The Religion of Atheism

[Rabbie]

I have been called stupid and am not even a theist.

Dan perhaps you should read my post again. I merely advised you not to pretend to be stupid. If i had thought you stupid I would not have bothered to reply to you.

 

[Pauldohert]

What challenge is that?

You asked for an example of something that atheists have achieved. I gave you what I believe to be one. You asked for proof that the person responsible was actually an atheist because you know full well that he existed in a time when it wasn't exactly healthy to come out and say so. Since I can't prove it, you say I've failed.

Why is the fact that religion has - and is - frequently used as an excuse to carry out atrocities 'invalid'?

If you want a challenge, you come up with an example of something terrible carried out in the name of atheism.

Maybe a Venn diagram would help!

 

[Alc]

Maybe a Venn diagram would help!

However you want pretty it up is fine.
I can think of many examples of terrible things done specifically in the name of religion.
I'd like to know one that was done specifically in the name of atheism.

 

[dan-cat]

Therefore, following rationale established earlier, you are a theist.

Can't help but post another of my favorites link

 

[Alisa]

...and requires a set of beliefs that theism fails to conform to.

You are using belief to mean two different things, which is why this argument gets so convoluted. There is belief that is based on reason and logic. For example, I "believe" that the concept we call gravity adequately explains my propensity to remain in my chair instead of floating away.

Then there is "belief" used as a synonym for faith, which means
"believing" in spite of reason and logic, not because of it.

The two uses of the term are completely different, so you can't really use belief in one sense (i.e., believers belive) and then use it in the other sense (atheists believe in not believing) and then try to say that the two are somehow equivalent.

 

[Thales750]

I think you should look in a mirror before castigating everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

You have found God and that has helped you stay sober. Great! I am happy that you have got your life under control and even gladder for your family. An unreformed drinker can be very difficult to live with.

However I do not share your belief in God but that does not not make me a bad person. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the difference between religion and a belief in God. I would agree that the problems are caused by Organised Religion through out the ages and not by individual believers. However I do recognize the picture you draw of bands of Atheists gathering together to form cults and worship etc. This certainly doesn't occur in Britain and I doubt if it happens in the US. Perhaps I am wrong there.

I am a tolerant person and i believe in the doctrine of "Live and let livE" provided you or anyone else does not force their vikews on me. Of course if I attend a debate or post on a forum such as this then a robust exchange of views is to be expected and welcomed. But I expect this to occur in a pleasant way where we respect each other's right to differ. If you don't want this then don't join the debate or even start it.

I agree with you. I do believe, and I KNOW I use language that is fundamentalist in nature. The only point of starting this thread was to watch atheist do the same.

I definitely succeeded.

The remark of mine that was unpleasant (which I apologies by the way), was projected towards the remark of receiving personal attracts.

You can’t dish out personal attacks and then cry foul.

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul and I have history.

Yes - I responded not too kindly to a thread you started suggesting all believers where uneducated.

Eventually after many post of you restating this opionion with scant regard for logic (ironically) I got a litlle fed up with it. I apologised cos of course on the tinterweb things can easily be misconsrued.

Neither of us will be worse off withouit the other - but the thread is the worse of for your snide remarks, about as you call it history. Deal with the present.



Grow up Alisa.

 

[dan-cat]

Dan perhaps you should read my post again. I merely advised you not to pretend to be stupid. If i had thought you stupid I would not have bothered to reply to you.

I've re-read it. You were entertaining the possibility that I was not pretending to be stupid and therefore I am possibly being stupid? That's how I read it, probably wrongly.

Anyway I wasnt being stupid. The car example is a use of reductio ad absurdum much like the spaghetti monster example. It's a case of fighting fire with fire as it were.

My argument remains. Atheism requires a set of beliefs that theism fails to satisfy. It is not simply a negation.

 

[Alc]

Can't help but post another of my favorites link

Another classic.

Have you ever seen 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister'?
If you haven't and you get a chance, they're worth watching.

One of the examples of political logic was something like 'Cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat'

 

[dan-cat]

and then try to say that the two are somehow equivalent.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm simply rejecting your definition of atheism as a negation. You don't have to call your criteria of reason and logic 'beliefs' if you don't want to.

I'm simply saying that the entire process of creating this logical criteria and then throwing 'theism' up against it to see if it will stick is what atheism really is. Indeed your entire approach is that without logic, individuals may not reach atheism.

 

[Rabbie]

I've re-read it. You were entertaining the possibility that I was not pretending to be stupid and therefore I am possibly being stupid? That's how I read it, probably wrongly.

Anyway I wasnt being stupid. The car example is a use of reductio ad absurdum much like the spaghetti monster example. It's a case of fighting fire with fire as it were.

My argument remains. Atheism requires a set of beliefs that theism fails to satisfy. It is not simply a negation.

Perhaps I did not express my self clearly in which case please accept my apologies.

What I meant was that by pretending to be stupid you might give the false impression that you were stupid.

But I am cheered to think you are sleeping in an atheist bed by your criteria.

You must remember also that on the atheist side of this discussion the spaghetti monster is just as real as god or actually as unreal/imaginary as god.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Atheism requires a set of beliefs that theism fails to satisfy

So you are not permitted to say, " I do not know what I do believe in , but its not that, I'm still searching"

brian

Damn I had promised myself to keep out of this thread.

 

[Thales750]

Damn I had promised myself to keep out of this thread.

Hello Brian.

 

[Rabbie]

Another classic.

Have you ever seen 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister'?
If you haven't and you get a chance, they're worth watching.

One of the examples of political logic was something like 'Cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat'

Thus contradicting Baldrick's definition of a cat "Not a dog"

 

[Alc]

So you are not permitted to say, " I do not know what I do believe in , but its not that, I'm still searching"

Why not?
It is possible to be sure what something isn't without knowing what it is.

 

[Alisa]

I'm not trying to do that. I'm simply rejecting your definition of atheism as a negation. You don't have to call your criteria of reason and logic 'beliefs' if you don't want to.

I'm simply saying that the entire process of creating this logical criteria and then throwing 'theism' up against it to see if it will stick is what atheism really is. Indeed your entire approach is that without logic, individuals may not reach atheism.

I think about it a little differently, so I think I will ramble a bit.
Imagine a world where religion never came to exist, and people never concieved of the notion of a god at all. Would those people be atheists? Well they certainly wouldn't be CALLED atheists, because the entire concept of theism, and the later concept of atheism, would never have developed. However, those people would still not believe in god. This non-belief would not be a purposeful nonbelief. Rather, it would be the default position were religion never to have arisen in human culture. That is truly what atheism means to me. I don't believe in god. Because of the context I live in, i.e., a large majority of the U.S. population does believe in god, my non-belief takes the form of a purposeful rejection of what I see around me. If I lived in my rhetorical world where religion never existed in the first place, I would still be an atheist, but I would have no need to label myself as such because that would be like defining myself as a 2-footed human. When everyone has 2 feet, you don't need to point it out.

 

[Alc]

Thus contradicting Baldrick's definition of a cat "Not a dog"

Quite.
Possibly why it never made it into the final version of the first dictionary, if I remember correctly.

 

[dan-cat]

Perhaps I did not express my self clearly in which case please accept my apologies.

What I meant was that by pretending to be stupid you might give the false impression that you were stupid.

No need for apologies. I read somewhere that acting stupid was the best policy.

But I am cheered to think you are sleeping in an atheist bed by your criteria.

I'm with Prof. Hawking on this one. Perhaps He set the universe rolling but He certainly hasn't had anything to do with it since.

You must remember also that on the atheist side of this discussion the spaghetti monster is just as real as god or actually as unreal/imaginary as god.

Absolutely. The Spaghetti Monster illustrates my point clearly. It's used to reduce God to absurdity. But for something to be absurd, it must be compared to something which is normal. This is the set of 'values' that the monster looks silly by. This is what atheism is. The concept of a deity failing to live up to a set of values.

 

[dan-cat]

Another classic.

Have you ever seen 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister'?
If you haven't and you get a chance, they're worth watching.

One of the examples of political logic was something like 'Cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat'

I think I'll book a spare afternoon before looking this one up.

 

[dan-cat]

So you are not permitted to say, " I do not know what I do believe in , but its not that, I'm still searching"

brian

Damn I had promised myself to keep out of this thread.

Yes, stay out.

You're allowed to do that. But if 'it's not that' means not theism, then I'm arguing that you must have held a set of values that theism didnt match up to.