I've never been taught it or "brought up" to believe it. It just seemed reasonable...

As for why, I would say it is a good thing that people care about things other than pleasing God and the afterlife. I think it is good for people to do good for it's own sake. But I suspect that if we were all truly certain of His existence, we'd spend a whole lot of time just trying to gain His favor.

Ignorance is no prerequisite for free will, but perhaps God recognizes that if he imposes Himself too much into our lives, we will freely choose to be too dependant on Him - like a child might become too dependant on an overbearing parent. I certainly don't know this is the case - but I don't need to. It's only one of many possible explanations of the way things are. And, truthfully, God's motivations for doing things are not the sort of thing I expect to ever find out for sure.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

A debate without a common sense of what are the axioms, what are the boundaries and limitations of logic (see "desperate name calling"), and what is the specified topic, can devolve into sputtering. Eloquent sputtering, but sputtering.

fallow
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
A debate without a common sense of what are the axioms, what are the boundaries and limitations of logic (see "desperate name calling"), and what is the specified topic, can devolve into sputtering. Eloquent sputtering, but sputtering.
Agreed...so what are the axioms and boundaries? I assume they are on what is religion and what constitutes a relgion? And in whose eyes? There are plenty of "faiths" that are ritual-filled, creed-, and spirtually-centered in the US, but not all of them qualify as "religions" in they eyes of the law. While the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, Muslims and so on have the benefits of being considered a religion, you won't find many pagan, polytheistic, or otherwise small faiths getting that recognition. Not sure what this brings to the discussion, but I guess it would help to know what are the boundaries of the "religion" definition? If too broad, just about anything is a religion if more than one person can be described by it ("it" being some descriptor like "enjoys potato salad" or "does not believe in the divine" or...).

[Smile]

fil
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster.

If I had to start from the top, I'd say there is some question regarding "Is atheism a religion?" That's a pretty simple question with few terms.

fallow
 
Posted by Knight Ender (Member # 6205) on :
 
quote:
from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.
Sevumar, well said. That is definitely how I feel about it, and atheism is not a religion for me. The fact that most atheists are open to new arguments or information is a defining difference from most religions.

Hey, John L, I was wondering where you were. I was just asking Paul if you got banned or something. You know Pete did huh? But I was not involved this time at all. It was him and your friends Ev and Enum. And what's this you and Leto being the same person? That's not true is it? If it is, either you are a great writer or scyzophrentic (sp?).

KE
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
John L on Hatrack != John L on Ornery.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
[Wink]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
MoonRabbit, neither I nor the unmaker are what you would call "religious," since I'm agnostic and David is an atheist. Care to make up some motives as to why the two of us are showing how atheism requires faith to believe its basic definition? Or are you just going to continue to use the "you're saying that because you're religious" excuse? I mean, I think atheism is a religion, but as far as I knew, you were saying it isn't, and to call David (unmaker) religious is kind of self-contradictory. Just thought you'd like to know that.

quote:
2. If you look at my original post that you're railing against, I first defined atheism, and then pointed out several religions that incorporate atheism, and/or atheists that consider themselves religious. I'm not claiming that atheism cannot be an element of religion.
If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.

quote:
3. You still haven't answered my question about theism, which I DO consider disingenuous. What are you trying to avoid?
What are you trying to imply I'm trying to avoid? What theism are you talking about? Christian god? Yes, it's a religion. Polytheistic faith? Also a religion. The "higher consciousnesses" of Eastern thought and philosophy (that I've never seen adequately translated in Western concept)? Once again, self-identified as religions. Spiritualistic/shamanistic/paranormalism? Pretty much all religious. The reason I'm not giving you as direct answer is because there is no single answer, and because you asked a question not to get an answer, but to try to lead me into some semantical trap (I can think of a few). So, before you start accusing me of being disingenuous, perhaps you should be clear on what you're asking of me instead of demanding I answer a question that is obviously leading somewhere. I've been nothing but a straight-shooter here, and if I don't get the same treatment, don't demand I play by any other style. Be straight-forward with what you want an answer to, please.

quote:
4. When did I claim that atheists describing our own viewpoint is "better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths?" Chistians are entitled to define their own religion. I never claimed that I was entitled to define Christianity, because I'm not a Christian (not a theistic one, anyway). What I'm saying is that You and Noah Webster have no business telling us atheists what we believe.
You're the one claiming an association, and that association has clear socially defined characteristics. Just because those selfsame characteristics are now used to classify it as a religion in itself is not enough to change the socially acceptable meaning of the word. "Us atheists" is yet another example of showing religious characteristics, by implying a solidarity.

quote:
don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.
You're the one posting personal insults and then saying "just kidding!" when called on it. Ask anyone here if I post any different. Perhaps you have a misconception of what you may have thought I am/was. That's your problem.

quote:
But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.)
What nerve do you think it struck? I have no faith in any divine being, Christian or otherwise. I have repeatedly posted point/counterpoint replies to just about everything you have said, and you're saying I've ignored or played hurt. You're either being ridiculously facetious or just plain lying. Either way, you're just trolling even more.

quote:
You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.
Are you here "representing" atheism? If so, what does David (unmaker) represent? Who made up the rule that one has to belong to a religion to call offensive remarks about it offensive? You basically pulled a "whoops, sorry, I only said that because <insert another ignorant and insulting remark>" when called on it, which is hardly an actual apology. You may as well have said, "I didn't mean to call him a nigger, I meant to say porch monkey."

quote:
Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.
No, I have explained why for every time I called you on being dogmatic. In almost every instance with you, it was either a disregard for anything not associated/accepted by general atheist as inferior, or it was statements made with ignorance about the other religions you made the statements about (Jewish science, Islamic science, etc.). The only links I disputed were Eric's (eslain), which I gave counters to and explained how the link did nothing to define his argument, and Glen's links to—surprise, surprise—atheist apologetics. All apologetics are arguments used to hide the dogma of the religion, not a disproof of it being a religion. A spade is a spade is a spade.

quote:
Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.
See my first post. I already described what makes atheism a religion: faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof), the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this), a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm. The only argument for atheism not being a religion is the lack of an institution, and there are institutions—web sites, support groups, churches like Humanist churches—that could arguably qualify.

quote:
You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.
Right. More insults. Golden.
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
I already described what makes atheism a religion: faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof), the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this), a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm. The only argument for atheism not being a religion is the lack of an institution, and there are institutions—web sites, support groups, churches like Humanist churches—that could arguably qualify.
This is an interesting definition. I am curious on the "faith" point in your definition. What faith do athiests ascribe to that makes them any different than someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny? Assumption, maybe, but I don't think "faith" describes it. The next two definitions (modern thought and leap of faith points) also don't make sense to me (living with and being almost an athiest...tough to shake those Catholic upbringings). Could you explain? I am wondering, is the reverse true for folks WITH religious faiths? Is the assumption of a 'Leap of Faith' experience coming from the idea that at one time, folks believed in something and now don't shows this 'leap?' Again, to pick on the childhood beliefs, is this like the time when little ones stop believing in Santa? The realization or 'leap of faith' experience when they realize what is really going on? Interestings points. I don't agree with a good hunk of them, but still interesting. In short, I still stand with the "athiesm is not a religion."

fil
 
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
quote:
It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster
Agreed, a good idea. I can see how this thread quickly derails as though it seems like an easy question ("is athiesm religion?") it really has a lot of definitions. The definition of religion really seems to morph person to person. If the institution definition is put forward, then no, it isn't a religion. There are no "Church of the Eternal Athiest" with mugs, bake sales and car washes. If the Federal definition is put forward, then no, it isn't...I can't claim a tax exempt status for gathering with non-god believing friends to discuss our non-belief in the divine. But when we do as some and start to conclude that the very discussion of athiesm alone makes it a religion, well then I guess it is, but then so is just about any discussion. Dog Grooming websites discuss in detail rituals, beliefs about it (natural cut or styled for shows, perfumed or not, etc.) and so on which by the same definition, makes it a religion. Facetious, I know.

Is it the online discussion about the unprovable make it religion? Then the dog grooming and sexual fetish sites would then not be religous, but as noted, some scientific understandings and ideas aren't all provable...does that make those discussions religious? (Like discussion of how teleportation or time travel might work, for example)

Oy!

Fallow, you bring up an interesting point...putting egos on the line. Why are people doing that? I guess that could be asked about a lot of threads. [Smile] But still, it is unnerving that so many have gotten so heated up about it. As any parent can tell you, if you want to get off a significantly hot line of discussion, stop that part of the discussion. [Big Grin] People saying "I am waiting for your apology" and "yes, but..." statements will only enflame. Move on. Get back to the meat of the discussion as there is plenty of points of view to discuss without a "he said/she said" type argument.

Hey, that should be a thread..."Argument Clinic." Hmmm...

fil
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
quote:
By the way, David, what do you think of my claim that atheism is a "religion without an institution (yet)?"
Well, I would say you're on to something, but it's not quite what you think. AMERICAN progressive atheists are beginning to coalesce into a religion, but the simple fact of being atheist doesn't make one religious, just as the simple fact of believing in god doesn't make one religious, either.

Theism isn't a religion. Saying, "Yeah, I think there's a god" is a statement of faith, but not of religion, because religion requires more than one tenet.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Here's how I'd define religion:

Religion - any identity-defining set of one's most fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, how to understand it, and what one's role should be within it.
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
Regarding the definition of religion, I'm going to offer up what I found at dictionary.com, simply because it makes sense and gets at what people imply when they draw the line between Santa, light switches, and belief in the divine.

quote:
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

By this definition, even a religion with no instution at its center has to have a strong core doctrine that members identify with and follow in their own lives. It's more than a statement of "I think x is true (or untrue)." Also implied is a certain level of fervor for the set of beliefs the person identifies with.

The only think that would fit the bill here in terms of atheism is a group of people who strongly identify with a set of atheist beliefs and practices above and beyond "we don't think there's a god" and set aside a certain portion of their lives to affirming their truth and practicing it.

Most atheists simply don't care that much about it for their feelings to get that far. Most people simply won't put a lot of energy into advocating and crusading for something that doesn't have a great deal of personal meaning for them. Disbelief doesn't much lend itself to zealotry.
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
Bah, like anyone is going to allow Semanticman ® to dictate definitions to them, Tres

BTW, by your "definition" of falsification, science has no basis for saying anything (like "stars are big balls of gas undergoing extreme nuclear reactions under massive pressure"), because it could all just be GOD and we can't do it in a lab (and even stuff proven in a lab could be work of the DEVIL!!!!).

[ March 19, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Sevumar,

I'd have to say:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. NO

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. NO

The life or condition of a person in a religious order. NO

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. NO

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. YES

I also think that it's pretty self-explanatory.

John L/Leto,

faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof) YES (Because people here have redefined faith as, basically, "believing that anything is true," so I'll give you that one.)

the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this) YES (and you're right--Christian Fundamentalism does not count as a religion, then)

a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," NO (I'll give you the "faith" point, but not the "leap of faith." Enough other people here and elsewhere have made a very good point that not believing in an ill-defined, self-contradicting, unproven, all-powerful entity does not require nearly as much faith as beleiving in one.)

and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm YOU THINK? OF COURSE.

Of course, then Neo-Nazism is a religion, too. So is the belief in Alien contact and extensive anal probing. Crop circles, cow mutilation, NASA man-on-the-moon conspiracies, etc.

Here's a question for you: Do want to weaken the definition of "religion" to the extent that any crackpot scheme can be defined as a religion? Or, is the concept of religion important enough to you that you want to provide it with a more exclusionary definition?

I don't have an answer to that one. It would be like asking a color-blind berson what color to paint the room. But I am asking it as a serious question--it's an important question to be put to anyone claiming to have a definition for anything: Does your definition include the items you want it to include, and exclude the items you want it to exclude?

And the other question I would ask is this: Why do you want to define religion this way?

BTW, I think I've found your sense of humor. The guy in my basement has it. He says you can have it back any time you want it.

--DOG

[ March 19, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
Good points DOG

My answer to this:

quote:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. YES
I think this varies from person to person. I don't identify with any belief in the supernatural or a creator or a god. I'm not a member of any religion. But then again, I don't really care much about it either. It's not a big influence in my life and its role stops at "interesting topic of debate." In my view, that's not a religion.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Sevumar,

I think that the existence of God is a very important question, which is why I pursue it with veal. Um, I'm sorry. Zeal.

It's the guy in the basement that I'm pursuing with veal.

Here's a corrolary question: Seeing a ghost (you know, a real, live ghost)..a good thing, or a bad thing?

--DOG

BTW, Treso--you're too vague. That's just a belief system. I'd have to answer YES.

[ March 19, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Sorry to pick out a seemingly inconsequential point, but:

quote:
Can you argue the non-existence of anything? Is that possible to do?
Yes. It is quite easy to successfully argue the non-existence of the largest prime number. However, as far as I know this kind of non-existence argument only works in formal systems with well-defined rules. Outside of such systems, you're probably correct.

-----

John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
My apologies to DOG.

Beverly:
quote:
A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.
You've hit the nail on the head here. This gets to the issue of "no atheists in foxholes"

Mike and fil:
Regarding atheism (and theism) as part of religion; this is exactly the point I've been trying to arrive at.

Religions all revolve around some kind of belief. But that belief in and of itself does not a religion make.

I said in my original post, there are atheistic religions. I'm only now saying that atheism and theism are merely states of belief, not religions in themselves.

John:
quote:
"Us atheists" is yet another example of showing religious characteristics, by implying a solidarity.
So trade unions are religions, because they imply solidarity?

If I exercise religiously, does that make exercise a religion?

If I have "faith" that my daughter will get home before 10:30, does that become a religious belief?

In an attempt to prove that atheism is a religion, you've watered down the definition of religion to the point where it becomes meaningless.

There are different "theisms" only in that there are different gods to believe in. Satanists believe in the Christian God, does that make them Christians?

Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim that they worship the same God, but in different ways. Does this mean that a Muslim is a Jew, and a Jew is a Christian?

quote:
it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.

A little freudian slip there. Watch your double negatives.

quote:
If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.
Bull. First, my definition of atheism is the version that is accepted by virtually every atheist organization I know of. Second, your definition claims that all atheists assert the nonexistence of God, which simply isn't true.

As far as addressing the other points of my post, you haven't even come close to understanding it, much less addressing it.

quote:
quote:
The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.

Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.

Only when regarding the Christian God. You'll notice I mentioned the divine. If you believe there is no divine, then you are atheist, hence:
quote:
As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,
You must not understand Buddhism enough to understand that while there is no concept of god like Christians believe, there is indeed a divine existance. You should learn to stop defining everything from strictly Western Christian points of view.

You a funny man.

First: You're accusing an atheist of defining everything from a Western Christian point of view.

Second: By defining atheism by Christian terms, you are "defining everything from a Western Christian point of view" instead of accepting the definition used by atheists.

Third: you say Buddhism is atheistic ONLY compared to the Christian God. How many anthropomorphic Gods have you left out? About 10,000? Typical Christian viewpoint.

(Apologies to any other Christians who may be watching, I don't mean to overgeneralize, only to point out the irony of John's accusing me of a "Typical Christian viewpoint")

You attempt to create a false dichotomy between divine and godlike, while failing to address the issue of my post, namely, the difference between belief and knowledge. Whether you like it or not, we need those terms to be distinct, or there is no way to avoid arguing in circles.

But then, my guess is that this is precisely why you choose to use unfair definitions, because you have no interest in achieving understanding.

[ March 20, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Bah, like anyone is going to allow Semanticman ® to dictate definitions to them, Tres
Actually, it seems like if such a person existed, he'd be the guy to turn to in semantic disputes. [Wink]

quote:
BTW, by your "definition" of falsification, science has no basis for saying anything (like "stars are big balls of gas undergoing extreme nuclear reactions under massive pressure"), because it could all just be GOD and we can't do it in a lab (and even stuff proven in a lab could be work of the DEVIL!!!!).
Well, no. It just can't say God didn't do it.

I mean, we can take a ball and drop it a thousand times and then theorize that the ball will drop every time. We can even name that effect gravity. We just can't say God didn't cause it.

quote:
BTW, Treso--you're too vague. That's just a belief system. I'd have to answer YES.
Then what's special about certain belief systems that make them religions?

[ March 20, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Enough other people here and elsewhere have made a very good point that not believing in an ill-defined, self-contradicting, unproven, all-powerful entity does not require nearly as much faith as beleiving in one.)
Actually, they haven't made the point so much as baldly stated it. And the way you framed the question isn't exactly outcome-neutral.

Dagonee
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Glen, you know full well my argument, but in your effort to seem witty, you have to resort to Really Crappy Rhetoric® for no apparent reason other than to try to contradict me. For example:

quote:
So trade unions are religions, because they imply solidarity?

If I exercise religiously, does that make exercise a religion?

If I have "faith" that my daughter will get home before 10:30, does that become a religious belief?

In an attempt to prove that atheism is a religion, you've watered down the definition of religion to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Wrong, unless you seriously can't read separate sentences in succession in the same post and actually tie them together to view ideas. You see, any single one of them would not constitute a religion, but the combination of them do. That you don't understand this is your failing. While I'm actuallty sure you understand, since you have no real argument against it, you have to resort to playing dumb. All playing dumb does is make you look dumb, Glen.

quote:
There are different "theisms" only in that there are different gods to believe in. Satanists believe in the Christian God, does that make them Christians?
Okay, maybe you really are that ignorant. Satanism has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian God (except to say they are not worshiping the Christian Satan), and in fact rejects all religion but its own outright. Satanism as it exists in the modern world is just humanists who have decided to play rituals to spite Western religion (LaVey, the high priest of the Church of Satan, admitted it openly). I mean, maybe you have something stopping you from finding that out, and maybe I'm just lucky to have actually known members of the church, but I seriously doubt it. Once again, you are living under the misconceptions and influences of Western Christianity, most notably influenced by the early Lutherian Church, that anything not of the Christian faith—meaning religions now called "witchcraft" and the occult—are satanic in origin instead of their own separate faiths. You can learn more here, and get a little more perspective instead of ignorant claims. I guess you really can't be blamed too much for your ignorance, since it's merely a result of Western influence, both directly by claims of the churches and indirectly by film and television.

Bottom line: Satanism does not believe in the same god as Christianity. That is a misconception influenced by the Christian church. Fine job of giving us a direct example of such an influence, Glen.

quote:
Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim that they worship the same God, but in different ways. Does this mean that a Muslim is a Jew, and a Jew is a Christian?
Nope, because as far as Christianity is concerned, Jews are not "fulfilled" unless they also worship Christ—making it a different diefication than Christianity—and Muslims are not because they don't accept Jesus as the son of their god. As far as Muslims are concerned, both Christians and Jews are "people of the book" and are equally justified to observe Allah as seems righteous. So, in essence, your ignorant simplification of "the same god" is mistaken, as well as the inclusiveness of belief for all three faiths. For Christianity and Judaism, there are very distinct and huge differences in their godhead that makes their idea of "god" very different from each other, while Islam believes exactly as you are trying to simplify. But I'm sure you already knew this, right? You're just asking these incredibly ignorant questions for... well, why? To imply that if something is similar, it must be the same? Gee, can you point out where I insisted that, and not something specific that you are taking completely out of context?

Once again, that's really crappy rhetoric, Mr Arnold

quote:
quote:

it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.

A little freudian slip there. Watch your double negatives.
Ahh, the lamest of all responses when lacking sufficient argument: point out grammar mistakes. Luckily for your pride, I feel no need to go through your posts and point out spelling, grammar, and usage mistakes. Of course, that's because you have flaws in your actual argument itself, so I don't have to mince words in order to find an adequate argument against your ignorance. For example:

quote:
quote:

If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.

Bull. First, my definition of atheism is the version that is accepted by virtually every atheist organization I know of. Second, your definition claims that all atheists assert the nonexistence of God, which simply isn't true.
First, your definition of atheism is WRONG. Second, your "version" is accepted as the typical argument by atheist "organizations" (not "churches," though! They aren't a religion!) as direct apologetics for the "atheism is a religion" claim. How funny that these selfsame "organizations" (not churches!) spend so much time in the arguments against Christianity "disproving" the existance of god and the divine.

quote:
You a funny man.
When in doubt, hurl personal insults. How impressive.

quote:
First: You're accusing an atheist of defining everything from a Western Christian point of view.
If the shoe fits. You sure had no problem using the Western Christian PoV regarding "satanism."

quote:
Second: By defining atheism by Christian terms, you are "defining everything from a Western Christian point of view" instead of accepting the definition used by atheists.
Oooh! An "I know you are but what am I?" argument! How creative. Nope, I'm not the one who has made cases against "religion" by always referencing a single god or even the belief in a single god. That's what atheism does. That's what you did when talking about satanism—which I should thank you for showing such a good example of that influenced ignorance. Ironic that in a single post you contradict yourself so cleanly.

quote:
Third: you say Buddhism is atheistic ONLY compared to the Christian God.
I never said that. I said it has a belief in the divine, not comparable to Western Judeo-Christianity. Reading is fundemental. Do not mosquote me like this and expect to be taken seriously.

quote:
How many anthropomorphic Gods have you left out? About 10,000? Typical Christian viewpoint.
What the hell are you talking about? And I'm not referring to the anthropomorphic gods throughout many Eastern religions—they are not comparable too the Christian concept of God. Since I wasn't saying they were the same—quite the opposite, in fact—you are arguing against something that doesn't exist. You were the one to originally claim Buddhism was atheistic, which it is not, and you were the one to base your assumption on the Western Christian concept of God. And now you're saying "I know you are but what am I?" in response to my pointing that out. That's really freaking lame.

quote:
You attempt to create a false dichotomy between divine and godlike, while failing to address the issue of my post, namely, the difference between belief and knowledge.
There is no dichotomy between the divine and the Christian concept of God. The divine covers many different things, only one of which is the Judeo-Christian concept of God. You trying to paint what I say as anything otherwise is your attempt to misquote and take everything I say completely out of context because you have no real argument against what I really say.

I also pointed out that the difference you make between "knowledge" and "bellief" is that you are saying knowledge is superior, and that atheistic knowledge is superior to other religions' beliefs. DOG was a great example of that as well. In case you didn't know it, that's an example of dogma.

quote:
Whether you like it or not, we need those terms to be distinct, or there is no way to avoid arguing in circles.
Yeah, especially when the traditionally accepted definitions are unacceptable to you, because the only defense you can give is "I define it differentlty." Gee, if all someone had to do to argue successfully against something is redefine definitions, I guess anyone can feel they are totally correct and everyone else is wrong. Nevermind that such is an example of lack of logical rhetorical tools and critical thinking skill.

quote:
But then, my guess is that this is precisely why you choose to use unfair definitions, because you have no interest in achieving understanding.
It's unfair to you because you don't get to adjust it to suit your argument, instead of actually using logic and reasoning to form a concrete argument. Instead, you cry "I define it differently!" and "I know you are but what am I?" in response to what I say. Granted, you say it in a much more long-winded and comprehensive manner, but that is essentially all you have said.

Good show, man. Any more such posts to me won't even be given the credit of a response.

Mike:
quote:
John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?
I say I'm talking about apples and fil is talking about oranges, then. Atheism is used as part of some religions, yes, but has been slowly becoming its own religion as well. Consideirng the history of many other religions, this kind of "offshooting" shouldn't be so unbelievable. Just because they believe some of the same things doesn't make them the same, only similar. That's why LDS and JW are similar, but not the same. And discussion of both in terms of Catholicism is not addressing each of them in proper context, only in comparison to Catholicism.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

I like the "argument clinic" idea. That's kinda what I was going for in an obtuse way with my "commentator" remarks and lame visuals. I think this kind of discussion might be better done in the context of a "sparring session" rather than the tone it sometimes takes around here.

fallow
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
quote:
Religion - any identity-defining set of one's most fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, how to understand it, and what one's role should be within it
Tres, the problem with your definition is that it encompasses every human being on the planet with sentience. Reduce a definition enough, it no longer serves its purpose. Other people agree. In order to function as something that is useful to us, it must reasonably represent the commonly accepted set of religions, and not an excessive number of things commonly not accepted as religion.

John L's apparent definition of religion would have to include any group of people organized under a set of core beliefs, especially if these core beliefs affect their surroundings/interactions with their surroundings. Environmentalists, for example, would be religious under my understanding of his definition. So would Pro-choice activists. And so would Vegans. And Vegetarians. And Democrats. But the problem is that these groups inter-relate. One can be a member of many of these organized belief systems. I'd prefer a definition of religion that would minimize cross-membership. Some religious allow for companion belief to an extent (see Unitarians, maybe Vedanta), but there is a commonly agreed limit. If someone were to tell you that they're a staunch Muslim and Christian and Vajrayana Buddhist, as well as Shinto, you might not take them seriously. This person's definition of 'staunch' would lose its usefulness.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Suneun,

Considering that "religions" are severely disadvantaged in the allocation of public resources, it is important to have an expansive definition of religion, at least with respect to public funding of expressive activities. For example, environmental groups advocating severe population controls including legalized suicide and forced child-per-couple limits (presumably enforced via abortion) can receive funding from student activity fees at many public colleges, while a group opposing such policies from a religious perspective cannot.

Similarly, an artist can receive public funding for displays using religious symbols for the purpose of ridicule, but an artistic representation of the crucifixion is denied funding because it is religious.

I'm opposed to the government granting resources for purely expressive behavior when the government must examine the content of the expression. And as long as one category of speech is continually disfavored in allocation of public resources, I'm opposed to government funding of any expressive behavior.

But it seems unlikely that such public funding will be eliminated, so I think it's necessary to define religion expansively in order to protect taxpayers from funding purely expressive behavior that is reprehensible to their conscience.

How's that for a derailment? [Smile]

Dagonee
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I respectfully disagree.

=)

Nope, I don't have a good argument against, yet. But I think the expansiveness of the definition brings a lot of problems. Like if Environmentalism counts as religion, then what do we do with political parties? They'd count as religion if environmentalism did. Then where would we be?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, forgetting an actual definition of religion for a minute, what are your thoughts on government funding of private expression?

If the principle of the establishment clause is to keep government from forcing people to support speech that is against their conscience, should the same principle apply to "non-religious" forms of expression?

Dagonee
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dag, belief in democracy would fall under that definition of religion. And somehow I think government funds, even if obtained from those who dislike democracy, going to democracy just isn't unjust.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't feel strongly about things like humanities grants and arts funding. In general, I approve of them. In general, I think that the government and govt spending is simply inefficient, not necessarily that the money is being allocated inappropriately. I hate seeing money wasted on excessive bureaucracy.

It's like new operating systems. When Microsoft and Apple used to update an OS, they'd just build on top of the existing system. The performance suffered, because they weren't willing to reconstruct and optimize the system. Now, both companies have created more streamlined operating systems that do more with their resources.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
That's pretty clearly not the purpose of the establishment clause, I think. The purpose is to prevent the creation of a state religion, not prevent the funding of forms of expression which are not universally approved of. I mean, political protest is a form of expression that's not universally approved of, yet our government supports that wholeheartedly (well, parts of it do).
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
fugu, then why is religious expression specifically excluded if it is granted on the same basis to all religious groups (which would mean no one religion is being "established").

When funds are forcibly collected from all and then used to fund some forms of expression but not others, certain groups are disadvantaged.

Further, enforcing this kind of ban necessarily requires the government to examine the content of the speech being funded, and denying funding to "disapproved" kinds of speech. Sounds like censorship to me.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Tres, the problem with your definition is that it encompasses every human being on the planet with sentience. Reduce a definition enough, it no longer serves its purpose. Other people agree. In order to function as something that is useful to us, it must reasonably represent the commonly accepted set of religions, and not an excessive number of things commonly not accepted as religion.
Well, everyone has a religion, don't they? I certainly think so.

As for representing the "commonly accepted set of religions", are you proposing we solve this dispute by majority vote? Count the number of people who think atheism is a religion, and count those who don't, and whoever has the most wins?

No, you can't deal with definitions like that. Whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily right. Sometimes the majority is mistaken. For instance, if it is commonly accepted that "Muslim" means "terrorist extremist", that doesn't make it true. Or, if it is commonly accepted that "Cult" should be defined in such a way as to include Mormonism, that doesn't mean Mormonism is a Cult. It might just mean the majority is mistaken.

And although my definition should include every person, I don't think it is at all overinclusive. After all, very few belief systems qualify as fundamental, identity-defining beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and how to act in it. Environmentalism certainly would not make this cut, except for the hypothetical person who treats environmentalism with the same fundamental importance in all decisions with which Christians treat God - in which case, shouldn't it also be called a religion? I very much doubt, also, that anyone treats faith in democracy as some fundamental prism through which to view the universe.

But just consider the way in which someone might jokingly say "Basketball is practically a religion for you." I've heard expressions like this many times. Do they imply I think basketball is supernatural? No - that's not the joke at all. They are implying that basketball is something fundamental to my identity and the way I see the world - that to me it is as important to me and the way I see all things as God would be to Christians.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

I'm opposed to the government granting resources for purely expressive behavior when the government must examine the content of the expression. And as long as one category of speech is continually disfavored in allocation of public resources, I'm opposed to government funding of any expressive behavior.

But it seems unlikely that such public funding will be eliminated, so I think it's necessary to define religion expansively in order to protect taxpayers from funding purely expressive behavior that is reprehensible to their conscience.


Plenty of public funding goes towards restricting public expression to the sensibilities of what would commonly be called religious people. And I'll bet you the amount of fines that are collected from people stepping over that line outweigh the amount of money doled out to fund the (few?) peices of art that they would find objectionable.

So, let's just get the government out of the regulating expression business all together, shall we? [Smile]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Because the idea isn't to forbid only the establishment of religion, its to prevent the establishement of religion, or even the preference of organized religion over non-organized religion and non-religion. Remember that many of the founding fathers were deists, a non-organized religions of sorts. From their perspective, I think, any funding of religion would lead to an automatic discrimantion against their religious beliefs. It is because beliefs on religion are so valued that they are not funded, not because they are not valued.

[ March 20, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't mean that it would be a vote at all. It's like this:

{1, 2, 3, 4} commonly accepted as being in group A
{5, 6, 7} unknown set
{8, 9, 10} commonly accepted as being not-A

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, all commonly accepted as religion.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Science are unknown in this debate
Democracy, Vegetarianism, Environmentalism are commonly accepted as not-religion. Substitute in 'Liking Basketball a lot,' 'Collecting weapons,' and 'Really Liking Meat,' if you'd like.

To be a helpful definition, it would encompass all of the group A responses, and none of the not-A responses. Then we can see if the unknowns fit or don't fit.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
where's DOG?
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Well, my defintion includes all of A, and excludes all of not-A, except in cases where the things in not-A would actually be referred to as religions.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
But I think your definition does include Environmentalism and Democracy and Vegetarianism. Let me trounce up some backing information and compile an example. But I don't agree that you've won this one with such a definition.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Okay, this is off the top of my head without actually being them in particular. They're only examples of how one person might respond.

I broke it down into:
1) nature of universe
2) how to understand universe
3) role in universe

I don't think I, personally, can answer "how to understand universe." I, uhh... watch it? Okay. I watch it. That's how I understand it.

Vegetarian:
1) Filled with living creatures deserving of life
2) by positively interacting with living creatures
3) by not eating/harming living creatures.

Democracy:
1) That the universe exists with equal rights to all humanoids, and humanoids have the ability and right to manipulate the universe
2) Understand the universe by seeing how actions affect the universe
3) Role should be making decisions based on majority vote while also taking the minority under consideration (simplified democracy)

Environmentalist:
1) Universe is worthy of maintaining because of its own inherent worth
2) Understand through appreciation
3) interact with as little impact on the environment as possible.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
btw, someone else feel free to bolster those admittedly mediocre descriptions.

Besides those descriptions, if every sentient being has an opinion about what the universe is, whether it be based on exterior content or interior thought, and you define that as religious, then how does that help in Dagonee's quest to minimize governmental involvement?
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
quote:
No, you can't deal with definitions like that. Whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily right. Sometimes the majority is mistaken. For instance, if it is commonly accepted that "Muslim" means "terrorist extremist", that doesn't make it true. Or, if it is commonly accepted that "Cult" should be defined in such a way as to include Mormonism, that doesn't mean Mormonism is a Cult. It might just mean the majority is mistaken.
Credit Xaposert

And this is exactly my point regarding John L.'s definition of atheism. His definition, that an atheist denies the existence of God, is just as untrue as the definition of Muslim as terrorist. Since it's untrue, the definition is invalid.

You know, what's weird here is that essentially, John is accusing me of defining my terms.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Look, no one in this thread has been able to agree on a definition of religion. So how can we fairly distinguish between religious and non-religious expression in the funding of expression? And if we can't make the distinction fairly, why should we be making it at all. But without making the distinction, we either need to fund religious speech or fund no speech - any other decision will require deciding if speech is religious.

The University of Virginia's attempt to deny my free speech rights ended up costing them over half a million dollars - $5500 to the magazine they denied funding to and the rest in their and our lawyers fees (since this was a civil rights case). All due to the University thinking it was OK to make funding decisions based on the content of the speech, and thinking this was OK because our speech was "religious."

I would much rather the University have simply not funded any speech. But given that my student activities fees went to the humor magazine that constantly made fun of Christianity, the liberal weekly that supported the Act-Up demonstrations in New York that resulted in the Eucharist being desecrated, and the daily newspaper that ran an op-ed "proving" God does not exist, I had to stand up for equal free speech rights.

Why are most of the atheists so dead-set against their beleifs being categorized as religious if the word doesn't carry serious detrimental effects in societal discourse?

Dagonee
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
quote:
John L's apparent definition of religion would have to include any group of people organized under a set of core beliefs, especially if these core beliefs affect their surroundings/interactions with their surroundings. Environmentalists, for example, would be religious under my understanding of his definition. So would Pro-choice activists. And so would Vegans. And Vegetarians. And Democrats. But the problem is that these groups inter-relate.
You are seriously misunderstanding my definition, because you are missing key elements in all of your "examples" of what you inaccurately think would fall under religion under what you inadequately think my terms are. You see, each of those poor examples are specific to things outside of the nature of the universe and/of life in general. They are results, not causes. Religions are causes by which effects are both initiated and judged.

Can someone not be a Democrat and a Christian (no jokes, please)? A Vegetarian and a Muslim? A Buddhist and an environmentalist? The reason the answer for each is a resounding "yes" is because each of the incorrect examples that you think would fit in my definition, Suneun, are compatible with religious beliefs of all types, even if the actions of a person of intermixed categories may be different from a different mix. However, a person cannot be an atheist and a Christian, or an atheist and a Muslim, or an atheist and a Buddhist (Zen or otherwise), Shinto, or any denominations within each. There is an exclusivity within atheism that makes it inherently incompatible with any other religious belief, while those things you listed are not. A religion is something that is mutually exclusive with other religions Suneun—the things you mentioned, and many more, are very much not. The only religions atheism is not mutually exclusive from are religions that already self-identify as atheist religions the way the Baptist Convention or the Sunnis or Zen Buddhists self-identify as parts of a larger category.

And do me a favor: please don't make the the only criteria for "defining religion according to John" now. Include everything, or expect to be called on the disingenuous behavior. Glen and DOG already walked this fallacious path, and it was old already.

Glen:
quote:
And this is exactly my point regarding John L.'s definition of atheism. His definition, that an atheist denies the existence of God, is just as untrue as the definition of Muslim as terrorist. Since it's untrue, the definition is invalid.
[Roll Eyes]

Riiiiiight, because I don't agree with allowing you to redefine the socially, academically, and common definition of the word, I'm a racist. That is the most creative Godwin-esque invocation I have ever seen. Way to further invalidate your argument.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*walks into bleachers with pretzel in mouth*

mmmmMMHHAHAHHRRUMPH!!!!

*sprays pretzel bits*

[ROFL]
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that one can be an atheist and a Unitarian.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
oh, and an atheist and a Jew, though then we get to argue about whether or not all jews have the religion of judaism.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Saying you can be an atheist and a Jew is like saying you can be Catholic and Polish - in this example "Jew" would clearly be used in the ethnic, not religious sense.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and Tres:
quote:
No, you can't deal with definitions like that. Whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily right. Sometimes the majority is mistaken. For instance, if it is commonly accepted that "Muslim" means "terrorist extremist", that doesn't make it true. Or, if it is commonly accepted that "Cult" should be defined in such a way as to include Mormonism, that doesn't mean Mormonism is a Cult. It might just mean the majority is mistaken.
Or it could mean that you should stop using crappy examples: can you actually prove that the "majority" believes that Muslim equals terrorist or that LDS equals a cult? I can agree that those ignoramuses are the loudest, but before I accept your questionable argument, you had better be able to back up your analogy to prove it valid. There are plenty of people who don't think LDS is quite the same as Christianity, but not a cult. Maybe your personal, anecdotal experience is different, but that doesn't make it valid data. Also, you might want to include the group you are accusing of this ignorance. "People" is way too vague, and even with something as specific as "US citizens" is going to take a lot more than polls taken of a 1000 random people who consented to a poll (since many refuse) to represent the 400+ million people within the united states (after all, is one quarter of one percent going to be accurate?). While this really sounds like you have a solid and somewhat valid claim, you are expect me to believe things which you have done nothing to show are accurate, and are more than debatable in and of themselves.

In other words, you basically used the "maybe the majority who disagrees are racist" as an excuse. Really lame, and really weak.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*throws poncho back, stands, and applauds*

YES!
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Well, I am going to address Leto's first remarks, I guess... I really hate doing this at this point, but...

"Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive)."

Well, yes and no. Leto has been relying a lot on definitions in order to make his claim that atheism is a religion, while conviently ignoring other definitions.

For example, "faith"
"1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs."

So there's two problems here.
1) The faith in the first definition, and the faith in the rest, are very different... and the faith employed by religions is different then that employed by most atheists.
2) Many atheists do not reject god because of an understanding of scientific principles, or actually, for any scientific reason.

"Atheists periodically change some of their arguments to fit modern knowledge of why and how things work, yet ignorantly assume other religions don't do the exact same thing. Sounds a whole lot like dogma to me."

False. Many atheists do not make this assumption, in fact, many atheists point out that religions change core beliefs over the years.

"If an atheist wants to have a regular set of "life rules" from which to live, there is an option: it's called Humanism. Not all Christians belong to a single church for their theism?are they not still Christians? Depending on who you ask, the answer would be "no," mostly from the crowd who defines their Christianity by the church to which they belong. However, these people believe in a god, and they specifically believe in the Christian God. Atheists believe in the non-existance of that and any other god, and most don't have affiliation with any specific institution?does that make them less of an atheist?"

A positive and a negative belief are very different things, from an epistomalogical standpoint. Here, Leto is trying to sell the idea that because theists who believe in the same god all share a religion, those who believe there is no god must share a religion. This is a logically incorrect assumption. While athiests certainly share a view on what god is like, ie, "there is no god," negative and positive statements differ logically. Leto actually traps himself on this one, by later stating that atheism is the denial of the existence of god.

X and =!X are different statements.

"It requires just as much faith to believe there is no divine as it takes to require in the existance of the divine. Neither can be had without a leap of faith included in the belief."

Perhaps, though this is again untrue logically speaking. When there is no reason to believe something exists, then the default position is that it does not exist, but that pending further information, it may exist. Most atheists fall into this structure... "I don't believe god exists, but certain information could lead me to change my mind." Again, Leto is trying to make X and =!X equal, when the problem is, they aren't.

I will admit that it takes just as much faith to say "God absolutely does not exist" as to say "God absolutely exists." Neither is a provable statement. However, as above, faith has differing definitions, and the ones used with religions are not the ones used with atheism.

Since leto is using modern definitions to try to make his point, I will bring up the modern definitions of atheism...

"re·li·gion P Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

The only way atheism fits that definition is the last definition, ie, "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion"

Which means that, if you persue atheism with zeal or conscientious devotion, you are a religious atheist. If not, you aren't religious.

Leto talks about having vested interests. I am not sure what his is, but the zeal and conscientious devotion to which he persues the idea that atheism is a religion suggests to me that his religion involves proclaiming that atheism is a relgiion.
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*sits back down on rain-soaked poncho*
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*contemplates soggy pretzel, tosses aside, and looks up*

*stands back up*

Go, big [insert color - what's the team color?]!!!
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
"An aspect of Chinese religions that Western students may find puzzling is their syncretic nature. The European or American finds it difficult to advocate more than one religion at a time. the Christian may be tolerant of the views of a Jewish neighbor but could never say, "I am a Christian and a Jew," or "I am a Christian and I am a Muslim." The very nature of these religions makes it impossible to adhere to more than one at a time. This is not the case with Chinese religions. It is perfectly acceptable to be a Buddhist, Taoist, and a Confucian. ... This willingness on the part of the Chinese to harmonize the teachings of wildly diverse religions must have been maddening to Muslim and Christian missionaries."

--Religions of the World, Seventh Edition. Hopfe and Woodward.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
John:

You're missing the point on the "Muslim means terrorist extremist." Or "Blacks are 3/5 human."

While both of these definition are rooted in racism, that's not what makes them good examples.

What makes them good examples is simply that they are untrue.

Just as it's untrue that all atheists deny the existence of god.

Muslim terrorist extremists exist. But they are a subset of Muslims. The two terms are not interchangable.

Likewise, there are atheists who deny the existence of god. But they are also a subset. The definition you cling to is an untrue generalization.

I'll repeat my definition here:

Atheist: A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.

This is a superset of your definition. Certainly there are atheists who deny god's existence. But that isn't what defines us.

I really like Beverly's description:
quote:
A true atheist believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God.
Emphasis on "enough." No more is necessary.

And her example:
quote:
A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.
This is quite accurate. Note, she points out what an atheist would not do, rather than what an atheist would do. Atheists are defined by what we are not, or would not do, rather than by what we are or do.

[ March 21, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Fallow,

Please stop wasting perfectly good pretzels! Just because they've fallen on the ground, or got spit all over them doesn't make them bad! Can I have them? Thank you.

John,

quote:
basically pulled a "whoops, sorry, I only said that because <insert another ignorant and insulting remark>" when called on it, which is hardly an actual apology. You may as well have said, "I didn't mean to call him a nigger, I meant to say porch monkey."

So, you equate my use of the term "Mohammedism" with the epithet "Nigger," my joking use of the work "Moslem" with "Porch Monkey," and the correct phrase "Islam" I guess, with "Black,' or "African American."

And, after I repeatedly apologized for the incorrect use of "Mohammedism," and the intentionally incorrect use of the word "Moslem" in an attempt to show my (rare) attempt at avoiding pure idiocy, you still continue not to accept any of it, and continue to be offended (after all, you keep bringing it up).

So, if it's NOT OK for me to use the phrase "Moslem" in an attempt to ridicule my own ignorance, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S OK FOR YOU TO USE THE WORD "NIGGER" IN A SIMILAR WAY?

Listen--you're right. One does not have to be a member of a particular group to be offended "for" members of that group. You do know, however, that one risks over-reacting when doing that.

And you do understand that I am black, don't you? And a woman. And a Jew (because my mother was Jewish, I would supposedly be welcomed in Israel with open arms). And an atheist.

And, according to your last of four possible definitions (are you ever going to pick one? They appear to be independent definitions--if I match only one, then the definition applies), I am a Religious Atheist.

However, according to others here, since I have no T-shirt or mugs proclaiming my atheism, I'm not in a religion...I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

BTW, I thank many of the other people here who have realized that there is a general distortion and devaluation of the concept (or, at least the definition) of "Faith," 'Belief," and "Religion," for reasons not yet discernable.

How many words were Orwell's characters allowed in 1984? It seems like there are some people on this thread who would love to see the acceptance of the idea that:

Belief = Faith = Knowledge = Truth

I've read this somewhere else on this site, in some old religious thread--it would appear that people trying to "Prove" the existence of God, or trying to disprove the points made towards his supposed non-existence, become over-eager to devalue the concept of knowledge, and of truth, especially when the knowledge has been developed using anything approaching the scientific method.

The moment anyone starts asking, "how do we really know anything?" or "all ideas are equally valid," or that knowledge is no better or different than faith, you can hear the underpinnings of logical discourse being slowly but surely sawn away.

--DOG

[ March 21, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
I'm confused. Webster lists "moslem" as a variant of "muslim". Are you really offended by non-standard spellings, John?
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
John:

quote:
Mike:
quote:

John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?

I say I'm talking about apples and fil is talking about oranges, then. Atheism is used as part of some religions, yes, but has been slowly becoming its own religion as well. Consideirng the history of many other religions, this kind of "offshooting" shouldn't be so unbelievable. Just because they believe some of the same things doesn't make them the same, only similar. That's why LDS and JW are similar, but not the same. And discussion of both in terms of Catholicism is not addressing each of them in proper context, only in comparison to Catholicism.
I agree about the apples and oranges. [Smile]

I think the two different things we're talking about are (1) atheism and (2) The Religion of Atheism, leaving aside the question of whether (2) exists or not. We can even define (1) in the stronger sense of someone who believes (or has faith, if you prefer) that God (or the divine) doesn't exist.

OK.

So, the question is, is a Unitarian atheist (or a Jewish atheist, as I am*), who is an atheist in the sense of (1) above, also necessarily a member of the Religion of Atheism (sense (2))?

John, you may be right about the formation of an atheist religion in this country, but I think you are wrong to assume that all (or even most) atheists belong to it.

-----

* And not quite in the sense that Dagonee suggested, as I do practice some Jewish traditions and I consider myself more than just an ethnic Jew. Yet also an atheist.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
BTW, when my mother was dying of leukemia (a most horrible way to go, I might add; I strongly reccommend against dying from leukemia), she did not "all-of-a-sudden" become religious on her deathbed. She stayed an atheist to the end.

And of course, as atheists, we feel that it really is the end.

My father, brother and I were very uncomfortable at the Jewish funeral. Somewhat less talk about "God's love," and ascending into heaven than I've heard at Christian funerals, but enough to make us think, "Oh, shut up! and let's continue!" None of us felt the least bit comforted by any of this.

As I threw the rocks down onto my mother's simple coffin, I thought, "there she is; whatever she was--whatever she had--is now lost. Her mind, her brain, is already starting to collapse and decompose. All her knowledge, all her love and laughter, lost."

That's atheism. It ain't no religion, friends.

--DOG

[ March 21, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I never said all atheists belong to it, fallow. In fact, most atheists have such a knee-jerk reaction to the word "religion" that they practically retch at the slightest implication of belonging to one.

As for the rest of you: screw it, you can have this stupid argument. All you are doing is redefining and trying to recreate the world to work according to your rules instead of the rules they work by. Someday, you might finally understand, but people have been known to live their whole life without even trying in other religions, so I don't really expect it.

Oh, and Glen: that quote misstates something about those Eastern religions: they aren't talking about having different religious beliefs coexisting. Confucianism is more of a social outlook than it is a religion, much like Humanism (one can be humanist and Christian as well, just subtract the atheism). It can incorporate the religious aspects of something larger, like Buddhism or the Tao (which, by the way, is similar to Confucianism). For example, "It is perfectly acceptable to be a Buddhist, Taoist, and a Confucian." To mix the three would make the person not completely Buddhist, not solely a Taoist, and more a social Confucian than religious. Trying to get out on some kind of technicality is really poor rhetoric, since the whole way religion is handled is different between East and West, and the only things that are interchangable in Eastern religion are the ways of living, not the religious beliefs. There are splits in Buddhism over this very thing, in case you didn't know that (much like the differences between the Catholic church and the LDS church and the JW church). Still mutually exclusive, they're just easier to interchange and modify into slightly different faiths than the West is.

And DOG, really nice to pull a "just kidding!" after doing it.

quote:
I'm confused. Webster lists "moslem" as a variant of "muslim". Are you really offended by non-standard spellings, John?
Yes:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2057710
quote:
Finally, Kathy Park wants to know why “Moslem” is considered an offensive spelling. The problem with spelling the Arabic word meaning “one who surrenders to God” as “Moslem” and not “Muslim” is that people end up pronouncing it mawslem, which is a different word that means “oppressor.”
http://www.mcb.org.uk/demonising.html
quote:
A further welcome step has been the move by the Daily Express to use the spelling 'Muslim' rather than 'Moslem', after representations from the MCB in July 2002. The latter perverse spelling is prevalent in a number of papers and the MCB intends to pursue the matter.
http://www2.evansville.edu/msa/PagesForNonMuslims/Dialogue/IslamMuslims.html
quote:
A “Muslim” is a member of the Islamic faith. In 1990, the Associated Press altered its stylebook to drop the highly offensive and misleading spelling Moslem, and replaced it with the acceptable and phonetically correct spelling “Muslim.” The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, are using this spelling.

The use of the term “Mohammadan”—a usage initiated by some early orientalists—is highly misleading because it implies the worship of Muhammad, a concept totally alien to the Muslim belief.

(credit to Kama)

Do I need to go any further?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
As someone who's been called a papist more than once, I can sympathize with not wanting to be called "Mohammadan." I didn't know about the different spellings of muslim, though. Thanks for the info.

Dagonee
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Well, John, I had no idea that "Moslem" was considered offensive.

Even though, of course, British newspapers (who do this sort of thing for a living) didn't fix it until 2002. I'll fix my spelling now.

Tell me again, though, just how this proves that I'm a contemptuous moron?

BTW, The "Just kidding" was always there. Unfortunately, without a sense of humor, you were unable to see it.

So let's leave it at this: I'm a contemptuous moron, and you're a humorless schmuck. Have a nice life. I'm gone.

[ March 21, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"As for the rest of you: screw it, you can have this stupid argument. All you are doing is redefining and trying to recreate the world to work according to your rules instead of the rules they work by"

Or maybe you are just wrong, and atheism by itself isn't a religion, but requires other epistomological, metaphysical, and ethical statements in order to be a part of a religion.
 
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Or maybe no matter what I say, Paul, you'll say "it isn't true because I define things differently!" for every point I make.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Of course, thats not what I did, John. Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed, or use logic in a manner that makes your arguments incorrect.
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
By the way, if anyone cares (I pretty much don't any more), this whole thing started with my saying "Mohammedism" instead of "Islam" in describing the Muslim faith.

From John:
quote:
quote:

Mohammedism?

How very insulting. It's called Islam. Islam.
To which I replied:
quote:
Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith."
Which apparently deeply offended (and continues to offend) John; who is--as we now know, neither Islamic nor very religious.

But I'm so very tired of his nonsense. He seems to constantly accuse others of the very same things he is guilty of himself. He insults me, and accuses me of calling him names (to be honest, I have--I told him to bite me, and called him a schmuck, but he seems to find my supposed slights towards him in totally unexpected places). I also told him that I personally found some of his responses contemptible. Which I still do.

He also demanded my apology on a number of occasions, but has tended not to be satisfied by my response unless I meet certain unspecified criteria. And, on the other hand, he has never apologized for nor barely acknowledged his own errors.

This is no longer a viable discussion for me. I have answered the initial question put forth, and have (I feel) contributed some valuable insight. It has degraded into a frustrating series if invectives, and unless something changes (and I don't know what--but, like pornography, I'll know it when I see it), I'm bugging out.

[Wall Bash] [Wall Bash] [Wall Bash]

--DOG

[ March 21, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
quote:
It's "DOG," not "Dog." As far as I know, there is no "Dog."
Ahem [Smile]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
A pat on the head from Geoff helps, too... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
(now gets it)

But RND, are you a Rat or a Dog?

I thought the following quotation was from Mark Twain, but it turns out it is attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

President Lincoln once got into an argument with a man who insisted that if they re-framed the issue by calling it another name, there would be no disagreement. The exasperated President is said to have replied, "Look here. If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would it have?" "Why, five", said the man. "Wrong", said President Lincoln. "Four. You can call it a leg, but it's still a tail."

Like I said, there is no "Dog."

This one, Mark Twain did say, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
 
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Now, if you had said, There is no dog, then I would have agreed with you, since I am merely a rat whose NAME is Dog. But since you said There is no "Dog," putting quotes around the word Dog to cite it as a name and not an animal, I have to take exception. There is a poster here named "Dog". One who happens to be a rat.

This is all very, very important [Smile]
 
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
RND,

I find your answer insulting and contemptuous...

Oh, wait--I'm posting as DOG, not John L.

I'll be right back---don't look! (takes off glasses)
 
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*listens to other game on the radio*

*mutters to self*

"antheism ain't a religion!"

*watches crybabies leave the field and hopes for a good halftime show*

*pulls pamphlet from back pocket*

"It says so right here!"

*jabs finger at blank page*
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2