"thou shalt not kill"

[slowfiveoh]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. If it is "our awareness or "being". Our "self"" then the OFF channel would you you could turn "our awareness or "being". Our "self to OFF.

It makes perfect sense, and honestly georg, I have come to the consensus that you are fundamentally, at your core, too stupid to understand classic philosophy.

For the rest of the eyes reading these posts, I will humor your (georg) insipidness:

The TV represents the human mind or being of self. It cannot represent your "God" or a "belief on the origination of the universe", because then you have circular argumentation that makes no sense.

Anybody here who is trained in classical philosophy, or hell, has taken first year Logic already sees why your statement is ridiculous. The more you babble, the more you literally make yourself look stupid.

I have posted definitions from a source different than yours.

No. You have not.
Please browse through this entire thread and recognize georg jetsons lie.
You posted a singular defintion in post #142 of "Atheism", which states, from your OWN post:

Ok. In this case I think I need to refer to the common definition of the 2 words...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Also,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Which, upon recognition of "Athiesm" using the definition above, I demonstrated as the definition specifies, it is a singular belief on a singular topic.

Adobbs then gave you the response to your claim of this singular belief (Atheism) constituting "religion", by providing the definition of religion, straight from the dictionary.

Aknazer then provided, in this very thread, the definition of "Religion". This is what that said:

Religion -
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Hmm, atheism sure sounds like a religion to me as it is your belief that there is no divine being/god...

Aknazer did us all a huge favor by posting this. He acknowledges in his closing statement that Atheism is a singular belief (Much like georg jetson expresses over and over), then shoots himself in the mouth by not recognizing that religion is a plurality of beliefs.
Here, straight from Wikipedia:

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[SUP][note 1][/SUP] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their ideas about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world." - The Everything World's Religions Book: Explore the Beliefs, Traditions and Cultures of Ancient and Modern Religions, page 1 Kenneth Shouler - 2010


"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social"."

You want to put religion in a box, and you can't do that.

Oh wait you are accusing ME of trying to "put religion in a box" when all I have done, repeatedly, and accurately, is use the academically recognized definitions of religion, THEN YOU follow up with your very next statement...

One thing defines religion and that is one's opinion on a god/creator.

...which does not match up with ANY academically credited definition of "Religion". You just LITERALLY made that **** up.

Do you realize how idiotic you make yourself look kid? Literaly I could wipe my ass and have a more philosophically interesting and accurate conversation about this topic with the waste matter on the tissue.

I would almost go and sit through William Lane Craigs rhetorical, circular diarrhea for PLEASURE, than crawl into the sewers of educational ignorance to have to discuss the same argument over and over all day with you because you're too stupid to have the conversation.

Simply stating that your "philosophy" that you believe there is no god/creator does not rid you of an opinion.

You mean my adherence to the DEFINITION of ACADEMICALLY ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS doesn't match your own, completely irrelevant, made up definition of "religion" to mean "Ones opinion on a "god/Creator"?

Must be nice living in a world where you can make up your own terms and argue about the georg while the rest of the world goes along making sense and agreeing on definitions.

"Oh that stupid, accurate use of the English language and definitions again. Stupid ass colleges and their stupid stupidity."

If we stipulate that the TV is "we", then yes you can turn the TV OFF, but you cannot turn your opinion off.

"Off" is it's native position, ya turdlet.

Until you indoctrinate some poor African child with your "ministry" many of them have no friggin clue what the concept of "God" is, and even then are only likely to believe the first religious crusade to reach them and indoctrinate them under the perpetuation of sustenance. For many Atheists (me included), there is no evidence for "God", therefore my natural state is one of non-belief.

As Bill Maher pointed out, if Jesus descended into my room tonight and fingered my butthole while reciting Psalms, then took me back to his homeboy palace for a preview, I would say, "Oh, well, look at that! Man I was wrong!".

Still waiting, Brraaahhhh.

Before then, they have NO belief about your presented "God", let alone any other deity.

My singular belief that "God" has not met the burden of proof, does not mean I choose to NOT believe in God despite him "being there", like a few of you creationist idiots would like to specify.

It simply means I do not believe in your "God" because you have not ever met the burden of proof.

So yes, it is disbelief.

I have similar disbeliefs about leprechauns, unicorns, and bigfoot.

Oddly enough you don't find these independent, singular beliefs to be "threatening", thereby clawing out a non-argument, in possibly, the internets worse presented case in the history of packet transmission.

Therefore you don't qualify them within your idiotic, infantile, and simply silly personal definition of religion.


Please keep this up georg. Let the stupidity that emanates from your keyboard continue. You prove more and more about how little you know, and the world of fantasy you live in, every time you post.

I almost feel like I'm kicking an infant.

Almost.

Especially when you admit that your opinion is that you don't believe in a god.

My belief is that no evidence has been presented that one exists.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

NONE of this defines a "religion" though. NONE of it.

Your personal definition of "religion" maybe, but frankly I don't think the US Gorvernment, or any source of academia is concerned with some turds made up definition from Slidell, Louisiana.

I didn't call OFF a channel. Pay attention. However, off is a choice on the selector just as atheism is a choice of religion.

Wrong. georg not thinking again.

This is my not surprised face. ------->

Off is the natural state of the television.
To prove the presence of "God" would be to provide power to the set (Affirmation that would make all Atheists say, AH THERE IT IS! Gotcha! I believe now!)
The channels would then represent religious denomination.

In the Atheists singular view and position, God (electricity) has not been proven. The TV remains "off".

No. You are a super hero with super powers of presumption, but you have your kryptonite as well... listening.

You dance in a circular fashion to try and wiggle/worm your way into an argument. You then resort to ad-hominem to shield your ignorance (and you are ignorant) on the subject matter.

You do not use academically accredited sources for your definitions.
You then scorn said definitions when adhered to.
You then create your own definition as I have shown above.

You are clown shoes.

You are not grounded in ANYTHING and you apply ambiguity to EVERYTHING.

You also have, clearly and without exception, a serious lack of formal education on the topic. Really. Truly. It shows in spades.

What REALLY hurts you here, my special education friend, is that I DO read everything you say, and I DO interpret what you are stating PRECISELY as you are implying it, which you THEN scramble to twist and contort in an effort to save your ass.

Make up more definitions for "religion" kid.

Maybe that will get you somewhere. Not anywhere in real life, but "somewhere" I'm sure.

I did not saying that religion "applies to all people who believe any one thing". Had you been reading you would have realized this. I am saying that religion applies to all people's opinion of a god/creator.

Good luck making up definitions in the future there scooter.

Maybe somebody without a modicum of command of the English language and a dictionary will buy your own special, shared, custom definition of "Religion".

As for me, and the rest of academia, we'll go with the real, approved, accredited definitions of such.

Happy trails in fantasy-land, dumbass.

 

[nonameisgood]

It's time to end this thread, me thinks.

 

[marshaul]

It's time to end this thread, me thinks.

+1

I stopped reading most of this over a page ago.

 

[Aknazer]

Heh I forgot about this post after my computer restarted. I more shot myself in the foot by not properly explaining my view that everyone has a "religion" in that everyone has a "set of beliefs" that they follow and live their life by. While with an organized religion there will be many shared beliefs, with an atheist they each have their own religion (set of beliefs that they live their life by) but they all share a singular specific belief (or non-belief if one prefers to look at it that way). Basically the further down the religion pyramid that I made the more beliefs that are shared among people.

Of course this requires that everyone have a belief system that guides them and that one is able to think more abstract about the subject. As I said, everyone would have a religion, and the first step is then to say if you believe in god(s) or not (threading the first bead so-to-speak). From there the theists make it easy by having a predefined set of beliefs (each thread being a person and each bead being a belief, here we have multiple threads passing through the same beads) and giving names to each of their religions. But the atheists, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no god. Sure they "might" share other beads, but it isn't required. There also is typically no official name for the beliefs that guide atheists as the religion is unique to each person and most adamantly deny it as a religion due to thinking inside-the-box of what they are used to in regards to predefined religions.

Or it could simply be that my view on what makes a religion (simply a set of beliefs) is wrong. But everyone has beliefs that the use to guide their lives. Hopefully that is a bit more clear on why I say that atheism is still a religious belief (it is one bead on the individual's religion thread).

 

[ADobbs1989]

Or it could simply be that my view on what makes a religion (simply a set of beliefs) is wrong.

You got it. Glad we have reached an understanding.

 

[Aknazer]

You got it. Glad we have reached an understanding.

No, we don't as you still fail at explaining your posts. Is or is not religion a "set of beliefs" as I quoted in the definition? Do or do not people (even atheists) live their lives by a set of beliefs even if those beliefs are unique to that person? Does this or does this not satisfy the definition of religion as quoted? Please remember to show your work.

 

[SFCRetired]

I appreciate that SFCRetired. I know what science classifies humans as, but I say speak for yourself. I refuse to be classified.

BTW - Try "h o m o" when attempting to use a perfectly legitimate prefix.

Well, I will admit that I've met some folks from your neck of the woods who did defy scientific, or any other, classification.:lol:

Thanks for the tip on the prefix. At my age, I am inclined to be somewhat technologically challenged.

Folks, I will say this much about this thread; I haven't had this much fun with my clothes on in many a year.

How about another commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? For myself, I have never, in my entire life, put bad water in good whiskey.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Heh I forgot about this post after my computer restarted. I more shot myself in the foot by not properly explaining my view that everyone has a "religion" in that everyone has a "set of beliefs" that they follow and live their life by.

EXTREMELY generalized. No source of academic definition would support your generalization. Those who actually study the field for a living are not looking for people who...:

-A.) Do not believe in a deity
-B.) Believe "anything" contributes to "religion".

...because THEN "religion" means "anything", which is incorrect.

What you are not realizing is that if you demand that "Religion" applies to any set of belief, then what you are doing is denigrating and devaluing the word.

Religion is organized, functional, and has tenets, dogma, and ritual at its very core.

If someone specifies, "I believe in God, but I do not think it is Yahweh or Allah, and I do not let the principles in each book good me as I do not read them. I use critical thinking and rationality to determine my moral code.", then they are Theists. Their moral code and guidance is not provided by religious doctrine. They have a singular belief in a universal creator, but do not have tenets, dogma, or ritual.

While with an organized religion there will be many shared beliefs, with an atheist they each have their own religion (set of beliefs that they live their life by) but they all share a singular specific belief (or non-belief if one prefers to look at it that way). Basically the further down the religion pyramid that I made the more beliefs that are shared among people.

Wrong.

Religion has to have tenets, dogma, and ritual.
No cultural anthropologist will humor you for a second if you declare that religion is any collection of beliefs.

Atheism has no dogma.
Atheism has no ritual.
Atheism has no tenets.

Christianity has all of these.
Mormonism has all of these.
Buddhism has all of these.
Islam has all of these.


You continue to insist that "religion" is the top of the pyramid with "Theism, Deism, Atheism, Agnosticism" appearing below them, which is patently wrong.

Religion, as a function of organization, and set of beliefs, appears farther down the pyramid.

You're specifying that religion appeared before the singular choice that leads one to make a decision on which religion to follow.

Do you not understand the outright fallacy in your argument?

Of course this requires that everyone have a belief system that guides them and that one is able to think more abstract about the subject.

"System" implies structure. Many atheists, just as an example, are leaning one way or the other, non-rigid, on a whole collection of perspectives.

This still, does not a religion make.

NO Atheist, not one single pair, believes all the same thing as the other.

There are NO religious tenets, dogma, or ritual for Atheism, Theism, or Deism.

As I said, everyone would have a religion, and the first step is then to say if you believe in god(s) or not (threading the first bead so-to-speak).

No. Patently incorrect. De Facto wrong.

Religion does not exist prior to the decision on what or how to worship. Therefore the next branch beyond the natural position (ambiguity), is to post the question of singular belief.

Tawnos gave an excellent example via graph. One that actually represents a chart I had seen in a previous class on the topic.

Let's just say your definition of "religion" is likewise skewed as georg's. It matches not one definition given by academia nor acknowledged by those who study the subject. Its not even in the same realm.

From there the theists make it easy by having a predefined set of beliefs...

Wrong. Theists have only ONE singular belief they all agree on, and that is the belief that a deity created the universe. There is no included set of beliefs beyond that.

(each thread being a person and each bead being a belief, here we have multiple threads passing through the same beads) and giving names to each of their religions.

Is the thread a person, or is the thread "religion". You can't specify they are both. It simply does not work that way.

One cannot arrive at "religion" in ANY definition used in the entire WORLD, with the gimmick you are implying here.

So you are specifying, literally, that everybody who does not believe in leprechauns, has their strings going through the same "bead, therefore comprising "religion"?

But the atheists, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no god.

But the Aleprechaunists, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no Leprechauns.
But the Abigfootists, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no bigfoot.
But the Afaeriests, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no faerie.
But the Aunicornists, the only shared bead is that (non)belief that there is no unicorn.

Still not a religion. None of these are.

Sure they "might" share other beads, but it isn't required. There also is typically no official name for the beliefs that guide atheists as the religion is unique to each person and most adamantly deny it as a religion due to thinking inside-the-box of what they are used to in regards to predefined religions.

You know, I am fine with you stating that my "set of beliefs", in totality, comprises some sort of religion in some worthless general sense. Really and truly, doesn't bother me at all.

However, you are still coming off as an idiot when you say Atheism is a religion. Atheism is still a singular stance, on a singular subject.

You are patently dismissing all that comprises the complexity of a belief structure, and demanding that my singular position, on a singular subject, somehow comprises a "set" of beliefs.

Sorry jack, it doesn't.

Or it could simply be that my view on what makes a religion (simply a set of beliefs) is wrong.

Yep.

But everyone has beliefs that the use to guide their lives.

Sure, but, for many, they are not in any way organized. They do not have scriptural compelling and guidance. They do not have rituals they attend or participate in.

Hopefully that is a bit more clear on why I say that atheism is still a religious belief (it is one bead on the individual's religion thread).

The bead analogy, while I respect where you were trying to go, is not correct. In fact, it does not vary one bit from the TV example.

Atheists have no need for a "string" in the first place.

The problem is in your overly and possibly overtly loose defining of "religion".

No, we don't as you still fail at explaining your posts. Is or is not religion a "set of beliefs" as I quoted in the definition? Do or do not people (even atheists) live their lives by a set of beliefs even if those beliefs are unique to that person? Does this or does this not satisfy the definition of religion as quoted? Please remember to show your work.

No. It does not. Please read the totality of all sections of the definition.

Here, lets go over this section by section.

Religion -

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

CAUSE
NATURE
PURPOSE

None of these are attributes of Atheism. Also, the definition would presume that everybody who had a set of beliefs was worried about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. This is not the case.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Your presented interpretation of this definition would present that everybody who hangs out at the Moose Lodge on Saturdays is part of a religion, but you do not recognize the attribution at the end to specific religious groups as an example. Your generalization is not helpful to the definition and in fact devalues its meaning.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Atheism.
Theism.
Deism.

SINGULAR belief on a SINGULAR topic.

NOW you have to find all these people who believe in this particular "set of beliefs" and "practices" and assign them a religious label. For instance, Buddhism is Atheist in its lack of belief in a creator, but you could not say Buddhism is "Atheism" as its religion because that completely and totally devalues and nullifies all of the factors that actually comprise Buddhism, thus defining it as a religion.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

I think we'd both agree that this is showing roles engaged in activities described by the definitions above it.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Same with this line.


Please stop with the attempt to cast ambiguous meaning to religion as a definition.

It does not pass muster.

 

[ADobbs1989]

No, we don't as you still fail at explaining your posts. Is or is not religion a "set of beliefs" as I quoted in the definition? Do or do not people (even atheists) live their lives by a set of beliefs even if those beliefs are unique to that person? Does this or does this not satisfy the definition of religion as quoted? Please remember to show your work.

Love how I have to show my work, yet you allow yourself to ramble off crap without any evidence. No religion is not simply a "set of beliefs". That does not fit any definition, it must be expanded upon before it can work. Yes, if you took everyone's beliefs you could construct a "set of beliefs", however a single persons beliefs does not make a religion. Furthermore, Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief, one which addresses a single question. You can not take the position of an Atheist and combine it with another belief that has nothing to do with Atheism and call the two a "set of beliefs". Everything is not a religion, saying so is just an ignorant interpretation of the definition of religion. We have not failed at explaining our posts, you have failed to comprehend them. There is a difference, and the only one at fault is you. You have done nothing more than quote the definition, fail at understanding it, then state that you think Atheism fits it.