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 Moral Hazard Not believing in the existence of god(s) is not the same thing as asserting that there is no god(s).

they're not mutually exclusive either. in most circumstances other than ones where the disbelief in god(s) is partly sourced in having no knowledge of the possibility of god(s) whatsoever, expressing your disbelief would require such an assertion.
in most circumstances, asserting there is no god(s) requires disbelief.
not believing is passive, asserting that belief is active, and there lays the only difference between the two - a highly superficial one to be used as a yardstick.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't think we'll ever reach an agreement on this point;

i think you're right!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard 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.

you make it sound like atheists walk around all day 100% sure of themselves (and must be so in order to be atheists). i dont see how a logical and even humble amount of doubt would change the nature of the general position. i dont believe in god, i think there's no god, BUT i know that this tiny little brain of mine in a tiny piece of earth in this vast universe might not have all the answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What are your thoughts on people who chose their faith as adults?

they are slightly more credible, especially if they reference some sort of spiritual emergence or awakening that helps them live a better life and they dont get evangelical on your ass.

so its decided? antitheism is the religion, where as atheism is not? since there are degrees of atheism allow for many de-facto atheists, even if the had never heard of the concept of the almighty.

Atheism is not a religion. There are paralells between atheists and theists behavior (from altruism to sheep like behavior. You can see altruism in guys like Einstein, and MLK, and sheep like behavior from goths, emos, counter culture d-bags and old people), and i think that's what people should be saying instead of "atheism is a religion."

Anyways atheists need someone who isn't very abrasive. They need an MLK. If you want to blame the problems atheists have in the USA, I say blame book publishers and the media.

"The God Dellusion" is a title that will turn heads.
"Im an Atheist Who's Nice" isn't going to turn heads.

Dawkins is often called "Darwin's Pitbull." What atheists need is someone more like "Darwin's Chiuhauha"

Darwin's Chiuahuah (or however you spell chee wa wa)isn't going to sell books.

If you're all wondering I'm a practicing Catholic.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- Atheism is not a religion. There are paralells between atheists and theists behavior (from altruism to sheep like behavior. You can see altruism in guys like Einstein, and MLK, and sheep like behavior from goths, emos, counter culture d-bags and old people), and i think that's what people should be saying instead of "atheism is a religion." Anyways atheists need someone who isn't very abrasive. They need an MLK. If you want to blame the problems atheists have in the USA, I say blame book publishers and the media. "The God Dellusion" is a title that will turn heads. "Im an Atheist Who's Nice" isn't going to turn heads. Dawkins is often called "Darwin's Pitbull." What atheists need is someone more like "Darwin's Chiuhauha" Darwin's Chiuahuah (or however you spell chee wa wa)isn't going to sell books. If you're all wondering I'm a practicing Catholic.

+1

The reason atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins get so much media time is because of the outrageous importance they've put on scientism.

IE: Dawkins asserts that science has all the answers, he believes all truths can be proved by science which is in itself a self-defeating claim because there is no way with science you'd ever be able to prove that claim.

I still find it funny that Darwinian thought has lead to this form of militant atheism, especially since Darwin's REAL pitbull, Huxley, was himself not an atheist but an agnostic.

I guess my point here was that the militant wing of atheists has succeeded in turning heads by making the controversial claims of scientism and one of Dawkins' better ones: "Religion is child abuse" and other such things. Whether Dawkins believes that, I don't know, given he was raised in the Anglican Church, I wonder if he ever accused his parents or his priest of abuse.

Hitchens is actually the smartest (in my opinion) of the 4 horsemen so to speak (the 4 being Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris). Harris and Dennett have both made asses of themselves in debates and in my opinion Dawkins is far too inconsistent when he debates or speaks publicly, I'd like him more if he had the same consistency as Hitchens who I have to admit is quite funny.

Whenever Hitchens and Dinesh Desousa duke it out I'm glued to the screen, and the Lennox v Hitchens debate was pretty awesome too. But really the rivalry is between Desousa and Hitchens, they really get into it and they both admit they are each others worst nightmares in a debate setting. My only problem with Hitchens is his insistence on making little comments in bad taste about religion without actually substantiating them with anything but a joke. Oh well, I still think he's brilliant though.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex IE: Dawkins asserts that science has all the answers, he believes all truths can be proved by science which is in itself a self-defeating claim because there is no way with science you'd ever be able to prove that claim.

that's bollocks. he doesn't claim science can know all, he claims that science will be able to explain everything within the bounds of nature. he doesn't think science can answer every pointless and meaningless question that people might throw at it.

Ah so he disregards all questions that aren't scientific as meaningless?

Alright, I agree with him now for sure.

P.S.

That claim, if it really is his actual position (he changes it so often) is still self-defeating.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Ah so he disregards all questions that aren't scientific as meaningless? Alright, I agree with him now for sure. P.S. That claim, if it really is his actual position (he changes it so often) is still self-defeating.

look, you might really enjoy the pedantic word-play in these situations, but i don't. i find it extremely annoying. dawkins thinks that we will be able to, say, ascertain the exact properties of a black hole as science progresses, but not necessarily why pkc likes to dance naked each night covered in tomato sauce.

other answers to the world's questions come from other areas outside science. and no, we get no answers from religion.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and no, we get no answers from religion.

So we're reduced to baseless opinions again?

If you're allowed to dismiss religion then I'm allowed to "word-play" all I want and point out that Dawkins does not use scientific evidence in his statements, he uses a poor philosophical analysis of science that wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class to rationalize his heinous belief that science can answer all of the questions in life HE DEEMS are worthy of answering.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and no, we get no answers from religion.

I disagree.

Religious metaphysics may be moot, and religious thought may even have proven to be disastrous regarding explanations of the natural world, but religion wouldn't last not even a couple of minutes if it didn't provide any (reliable) answers.

Religion, for example, can give some foundation to the tenets of morality in a particular society. It strengthens long standing habits thanks to its appeal to authority (how often in history do you see "sacred" leaders?), and gives society more cohesion as a whole. It also places individuals as parts of greater narratives, giving more meaning to their lives and different ways of coping with the unknown.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- Anyways atheists need someone who isn't very abrasive. They need an MLK. If you want to blame the problems atheists have in the USA, I say blame book publishers and the media. "The God Dellusion" is a title that will turn heads. "Im an Atheist Who's Nice" isn't going to turn heads. Dawkins is often called "Darwin's Pitbull." What atheists need is someone more like "Darwin's Chiuhauha"

Except for the last sentence, I wholeheartedly agree with you. We need to stop, however, to think that evolution and atheism must be linked. This is the sort of erratic thought that leads to childish theories such as the so-called "Intelligent Design".

Darwin did not kill God, nor did his ideas. If you want to know who's responsible for that, blame the Germans

quote:

Originally posted by Alex So we're reduced to baseless opinions again?

give me a single, verifiable answer provided by religion. ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex If you're allowed to dismiss religion then I'm allowed to "word-play" all I want and point out that Dawkins does not use scientific evidence in his statements,

that's not true either. in fact i skipped his entire chapter on memes because it was too science-centric. if you ask him a question regarding science, i have no doubt you'll get a scientific answer. since we're talking about god, no scientific answer is necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex he uses a poor philosophical analysis of science that wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class to rationalize his heinous belief that science can answer all of the questions in life HE DEEMS are worthy of answering.

again, youre trying to twist his meaning. he thinks that science can answer all questions within the realm of science. im sure he feels there are other answers best left to social scientists, or historians or economists etc. he doesn't think science is the be-all and end-all of inquiry.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I disagree. Religious metaphysics may be moot, and religious thought may even have proven to be disastrous regarding explanations of the natural world, but religion wouldn't last not even a couple of minutes if it didn't provide any (reliable) answers. Religion, for example, can give some foundation to the tenets of morality in a particular society. It strengthens long standing habits thanks to its appeal to authority (how often in history do you see "sacred" leaders?), and gives society more cohesion as a whole. It also places individuals as parts of greater narratives, giving more meaning to their lives and different ways of coping with the unknown.

as i said to alex, provide a single, verifiable answer that religion has provided. just because religion has been influencial in our history does not mean it has provided answers to any questions in particular. i mean sure, its answered quite well questions like 'how many palaces can a priest live in without blushing?' and 'how best to suck the marrow out of life?' or 'how to breed intolerance'.

but, the big questions such as 'why are we here' or 'what happens after i die'; religion is as incapable of answering any more than science.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN as i said to alex, provide a single, verifiable answer that religion has provided.

Sure. How about the question "How should I lead a moral life?"? Let's pick the Ten Commandments, the ultimate Christian moral imperatives:

1. I am the Lord your God (well, all right, it doesn't really hurt);
   
   
2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (if only extremists didn't ignore this bit );
   
   
3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (woohoo, a day off once a week, so I can sit back and think about how awesome life is!);
   
   
4. Honour your father and mother (sounds fair);
   
   
5. You shall not kill (sounds fairer);
   
   
6. You shall not commit adultery (Good advice for not getting in trouble);
   
   
7. You shall not steal (hmm... yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this either);
   
   
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (should go without saying, but I'm glad someone bothered to make that clear);
   
   
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (specially if your neighbour owns guns );
   
   
10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour ("be happy with what you've got"? Sounds like a deal to me!).
    

1. The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha): "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." (kind of pessimistic but, such is life)
   
   
2. Suffering's Origin (Samudaya): "This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." (sounds reasonable)
   
   
3. Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha): "This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it." (doesn't really sounds like a bad idea to me)
   
   
4. The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." (I fail to see anything inherently wrong with this bit).

Verifiable how? With the scientific method?

Christianity tells us Jesus Christ existed, as does Islam. Historical accounts of that time confirm this. (Apart from the Gospels, of course). I assume that's not what you meant though, you want something that can be proven by the scientific method which is simply outside of the realm of religion.

Christianity answers where we will be going when we die, why we were created in the first place and it guides us down the right path to salvation. Meta-Physically, theologically and philosophically these answers are just fine because we can trace back the authenticity of the Bible through theology, understand God's intentions through Metaphysics and also justify his existence through philosophy. All 3 branches of though combine to validate the answers given in the Bible. Of course you wont be satisfied because you probably have a very narrow minded view on what a "verifiable answer" is. If you want me to write you a mathematical equation concerning the authenticity of religious claims, I'm sorry I cant.

Your point of "the big questions such as 'why are we here' or 'what happens after i die'; religion is as incapable of answering any more than science" is amusing because it is actually just 100% incorrect. Science would not dare enter that realm because true science has limitations, religion is in fact the only way to answer those questions and therefore I refer you back to my other points that you no doubt wont be satisfied with because, like Dawkins, you subscribe to a faulty notion of logic and reason or because, again like Dawkins, you have extreme dislike of religion and wont ever be convinced of it even if it was somehow scientifically proven that God existed.

In reference to this:

"again, youre trying to twist his meaning. he thinks that science can answer all questions within the realm of science. im sure he feels there are other answers best left to social scientists, or historians or economists etc. he doesn't think science is the be-all and end-all of inquiry."


Bullshit.

I am not twisting his meaning at all, he believes in Scientism.

Scientism defined as:

quote:

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.

It is plainly obvious to anyone who has heard Dawkins lecture, read any of his books or listened to any of his debates that he believes that natural science has the ultimate say over every branch of thought. It is so obvious, that he does not even do philosophy justice in The God Delusion, in fact he insults the entire branch of thought with his poorly constructed arguments and faulty logic that would not hold up under any academic scrutiny.

In fact, the head of the Human Genone Project, Francis Collins is a Theist and is an actual example of what you believe Dawkins to be PKC. Someone who differentiates between Science's dominance in explaining the natural world and the notion that science ultimately has authority over the other forms of thought as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Sure. How about the question "How should I lead a moral life?"? Let's pick the Ten Commandments, the ultimate Christian moral imperatives: I am the Lord your God (well, all right, it doesn't really hurt); You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (if only extremists didn't ignore this bit ); Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (woohoo, a day off once a week, so I can sit back and think about how awesome life is!); Honour your father and mother (sounds fair); You shall not kill (sounds fairer); You shall not commit adultery (Good advice for not getting in trouble); You shall not steal (hmm... yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this either); You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (should go without saying, but I'm glad someone bothered to make that clear); You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (specially if your neighbour owns guns ); You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour ("be happy with what you've got"? Sounds like a deal to me!). Or.. are you perhaps sad, trying to cope with your depression, and you want to know how to overcome your sorrow? I think we could refer to the Four Noble Truths instead: The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha): "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." (kind of pessimistic but, such is life) Suffering's Origin (Samudaya): "This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." (sounds reasonable) Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha): "This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it." (doesn't really sounds like a bad idea to me) The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." (I fail to see anything inherently wrong with this bit). But, Lira!, you may object, What about philosophy? Don't you think we're better off listening to philosophers rather than blindly following religious dogmas?. Well, I don't think most people could be arsed to keep reviewing their moral principles every couple of months... if that gives them a sense of "right" and "just", so be it

they're not answers. they're made-up rules that some confused people seem to take as fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Science would not dare enter that realm because true science has limitations, religion is in fact the only way to answer those questions and therefore I refer you back to my other points that you no doubt wont be satisfied with because, like Dawkins, you subscribe to a faulty notion of logic and reason or because, again like Dawkins, you have extreme dislike of religion and wont ever be convinced of it even if it was somehow scientifically proven that God existed.

so, answer me the questions i asked. if religion can answer them, surely as a follower of a religion, you would have the answer? why are we here?

good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Bullshit. I am not twisting his meaning at all, he believes in Scientism. Scientism defined as: It is plainly obvious to anyone who has heard Dawkins lecture, read any of his books or listened to any of his debates that he believes that natural science has the ultimate say over every branch of thought. It is so obvious, that he does not even do philosophy justice in The God Delusion, in fact he insults the entire branch of thought with his poorly constructed arguments and faulty logic that would not hold up under any academic scrutiny. In fact, the head of the Human Genone Project, Francis Collins is a Theist and is an actual example of what you believe Dawkins to be PKC. Someone who differentiates between Science's dominance in explaining the natural world and the notion that science ultimately has authority over the other forms of thought as well.

if that is truly what dawkins thinks, then he's an idiot. science is great for the sciences, i doubt you can scientifically prove/answer the best way to bring peace to the middle east or the best way to prevent a global depression etc.

I need to tell you something, Alex: there's no scientific Method, with a capital M

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN they're not answers. they're made-up rules that some confused people seem to take as fact.

They're both, actually. Haven't I just used them to answer a question? They're answers! And, have I ever claimed they weren't a product of the environment they came from? They're made-up rules (that some confused people seem to take as fact, which is the reason why they were made up in the first place )

pkc, very opinionated...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I need to tell you something, Alex: there's no scientific Method, with a capital M They're both, actually. Haven't I just used them to answer a question? They're answers! And, have I ever claimed they weren't a product of the environment they came from? They're made-up rules (that some confused people seem to take as fact, which is the reason why they were made up in the first place )

Hahaha, I'm busted. Didn't mean to capitalize that, at least it was a linguist that caught the error!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira They're both, actually. Haven't I just used them to answer a question? They're answers! And, have I ever claimed they weren't a product of the environment they came from? They're made-up rules (that some confused people seem to take as fact, which is the reason why they were made up in the first place )

youre taking the easy way out. of course there are "answers" if say, i asked "where was jesus born?" well, the bible has the answer! in which book was god the bigger bastard? again, the bible has the answer.

i think you'll find much better answers to depression by reading a psyche textbook or going to see your doctor.

quote:

Originally posted by diggerz pkc, very opinionated...

like i give a shit.

Essentially, religion cannot answer questions about the mind of god, the afterlife, the meaning of life, or make accurate predictions about any of them. Pretty poor from an "ism" that claims divine knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN like i give a shit.

but you believe in the 'messiah'!

Why are we here? Simple, it pleased God for us to be here. He created us in his image to rule over this planet. As for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, I believe God did the same thing for them. Apparently the Vatican agrees with me on that, not surprising really when the Pope reads more science articles than theological ones.

This answer does not satisfy a lot of people, I know it doesn't. It didn't satisfy Israel in the Old Testament. That's why they repeatedly wanted a King to rule over them instead of God. Their choice was always the same, either be slaves to a man (IE: King of Egypt) and be part of that one person's accumulative nature, to acquire as much wealth as was possible without any re-distribution or to submit 100% to God and enjoy a good life on earth. Needless to say, the Jews flip flopped back and forth about as much as a modern day politician running for office in the USA.

(That little rant was inspired by a book im reading called the "Blackwell companion to Political Theology"... Super fascinating to me, what can I say it's combining the best of both worlds for me )

quote:

Originally posted by diggerz but you believe in the 'messiah'!

no, i am reasonably warm to obama's politics

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