posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that one can be an atheist and a Unitarian.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, and an atheist and a Jew, though then we get to argue about whether or not all jews have the religion of judaism.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I'm confused. Webster lists "moslem" as a variant of "muslim". Are you really offended by non-standard spellings, John?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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?
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.”
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.
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?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, thats not what I did, John. Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed, or use logic in a manner that makes your arguments incorrect.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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."
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
