Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.
That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness.It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.
Let me fix that for you.
It's actually comical to see the zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims.Now it reads like something that makes sense.
I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.
The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.
No, they wont.I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?
To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?
For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
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. (Dictionary.com)
-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.
I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.
--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in theEaster Bunnytheistic approach to religion.
I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact
Will those work for a start?
Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.
1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...
#2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural". Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, gender), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark.
But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality. It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language. In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it intersects.
This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism. A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value....
But again --- different modality. There are many many paths. Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.
This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.
There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.
Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.
A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.
1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...
#2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural". Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, gender), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark.
But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality. It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language. In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it intersects.
This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism. A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value....
But again --- different modality. There are many many paths. Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.
Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?
That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness.
If you science/knowledge loathing fundies have any "pwoofs" of your supernatural realms haunted by angry gods are real and extant, provide them.
If you have issues with science knowledge that confounds your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft, try a heapin' helpin' of the Kool-aid and be done with it.
The voices in your head are confusing you.That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness.
If you science/knowledge loathing fundies have any "pwoofs" of your supernatural realms haunted by angry gods are real and extant, provide them.
If you have issues with science knowledge that confounds your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft, try a heapin' helpin' of the Kool-aid and be done with it.
Newsflash.
I detailed an argument as to why you can not claim to be both rational and empirical, and you responded with bullshit about how I am a fundamentalist Christian that refuses to prove that things I have not said are true.
In other words, I am not the idiot in this conversation.
How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?
Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?
You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
I realize what he meant. He just said it wrongly.Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?
I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
No I haven't. I said that an atheist does not have to be religious. YOU misstated what I said to make your claim. What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
I realize what he meant. He just said it wrongly.Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?
I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong. That doesn't change the fact that you are.You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"? What agenda does it serve?
No I haven't. I said that an atheist does not have to be religious. YOU misstated what I said to make your claim. What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong. That doesn't change the fact that you are.You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
Thank you, Mary!
For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"? What agenda does it serve?
