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.
But to me it's quite evident that you would none other than love to see that the whole religion thing be gone and done with.
To me, I'm fairly neutral on the subject. Would I mind if fundamentalism went the way of the do-do? Absolutely not. But as for religion in general, I don't have issues with people who have a more 'enlightened' view of their religion - which is why there are plenty of Christians on this board who frequently agree with what I have to say. Who I target with my posts is pretty obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
I think there's sure alot of energy used and expended to upset it and ostensibly show that it is a derelict belief system. Under the circumstances it is understandable that anger would be the feeling engendered in adherents.
The only time I truly get angry with religion is when it attempts to force everyone to abide by its rules. You might be surprised how often this attempt is made at the local level; rarely does it ever make the news. When I worked at a county library down south, we were constantly bombarded with people trying to ban books, and a portion of our budget had to be set aside to replace books that fundamentalists destroy right there in the library - like when one of them came in and destroyed a $100 art book by taking a black permanent marker to all of the classical statuary that showed genitalia. They think they have some kind of right to decide for me and everyone else what we're allowed to read and what we're allowed to see. When it comes to religion overstepping its bounds, I do get both defensive and militant. I think I have just cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
Maybe another way of looking at it is that some religionists just don't know how far atheists are stunned that religion is still part of the world at this point considering that people use it to kill and kill in its name?
I do find it baffling that people can still become fundamentalist believers given all that we know. Denying science, forcing people to abide by Old Testament rules ... it's ridiculous. But what's worse is when they use their holy books to persecute, execute, or simply deny rights to people that do not march in lock step with their draconian expectations.
I suppose this is why you rarely see atheists in direct confontation with each other. We all value our freedom and the right for others to make their own individual decisions when it comes to their faith. Ergo, when fundamentalists wage these non-stop campaigns to trample those rights, like trying to pass a bill allowing businesses to openly discriminate against gays, I get a little growly - and I don't make a secret of it. Using the kid gloves doesn't work any better than using one's fists.
We are getting off topic a bit. But I suppose in a way making atheism look like a religion can be related to some argument that atheists claim the moral high -ground.
It's like this: one can find similarities between atheism and religion and argue that makes it a religion.
It is a disbelief in the god -claim and a rejection of the claims of religion. That can be represented as a position on religion, but that does not make it a religion anymore than not playing football is a sport.
There are obvious ways that atheism is NOT like a religion. It has no dogma, Holy book, Churches or priests, no funny hats nor rituals and, as Steve Martin says, atheist got no songs (he means religious hymnal; we got songs). Of course religion can argue that Dawkins et al are our high priests, Darwin is our holy book and wherever there are three or four of we hellbound satanspawn gathered together, there is the Church and religion of Athe. Of course that argument falls down when one sees that one can do the same with stamp collectors, Military re-enactors (they even have funny hats) and womens' cricket. If having books, advocates and meetings makes for a religion, then our weekly Italian cookery class is the Ealing Taliban.
Perfervidness in itself does not a religion make (as you would have found out if you had looked the word up before you used it), as is often the case, old chum, your argument is a crock and demonstrably so, and it doesn't matter whether you accept that or no; solus denial gets you nothing but yet more deflation of credibility.
You've even got your "Deities": The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the one I assigned you ***NOGODAH***!
Quote:
Atheism of course will be based on a rationale of evidence and reason, though in fact one could simply reject the God -claim without that and still be an atheist. But calling that rationale a 'belief system' and claiming that makes atheism a religion applies no more than applying those methods to criminal investigation
"Atheism...based on a rationale of evidence and reason". That's a joke, right?!
Atheism is based upon the invalid premise of "NO EVIDENCE"...a Logical Fallacy (a couple actually)...it is irrational and illogical and does NOT comport with pure reason. It is a belief based upon assumptions...just like most theology. THAT is it's main similarity...well, that and the obsessed Fundie adherents.
Quote:
Of course if you apply it to evolutionary biology then, yes that too becomes a 'religion'; a 'faith -based theory'. And so we see what this 'atheism is a religion' thing is all about: it is about trying to discredit the rationale and make it look like it is based on faith as much as is the god claim and thus is (logically) no more valid.
One doesn't have to "try to discredit the rationale" of Atheism...it does that intrinsically. By being based upon the invalid premise of "No Evidence"...and following that to a illogical determination/conclusion.
Quote:
As we will not be surprised to find out, it is another dishonest theist argument. Gldnrule, don't end up doing their dirty work for them just because you have some rather incomprehensible prejudice against militant atheism.
The only prejudice I have is against not letting people freely have their views, beliefs, and concepts...no matter what they are...as long as they cause no harm (being bothered/annoyed isn't "harm").
"Atheism...based on a rationale of evidence and reason". That's a joke, right?!
Atheism is based upon the invalid premise of "NO EVIDENCE"...a Logical Fallacy (a couple actually)...it is irrational and illogical and does NOT comport with pure reason. It is a belief based upon assumptions...just like most theology. THAT is it's main similarity...well, that and the obsessed Fundie adherents.
Then how do you even differentiate between reality and fantasy? If the lack of evidence is not just cause for disbelief, then we would have to assume everything exists. Only things that have been proven NOT to exist can be logically disbelieved - which isn't logical in and of itself.
Imagine if our courts worked that way. Even when there is no evidence at all to convict someone, that isn't good enough to render a 'not guilty' verdict. No, we have to assume there MIGHT be evidence somewhere in the universe that we haven't found yet which would prove the person's guilt. Therefore, we should lock up the suspect until such time that his defense team can conclusively prove he's not guilty. Lots of innocent people would be sitting in jail right now based on faulty logic.
If we cannot make the assumption that a lack of evidence equates to non-existence (until evidence is presented), what could we claim doesn't exist? Is there even evidence for the non-existence of Santa? A meteor that's about to hit you in the head? That an invisible belching kitten lives under your kitchen sink?
Unless, of course, we're back to that religious conceit whereby, because it's religion, we have to allow for the possibility of the impossible just because it's religion (and for no other reason).
The only prejudice I have is against not letting people freely have their views, beliefs, and concepts...no matter what they are...as long as they cause no harm (being bothered/annoyed isn't "harm").
Hmm, well, if any highly focused interest or activity is considered a religion, how come football, stamp collecting, and model trains aren't constitutionally protected? Does someone have a right to play/watch football, for instance? Can there be a civil suit lodged against someone who prevented a fan from catching the game?
If you think the U.S. Constitution is the definitive determinant of how things are defined and should be...I guess you think slavery, gender oppression, and race-based genocide is okay...since the Constitution has legally sanctioned all those things.
Documents written by slavemaster, gender biased, genocidal barbarians, don't hold much credence with me. It only applies to a small amount of the worlds population anyway. Other countries legal documents say things completely different. So, whose is objectively the "right" one for everybody? And on what objective basis would one make that determination?
Quote:
Words, as you well know, have multiple definitions and, perhaps more importantly, different connotations.
Religion, without a doubt, carries with it the connotation that there is a monolothic belief system in place, complete with an object of worship (usually a god), church services, at least one holy book, etc. etc.
Someone might say "he watches the football game religiously," but using the word in that context is still a tip of the hat toward deity-worshiping religions where people are often very diligent about maintaining rituals. Thus, watching the football game is being described as a ritual - as would be found in many religious practices.
In an attempt to equate atheism with religion is much the same way people might call the Japanese internment camps during WWII "concentration" camps. Or how people will equate liberalism with socialism. These are little baby hyperboles, an attempt to pollute the meaning of one word, like atheism, by associating it with another word, religion. This association is mandatory if a critic wishes to equate atheism with religious fundamentalism - they both must have religiosity in common.
Of course, it is simply clever wordsmithing; accuracy or veracity are not the main foci.
This is still equating religion with theology. I don't do that. Probably because I'm neither theologically religious, or tweaked out about that fact many/most others are...but I'm still hip to the concept of being "religiously" into something other than theology.
You've even got your "Deities": The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the one I assigned you ***NOGODAH***!
Those are spoof deities as you know well, since you made up one of your own. It's at best an attempt to exploit the 'atheism is a religion' argument to use against theism. You ought to know better.
Quote:
"Atheism...based on a rationale of evidence and reason". That's a joke, right?!
If it is, the laugh is against you.
Quote:
Atheism is based upon the invalid premise of "NO EVIDENCE"...a Logical Fallacy (a couple actually)...
really, which ones? Note, Ones you made up yourself don't count.
Quote:
it is irrational and illogical and does NOT comport with pure reason. It is a belief based upon assumptions...just like most theology. THAT is it's main similarity...well, that and the obsessed Fundie adherents.
The only assumption it makes is that logical reason and evidence is the soundest way to come to conclusions.
Quote:
One doesn't have to "try to discredit the rationale" of Atheism...it does that intrinsically. By being based upon the invalid premise of "No Evidence"...and following that to a illogical determination/conclusion.
This is your latest in a long line of failed atheist -basher arguements? Ok, I don't mind playing.
Quote:
The only prejudice I have is against not letting people freely have their views, beliefs, and concepts...no matter what they are...as long as they cause no harm (being bothered/annoyed isn't "harm").
And the only prejudice I have is against those who argue that it's ok to have science and fairy stories treated as though they were equally valid on the 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' argument and anyone trying to point out that science has more credibility that fairy stories, ghost stories and myths is some kind of fundamentalist and bigot.
I'd say that has now kicked the slats out of your whole case, but as usual, you will be the only one not to see it, so I guess we are in for another page or so of your wriggling and denial.
If you think the U.S. Constitution is the definitive determinant of how things are defined and should be...I guess you think slavery, gender oppression, and race-based genocide is okay...since the Constitution has legally sanctioned all those things.
Documents written by slavemaster, gender biased, genocidal barbarians, don't hold much credence with me. It only applies to a small amount of the worlds population anyway. Other countries legal documents say things completely different. So, whose is objectively the "right" one for everybody? And on what objective basis would one make that determination?
I like the way (because you once managed to keep the debate going for pages on the subject), you are trying to drag the topic onto the 'constiturion', with the wonderfully clever goad of claiming that it caused genocide, slavery...I trust that Shirina will easily sidestep this cunning red herring.
Quote:
This is still equating religion with theology. I don't do that. Probably because I'm neither theologically religious, or tweaked out about that fact many/most others are...but I'm still hip to the concept of being "religiously" into something other than theology.
It is not equating religion with theology, so whether you equate them or not is irrelevant, especially since your idea of what they are seems open to question.
I'll say this for you, your slipshod efforts to be crafty are always entertaining.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-19-2014 at 10:58 AM..
Atheism is based upon the invalid premise of "NO EVIDENCE"...a Logical Fallacy (a couple actually)...it is irrational and illogical and does NOT comport with pure reason. It is a belief based upon assumptions...just like most theology. THAT is it's main similarity...well, that and the obsessed Fundie adherents.
While I get and agree with a lot of the things you've said, I don't see which logical fallacy this is. Could you elaborate?
Also, atheism is not based on the premise of no evidence. It's just that some would argue that there isn't any evidence (because they haven't been shown any), to explain why they personally do not believe. And while even the statement "There isn't any evidence of a god" may indeed be incorrect (for the sake of argument), atheism itself is neither irrational nor illogical. How can a refusal to believe in something lacking observable and observed evidence in and of itself be irrational/illogical?
Otherwise, I agree that we should really leave it to individuals what they want to believe, on this matter at least, because of the lack of evidence for either side.
While I get and agree with a lot of the things you've said, I don't see which logical fallacy this is. Could you elaborate?
Also, atheism is not based on the premise of no evidence. It's just that some would argue that there isn't any evidence (because they haven't been shown any), to explain why they personally do not believe. And while even the statement "There isn't any evidence of a god" may indeed be incorrect (for the sake of argument), atheism itself is neither irrational nor illogical. How can a refusal to believe in something lacking observable and observed evidence in and of itself be irrational/illogical?
Otherwise, I agree that we should really leave it to individuals what they want to believe, on this matter at least, because of the lack of evidence for either side.
It is Vic.
The logical fallacies being employed are Argument from Ignorance & Argument from Silence.
"No evidence" can not logically or rationally be used as evidence to make any determination/conclusion...not even the determination to "not believe".
From a Pure Logic standpoint...the only surely true conclusion that a premise of "no evidence" can lead to is "There is no evidence" or "I don't know".
The determination/conclusion to "not believe" based on the invalid premise of "no evidence" is just an assumption...one could have just as well made the assumption "to believe" based upon that same premise.
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.
