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 pkcRAISTLIN 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?

Atheism by definition is the contrary position of theism; therefore, it must be principally linked to the position that there is no god. Someone who is principally concerned with the influence of religion in the public sphere could be categorized as many things depending on what motivates that concern. I too am quite concerned with the influence of religion in the public sphere, as I believe that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate. While we have similar positions our motivations are likely very different, certainly, I could not be described as an atheist.

quote:

I call myself an atheist even though I entertain the possibility that god exists. That's not really what im worried about.

If you cannot take the positive position that there is no god then you simply are not an atheist... an agnostic; maybe, a skeptic; probably, but an atheist; no. If you dislike organized religion then you should state that; however, to call yourself an atheist while entertaining that god may exist is tantamount to a self-identified Jew that believes Jesus was the messiah.

quote:

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".

Hmmm, in theory you are correct; however, in practice most atheists are also secularists and intermingle their positions; thus, the atheist position often is just the jumping off point for secularist arguments. The same is true with many theists. By definition the theist position starts and ends with "there is a god"; however, since most theists also subscribe to a religion their theist position is often the jumping off point for religious arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Atheism by definition is the contrary position of theism; therefore, it must be principally linked to the position that there is no god. Someone who is principally concerned with the influence of religion in the public sphere could be categorized as many things depending on what motivates that concern. I too am quite concerned with the influence of religion in the public sphere, as I believe that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate. While we have similar positions our motivations are likely very different, certainly, I could not be described as an atheist.

very true.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard If you cannot take the positive position that there is no god then you simply are not an atheist... an agnostic; maybe, a skeptic; probably, but an atheist; no. If you dislike organized religion then you should state that; however, to call yourself an atheist while entertaining that god may exist is tantamount to a self-identified Jew that believes Jesus was the messiah.

well, you can be an atheist while still accepting the possibility that god does exist. its merely an admission that i could be wrong (however unlikely that might be!! )

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Hmmm, in theory you are correct; however, in practice most atheists are also secularists and intermingle their positions; thus, the atheist position often is just the jumping off point for secularist arguments. The same is true with many theists. By definition the theist position starts and ends with "there is a god"; however, since most theists also subscribe to a religion their theist position is often the jumping off point for religious arguments.

however securalist arguments are ones based on reason and not (ultimately) on faith. the atheist's position does not even need to be "there is no god"; it can be "there is not enough evidence to support belief in a deity", therefore it is not constructive to begin any meaningful public discourse in society that uses "there is a god" as its foundation. a secularist doesn't really need a discussion of god at all when contemplating things like morality and the law etc. an atheist such as myself would argue that since there is no evidence supporting the existence of god, referencing him for anything other than a personal relationship is fundamentally flawed. ie, atheism's position is stronger (in the context of society, be it law, economics, politics etc) because it only references what we know, rather than what we don't know (or what we believe without evidence).

**edited for clarity.

religion: you are what you eat.

quote:

A MELBOURNE Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient. Coburg's self-styled cleric Samir Abu Hamza said despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him, the Herald Sun reports. In a recorded lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", delivered to his male worshippers but now broadcast on the internet and viewed by several thousand people, Mr Hamza said Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised. He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man's right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it. "If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond," Mr Hamza told his male followers on the video sermon. He then mocked Australia's criminal laws, which required consent for sex to be lawful. "In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn't got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force ... it is known to be as rape," Mr Hamza said. "Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?" In the contradictory sermon, delivered in Melbourne or Sydney about 2003 but posted late last year, Mr Hamza initially instructs his listeners "don't hit your wife". But he goes on to say exactly how men should hit their wives, according to his interpretation of Islamic teachings. He said Islam cursed "those people who hit the animal on the face, (but) what about hitting your wife?" "First of all advise them," he said. "You beat them ... but this is the last resort. "After you have advised them (not to be disobedient) for a long, long time then you smack them, you beat them and, please, brothers, calm down, the beating the Mohammed showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth. "You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed." Mr Hamza told his followers not to get carried away and become too physical with the beatings. "This is just to shape them up, shape up woman - that is about it," he said. "You don't go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said," Mr Hamza said to sporadic laughter from his flock. Mr Hamza runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia on Sydney Rd, Coburg, which offers spiritual advice, prayer facilities and boxing, karate and gym classes for Muslims. Despite concerns about his preaching being raised by female members of the Islamic community, Mr Hamza yesterday stood by his comments and blamed controversy over them on a hidden Zionist agenda run by the media. Questioned about his teachings, Mr Hamza said a wife was allowed to be hit on the hand or leg, but "of course, not on the head". He said if a Muslim wife disobeyed her husband, such as continuing to go out when requested not to, she was able to be subjected to moderate physical punishment. Mr Hamza also reiterated his belief that women should submit to sex when husbands required it. Asked whether it was impossible for a man to rape his wife under Islamic law, Mr Hamza said either male or female partners should be able to demand and receive sex. Although he said he could not recall exactly when he gave the lecture, Mr Hamza said it was to followers in Sydney several years ago and had only been posted on the internet in recent months. He said he would not make further comment on it. "Don't call me, don't bother me and please don't call me ever again," he said. Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria executive director Joumanah El Matrah said Hamza's interpretation was bigoted. "Even orthodox practitioners and imams do not consider any form of family violence acceptable," she said. Islamic Council of Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said Islam did not condone domestic violence. "The Prophet Mohammed stated 'The best of you is he who is kindest to his wife'," Ms Hassan said. "The ICV has made a commitment to address this issue by organising a series of workshops early this year where imams and Muslim women will be invited to discuss topics such as these."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2757...17-1243,00.html

^^^ Good one. Religion often dictates control and abuse. A tool to manipulate and take advantage of other people. Atheists dont write scriptures to follow for others - they follow the law of the country they live in.

Is there some world renowned atheist document/scripture on how to force your wife to have sex with you?

Religion is an excuse ... for some people, at least - as I know there are religious people (not many) who dont take advantage of the scriptures to get what they want.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Religion is an excuse ... for some people, at least - as I know there are religious people (not many) who dont take advantage of the scriptures to get what they want.

Yes, all religious people with very few minor exceptions are manipulative evil people who want to abuse as many people they can using the Bible as their source for doing so

Do you always make such baseless bs claims or is just when it comes to religion? So far you've posted nothing but nonsense in this thread.

Here, I'll have a go:

"ATHEISTS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY DONT BELIEVE IN GOD, I KNOW EVERY ATHEIST ON EARTH AND THEY ARE ALL BADDES. ALSO, THEY ALL WANT MASS GENOCIDE LIKE STALIN WHO WAS AN ATHEIST. LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

i cant stand it when people that rationilze to themselves that they conciously decided the beleif in the religion that has been forced upon them as a kid.

i chose the niqab! I chose god!


also, on topic, if there was a group of people that worship santaclause (clausists), would everyone else in the world be classified in the religion of anticlausists..even if they are already a member of a monotheistic/polytheistic beleif system?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi also, on topic, if there was a group of people that worship santaclause (clausists), would everyone else in the world be classified in the religion of anticlausists..even if they are already a member of a monotheistic/polytheistic beleif system?

Exactly. Our boy Alex here is an atheist when it comes to the ancient Roman gods Zeus, Apollo, Shiva, etc.

When it comes to his particular God, we have the same position that he has on Zeus. Nothing wrong with that, yet he seems to think it's wacked out.

Until there is evidence in the physical world that something exists (unicorns, flying pigs, a man who created a universe 300 billion light years across who finds time to sit in the clouds of earth listening to the thoughts of billions of people and responding to them, etc), the default position of any rational person should be that it does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Exactly. Our boy Alex here is an atheist when it comes to the ancient Roman gods Zeus, Apollo, Shiva, etc. When it comes to his particular God, we have the same position that he has on Zeus. Nothing wrong with that, yet he seems to think it's wacked out. Until there is evidence in the physical world that something exists (unicorns, flying pigs, a man who created a universe 300 billion light years across who finds time to sit in the clouds of earth listening to the thoughts of billions of people and responding to them, etc), the default position of any rational person should be that it does not exist.

My goodness you are arrogant aren't you

I never said the atheist position was wacked out, but it isn't in itself the most rational position in terms of relying on science and proofs. Agnosticism is scientific in nature.

I like how you ignored my post about all those rational thinkers who clearly must have had mental disorders according to you. It's funny what poorly informed people will do to try and avoid looking like fools.

Capitalizt you might as well have read the Davinci Code and been using that as your evidence all this while, because apart from claiming you've read one book by Richard Dawkins you have offered no statements or arguments apart from your own opinion that it is rational not to believe in God. My opinion is that it IS rational to believe in God, what are you going to do about it apart from call me mentally handicapped?

Pretty sure in the Science community if an idea is challenged they don't start calling each other retarded, nor does this happen in the realm of philosophy. So please dude, enlighten me and make sure to speak really slowly, I suffer from Theitis.

I didn't ignore your post and I stand by what I said..strong religious belief is certainly a handicap. Science contradicts the Bible in many different areas, and if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH, you are at a disadvantage. When the data doesn't match up with the "holy word", your only option is to renounce the bible as false..or reject what all of your senses are telling you. That qualifies as a mental handicap in my book..and the huge number of people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible are the most obviously crippled.

As for me, I'm not a pure athiest. I consider myself agnostic leaning atheist. I don't discount the idea that we might be the creation of a higher power but since it is very unlikely statistically and since there is absolutely zero evidence or reliable historical data on the "proofs" of God's power (miracles, etc), my default position is that he doesn't exist...and the chances of any God resembling the dozens of "holy books" written by mankind is 0.00% IMO, all religion is utter BS, and the fact that billions of people live according to mystical beliefs rather than reason is really holding us back as a civilization.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, you can be an atheist while still accepting the possibility that god does exist. its merely an admission that i could be wrong (however unlikely that might be!! )

I don't think we'll ever reach an agreement on this point; however, by definition atheism is the belief that there is no god. This is an absolute position; therefore, if you entertain the possibility that there is a god(s) then you don't fit the criteria to be deemed an atheist. I know that I'm often peevish in my application of diction but what you are is not atheist by definition. I suppose we should just leave this at that since we won't get anywhere with this.

quote:

however securalist arguments are ones based on reason and not (ultimately) on faith... a secularist doesn't really need a discussion of god at all when contemplating things like morality and the law etc. an atheist such as myself would argue that since there is no evidence supporting the existence of god, referencing him for anything other than a personal relationship is fundamentally flawed. ie, atheism's position is stronger (in the context of society, be it law, economics, politics etc) because it only references what we know, rather than what we don't know (or what we believe without evidence).

I agree with you, secularist arguments are based on reason. I also buy into the argument that God should not be referenced for any reasons that are not born of faith. My reasons for this differ from yours; however, I am a secularist. I know... a staunchly religious person who is also secularist... blows your mind doesn't it?

The relative strength of secularism or religion in the public sphere really wasn't my point. My point was that atheists often (note; often not always) use their position as the jumping off points for secularist arguments and theists do the same for religious arguments so the four things often get intermingled and confused... when talking about atheists you need to contrast them with theists, not followers of any given religion.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi i cant stand it when people that rationilze to themselves that they conciously decided the beleif in the religion that has been forced upon them as a kid.

What are your thoughts on people who chose their faith as adults?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Science contradicts the Bible in many different areas, and if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH, you are at a disadvantage. When the data doesn't match up with the "holy word", your only option is to renounce the bible as false..or reject what all of your senses are telling you.

You have vastly over-simplified things here. When what the bible tells you doesn't match the data then you need to reevaluate what you believe about what you've read. Maybe you should look further, after-all the Bible is certainly not the be all and end all of religion... hell, it's not even the be all and end all of the one religion that it actually pertains to. If data doesn't match up with a scientific theory is that theory just thrown aside? If you think yes then you need to reexamine Newton's laws, as they do not always match the data. My point is; if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH then you need to consult as many sources as you can... if your quest for TRUTH starts and ends with either the Bible or science or even a contrasting thereof then you're really not pursuing your goal very well.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's funny what poorly informed people will do to try and avoid looking like fools.

you mean like putting someone on ignore in order to disengage from a debate?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard ...after-all the Bible is certainly not the be all and end all of religion... hell, it's not even the be all and end all of the one religion that it actually pertains to.

there's a significant number of theists who'd disagree with you on that point, including religious leaders throughout history.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard If data doesn't match up with a scientific theory is that theory just thrown aside?

no, it is modified (so long as it has any merit), which would be a part of the scientific method; does the theistic equivalent have an equivalent method for this? if so, how long has it been in practice?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard if your quest for TRUTH starts and ends with either the Bible or science or even a contrasting thereof then you're really not pursuing your goal very well.

*cough* you sure about that? unless you had some unique interpretation of 'truth' in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T there's a significant number of theists who'd disagree with you on that point, including religious leaders throughout history.

There are a significant number of people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government... that doesn't give them any credibility. First.. the Bible pertains to Christianity exclusively. Second... the Catholic church recognizes the writings of a great many theologians as being incredibly important works in understanding their own religion... it is a living religion that has evolved through examination and reason. With regard to the protestant christian faiths, given that they owe their very existence to the work of theologians who looked beyond the Bible itself for answers I have a very hard time accepting that they could legitimately argue that the Bible is the be all and end all.

quote:

no, it is modified (so long as it has any merit), which would be a part of the scientific method; does the theistic equivalent have an equivalent method for this? if so, how long has it been in practice?

Most of the major religions (aside from a few radically fundamentalist sects) have gone through changes in belief over the years to reconcile themselves with evidence that seemingly contradicts their beliefs. The Hindu faith has three major anthologies of sacred texts written over more then a thousand years; each of which alters their beliefs to fit with newly acquired knowledge. The belief that the Judeo-Christian creation story was a metaphor rather then fact took hold long before science proved that it could not be as written and nearly all Christian faiths now believe that much of the bible is metaphoric. Religion has to be reconciled with reason and the major faiths do this quite well (hell, the Vatican spends an inordinate amount of time and resources trying to disprove alleged miracles).

quote:

*cough* you sure about that? unless you had some unique interpretation of 'truth' in mind.

Given that science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable by humans then it is limited in it's scope thus cannot be the only tool used to reach any "truth" that cannot be measured... say for example; the origin of the universe. Any quest for truth has to consider all available information.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Given that science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable by humans then it is limited in it's scope thus cannot be the only tool used to reach any "truth" that cannot be measured... say for example; the origin of the universe. Any quest for truth has to consider all available information.

you left the statement wide open, rather than qualify it only to the truths that cannot be measured, hence my reply.

anyway, i'll reply to the rest of your post if i have anything worthwhile to say or ask once i'm not as drunk as i currently am.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you left the statement wide open, rather than qualify it only to the truths that cannot be measured, hence my reply.

I thought it was a given that not everything is measurable therefore if one limits their search to the measurable they are not really pursuing truth, which is why I didn't qualify the word truth. Regardless, I think we understand each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard 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.

This concept of atheism is too narrow a description, I reckon. However, if these other instances regarding theism are not to be considered forms of atheism, then what are they? I think the ball is in your court now

quote:

Originally posted by Lira This concept of atheism is too narrow a description, I reckon. However, if these other instances regarding theism are not to be considered forms of atheism, then what are they? I think the ball is in your court now

I already classified them... do you want me to give each a fancy name?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I didn't ignore your post and I stand by what I said..strong religious belief is certainly a handicap. Science contradicts the Bible in many different areas, and if your goal is the pursuit of TRUTH, you are at a disadvantage. When the data doesn't match up with the "holy word", your only option is to renounce the bible as false..or reject what all of your senses are telling you. That qualifies as a mental handicap in my book..and the huge number of people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible are the most obviously crippled. As for me, I'm not a pure athiest. I consider myself agnostic leaning atheist. I don't discount the idea that we might be the creation of a higher power but since it is very unlikely statistically and since there is absolutely zero evidence or reliable historical data on the "proofs" of God's power (miracles, etc), my default position is that he doesn't exist...and the chances of any God resembling the dozens of "holy books" written by mankind is 0.00% IMO, all religion is utter BS, and the fact that billions of people live according to mystical beliefs rather than reason is really holding us back as a civilization.

Again, more baseless opinions. And you DID still ignore my other post.

If Science tells me something in the bible is impossible, why should I throw the entire book out? I do not live according to fundamentalist Christianity, I don't believe that every single thing in the Bible is literally true. This is something called Biblical inerrancy and some Creationists do hold to it but most thinking persons do not.

And seeing as how some of the greatest innovations and steps forward in science have come from truly devout men, I have to take your "holding back civilization claim" and declare it utterly false. Especially when, for instance, the Pope frequently reads science journals and agrees with Astro Biologists on a regular basis

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Again, more baseless opinions. And you DID still ignore my other post. If Science tells me something in the bible is impossible, why should I throw the entire book out? I do not live according to fundamentalist Christianity, I don't believe that every single thing in the Bible is literally true. This is something called Biblical inerrancy and some Creationists do hold to it but most thinking persons do not. And seeing as how some of the greatest innovations and steps forward in science have come from truly devout men, I have to take your "holding back civilization claim" and declare it utterly false. Especially when, for instance, the Pope frequently reads science journals and agrees with Astro Biologists on a regular basis

I think you hit on a very common problem here. Many people who profess to be atheists and voice their grievances with religion do so as blanket statements when they actually only pertain to certain sects or interpretations. This is exacerbated by a confirmation bias through which they view any discrediting of any tenant of any religious sect or order to be a discrediting of all religions. It's painfully evident that most of the people voicing grievances with religion in this thread are really voicing grievances with Islam and Christianity and really just with the fundamentalist sects within each yet they make blanket statements on all religions based on their limited understanding of only a very small group of two religions.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you hit on a very common problem here. Many people who profess to be atheists and voice their grievances with religion do so as blanket statements when they actually only pertain to certain sects or interpretations. This is exacerbated by a confirmation bias through which they view any discrediting of any tenant of any religious sect or order to be a discrediting of all religions. It's painfully evident that most of the people voicing grievances with religion in this thread are really voicing grievances with Islam and Christianity and really just with the fundamentalist sects within each yet they make blanket statements on all religions based on their limited understanding of only a very small group of two religions.

Yes I have to agree.

I think people like Lira are a lot more informed, but for the most part atheists liked to target the softer targets like fundamentalists or bible literalists or Islam in general because of the actions of a few fringe sects.

Yes organized religion did bad things in the past, I don't think they should have done those things and I believe the Church nowadays conducts itself much much better and represents the average Christian a lot better. People need to be reminded that while, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church has done some terrible things in the past, it IS a human Church as much as it is a divine one. Bad people abusing power. As humans we aren't gifted with the ability to know what other peoples intentions are, and as a Christian, however naive this position may be, our default position is to assume that people intend well... Sadly this gives the arseholes that want power the chance they need sometimes.

The same can be said about skeptics and atheists, most are good honest people but some took their views too far and did terrible things just because they believed there was no one for them to answer to. IE: Stalin, Mao etc.

Do I think atheists are bad people? No of course not. Nor do I stand on street corners or even reflect privately in regards to "where they are going" afterwards because as a Christian I am only concerned with the well being of others and not the negative consequences that some fundies and literalists love to threaten non-believers/other religious people with.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I already classified them... do you want me to give each a fancy name?

Well, it's just that I'd like a theoretical background to work on. Naturally, we could start it all up from scratch, and giving each label a name would make it a lot easier to debate... even if we base our definition on what's written on the dictionary (which I hate to do), here's what we find:

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

In my case, I do not believe there is a God, but I wouldn't go as far to deny there is a God for semantic and humanist reasons.

Am I not an atheist, then?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, it's just that I'd like a theoretical background to work on. Naturally, we could start it all up from scratch, and giving each label a name would make it a lot easier to debate... even if we base our definition on what's written on the dictionary (which I hate to do), here's what we find: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html In my case, I do not believe there is a God, but I wouldn't go as far to deny there is a God for semantic and humanist reasons. Am I not an atheist, then?

Atheism is the antithesis to theism (that's what the whole "a" prefix indicates). If theism is the positive position that there is a god(s) then the antithesis of that can only be a positive position that there is no god. Stating you do not believe in a god(s) is a negative position not a positive; therefore, not atheism. To be an atheist you need to assert that there is no god(s). Not believing in the existence of god(s) is not the same thing as asserting that there is no god(s). I don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp... unless you are willing to make the assertion I don't think you can really be called an atheist.

If you must have a label then let's go with non-believer.... or maybe heathen

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Atheism is the antithesis to theism (that's what the whole "a" prefix indicates).

Not really: "a-" means "without" or "not" (e.g. an "a-tom" is "not-cuttable", not "against being cut"). So an atheist would literally be a nontheist, rather than an antitheist, which would fit your definition more accurately (if you consider atheism to be the anti-thesis of theism, being theism the thesis).

I like "heathen", though

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