|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 1:45:21 GMT 1
Atheists are constantly trying to spread the their own personal belief, which just happens to be a lack of belief in peoples faces. They are trying to recruit for the faithful just like everyone else. The only thing they lack is tax free status. Just look at all the meaningless bullshit legal action being done by these groups in the US, going after any hint of God on public buildings and whatnot. I believe in the separation of church and state but these people are fucking loonies.
I can already tell there is no chance of agreement here. I agree with your opinion of what organized religion is. But I disagree with the assertion that atheism does not count as one. By all definitions it is. They have faith, not proof that there is no God. Until proof replaces faith it is a religion. Also, the meaning of the name ironically means nothing. Just like the the name Scientology does not mean there is any basis in science in that faith. Scientologists are about as anti science as a religion gets but science is still in the name.
Your serve Buch.Again I'd argue that atheism is not a 'belief' but an informed opinion based one evidence, but that's a very small matter. Belief is an assumption based on lack of evidence, opinion is the opposite. And yeah - we DO try to convince people that our opinion is correct. Because, you know, we think it is. If you have a triangle and you find a lot of people who belong to a medieval cult which claims the triangle has four sides, do you tell them their opinnion is as valid as yours, or do you tell them it has three sides? I wouldn't ever argue to *ban* religion or expression of such on buildings, art or whathaveyou. But I sure don't encourage these things. This business about atheism as a religion. Scientology is an organisation, a religion, a cult, an institution. Atheism is a generally-accepted dictionary term meannig 'not religion'. It's not a logo than Dawkins and Hitchens and the Board of Atheist Directors decided on as a reflection of their desired public image, it's an English word meaning 'absence of religion'. So - no, about the names, just no! An atheist does not have 'faith' that there is no God. She has an informed assumption. There is a WORLD of difference, Linders. I can't see behind me right now, but I assume my chair still has a back. Is that a religious belief to you? I call it a reasonable asusmption based on the evidence available to me. A religion requires a leap of faith, a BELIEF in something which science cannot support yet. Most scientific theories would agree with me that the chair still has a back. Because they'd ask if I heard or felt it drop, and they'd assume, logically, that it's still there. I just don't understand where you're getting this idea of religion as something that has not been DISproved, rather than something that has not been proved.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Nov 26, 2012 1:45:30 GMT 1
Oh, Buch... I definately have a religion - I just don't aggressively shove it down other people's throats like so many people do... I will answer any questions people have for me, as long as they really want to know, but I will not try to convert people who have other beliefs, because I don't believe a person's personal belief system can be changed without extreme life-changing influence.
I also do not believe that people who don't share my beliefs are going to suffer an eternity of torment for not believing, because I believe that most, if not all, religions are technically valid. For example: Christians believe that as long as they follow the laws of Christ, and are Good People, then they will go to Heaven after their earthly life is over. That is their belief, so in my belief, that will happen - for them.
A lot of Indian and Pagan religions believe in Reincarnation - that after one's body dies, their soul is reborn into a new body that may be Human, Animal, or Spiritual, depending on the soul's actions in the previous life. And for them, that is perfectly valid.
I will never attack another person's beliefe system itself; I merely disapprove of people using 'religion' as an excuse to be intolerant of other people's beliefs / personal situations.
Also:
Not a good example there - all you'd have to do to prove that a Triangle has three sides is to count them. One, two, three. The number of sides to a triangle is easily provable. Belief systems are not as easily provable.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 1:49:47 GMT 1
'Intolerant' isn't exactly what I am, Lily. I'm not going to tell people not to believe in their religions, or attempt to enforce that they don't. I may ask them not to, or encourage them to consider science and reason.
'Disrespectful' but be a better term than 'intolerant'. I don't believe in reincarnation because there is no reason beyond a set of myths (and fear of death) to do so. If I meet someone who does, I'm not going to yell at them, but it's something I will likely discuss with them.
And when I meet someone whose mythology makes them start telling me who I may and may not go to bed with, or whose mythology makes them judge me morally for my actions (as an example, all of Christian society), then I will certainly have a few words.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 1:52:09 GMT 1
Also: Not a good example there - all you'd have to do to prove that a Triangle has three sides is to count them. One, two, three. The number of sides to a triangle is easily provable. Belief systems are not as easily provable. That's exactly my point. The belief system (four sides) is not provable. The truth (three sides) is. These people are imagining a fourth side, which there is no reason to believe in save for their tradition and wanting it to be there. It is not there. I'll tell them so. I'll shove my opinion (or belief if you really must) that there are three sides down their throats. Especially if this four-corner business effects their lives, or mine, for the worse.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Nov 26, 2012 1:52:40 GMT 1
I actually was not referring to you, Mister Buch - I did not mean to imply that you are intolerant, because you are exactly the opposite of intolerant - you're one of the most open-minded people I've ever spoken to - which is why I love talking to you... or typing, as it were... ;D I was actually referring to the people who go on the news and in the papers and on street corners blathering and verbally attacking anyone who does not share their belief. Now, you were not aware I had a religion, which logically means that you knew I did not share the same belief as you - but you never directly attacked me or my beliefs, so... therefore, you're not one of the "Intolerants" I referred to. Also: Not a good example there - all you'd have to do to prove that a Triangle has three sides is to count them. One, two, three. The number of sides to a triangle is easily provable. Belief systems are not as easily provable. That's exactly my point. The belief system (four sides) is not provable. The truth (three sides) is. These people are imagining a fourth side, which there is no reason to believe in save for their tradition and wanting it to be there. It is not there. I'll tell them so. I'll shove my opinion (or belief if you really must) that there are three sides down their throats. Especially if this four-corner business effects their lives, or mine, for the worse. Okay. Good point. I concede that one... ;D
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Nov 26, 2012 1:53:50 GMT 1
Atheists are constantly trying to spread the their own personal belief, which just happens to be a lack of belief in peoples faces. They are trying to recruit for the faithful just like everyone else. The only thing they lack is tax free status. Just look at all the meaningless bullshit legal action being done by these groups in the US, going after any hint of God on public buildings and whatnot. I believe in the separation of church and state but these people are fucking loonies.
I can already tell there is no chance of agreement here. I agree with your opinion of what organized religion is. But I disagree with the assertion that atheism does not count as one. By all definitions it is. They have faith, not proof that there is no God. Until proof replaces faith it is a religion. Also, the meaning of the name ironically means nothing. Just like the the name Scientology does not mean there is any basis in science in that faith. Scientologists are about as anti science as a religion gets but science is still in the name.
Your serve Buch.*le snip* I just don't understand where you're getting this idea of religion as something that has not been DISproved, rather than something that has not been proved. Negative proof has been the fundamental point of dispute on this very matter for hundreds of years. Therefore it lies at the very heart of the issue. You can look behind to see that the chair is still there. I can't look behind me and see that God is not there. Huge fucking difference. There is not even a word in English to describe how inapt both your examples were here. My reason for disparaging atheism with the label of religion is actually fundamentally derisive. I see posts from rabid atheists all over the place who talk down on people who identify as religious all the time. They speak of belief of magical old men in the sky in very condescending tones without bothering to get to know these people first. Yes, I use the label as an insult. Until I see some common fucking courtesy on the subject, I will continue to do so. Not directed at you but at the greater atheist community which is generally about as fun loving as a brick on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 1:55:07 GMT 1
Lily - Ah, sorry. I like to think I'm open-minded - willing to look at things from as many angles as I can before making a call. But if one of those points of view is through a distorted piece of glass like a Bible, Qu'uran, Torah or Norse text, rather than a magnifying glass or naked eye, then I won't trust it.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Nov 26, 2012 1:59:18 GMT 1
Lily - Ah, sorry. I like to think I'm open-minded - willing to look at things from as many angles as I can before making a call. But if one of those points of view is through a distorted piece of glass like a Bible, Qu'uran, Torah or Norse text, rather than a magnifying glass or naked eye, then I won't trust it. There is enough truth buried in the metaphors of the Bible for it to be used as a starting point for old history. But yeah, I trust the average religious zealot about as far as I can throw him when he is telling me the "truth" of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Nov 26, 2012 2:01:34 GMT 1
...
Some people take their terminology too seriously...
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 2:04:25 GMT 1
The proof thing - I don't know, my head is spinning now.
Let's replace the chair with a dragon. I am sitting here with my friend Jeff, and someone tells me there is a dragon in the room. I say 'No there is not' and Jeff says 'I believe you - there is'. You think that jeff and I are both operating on a religion here?
Well, we aren't. Neither of us are. A religion is a group or ritual belief, often based around the purpose and origins of life on Earth, so no 'any' unproven belief is not religious in nature.
BUT - you're saying Jeff's dragon is analagous to a relious belief, and so is mine? We both are using a belief, a piece of faith, and both views are valid?
We can look, search the room, and see that there is no dragon. What if the dragon is invisible though, says Jeff, or hiding from us, of has no mass? Or - what if the chairs back fell, and then reattached itself when you turned? These are ridiculous - everything we know about physics, chairs and dragons tells us that of course, Jeff is wrong. it would be nonsensical to believe that this dragon exists just because somebody told him it did, and it would be silly to believe in reincarnation for exactly the same reason. To assume that there is no dragon, no reincarnation - is the opposite of believing there is. He's operating on faith and a belief, drawina a definite answer. I'm operating on logic and evidence, assuming a lack of answer. An absense of belief, in this case. I'm not saying there is categorially no dragon in this room and the chair absolutely did NOT fix itself. I'm saying it would be foolish to think so, and that my opinion on this matter operates on entirely different thinking than his belief. They are not the same, in fact they are opposites. Buddhism is similar to Judaism, but atheism is not similar to theism.
The other thing - Courtesy and wanting to convert people are two different things. I do the latter and I hope I am not rude about it. Whether that counts as face-shoving depends entirely on you.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Nov 26, 2012 2:12:02 GMT 1
The dragon is invisible and no negative proof has been established aside from the fact it is not visible. Religion is involved.
As for trying to convert people, I have never seen you be deliberately insulting to anyone. Among atheists you are in a very teeny tiny minority. The majority pisses me off to a part of their group.
Actually I identify as agnostic. So the point is moot.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 2:13:44 GMT 1
Negative proof has been the fundamental point of dispute on this very matter for hundreds of years. I don't think it has. Proof is how science establishes what is and is not likely to exist. We find water, we assume that water exists and that all its observable properties exist too. We find an enormous cosmos expanding, we assume it was closer together in the past. We find a book, we do not assume its contents are true. We're not to disprove the water, we're out to find things, to speculate logically on what may exist, and then prove it. If we don't prove it, don't find it, it is as yet not assumed to exist. But the race isn't on to DISprove everything we've already found. It's to prove things that we have not. It's like 'innocent until proven guilty' - If we believe in something until it is disproved then we're believing anything anybody tells us! We can't disprove the vampire overlord G'both who I just made up, but I'm certainly not going to respect the possibility of his existence.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 2:18:34 GMT 1
I'm very proud to be atheist. But it's like saying I'm proud to like spaghetti. It's not an organisation, just a number of people with a thing in common.
Technically every atheist is agnostic - or every intelligent one. Only a fool would argue that a creator categorically does not exist. We have no idea. We can tell you though, for example, that Genesis is not literally true. That lightning's occurance is not governed by Thor. That Noah's ark would have been all but impossible to construct, and that no human lives for over 1000 years. We reject mythologies when we are certain as we can be that they are not correct. We are pretty much certain with all of them, so we have no belief system, no tradition, no tribe. We are a-theist. Some of us go one step further and become anti-theist, and why shoudn't we? These theisms have caused a lot of crap. I can't marry another man because a prominent religion says so. I'm going to fight that religion where I can. Within reason. With politeness and willignness to uphold others' rights to believe, but not much respect.
I don't think the majority of us are rude in religious discussions. No more than the majority of religious people anyway. And anecdotal evidence is NEVER worth going on. And at least we only insult our opponents on intellectual grounds, rather than calling them sinners.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Nov 26, 2012 2:30:20 GMT 1
I have seen the opposite behaviour online. I have seen atheists be highly and derisively insulting. those folks know everything. they piss me off.
My identification as agnostic comes from the same place yours does. A lack of arrogance of thinking I know where it all started and ends.
I use the term religious to describe those assholes. But you are agnostic, not atheist. By saying you don't really know, you simply cannot be atheist. Atheists KNOW it all. You are agnostic. So I was never talking about you as religious in the first place.
Can we stop being mad at each other now?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Nov 26, 2012 2:36:01 GMT 1
Tell you one thing - none of the above has been heartwarming.
--
In this case I'm not actually mad, just really into it. I'm completely fascinated by religions and their prevalence.
But Linders, I AM atheist. I subscribe to no theism, therefore I am atheist by definition. I don't deny religious propositions categorically, so by the strictest definition I'm agnostic, but then so is anyone who ever had a doubt, presumably including the Pope. Atheists are people who are not theists, that is all.
I don't have all the answers, but that is the point of science and reason and rejection of religions. That's what atheism is. Lack of answers. We have logical, tested assumptions, which we call facts - not nearly enough to start declaring the meaning of life, but none in support of these Gods we keep reading about.
We can definitely stop this now. Now that I have had the last word.... oy vey. Sorry - I really wasn't mad.
|
|