|
atheism just another religion? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'll watch it..but I fail to see how it is possible for him to "lose" any debate on religion..because the burden of proof is on those claiming creation/God to be fact. Until they produce solid evidence (that the earth is 6000 years old and God created man out of a woman's rib) to compete with the solid evidence we have on natural selection, evolution, the true age of the universe, etc. they can never truly "win" any debate on the subject. |
The only people who could "win" a debate on the existence of god(s) are agnostics. There is a burden of proof on both theists and atheists as both of them take a positive and definite position. For a theist to "win" they would have to produce proof of God, for an atheist to "win" they would have to produce proof there is no god (remember; atheists take the positive position that there is no god, not that the existence of god has not been proven... there is a very important distinction there). Since we cannot produce overwhelmingly persuasive proof of the existence of a/any god(s) or the existence of no god(s) the only position that does not require faith is that of the agnostics.
You're challenge that proof of the earth's age at or near 6000 years old and the nature of the creation of Eve only applies to one interpretation of two faiths, which illustrates that you clearly don't understand the debate to begin with. Moreover, you suggest that natural selection, evolution, and cosmology are evidence that no god(s) exists; this is a logical fallacy... you cannot conclude anything on the nature/existence of god/no god based on any of these things; rather, you can only make conclusions on natural selection, evolution, and cosmology. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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." |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| The US Supreme Court rules it as a religion. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :p |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Even though that's just like listing pedestrians as walking car owners :p |
I don't know, isn't believing in no god an unproven religious belief in and of itself? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| 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.
|
|
|
| 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! :wtf: 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. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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.:rolleyes:
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| Alex |
| 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! :wtf: 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 :stongue:
And yes, we're all mentally disabled :rolleyes: 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. |
|
|
|
|
