Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe that is the problem here, the religious are so involved in their belief, they can not understand that for many atheists, religion and atheism was, and still is, not that important.
bold above
the view expressed claims for many atheists "religion and atheism is not that important."
i agree with that statement. however for the atheists posting on CD, it IS an area that IS important to them. or else they wouldn't be posting on the topic. people don't post on things which are not of interest to them.
for instance CD provides data on areas of interest for each person posting.
let's look at the posting history of the individual making the claim in post above.
it shows they have made over 11,700 posts on "religion and atheism"
posts by "Harry Diogenes" / Top Forums
Religion and Spirituality: 9204
Atheism and Agnosticism: 2377
Christianity: 130
Science and Technology: 64
Nature: 40
(in contrast, they have made only 104 posts about "science, technology, and nature.")
11,711 posts on something they claim is "not that important"
if "religion and atheism" are NOT important to someone, to anyone, then they don't hang around this forum. much less pouring their time and life energy and thoughts into 11,711 posts poring and ruminating over "religion and atheism"
Total posts: 11,957
with 97.9% of those posts on "religion and atheism."
and a mere 0.8% (that is less than 1%) on "science, technology, and nature"
That is an example. The point i am making is: CD data is an indicator of how important "religion and atheism" is for users who post on CD. For example the atheist posting above. Those who aren't interested in something don't post on that topic. The more someone anyone posts on a topic, the more interested they are in that topic.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-02-2021 at 09:11 AM..
Oh dear, the attack earth worm of religion and spirituality has a point to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the view expressed in this post claims for many atheists "religion and atheism is not that important"
so let's look at the posting history of the individual making that claim.
it shows they have made over 11,700 posts on "religion and atheism"
posts by "Harry Diogenes" / Top Forums
Religion and Spirituality: 9204
Atheism and Agnosticism: 2377
Christianity: 130
Science and Technology: 64
Nature: 40
(in contrast, they have made only 104 posts about "science, technology, and nature.")
11,711 posts on something they claim is "not that important" ...
For many atheists. The exact quote was "for many atheists, religion and atheism was, and still is, not that important".
Please continue your embarrassing rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
... the words don't match the action.
if "religion and atheism" are NOT important to someone, to anyone, then they don't hang around this forum. much less pouring their time and life energy and thoughts into 11,711 posts poring and ruminating over "religion and atheism"
You wasted all that time to confuse me, ONE atheist, with MANY?
No wonder few people take you seriously, not only does your logic fail, not only do you spend almost every post attacking others, apparently you also have a problem counting.
I enjoy religion, I have no problem with religion, I like religious art, music, and history, and I like some of the serious questions rational religious and spiritual people ask, and points they raise. Naturally you are not in that list.
So down, attack earth worm of religion and spirituality, I await a mental giant to clash wits with. Actually, at this point, a village idiot will do.
bold above
the view expressed claims for many atheists "religion and atheism is not that important."
i agree with that statement. however for the atheists posting on CD, it IS an area that IS important to them. or else they wouldn't be posting on the topic. people don't post on things which are not of interest to them.
for instance CD provides data on areas of interest for each person posting.
let's look at the posting history of the individual making the claim in post above.
it shows they have made over 11,700 posts on "religion and atheism"
posts by "Harry Diogenes" / Top Forums
Religion and Spirituality: 9204
Atheism and Agnosticism: 2377
Christianity: 130
Science and Technology: 64
Nature: 40
(in contrast, they have made only 104 posts about "science, technology, and nature.")
11,711 posts on something they claim is "not that important"
if "religion and atheism" are NOT important to someone, to anyone, then they don't hang around this forum. much less pouring their time and life energy and thoughts into 11,711 posts poring and ruminating over "religion and atheism"
Total posts: 11,957
with 97.9% of those posts on "religion and atheism."
and a mere 0.8% (that is less than 1%) on "science, technology, and nature"
Conclusion: CD data is an indicator of how important "religion and atheism" is for the atheist posting above.
I came to the conclusion that the Christian claims were far too silly to be true when I was thirteen years old. That was in 1961. In 1961 openly avowed atheists were few and far between. I had never met one. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair was making headlines, not in a good way, as an openly avowed atheist. Since I no longer believed in the existence of God, I concluded that I fit the definition of an atheist. I didn't join any atheist organizations, I simply was an atheist by default.
As an atheist in a distinctly non atheist time, I was forced to defend my atheism. As time passed I got pretty good at it.
I did not indoctrinate my own children into any atheist philosophy. I simply did not raise them to be religious. My children, now grown and in middle age themselves, simply respond that they are "not religious" when asked. If pressed they will acknowledge that they have no belief in God. Which defines them as atheists. But as a rule they tend to view religion as ancient nonsense and not that important.
Because they were raised at a time when non belief was rapidly becoming commonplace, and many of their peers were also not religious. I never had it that easy. So non believers of my generation are often well versed at explaining why they are non believers. Non believers of succeeding generations simply can not be bothered with such silly stuff.
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
My atheism does not define who I am
QUOTE=Tzaphkiel;62026894]bold above
if it is "just who you are"
then it does "define who you are"[/quote]
Enjoy riddles much ?
My genes define who I am, my morals define who I am, my actions define who I am...I am not defined by a label or whether I believe in the existence of a supreme being.
I do believe it would be a rather shallow person who is defined by one belief.
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
My atheism does not define who I am
QUOTE=Tzaphkiel;62026894]bold above
if it is "just who you are"
then it does "define who you are"
Enjoy riddles much ?
My genes define who I am, my morals define who I am, my actions define who I am...I am not defined by a label or whether I believe in the existence of a supreme being.
I do believe it would be a rather shallow person who is defined by one belief.
Regards
Gemstone1[/quote]
Great idea ... now lets apply it to real world beliefs ...
My genes define who I am, my morals define who I am, my actions define who I am...I am not defined by a label or whether I believe in the existence of a supreme being. I do believe it would be a rather shallow person who is defined by one belief.
bold above states you are "not defined by a label"
yet in the same post all the items listed which you say do "define who you are" ARE labels.
"genes" "morals" "actions"
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemstone1
My genes define who I am, my morals define who I am, my actions define who I am...I am not defined by a label or whether I believe in the existence of a supreme being. I do believe it would be a rather shallow person who is defined by one belief.
note: use of the word "you" indicates the view expressed in the post which is quoted. discussing the view, not discussing any individual person. rather, generic "you" as in anyone holding that view.
[the post raises a topic which would be an interesting separate thread on its own, to ask readers what they feel defines who they are.]
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-02-2021 at 08:36 PM..
The conversation surrounding define, definition, and labels is getting to be picky. An analysis of the word "define" and "definition" gives a sense and meaning of being completely bounded. That means there is a line that has been drawn of what something is and what something is not. This is the opposite of infinite where we can use endless labels to describe a person but it ultimately doesn't define that person.
Therefore, it is not enough to say what something is if we are talking about defining. What should also be stated is what something is not. Naturally, this creates divisions (and the term division doesn't have to have a negative connotation.)
Last edited by elyn02; 10-03-2021 at 07:32 AM..
Reason: An attempt at clarity
The conversation surrounding define, definition, and labels is getting to be picky. An analysis of the word "define" and "definition" gives a sense and meaning of being completely bounded. That means there is a line that has been drawn of what something is and what something is not. This is the opposite of infinite where we can use endless labels to describe a person but it ultimately doesn't define that person.
Therefore, it is not enough to say what something is if we are talking about defining. What should also be stated is what something is not. Naturally, this creates divisions (and the term division doesn't have to have a negative connotation.)
bold above, good point. (and central to paths of "religion and spirituality")
for instance i am not (defined by) my body. i am not (defined by) my bank account. i am not (defined by) my career or my marital status or my age or race or ethnicity. i am not my thoughts or emotions or history or family, i am not the letters after my name or what i own or where i live.
i don't think it's silly or picky to discuss these, although probably it better belongs in the general R&S section than in this sub-section of A&A.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-03-2021 at 08:33 AM..
bold above, good point. (and central to paths of "religion and spirituality")
for instance i am not (defined by) my body. i am not (defined by) my bank account. i am not (defined by) my career or my marital status or my age or race or ethnicity. i am not my thoughts or emotions or history or family, i am not the letters after my name or what i own or where i live.
i don't think it's silly or picky to discuss these, although probably it better belongs in the general R&S section than in this sub-section of A&A.
Agreed, so long as you are discussing what defines you. However, when you venture into informing someone else what defines them, and then arguing with what they say due to such flimsy points as "genes", "morals", and "actions" ARE SO labels, you have become quite silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
