TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- atheism just another religion?
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Oh, and dont get me started on religious charity work. They do it for the sake of getting more people (converts) to their religion. Preaching. Missionary work. You get the idea. True charities are those who do work and dont expect anything in return. They do it for the sake of helping people and making a difference. Religious groups, however, take advantage of the conflicts and poverty and work with those people to help them out, by various means, but incorporating missionary work or services as well.

Spoken like someone who only understands a minute amount of what he's talking about.

1st) Your comments seem directed exclusively toward Christian and Islamic missionary work... what about Buddhist, Jewish, or Hindu missionaries... are they trying to convert people? (hint: the answer is no). If they are not then you need to limit your position to Christian and Islamic missionaries... so you've already lost you bid to discredit religious missionary work.

2nd) You claim that "true charities" help people for the sake of helping people while religious missionaries have an ulterior motive. You cite as evidence that religious missionaries seek to convert people to their faith. As previously pointed out; this really only pertains to Islamic and Christian missionaries and that their charity is not contingent on conversion. What really destroys your argument though is that missionaries don't seek to convert people out of selfish reasons (generally); rather, the exact opposite. You must keep in mind that missionaries tend to be stringent believers in their faith. Both the Christian and Islamic faiths are evangelical faiths... meaning that part of the faith is to spread the good news to others. This apostolic mission (as Christians refer to it) is not done for any perceived reward, it is done out of love for the persons that they reach out too. If one believes that the kingdom of heaven is available to anyone who believes then is it not an expression of love to try to help others to reach that kingdom? Of course these missionaries could be wrong and it all be for naught; however, motivation is what you're questioning and if the motivation is love then there is absolutely no difference between missionaries seeking to convert and "true charities."

With regard to the OP, I think it's absolutely wrong for any arm of any government to suppress the ads of this atheist group, much as I view it as absolutely wrong to suppress the ads of any religious group. All faiths and all beliefs need to be challenged and it is not the state's place to choose which beliefs can be expressed.

The US Supreme Court rules it as a religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The US Supreme Court rules it as a religion.

Even though that's just like listing pedestrians as walking car owners

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Even though that's just like listing pedestrians as walking car owners

I don't know, isn't believing in no god an unproven religious belief in and of itself?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Spoken like someone who only understands a minute amount of what he's talking about. 1st) Your comments seem directed exclusively toward Christian and Islamic missionary work... what about Buddhist, Jewish, or Hindu missionaries... are they trying to convert people? (hint: the answer is no). If they are not then you need to limit your position to Christian and Islamic missionaries... so you've already lost you bid to discredit religious missionary work.

Buddists, Jews, Hindus didnt colonize the world and force people to convert to their religions in history, like Christians and Muslims did. Well, at least on a broad perspective - in case there some cases you may think of. Its a GENERAL idea. Besides, I dont think I've ever heard of Jewish or Hindu missionaries - Buddhism nowadays is spread differently. Through famous people, stories, yoga, whatever.

For example, take Africa. What missionary groups are converting people there? Buddhists? Hindus? Israel - not so, they primarily work to EXPATRIATE Jews to Israel. Its mostly about Islam and Christianity.

quote:

2nd) You claim that "true charities" help people for the sake of helping people while religious missionaries have an ulterior motive. You cite as evidence that religious missionaries seek to convert people to their faith. As previously pointed out; this really only pertains to Islamic and Christian missionaries and that their charity is not contingent on conversion. What really destroys your argument though is that missionaries don't seek to convert people out of selfish reasons (generally); rather, the exact opposite. You must keep in mind that missionaries tend to be stringent believers in their faith. Both the Christian and Islamic faiths are evangelical faiths... meaning that part of the faith is to spread the good news to others. This apostolic mission (as Christians refer to it) is not done for any perceived reward, it is done out of love for the persons that they reach out too. If one believes that the kingdom of heaven is available to anyone who believes then is it not an expression of love to try to help others to reach that kingdom? Of course these missionaries could be wrong and it all be for naught; however, motivation is what you're questioning and if the motivation is love then there is absolutely no difference between missionaries seeking to convert and "true charities."

I lived and traveled thoroughly in Russia when I was young. There were two main groups of missionaries that I saw in the 1990s - Islamic ones, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I've seen the kind of people they targeted. I didnt see Christian missionaries, because obviously there was noone to convert.

I am sure there are some good missionaries out there, like Buddhists. But the bulk of the missionary work is not done by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or other groups. Islam and Christianity - conversion is blessed-blessed.

Afghanistan showed it, too. Recall the recent time when Christian missionaries from South Korea were taken hostage? When Taliban was overthrown, suddenly the country became a magnet for religious "volunteer" work.

Well Alex I just watched the Stein/Dawkins interview as well as the entire debate with Lennox and didn't see any moment where Dawkins confessed there was a God

In the debate, Lennox made some nice attempts but ultimately every one of his suppositions were debunked in Dawkins' book...and during the final remarks..WOW did Lennox make an idiot out of himself. He could have had a strong conclusion..falling back to one of the interesting (and slightly persuasive) subjects addressed like the cosmological constants and how unlikely it is our universe could support life without being fine tuned, etc. But what does he fall back on instead as his ultimate proof of God? JESUS COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD! He pwned himself so badly by using that as his ultimate "proof"...his final argument. All of the pseudo-science he trotted out and all of the logic he used that could have made a strong conclusion went to ashes at those words. It was really hard to watch as Dawkins pointed out how pathetic it was that the creationist explanation for our lives, planet, and the infinite universe boils down to something so small, petty, and earthbound as the death of one man 2000 years ago. Thanks for suggesting that debate. After watching it, I am convinced more than ever that strong religious belief is a mental disorder/handicap in all cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] Buddists, Jews, Hindus didnt colonize the world and force people to convert to their religions in history, like Christians and Muslims did. Well, at least on a broad perspective - in case there some cases you may think of. Its a GENERAL idea. Besides, I dont think I've ever heard of Jewish or Hindu missionaries - Buddhism nowadays is spread differently. Through famous people, stories, yoga, whatever.

Interesting... I presume you never heard of the Kushan Empire which brought Buddhism out of India through their missionary work, or the Gupta Empire that deposed Buddhism as the premier religion of India through their patronage of charity work centered at Hindu temples. It seems your knowledge of history doesn't really stretch back that far or it's restricted to European history... either way, my point remains; other religions engage in missionary work with no bent toward conversion whatsoever thus your position that religious charity is only interested in conversion cannot apply to three of the five great faiths and it's simply incorrect with regard to the other two.

quote:

I lived and traveled thoroughly in Russia when I was young. There were two main groups of missionaries that I saw in the 1990s - Islamic ones, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I've seen the kind of people they targeted. I didnt see Christian missionaries, because obviously there was noone to convert.

Well if that's what you witnessed when you were a child then I suppose your memory is the absolute truth... no need to look any further.

quote:

I am sure there are some good missionaries out there, like Buddhists. But the bulk of the missionary work is not done by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or other groups. Islam and Christianity - conversion is blessed-blessed.

Indeed, the bulk of the missionary work is done by Muslims and Christians and while conversion is an event to be celebrated it is not the goal of most missionaries. Most missionaries do what they do out of genuine compassion and because one of the tenets of their faith is to "do God's work in the world." They believe that the highest calling someone can answer is to help their fellow man. They do this out of love for humanity, not to win souls in some sort of contest. Do they share their religion with others; yes, are they please if someone chooses to adopt their faith; absolutely... why wouldn't they? Again, this is all out of love... if one believes that the greatest gift one can receive is to be a "child of God" then of course they will be happy when someone chooses to join their faith, as they honestly believe this is what's best for the person. I suspect that if through one of our many interchanges PKC were to convince me that there were no God and I were to abandon my faith then he would be happy for me, as he would see this as liberating me from the yolk of religion. Motivation is what's important when determining the virtue of an action... if the motivation for both religious and non-religious charity work is compassion then I simply do not see the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't know, isn't believing in no god an unproven religious belief in and of itself?

Here's an analogy that will help you understand a little the atheist mindset. Allow me to give an absurd example, so this dicussion doesn't get tangled to any prior discussion irrelevant to this thread.

Suppose you believe B. Namely, that a group of Cambodian virgins can influence the outcome of your life, and you can actually put forth a series of compelling arguments to justify your belief. Now, John has never thought of that, ever. He's always lived his life and doesn't seem to perceive any kind of control exerted by these Cambodians on his life. It's fair to say that he doesn't believe B, even because this thought has never crossed his mind.

But, if you get into a debate with John, and introduce him to the belief that B and he refuts your arguments, he may simply state that he either (a) doesn't believe B (weak ¬B) or even that (b) he believes ¬B, simply because it has no impact on his life whatsoever, so he could do without it.

Can you really say they're equally a matter of faith?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Here's an analogy that will help you understand a little the atheist mindset. Allow me to give an absurd example, so this dicussion doesn't get tangled to any prior discussion irrelevant to this thread. Suppose you believe B. Namely, that a group of Cambodian virgins can influence the outcome of your life, and you can actually put forth a series of compelling arguments to justify your belief. Now, John has never thought of that, ever. He's always lived his life and doesn't seem to perceive any kind of control exerted by these Cambodians on his life. It's fair to say that he doesn't believe B, even because this thought has never crossed his mind. But, if you get into a debate with John, and introduce him to the belief that B and he refuts your arguments, he may simply state that he either (a) doesn't believe B (weak ¬B) or even that (b) he believes ¬B, simply because it has no impact on his life whatsoever, so he could do without it. Can you really say they're equally a matter of faith?

I think you've made a poor example. Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). This differs from a lack of belief in god(s). Not believing in the existence of a thing is not the same as asserting that there is no thing, as the latter requires the asserter to claim they have knowledge whereas the former requires the non-believer to claim they have no knowledge. My issue with atheism is that it is impossible to have any knowledge regarding god(s), only belief or a lack of belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Well Alex I just watched the Stein/Dawkins interview as well as the entire debate with Lennox and didn't see any moment where Dawkins confessed there was a God In the debate, Lennox made some nice attempts but ultimately every one of his suppositions were debunked in Dawkins' book...and during the final remarks..WOW did Lennox make an idiot out of himself. He could have had a strong conclusion..falling back to one of the interesting (and slightly persuasive) subjects addressed like the cosmological constants and how unlikely it is our universe could support life without being fine tuned, etc. But what does he fall back on instead as his ultimate proof of God? JESUS COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD! He pwned himself so badly by using that as his ultimate "proof"...his final argument. All of the pseudo-science he trotted out and all of the logic he used that could have made a strong conclusion went to ashes at those words. It was really hard to watch as Dawkins pointed out how pathetic it was that the creationist explanation for our lives, planet, and the infinite universe boils down to something so small, petty, and earthbound as the death of one man 2000 years ago. Thanks for suggesting that debate. After watching it, I am convinced more than ever that strong religious belief is a mental disorder/handicap in all cases.

Exactly what debate did you watch?

Sounds like you are making this up

And yes, we're all mentally disabled I think you either read a review of the debate or watched part of it and made up your mind from that part because you really don't sound like you had any intention of having an open mind about any other position but your own with comments like "strong religious belief is a mental disorder/handicap IN ALL CASES".

Wow.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you've made a poor example. Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). This differs from a lack of belief in god(s). Not believing in the existence of a thing is not the same as asserting that there is no thing, as the latter requires the asserter to claim they have knowledge whereas the former requires the non-believer to claim they have no knowledge. My issue with atheism is that it is impossible to have any knowledge regarding god(s), only belief or a lack of belief.

Actually, atheism comes in many different flavours. It can be:

1. The affirmation of the nonexistence of gods (i.e. I believe ¬B), also known as strong atheism ;
   
2. A rejection of theism (i.e. I don't believe B), a form of weak atheism;
   
3. Or, in an even more subtle, the absence of theist beliefs (i.e. nontheism), which is not quite the same as agnosticism, by the way, the difference being that to an agnostic, we can't know the truth, while a nontheist just doesn't care at all; just so we can keep our categorisation tidy, that's yet another form of weak atheism.
   

I'm listening to Lennox' conclusion right now, what are you talking about Capitalizt?

Lennox is absolutely pounding Dawkins into the ground concerning Dawkins' misquotes in his book, IE: using quotes from Hume and others to make a point that none of those people he quoted from intended.

Also Lennox offers plenty of proof concerning the reliability of the historian that was Luke, whereas Dawkins uses an anesthesiologist as proof that the Bible is historically incorrect? What?

Not to mention if you'd listened properly to the debate you'd know why Lennox ended off with his comments concerning Jesus. Dawkins throughout the debate had been questioning Jesus' intentions, and Lennox absolutely did not make Jesus' ressurection the corner stone of ALL his arguments throughout the debate, he made it the corner stone of his beliefs and why he believes in what he believes in. My goodness dude! Atheists and Dawkins lovers really do jump at everything he says and immediately accept it as truth, yet if a theist does anything to that effect they get called "mentally disordered". Nice standard there

Dawkins ends the debate in typical Dawkins fashion, with "petty, earthbound and irrelevant" insults that an atheist could go and chuckle to himself about but he really did not offer any evidence for any of his points, as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you've made a poor example. Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). This differs from a lack of belief in god(s). Not believing in the existence of a thing is not the same as asserting that there is no thing, as the latter requires the asserter to claim they have knowledge whereas the former requires the non-believer to claim they have no knowledge. My issue with atheism is that it is impossible to have any knowledge regarding god(s), only belief or a lack of belief.

But what if the atheism is far less interested in the existence (or not) of god, and more concerned with the disproportionately powerful influence of religion in the public sphere? I call myself an atheist even though I entertain the possibility that god exists. That's not really what im worried about. The difference between the two adherents of the "positive positions", is that atheism's position starts and ends with "there is no god", whereas religious followers go much futher than "there is a god".

alex, how could it NOT be a mental disorder when a mathematician like Lennox..someone supposedly concerned with the hard sciences..with rigid rules for deduction and finding absolute proofs would throw these things out the window to worship and advocate something that not only can't be proved and has no proof (aside from the "resurrection, lol) but is also extremely EXTREMELY improbable (near impossible) on a statistical level? When someone with a strong scientific and mathematical mind is forced to contort and disregard his own common sense and knowledge of reality so he can believe in "miracles" and other nonsense with no evidence, what else would you call it? If not a mental disorder, then most certainly a handicap.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt alex, how could it NOT be a mental disorder when a mathematician like Lennox..someone supposedly concerned with the hard sciences..with rigid rules for deduction and finding absolute proofs would throw these things out the window to worship and advocate something that not only can't be proved and has no proof (aside from the "resurrection, lol) but is also extremely EXTREMELY improbable (near impossible) on a statistical level? When someone with a strong scientific and mathematical mind is forced to contort and disregard his own common sense and knowledge of reality so he can believe in "miracles" and other nonsense with no evidence, what else would you call it? If not a mental disorder, then most certainly a handicap.

Wow.

So Francis Bacon had a mental disorder?

Galileo?

Einstein believed in a deity as well.

Even Darwin's attack dog, Huxley didn't go full on atheist, that's why he more or less invented the term agnostic.

You really come across as poorly informed when you talk about "absolute proofs" for the existence of a God, claim the statistics are extremely low for such a probability (yet provide none and then criticize brilliant minds (greater than mine or yours) so harshly for believing in the existence of God.

After all, Bacon must have been mentally challenged, he only invented the Scientific Method, not like we have made any use of that or anything

You need to read more of Dawkins/Hitchens/Atkins before you try and say that there needs to be absolute proof for the existence of God, they don't even agree that there needs to be absolute proof because even Dawkins admits a lot of the science HE uses is often based on assumptions.

I'm sorry but any intelligent person will have realized by now that the existence of God is not a question of using science or the scientific method.

not that it matters but

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Einstein believed in a deity as well.

no he didnt.

Taken from Wiki:

quote:

Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.

You old troll PKC

like i said, it doesn't matter, but since you're wrong...

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Taken from Wiki: You old troll PKC

well, luckily i don't take wiki as a definitive source for all knowledge. id prefer to listen to what albert had to say on the subject:

quote:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

basically, anything quoted from einstein regarding a "god" is merely a euphamism for "the universe" or "nature". einstein has never made any mention of believing in a supernatural deity, but its a source of constant amusement for me and others when theists vainly try to claim him as one of their own

You've taken 2 quotes of his concerning the existence of a personal God, moron.

I didn't say he believed in a personal God, I know his position very well, but he does admit to believing in some basis for the observable order in the universe that is itself not a physical law or phenomenon. And what exactly does that translate to? Something that doesn't abide by physical laws nor is it an observable phenomenon HMMMM sounds like a deity to me.

quote:

its a source of constant amusement for me and others when theists vainly try to claim him as one of their own

It's a source of amusement for me when poorly informed atheists such as yourself distort my statements and turns it into something that it isn't. Typical "intellectual deception" as you would call it pkc.

I never said Einstein was a Christian, try reading peoples posts before replying to them with nonsense.


I noticed also that while you may not trust wiki as a source for everything, you seem to trust the fruits of a 3 second google search as I found your exact quotes while searching for Einstein's positions myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex You've taken 2 quotes of his concerning the existence of a personal God, moron.

so, find me ANY quote where he plainly states a belief in a supernatural god.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I didn't say he believed in a personal God, I know his position very well, but he does admit to believing in some basis for the observable order in the universe that is itself not a physical law or phenomenon. And what exactly does that translate to? Something that doesn't abide by physical laws nor is it an observable phenomenon HMMMM sounds like a deity to me.

well it would sound like a deity to you, because that's what you want to believe. what ive already stated is correct; einstein used "god" as a euphamism for nature, get over it. there isn't a single recorded quote from albert even approaching 'i believe in a deity'.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's a source of amusement for me when poorly informed atheists such as yourself distort my statements and turns it into something that it isn't. Typical "intellectual deception" as you would call it pkc. I never said Einstein was a Christian, try reading peoples posts before replying to them with nonsense.

i said theists, not christians. how about you swallow some of your own medicine and read posts properly, assclown.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I noticed also that while you may not trust wiki as a source for everything, you seem to trust the fruits of a 3 second google search as I found your exact quotes while searching for Einstein's positions myself.

yeah, well ive had this argument with krypton before so i knew which quotes i was looking for. and yes, i trust that they are the words of einstein because i cross-referenced them some time ago. i already knew this information. you went to wiki to try and confirm your non-sensical bias.

I will admit that I obviously cannot find a quote where he says "I believe in a deity" but he did say he believed in Spinoza's God and while it was thought that Spinoza had offered an alternative to atheism, theism or deism his idea of a "living god in/of nature" was leaning much more towards a deity than anything else.

And come on, I AM a theist so I don't see why you'd direct your comments to all the other theists that will read your post. Cough, none, cough, since there are no other theists around here that I know of. Or maybe you were just making a passing comment, but still, it would be like me making a comment about atheists and not intending on it being taken to heart by the 900 billion atheists here.

And how is it not possible that I was doing the exact same thing by going and finding a proof on the internet vs picking up one of my philosophy books and typing out the shit in there instead of copy pasting? (which is a shitload easier).


Also the term assclown has been played out way too hard since Office Space

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I will admit that I obviously cannot find a quote where he says "I believe in a deity" but he did say he believed in Spinoza's God and while it was thought that Spinoza had offered an alternative to atheism, theism or deism his idea of a "living god in/of nature" was leaning much more towards a deity than anything else.

i know you hate him but

quote:

Originally posted by richard dawkins Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And come on, I AM a theist so I don't see why you'd direct your comments to all the other theists that will read your post.

well, because as i said above, ive had this exact conversation before!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And how is it not possible that I was doing the exact same thing by going and finding a proof on the internet vs picking up one of my philosophy books and typing out the shit in there instead of copy pasting? (which is a shitload easier).

yes, it certainly is possible. however imo wiki is good for facts and data, not on interpretation (which is what we're doing).

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Also the term assclown has been played out way too hard since Office Space

really? when do they mention assclown? i love that movie (have it on DVD!) and i dont remember hearing it. i originally got it from Roy & HG on ABC (Oz) tv.

Ya Michael Bolton calls someone an assclown at some point, that's where I first heard it I think many years ago. I used to have the damn thing memorized.

And arrrgh Dawkins.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, atheism comes in many different flavours. It can be: The affirmation of the nonexistence of gods (i.e. I believe ¬B), also known as strong atheism ; A rejection of theism (i.e. I don't believe B), a form of weak atheism; Or, in an even more subtle, the absence of theist beliefs (i.e. nontheism), which is not quite the same as agnosticism, by the way, the difference being that to an agnostic, we can't know the truth, while a nontheist just doesn't care at all; just so we can keep our categorisation tidy, that's yet another form of weak atheism. And, although, I reckon that I may have indeed come up with a poor example, I think it still fits the context, as one has all of these 3 ways of refuting a belief (or ignoring it altogether).

I think you have it wrong, Lira. Atheism is the antithesis of theism; therefore, it must assert that there is no god by it's very definition. A rejection of theism is not atheism, as it simply means one does not accept theism, which is not the same as stating there is no God. A lack of belief is not atheism either, as it is simply the absence of a position. If you consider yourself an atheist; however, you do not take the positive position that there is no god then you have miscatagorized yourself.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.