georg jetson
Regular Member
Bad analogy. The compounds you list have specific definitions. The other terms you use have definitions less rigid. Shall we expend the life of this thread defining the less rigid?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
"thou shalt not kill"
- Thread starter elebuttfish
- Start date
Bad analogy. The compounds you list have specific definitions. The other terms you use have definitions less rigid. Shall we expend the life of this thread defining the less rigid?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
My point was merely that "religion" isn't reasonably defined as "any belief system". It's more than that.
georg jetson
Regular Member
So you believe nothing? I don't believe that. You just admitted that you believe at least your definition of atheism. Sheeesh
georg jetson
Regular Member
Interesting. How can it be more than that? Our beliefs are who we are.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Oh. So you do "believe" in something. You believe there is no god. That is NOT lack of believe. That is simply a different belief. Well... your belief affects me if you use the government to enforce your beliefs on me.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
That's GIANT Space Spaghetti Monster!! That reminds me... this forum sure is lacking since Daylen's been around. Hope he's still Ocing.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Distinction without difference.
True atheism? Ya'll gettin' all organized and what not? Who gets to define "true" atheism and then of course, you can't "believe" it because you'll violate you're "no belief" commandment.
The "religions"? Yes there are different organized "religions". However, a religion need not be organized to be a religion. It simply needs to be a believe system or part of a believe system.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
No, I mean, it's more than *just* a belief system.
As in, libertarianism is a belief system, but it's not a religion.
So clearly merely being a belief system is not enough to characterize something as a religion.
Someone made an analogy earlier I liked:
Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Actually God does answer the question if we can only think of two options. I can only think of two so if you see another please enlighten me.
1) Creation created itself.
2) God created everything.
In case one we're saying that out of nothing came something. That's absurd.
In the second case we're saying that creation came from a source we haven't discerned yet... if ever. Not so absurd.
Why the second choice is reasonable is because it acknowledges that intelligence always existed. The first option would have us believe that everything came from a literal nothing. Space, time, physical laws come from nothing? It is an absurd notion to my intelligence.. or my intelligence is a fiction...
The second option requires me to accept that something has existed outside the physical laws. Well, it is a much more plausible for me to believe that God was not created. That he was the originator of even time itself. That's because intelligence must come first because spontaneous intelligence is truly unacceptable. The concept of God is the escape of the chicken/egg circle.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Why not? Look at it another way. How would you characterize Christianity as anything more than a belief system?
'nuff said"
What else would "characterize something as a religion"?
Well I'm glad you like it, but we(people) don't work that way. We don't hold "no belief". We just have beliefs. Yes one can NOT have a hobby, but one cannot have NO belief. It's incorrect the way the analogy is worded. Having "no belief" is not possible. You believe there is no god and that is different than having no belief.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Only the" natural selection" part has been proven. The "one species evolving into another"...not so much.
A bit presumptuous maybe? One would have to have the mind of God to see his wisdom.
Much presumption. The world is a great and wondrous place. What the future holds will be amazing, I'm sure.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
This game of semantics is rapidly becoming boring. You wish to assert that, essentially, all people have a religion. Fine. You win – with the caveat that the word "religion" is rendered so general as to be both useless, and practically meaningless: little more than a disfluency.
Incidentally, I hold no belief regarding God. I believe neither in his existence, nor in his nonexistence. So actually you're wrong.
With all due respect, you've engaged in some rather circular reasoning, and you haven't actually escaped the chicken-and-egg problem in any sense but within your own bare assertion. I could still ask what created God, or why if God didn't need creating, the universe did need creating. (That is to say, if it's possible to exist in any sense at all without having been created, why need the universe have been created?)
However, let's say I accept your premise (which I don't). It could be said, then, that "god" is defined as whatever exists apart from (or before) creation.
Why, then, I would ask, need "god" be God? If all you've done is asset that "something" existed before creation, you've in no way established anything about the nature of that something: whether it is an entity, a "thing" in any meaningful sense, what have you. It could be literally anything, or nothing.
Which is fine. So, something existed before everything, and I have no idea about any single characteristic of that something. But, then, what's the point of deism (theism)? Why decide that, of all the possible characteristics this maybe-thing, about which the only fact you can reasonably assert is that it existed before creation, might have, it definitely cares how you live your life, or even has interests in any sense at all whatsoever?
Why must "god" be God, why can "god" not simply be a state of non-being, about which nothing could be meaningfully said. This certainly wouldn't also be God in any meaningful sense. (Wouldn't you agree? Is it not reasonable to assert that, for instance by his caring about how you live your life, God necessarily has definite characteristics, even if they are not knowable to a certainty?)
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Let us examine the irrationality of those claiming that non-belief is a "religion".
The view of an Atheist is simple:
"There is no evidence leading me to believe there is a God", full stop.
End of story.
That is ALL that defines an Atheist.
It is not a belief structure in any way. It is simply the acknowledgement that there is no proof for "God". Anything else added is not attributed to the term "Atheist".
Religion is much more complex. It is not simply, "There is a God".
That would be "Theism". The belief that there is at least one deity.
Religion has a foundation of irrational belief, of which the key factor is the term "faith". Literally, a "Blind unsubstantiated complex belief" in a deity.
Atheism: "There is no evidence to support the presence of a God". Full stop.
Religion (with regard to Christianity): "God Exists AND he created the world in 7 days, AND he watches us all day every day, AND he created morality, AND he sent his son to die because as a all-powerful deity killing a human to atone for humans was his only means of dealing with his creation of sin, AND he turned Lots wife into a pillar of salt, AND the walls of Jericho fell because of "God", AND he sent the "holy ghost" to give Samson strength, AND he sends you to hell if you sin and do not repent, AND he demands that you accept his slaughtered son, AND his son walked on water, AND his son handed out an endless supply of fish and bread (or simply made everybody full off of a crumb depending on your translation), AND etc.".
Some people are not bright enough to understand this. They simply parrot that Atheism is a religion without any understanding whatsoever of what atheism is, or what comprises religion and its complexity.
By the way, as is "par for the course", no "Christians" want to acknowledge the wicked pagan acts as rampantly present in the Old and New Testaments as I have repeatedly, and accurately listed.
Go ahead and "eat the flesh of Christ" as was borrowed from pagan ritual, during communion. You do that.
Here, some more fun for all:
[video=youtube;IDxPfoDKQUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDxPfoDKQUc[/video]
The view of an Atheist is simple:
"There is no evidence leading me to believe there is a God", full stop.
End of story.
That is ALL that defines an Atheist.
It is not a belief structure in any way. It is simply the acknowledgement that there is no proof for "God". Anything else added is not attributed to the term "Atheist".
Religion is much more complex. It is not simply, "There is a God".
That would be "Theism". The belief that there is at least one deity.
Religion has a foundation of irrational belief, of which the key factor is the term "faith". Literally, a "Blind unsubstantiated complex belief" in a deity.
Atheism: "There is no evidence to support the presence of a God". Full stop.
Religion (with regard to Christianity): "God Exists AND he created the world in 7 days, AND he watches us all day every day, AND he created morality, AND he sent his son to die because as a all-powerful deity killing a human to atone for humans was his only means of dealing with his creation of sin, AND he turned Lots wife into a pillar of salt, AND the walls of Jericho fell because of "God", AND he sent the "holy ghost" to give Samson strength, AND he sends you to hell if you sin and do not repent, AND he demands that you accept his slaughtered son, AND his son walked on water, AND his son handed out an endless supply of fish and bread (or simply made everybody full off of a crumb depending on your translation), AND etc.".
Some people are not bright enough to understand this. They simply parrot that Atheism is a religion without any understanding whatsoever of what atheism is, or what comprises religion and its complexity.
By the way, as is "par for the course", no "Christians" want to acknowledge the wicked pagan acts as rampantly present in the Old and New Testaments as I have repeatedly, and accurately listed.
Go ahead and "eat the flesh of Christ" as was borrowed from pagan ritual, during communion. You do that.
Here, some more fun for all:
[video=youtube;IDxPfoDKQUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDxPfoDKQUc[/video]
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
[video=youtube;qs3RKZjSzYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg[/video]
eye95
Well-known member
If that were the case...
What you describe is what I would call an atheist. However, some here call themselves atheists who do not fit the "full stop" part of your definition. I call them militant atheists, because they are proselytizing their religion every bit as fervently as an evangelist. Atheists that fit your above definition would not fret that others believe in God, just as I do not fret over folks who believe in astrology.
If it comes up, I'll shrug my shoulders, mention I believe that it is hokum, and maybe say it is silly. I would not continue to harp and mock. That would indicate that astrology mattered to me, that I had a deep-seated (but denied) feeling that there was some there there.
That is why I am convinced that the militant atheists actually believe in the existence of God; they just want to deny his authority over them. He will allow them to do that.
On the creation thing, I see these two possibilities:
1. The universe sprung into instantaneous existence out of nothing.
2. An external entity spawned it.
2 is far more rational. This does not simply push the question backwards in time because time is a construct of THIS universe. Time could well not exist for the entity that spawned our universe. If I were that entity and tried to explain this concept of timelessness to BC and early AD folks, I think I might say something along the lines of my being the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.
Last edited:
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
How can 2 be more rational? First you have to explain how this "eternal entity" came into existence. We know that the big bang happened, there is evidence to prove it. What we don't know is what exactly started it, however saying "god did it" does not count. If a god could have spontaneously been created, then so could have the universe. There is absolutely 0 proof for the existence of a god, and until such proof arises any argument that involves god is useless. It would be as useful as me saying that unicorns created the universe, it has the exact same meaning as you saying god created it. If fighting against laws that promote only christianity, and fighting against having creation (non science) taught in science class makes me a militant atheist, then I am very much that. However I still hold the only position that "there is no reasonable proof of god to warrant belief" and no I don't secretly believe in one(or more).
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Then there are other befitting titles that describe them. "Anti-theist" is probably the most appropriate.
I am, without fail, anti-theist. I am also an Atheist. However, my position of acknowledging a lack of belief or evidence of any deity, not just your own, makes me simply an "atheist".
Now my "anti-religion" position doesn't make me a "militant atheist".
What an incredible way to display your lack of insight. That's like saying, "Militant lack of belief in bigfoot", or "Militant lack of belief in fairies/unicorns and wizards".
It shows that, at the bare minimum, you have no clue what you are talking about and are creating blind terms that are utterly meaningless.
Do not dodge this question Eye95 or "move on" from it.
DESCRIBE for us, if you will, what the "religion" of Atheism is.
Go ahead now.
Correct! Atheism in itself has no attached, complicated definition that assigns it to WORRY about the deities it does not see evidence of existing!
Atheists can believe millions upon millions of things, with the ONLY core, fundamental trait being, "A lack of acknowledgement or belief in a Deity of ANY religion based on a lack of evidence".
That is it! That's all!
Many Atheists DO however appreciate philosophy, science, and all forms of critical thinking and rationality. This then of course takes us to the point of looking at our world from what CAN be given evidence for,and what CAN be expounded and rationalized upon using evidence and observation.
This will lead us (atheists) into other fields, many of us (myself included), with severe interest and studies in psychology and philosophy, and being a human rights advocate, to our Constitution and the founding of our nation.
But NONE of these extra things add to or define "atheism".
It would literally be like you trying to tell me that a belief that leprechauns do not exist is a religion. If you can't understand what I just clearly, and concisely laid out for you, then there is sincerely no hope for you.
There is no such thing as "militant atheism".
What you are trying to say (let me help you out here) is that there are some on this forum you perceive to be anti-theist.
You would be correct in saying there are indeed anti-theists here.
Let me know when astrology starts...:
- Oppressing women
- Demanding its own set of "divine law" be imposed on the masses.
- Goes door to door to give me the information about my sign.
- Rides around on piddly bicycles, leaving flyers on my car.
- Persecuting homosexuals.
- Picketing the funerals of the recently deceased.
- Attempts to obstruct science by injecting Bronze-Age myth.
- Indoctrinates youth based primarily on parents religion and geographical region.
- Mutilating genitals.
- Endorsing slavery.
...and I will add them to my list, not that I don't already acknowledge the harmful effects of pseudopsychology as it is.
You will undoubtedly to to critique the "scale" of many peoples "Christianity" or perhaps dismiss them as a "few whackjobs", but the truth is that they are probably more devout than you are. You just want your newly translatedand adapted version of Christianity to be the one that is considered "normal".
Sorry chief, the whackjobs of Christianity, ALL of them, belong to the Christian camp. Most of them, with very few exceptions, ARE acting within the scope of what would be interpreted as "Divine guidance" through the "Infallible word of God".
He also has allowed and, more importantly, condoned or specifically ordered:
- The rape of women.
- The murder of infants.
- Global genocide.
- Inbreeding.
- Death for apostasy.
etc.
What divine, cosmic, all-knowing space-daddy wouldn't WANT to condone these things, right?
I'll keep my rationalized, well though out morals stemming from in-depth critical thought and the belief that I should further mankind and the species as a whole.
You keep your "Gods" bronze-age morality.
I am far more moral than your "god" ever was. In fact, most people are.
Oh? Only two?
How....limited.
NNNNNNnnnnnn wrong. Tell em what he has lost Johnny!
"Any respect for the subject of the origin of the cosmos!" *applause*
Nobody has ever ,at any time, stated the universe came from "nothing". Science is not ignorant enough to make claims about origination without evidence, substantiation, and through, repeated vetting of the theory.
For example. If I asked you to give me a sample of "nothing", you would be incapable of doing so, because none of us are aware what "nothing" is. Not even science knows what "nothing" is. Science makes no claim TO know what "nothing" is.
This is your (Creationists) veiled "pejorative" in an attempt to discredit long-standing science. That "nothing" gave birth to "nothing" blah blah blah.
It's pitiful because it shows you're too lazy to actually understand what the science actually SAYS.
The idea is that a super dense point of incalculable energy (Hello Higgs-Boson) exploded outward spraying matter throughout the universe. At the center of our observable universe is a supermassive singularity (Thats a "Black-hole", Cletus), and rather equidistantly, is the spreading of galaxies and other spacial phenomena who are still within escape velocity of said singularities gravity well. However, it is hypothesized, and has been thus observed, that the galactic spread of all celestial bodies seems to have been influenced by this super-massive singularity. That is to say, our galaxies position in relation to all other galaxies, in relation to said singularity, is pretty much on the money for an explanation of what spit all this matter out.
We can watch the movement of stellar objects and gauge the time traveled. Let's just say it's nowhere near 6,000 years.
We have learned a lot by casting aside "God did it", and in fact, you MUST do so to be open to all possibilities.
After all, the Bible gives pretty specific details on the formation of the Earth, essentially all of which conflict with our observed, scientific understanding.
One is right. The other is not.
Then again, maybe "god" did put those Triceratops Horridus bones there to "test our faith". It's possible I guess, just not plausible.
*Poof*
Magic.
A phenomenon never witnessed before, ever, in nature.
It also, inexcusably and unarguably adds another layer of complication to the origin of our cosmos and its inhabitants.
Saying so does not make it so.
Unsubstantiated mythological inference. You have no scientific qualification for this claim so I have to extrapolate that you believe time didn't exist prior to our universes formation because you attribute it to a deity.
Circular argument based on an unsubstantiated assertion of the existence of a deity.
The wheels on the bus go round and round.
So. You are the master of time and space, capable of infinite manipulation of either.
-You choose to occupy your time with ONLY a select group of individuals in a specific tribe.
-You then elect to have them prove their love by animal sacrifice.
-You are "pleased" by the burnt odor of dead animals. (Nevermind you could generate this odor nonstop as the aforementioned master of time and space, I mean, if this obviously wasn't barbaric/pagan as hell anyways.)
-You order your tribe to go murder other tribes, to include their women and children.
...all of this while the Chinese are far more advanced at the same time, in large societies.
Forgive me, this is starting to sound a bit like a Bronze-Age myth, and frankly, you sound like you have't even given this argument a whole lot of though. I am particularly disappointed (yet not surprised) at your dismal understanding of the Big Bang Theory.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's not time in which your theory of God pushes the question back, it's orders of causality, which is independent of time.
If you frame the question as, "what caused the universe to exist?" and answered, "God", it begs the question, "what caused God to exist?"
And if you defer the answer with, "God doesn't need to have been caused to exist", it begs the question, "if things can exist independent of causality, why cannot the universe do so?"
Nor would it be reasonable to say, "causality needn't have existed before creation" because, absent cause and effect, there is no reason to decide that "God" can come into universe without cause, but the universe itself cannot.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Not going to bother to read the diatribe.
I will just see it as another example of the militancy of his atheism. The lengths to which he is going simply illustrates that this matters WAY to much to him for him not to have a HUGE stake in God.
Oh, and I don't follow the orders of other posters. I will move on from this subdiscussion with this particular poster.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I will just see it as another example of the militancy of his atheism. The lengths to which he is going simply illustrates that this matters WAY to much to him for him not to have a HUGE stake in God.
Oh, and I don't follow the orders of other posters. I will move on from this subdiscussion with this particular poster.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's not reasonable to assume that because someone is interested in, or even passionate about something, they must have a "HUGE stake" in it. (This is actually projection by you.)
For instance, I am highly interested in (even passionate about) the philosophy and politics of say, gay marriage, medical marijuana, and gun rights for Californians. I don't have a "HUGE stake" in any of these as I'm not gay, don't need to use medical marijuana, and don't live in California.