For what it's worth, the 'burn in hell' line has been used against people of opposing view for a long time...
|
Somewhat amusingly, there is a Christian bookstore just up the block from where I live called "Morningstar Books." Every now and then I walk by and shake my head, since the very Christian owners probably don't know that 'the Morningstar' is another name for Satan...
The amusing part is your assumed superior knowledge. I am quite confident that they know of that use of the word. I'm sure they also know the reference, of which you are not, where Jesus refers to Himself as 'the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star'.
|
|
I agree with this. One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?
Not sure, but it may be that they haven't gone through the whole science/metaphysics thing that I did in my philosophy class in university, so they think that non-belief is an absence of belief, rather than a belief in something else. But yeah, it doesn't really matter all that much to the central issue.
|
One Argument that i've heard (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that although gods or any higher powers existence is not a proven fact or even strongly validated, the believe in a higher power is the accepted "position zero" (sorry, probably not a correct english saying, basically I mean it is the accepted position most people start with before they really start to think about the nature of the universe). They on the other hand argue the "position zero" should not be the believe in an unproven power. Saying "I believe in an uncaring system of scientific laws" might be the consequence for some atheists, but is not atheism per se.
It is certainly not useful to assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow. That is why I make the choice to believe that it will.
This isn't really related to your point exactly, but please humor me. As someone who has repeatedly balked at describing the lack of belief in deities as a "choice," I have to ask: Is it your position that you could choose to believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow? That is, could you just flip a switch, and really, honestly believe the sun won't rise? Or do you mean that you can choose to behave (or not) in accordance with your belief that the sun will rise?
The distinction may seem overly subtle, but several people on this thread have insisted I could "choose" to believe in a god, which seems utterly silly to me. I could choose to learn about a god, and try to live in accordance with his supposed teachings, but that would just make me a hypocrite, not a believer. I inclined to conclude that those who insist one can "choose" to believe something simply don't understand what they're saying, but I'd really like your insight.
I agree with this. One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?
That's not it at all, its that calling athiesm a beleive is a misrepresentation. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you, to use the above beautiful example, decide for yourself that bald IS a hair colour because it applies to the same area of the head.
BUT, in debating the details of hair colour it becomes important to understand that bald isn't a hair colour because it is the absence of hair, hair can come in many colours with different highlights, etc, and people can share a grouping of hair colours, say all blonde people.
Bald people, not having hair, do not have different groupings, or sects.
So atheists don't, there are no orthodox athiests, or those who follow the book of Dawkins over the Book of Darwin, etc. Atheism therefore isn't by logic, a beleif, or a religion.
:H: So, people can debate among themselves all they like about the merits of various colours, and the importance of hair, but in the end, its just something growing on your head.
|
One Argument that i've heard (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that although gods or any higher powers existence is not a proven fact or even strongly validated, the believe in a higher power is the accepted "position zero" (sorry, probably not a correct english saying, basically I mean it is the accepted position most people start with before they really start to think about the nature of the universe). They on the other hand argue the "position zero" should not be the believe in an unproven power. Saying "I believe in an uncaring system of scientific laws" might be the consequence for some atheists, but is not atheism per se.
Actually there is a biological theory to this position that I may not do justice to but I will certainly try. It has to do with the way our brains develop as primates. At some point in the distant past when primates started using tools over time it altered our perception and how our brains develop, we no longer see just a stick we see a means to an end or purpose to the stick, eventually that expanded to most things around us rocks larger rocks to sharpen smaller rocks to attach to sticks etc. etc. etc. At some point wherever that maybe the perception of everything having a purpose and the awakened self awareness of homosapiens combined (if everything has a purpose then logically so do I) to form the earliest forms of religion we begin to find. And today chilren still sort of form along those lines for learning, not too mention we have a vast majority of religious peoiple out there who teach there children to believe in a deity of some sort.
|
For the reasons I have outlined above, I believe that atheism is a belief. Is it "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God does not exist"? You are arguably asserting that God does not exist but also that something else does, be it a blindly mechanistic/probabilistic universe or whatever. That is a belief, and there is nothing wrong with that - it's what I believe. I'm assuming there isn't anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It may not be a big deal in the scheme of things but since we don't actually "know" anything we have to believe something.I agree with this. One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?
Probably because most of the people we argue with (note: I consider talking to you and David more a discussion than argument) consider that once we 'admit' atheism is a belief it makes it the same as a religion. Clearly it isn't as religions have a lot of rules associated with them (or at least several) in how to live your life, while atheism doesn't really have any rules for living associated with it.
I know what you're talking about. A friend of mine is much more hardline than me and can't see that the assumptions the scie3ntific method is based on are beliefs. Eventually, everything is a belief. I believe my fingers are typing this, but as I believe from reading the scientific press that my senses are not always reliable, even the thought that I exist is a belief.
However, most people use belief in this context as a substitute for religion, and obviously that's something atheists would reject.
However, on the original topic, Jeremy, her comment was as offensive as yours. I agree with yours, but it could be offensive as any challenge to fundamental beliefs can be considered offensive.
|
|
Okay, so lets get this straight, my source is Dr. Jackson Speilvogel a Fulbright scholar, a highly respected and decorated professor and researcher, and the author of one of the most widly used textbooks on Nazi Germany.
One wonders how Dave's textbook, with which I am not familiar, explains all of this.
I knew this already. I learned it by reading your post. You told me this:
Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were decidedly anti-religious. This is established by their private writings and many speeches that they gave. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that Nazi ideology and Christianity were incompatable. However, he also knew that the majority of Germans were religious people and so he used religious iconography to draw the German people in.I was certainly under no delusion that you yourself had claimed to write the book. There is no evidence for any such thing. You cited the author when you mentioned it the first time, which would be a very odd habit if you were trying to claim it as your own work.
Let's look at the specific claims here:
1) Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were anti-religious
2) We know because they said as much in their speeches and private writing.Well ok. What is a rational person to do but inquire into those writings and speeches? So I went and got a collection of quotes on the subject from the Number One Nazi himself (with a side-trip through the official party platform). If you want to hold to the good doctor's thesis, you certainly need to explain these things or provide his explanation. I'm not saying he's a dirty, dirty liar who should be spanked and sent to bed without supper. I am asking an ordinary question that should occur to any reasonable and informed person.
As I said before, I explained this already. Let me hit the highlights one more time. Hitler saw religion as a useful tool on his way to power. While he himself was not an overly religious man, he recognized the influence that it had over German society. Therefore he sought to harness that influence by wrapping himself in the imagery of religion. However, he also took great steps to ensure that the German people were fed the idea that Hitler was their lord and savior and that National Socialism was their new religion.
For example, school children had to sing this song every day in school:
Adolf Hitler is our Savior, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we live,
For Hitler we die
Our Hitler is our Lord
Who rules a brave new world.
It is clear just from this simple song, that every child in Germany from 1933 until the end of World War II had to memorize, what role Hitler imagined for himself. It is only logical to assume that in a world where Hitler was Lord and savior, that he would have no room for any type of competition. Hitler would also require all students to write at least one essay a year where they compared him with Jesus.
In the book Inside the Third Reich written by Hitler's friend and architect Albert Speer, Hitler is described as despising Christianity. He quotes Hitler as saying "You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler said "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age..." brought down Rome.
In summary, Hitler saw religion as useful so long as it was a tool he was using. However, he was decidedly anti-Christianity, despite being a Catholic himself. He used religious imagery and language to motivate people without believing it himself. He also saw National Socialism as a religion with him as the Messiah. He only suffered churches to remain active if they towed the line and gave their support to Hitler. Anyone who did not found their churches closed and themselves in the camps. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
|
|
I guess the difference about atheism is that we have no invisible means of support. We are accountable to only ourselves and society, our actions can only be interpreted as our own and not under the influence of anything but. Anything we do is because our own failures, we will never get an opportunity to justify or even nullify our actions. We must simply try to accept our past failures and move on and try to do better.
|
|
So atheists don't, there are no orthodox athiests, or those who follow the book of Dawkins over the Book of Darwin, etc. Atheism therefore isn't by logic, a beleif, or a religion.
I feel like there is a rather distinct difference between "belief" and "religion". I agree that it is difficult to lump atheists together as a religion because there is no governing body, book to reference, specific guidelines to adhere to, etc. That's really what ends up defining most religions. But that really is different than what someone does or does not believe in.
And that really doesn't explain why there seem to be so many atheists that feel that it is extremely important to point out that lack of belief is not a belief.
And as far as the "hair" example -- it's still a way to group people. You still put something on your driver's license under "hair color". (I just wish that they would allow me to put "invisible" for my hair color rather than "bald".)
|
|
Probably because most of the people we argue with (note: I consider talking to you and David more a discussion than argument) consider that once we 'admit' atheism is a belief it makes it the same as a religion.
I can see that. Thanks. That helps.
(And always open to discuss rather than argue with you.)
I agree with this. One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?Not sure, but it may be that they haven't gone through the whole science/metaphysics thing that I did in my philosophy class in university, so they think that non-belief is an absence of belief, rather than a belief in something else. But yeah, it doesn't really matter all that much to the central issue.
I think the problem is that the meanings of "belief" and "faith" usually get mixed up during such discussions. Science is not "just an alternative faith system", it is something else entirely, and this is not entirely clear by the way people use these words.
|
|
It is certainly not useful to assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow. That is why I make the choice to believe that it will.This isn't really related to your point exactly, but please humor me. As someone who has repeatedly balked at describing the lack of belief in deities as a "choice," I have to ask: Is it your position that you could choose to believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow? That is, could you just flip a switch, and really, honestly believe the sun won't rise? Or do you mean that you can choose to behave (or not) in accordance with your belief that the sun will rise?
The distinction may seem overly subtle, but several people on this thread have insisted I could "choose" to believe in a god, which seems utterly silly to me. I could choose to learn about a god, and try to live in accordance with his supposed teachings, but that would just make me a hypocrite, not a believer. I inclined to conclude that those who insist one can "choose" to believe something simply don't understand what they're saying, but I'd really like your insight.
I think I can answer it this way. Imagine a light bulb. Every time you go to turn that light bulb on, you are exercising faith that the light will turn on. You subconciously assume that the light is going to work. Now I have also met some dreadfully gloomy people who subconciously believe that the light will not work when they turn it on. If I read Aubry's post right, he's not talking about an active choice, but a subconcious one that we haven't even realized we have made.
I think I can answer it this way. Imagine a light bulb. Every time you go to turn that light bulb on, you are exercising faith that the light will turn on. You subconciously assume that the light is going to work. Now I have also met some dreadfully gloomy people who subconciously believe that the light will not work when they turn it on. If I read Aubry's post right, he's not talking about an active choice, but a subconcious one that we haven't even realized we have made.
Partially agreed, but I think most religious people would agree with me that this "faith that the lightbulb will turn on" is quite different from what they mean when they say they have "faith that god exists".
As to the light bulb. One could, of course, face it as faith, specially if he has no clue why pushing the button would make the light turn on. However, when you are aware of the mechanisms underpinning the functioning of light bulbs you do not press the button having faith at all. You know it will light up. Of course the lamp might be broken and your certainty would appear foolish in retrospect. However, due to this process being differrent from mere faith, you can now analyse the situation ("why did the light bulb did not turn on ?"), investigate and solve the problem. Whereas, knowledge deriving exclusively from faith leaves you to wondering "why did the light bulb gods did not let it on this time ?" :)
With apologies to the OP, I believe that this post would have been better placed on the 'Things which Suck' or 'Rants' thread than in a separate thread with this thread's title where it has acted as a firestarter; so far as a result it seems to me that we have had four plus pages of posters sniping at one another, the usual atheists versus religion arguments, posts by people who I am left feeling always have personal axes to grind whenever these debates come up, and people trying to claim that Hitler or Stalin (and their policies) were on 'the other side' in an apparent attempt to prove that that other side is occupying the degenerate 'moral low ground'.
Mr. Mcgillan, you have my deepest sympathy, for the rough treatment you seem to feel that you have had.If you will excuse me, however, I feel that I would rather not be posting in this thread-fight with all the tar and feathers currently flying around.
I, for one, cannot see why you think this is so. With the exception of a few sparks, most of the discussion has been quite civil from both sides. I do agree, though, that the Hitler and Stalin thing is completely unnecessary.
One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?
For me, it is a question of the burden of proof. Since anyone can posit any number of things, it is impossible to disprove all of them. In essence, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts existence. Unlike religions, atheism doesn't assert the existence of anything. It isn't a belief at all; it is just the opposite: The lack of belief.
Calling it "just another belief" is an attempt to put it on equal footing with various (and indeed, all possible) beliefs, however unlikely.
|
|
For me, it is a question of the burden of proof. Since anyone can posit any number of things, it is impossible to disprove all of them. In essence, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts existence. Unlike religions, atheism doesn't assert the existence of anything. It isn't a belief at all; it is just the opposite: The lack of belief.
Why does the "burden of proof rest with he who asserts existence"? It seems to me that the opposite should also be true -- that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts non-existence. Where's the "proof" that there isn't a god? I cannot "prove" to you that there is a god. You also cannot "prove" to me that there isn't a god. But in either case, I'm not sure why this is important.
Believe what you want, but I still feel that it's a belief.
As I said before, I explained this already. Let me hit the highlights one more time. Hitler saw religion as a useful tool on his way to power. While he himself was not an overly religious man, he recognized the influence that it had over German society. Therefore he sought to harness that influence by wrapping himself in the imagery of religion.
You didn't explain this. You just said it.
For example, school children had to sing this song every day in school:
Adolf Hitler is our Savior, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we live,
For Hitler we die
Our Hitler is our Lord
Who rules a brave new world.
This is hardly different from any other proclamation of a dictator, religious or otherwise, in human history. I see no reason why I should take it as evidence that he's got an antireligious agenda. Nationalism and dictatorship are hardly incompatible with religion.
In summary, Hitler saw religion as useful so long as it was a tool he was using. However, he was decidedly anti-Christianity, despite being a Catholic himself.
David, I'm happy to grant that Hitler would use religion as a tool. After all, everyone else does exactly the same thing with it. It's a tool to fight segregation; it's a tool to preserve it. It's a tool to end wars and one to start them. This hardly makes him anti-religious or anti-Christian, unless you think guys like Martin Luther, various Popes, Jim Jones, Jerry Falwell, George Bush, Barack Obama, and John Shelby Spong are all anti-Christian.
You yourself are quite nearly acknowledging the problem in the thesis here. You declare Hitler a Catholic and then say he opposes Catholicism. So he's set on destroying his own belief system, or some component thereof? That's pretty incredible. What's more, you go on to tell me this:
He used religious imagery and language to motivate people without believing it himself.
Is he a believing Catholic or is he not? All you've given me is this thesis:
Hitler was non-Christian Christian who wants to preserve Christianity and destroy Christianity.
Of the quotes you provide, one is a comment on the fall of Rome. Well ok, Hitler thinks religion brought Rome down. So do lots of religious people I've known. That hardly makes him anti-Christian, unless Christians are now obligated to believe that Rome was all light and joy and its fall was an unmitigated tragedy (a novel opinion indeed for a Christian!) and thus anything that was involved in its fall must be bad.
The Speer quote is only a complaint that another religion would be more congenial to his political goals. Well I hear that one from regular Christians too. In fact I think it's something of a trendy complaint in Calvinism lately that gentle Jesus meek and mild isn't the kind of guy they want around. They want a virile masculine sort of warrior Jesus who drives guys out of the Temple with whips.
As a matter of historiography, the sections of Hitler's Table Talk discussing his opinions on Christianity, the primary source of quotations damning it, are treated with considerable caution by most historians. Reviewing what you've given me and what I've read, I am unconvinced that he was anti-Christian or anti-religious. It's true that he doesn't unfailingly praise Christianity at every turn, but then neither do most Christians I know. That sort of thing only appears, in my experience, among fundamentalists.
A discussion of the Table Talk is available here, by the way.
Toward what end? I'm trying to figure out the point of this. What difference does it make if it is on "equal footing"? What "footing" is Atheism on?
The only difference enters into what gets taught in Science class in school -- and, by extention, whether scientific discoveries get heeded or ignored. With so many competing religions out there, ideally you'd stick to natural things only (things which science, by definition, is restricted to) and leave out all supernatural implications of all religions. That's "atheistic" in the sense that you've removed religion from the content being studied -- NOT in the sense that you actively deny any specific supernatural idea or thing. Realistically, it's meant as a "hands-off/noncompete" clause, NOT as a replacement.
But then otherwise well-meaning people come in and say, "well, Atheism is just another religion, so therefore science class is religious indoctrination. And because there are more Christians than Atheists, majority should rule, and science class should be replaced with Bible study." Now, I have no objection to a separate religious studies class, but Bible study should no more replace science class than history should replace mathematics.
I'm against the removal of science. The usual muddled thinking is that "science = atheism = competing religion = must stamp it out," and that's not helpful to anyone.
Calling it "just another belief" is an attempt to put it on equal footing with various (and indeed, all possible) beliefs, however unlikely.Toward what end? I'm trying to figure out the point of this. What difference does it make if it is on "equal footing"? What "footing" is Atheism on?
In the footing of being a statement of disbelief :).
Now, seriously, even though you cannot tell by the attitutde of some atheists, atheism is not necessarily active in the sense of affirming a god does not exist. Let me give some examples:
"I believe there is no god." - Statement of belief. You say you have a personal belief in the absence of god.
"I do not believe there is a god." - Statement of disbelief. You say you do not share the belief there is a god.
It is of course a subtle difference in semantics which could be discussed. Let us bring it this way then:
Let us imagine it was possible to provide huge amounts of scientific evidence for the existence of a god. I, and most scientists, would probably try to show why the evidence is wrong, as it befits any scientist. Should the evidence stand after thorough investigation, I would probably be convinced, and add "there is a god" to the collection of scientific knowledge I deem true.
Religious faith seems to work differently most of the time. For instance, geological investigation does not, of course, deny the existence of god. It does deny that a literal interpretation of the bible (if such a thing is possible) is correct. Of course, many religious people will say "ok, but the bible is not to be interpreted literary. No contradiction there." and that is fine. However, should one have, as an object of faith:
"The bible is to be taken literally."
It becomes very difficult for this person to accept facts which contradict this faith. They will usually ignore facts (instead of examining them) in order to mantain their faith.
In this sense, saying that you do not believe in god is different: it does not establish a compromise with that world-view and allows for new data to be taken into account. I guess most atheists don't like being pointed out as faithful because it is usually expected (maybe stereotipically, although not without reason) that religious faithful are evidence-proof (in what relates to their faith at least) while atheists are (at least ideally) not.
Why does the "burden of proof rest with he who asserts existence"? It seems to me that the opposite should also be true -- that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts non-existence. Where's the "proof" that there isn't a god? I cannot "prove" to you that there is a god. You also cannot "prove" to me that there isn't a god. But in either case, I'm not sure why this is important.Believe what you want, but I still feel that it's a belief.
Well, for one thing it is clearly impossible to disprove all the things anyone might posit ever. If you truly care, look into Russell's Teapot.
Why does the "burden of proof rest with he who asserts existence"? It seems to me that the opposite should also be true -- that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts non-existence.
If you argue that the burden is upon us to convince you that you are wrong in something, then refuse to tell us why you think you are right, you are asking us to do all of your work for you, and then debunk it.
At this point you can then say that no, that's not why you believe at all and we're putting words in your mouth. Why wouldn't you? We had to in order to make a case against your opinion, because you refused to give us your own reasoning with which to work.
If, as you admit, you cannot convince us that a deity exists because there is no evidence for such, then why would you believe in one yourself? Do you hold that same standard for a teapot in orbit around Mars? Leprechauns and unicorns? Zeus?
Toward what end? I'm trying to figure out the point of this. What difference does it make if it is on "equal footing"? What "footing" is Atheism on?
The point is burden of proof. If I tell you there is a pink troll (Pinky McPinkerson) living under my bed, surely you'd refuse to accept that everyone should believe me unless they can disprove my assertion? In other words,
Likewise, I reject labeling atheism "just another belief", because it implies that atheists have something to prove. We don't, any more than you have to prove my troll isn't real.
Moff:
Whether or not you believe in me, I believe in you.
-- Pinky
|
|
If you argue that the burden is upon us to convince you that you are wrong in something, then refuse to tell us why you think you are right, you are asking us to do all of your work for you, and then debunk it.
No. Not at all. I'm asking that you prove that you are right "in something". Not as a comparison to other religions, but by itself.
At this point you can then say that no, that's not why you believe at all and we're putting words in your mouth. Why wouldn't you? We had to in order to make a case against your opinion, because you refused to give us your own reasoning with which to work.
I've had lots of people put words in my mouth. But that's not my point at all. I'm not trying to "prove" Christianity (or any other religion). My question has to do with why Atheists are so focused on "proof" or being "right" or whatever. I understand Kirth's point of view -- in that religion (especially where he's at) has become much more of a political monster controlling areas that should be left alone or should have little to do with politics or "life" or whatever.
If, as you admit, you cannot convince us that a deity exists because there is no evidence for such, then why would you believe in one yourself? Do you hold that same standard for a teapot in orbit around Mars? Leprechauns and unicorns? Zeus?
I know about the magic teapot and Occam's razor and so on. There are logical problems with these especially when dealing with "faith" and religion and they seem to be some form of Atheists' way to discount and discredit religion by creating animosity and so on by telling people of faith that what they believe is "silly" or "ridiculous" and does NOTHING about working towards living together and living in harmony and getting along and so on. It's the Atheists way to be exactly what they complain about in other religions.
This idea of "proof" with regards to religion seems to stem from Atheists. Atheists are the ones that seem to be so incredibly focused on "proof". "Proof" is there. But it can always be easily explained away.
In any case, we are WAY off of what I was trying to figure out. There seem to be many times when the topic goes to it being incredibly important that Atheists are/are not labeled as a religion, or that they do/do not have a belief system, or whatever to the point where they are sometimes rather rude and mean about it. And I don't see why it matters so much or why it is so important. And from this I get blasted with why my belief is like imaginary bed trolls and unicorns.
It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?
Do you understand how science works?
so it's back to burden of proof versus beliefs? history versus ideals? human versus perfect? we seem to reach this point every time these threads pop up. a lot of work and anxiety to go nowhere. except to stir up bad feelings. why bother? [/rhetorical questions]
There seem to be many times when the topic goes to it being incredibly important that Atheists are/are not labeled as a religion, or that they do/do not have a belief system, or whatever to the point where they are sometimes rather rude and mean about it. And I don't see why it matters so much or why it is so important.
All I can suggest is that, if the absense of religion can be itself declared a religion, then EVERYTHING can then be labelled "religious." Because anything non-religious or non-overtly-religious becomes by default a part of this newly-declared "atheist religion." Any movie that does not specifically praise someone's God in every scene can be labelled "Atheist propoganda." And if everything in the world is, by this new definition, religious propaganda, then the only way to resolve the conflict is by majority rules -- Christianity becomes the law of the land, and we can fight over which church gets to replace the federal government. Science is abolished unless all its findings are skewed to match the Bible. History class that does not focus on how history fulfills Biblical prophecy -- to the exclusion of other topics -- becomes "atheist propoganda" (or, if you're studying ancient cultures, "Hindu propaganda," or "Confucian propaganda," etc.).
It's critical to co-existence of various religions that some topics be allowed to exist in a "religion-free" zone, so that everyone is on equal footing there. Declaring "religion-free" to be a religion removes that "safe zone," and turns all of existence into potential religious strife.
It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?Do you understand how science works?
That's not helpful.
|
|
All I can suggest is that, if the absense of religion can be itself declared a religion, then EVERYTHING can then be labelled "religious." Because anything non-religious or non-overtly-religious becomes by default a part of this newly-declared "atheist religion." Any movie that does not specifically praise someone's God in every scene can be labelled "Atheist propoganda."
Two thoughts --
1) Except that I feel that "religion" or "faith" deals directly with the divine or lack thereof. It deals specifically with things relating to the divine. The belief that there is no divine still deals with the divine. Taking a right hand turn on this road to get to McDonald's faster has nothing to do with the divine. I don't believe that labeling Atheism as a "belief" or even a "religion" changes that.
2) One of our significantly more liberal Christian radio stations was talking about this. Basically that a Christian artist is simply not allowed to write a song about their child or being good to others or about loving their spouse because it isn't overtly "Christian". Basically the point was that Christians really need to lighten up and enjoy a lot more of life and that EVERYTHING doesn't need to be "Christian".
Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.
Ideology: 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.Please explain how atheism does not fit the first definition.
Quit ignoring me, Moff!
Until you prove me no exist, me demand me be treated with same respect as any other Paizo poster!!!
--Pinky
P.S. Can you tell Bugleyman to quit farting in bed? Thx.
Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
Fella, give me a break! Of course that statement could be construed as offensive, especially after an outburst! If you've got enough moxie to attend a debate about religion, you should have enough - well sense, frankly - to realize that.
"I contend we are both <insert name here>. I just believe that YOU'RE wrong. When YOU understand why YOU are wrong, then YOU will understand why I'm right."
Nah, that's not gasoline on the fire...!?
Word for the day: Wisdom.
That's not helpful.It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?Do you understand how science works?
Yes, and not very respectful either.
No. Not at all. I'm asking that you prove that you are right "in something". Not as a comparison to other religions, but by itself.
Well ok. Give me some reason to think god exists and I'll tell you why I don't think it's convincing. We can have these discussions about gods other than those which are most popular.
I've had lots of people put words in my mouth. But that's not my point at all. I'm not trying to "prove" Christianity (or any other religion). My question has to do with why Atheists are so focused on "proof" or being "right" or whatever. I understand Kirth's point of view -- in that religion (especially where he's at) has become much more of a political monster controlling areas that should be left alone or should have little to do with politics or "life" or whatever.
I don't consider my interest in being right any stranger than yours. Don't we both want our opinions to map closely to reality? I know that I want to harbor exactly zero opinions which do not, if I can help it. (Nobody is perfect, of course.) When I find that my opinions don't match reality, I endeavor to change them. I think it both an essential act of intellectual honesty and simple common sense.
I know about the magic teapot and Occam's razor and so on. There are logical problems with these especially when dealing with "faith" and religion and they seem to be some form of Atheists' way to discount and discredit religion by creating animosity and so on by telling people of faith that what they believe is "silly" or "ridiculous" and does NOTHING about working towards living together and living in harmony and getting along and so on.
I think you're making a category error here. Russel's teapot and Occam's razor are not arguments we use to suggest that we coexist. They're arguments about whether or not your opinions correspond to reality. If you want advocacy for mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence, I would begin with the separation of church and state and equal rights for all.
Anyway, perhaps you could supply the problem of applying parsimony to religion? I mean aside from that the religious find it offensive? I don't mean to sound callous but finding something offensive isn't the same thing as finding it to be in error. One's emotional response to a notion has little to do with its truth value. I find the notion that I am a transcendent genius with a massive bank account and the power to fly pretty pleasant, but that hardly makes it true. Likewise I find the notion that the constitution of the United States grants exceedingly great power to obstructionists extremely unpleasant, but that does not disprove it.
This idea of "proof" with regards to religion seems to stem from Atheists. Atheists are the ones that seem to be so incredibly focused on "proof". "Proof" is there. But it can always be easily explained away.
Do you really not care in the slightest if you are right or wrong? Do you apply the same indifference to your bank statements? Accusations that you committed crimes? This seems like epistemological nihilism to me.
And from this I get blasted with why my belief is like imaginary bed trolls and unicorns.
How does it differ? I know that you don't believe in bed trolls and unicorns, but you do believe in gods. What makes that any different? Why do you dismiss bed trolls and unicorns? I understand that you find the comparison offensive, but why do you find it to be false?
And from this I get blasted with why my belief is like imaginary bed trolls and unicorns.
Allow me to repeat the question:
Yes or no?
"I contend we are both <insert name here>. I just believe that YOU'RE wrong. When YOU understand why YOU are wrong, then YOU will understand why I'm right."
Nah, that's not gasoline on the fire...!?
Word for the day: Wisdom.
Except...that isn't what he said.
|
|
Toward what end? I'm trying to figure out the point of this. What difference does it make if it is on "equal footing"? What "footing" is Atheism on?The point is burden of proof. If I tell you there is a pink troll (Pinky McPinkerson) living under my bed, surely you'd refuse to accept that everyone should believe me unless they can disprove my assertion? In other words,
Likewise, I reject labeling atheism "just another belief", because it implies that atheists have something to prove. We don't, any more than you have to prove my troll isn't real.
The issue isn't burden of proof, but whether an assertion is falsifiable or not. If you tell me that Ol' Pinky is under your bed, I can look and see if it is there - falsifiable. If you tell me that there is no God, I can't do that because God is a slippery customer - His existance cannot be falsified (or proved). This is the crucial difference. Assertions about teapots are beside the point, because those should be fairly easily falsifiable if you care to run the experiment, but I am not aware of any experiment that can really assess the existence of a supernatural deity, because any outcome could be explained away by either side. ("He never answers my prayers." "He doesn't have to - He's God. Maybe he is helping you in ways you don't realise. Maybe it is a test." "Why does he allow evil if he is so good?" "It is a test of faith." "Science disproves that God exists." "Maybe God created the world to run like that." And so on.)
So if you assert something ridiculous but falsifiable, it's not equally valid, it's just dumb. If you assert about metaphysics (i.e. stuff that cannot be falsified) then really it boils down to what you believe. Do you think there is a God, or not? Well, actually, none of us "knows" for sure. I don't think calling atheism a belief is actually suggesting there is a burden of proof about about it - nothing can prove it actually, so the burden is light. What is suggests is that in the sphere of metaphysics, as I have said above, we go with our preferences that may (or most likely are not) rational (and that includes atheists, and I say that as one) because there is no proof. I think some atheists dislike the notion of atheism as a "belief" because it implies that it is like a religion. Actually, it is simply saying that it is unfalsifiable, and that is about all it shares with religion. (This view of things largely comes out of Karl Popper's work and he was most concerned with puncturing reloutionary Marxism's claims about the inevitability of a revolution of the proletariat. That's metaphysics too and that is emphatically not a religion.)
|
|
No. Not at all. I'm asking that you prove that you are right "in something". Not as a comparison to other religions, but by itself.
Well ok. Give me some reason to think god exists and I'll tell you why I don't think it's convincing. We can have these discussions about gods other than those which are most popular.
Such proof does not exist, and never will. This should not be about trying to convince people with logic as to whether God exists or not. The appeal of different belief systems are emotional, not logical. The existence of the world as it currently stands can be very logically explained by reference to a supernatural creator being, and it can also be without. Some people just like the idea of a God, and some don't.
Atheists are the ones that seem to be so incredibly focused on "proof".
Yes; how silly of us. :P
Assertions about teapots are beside the point, because those should be fairly easily falsifiable if you care to run the experiment.
Except that Russell's Teapot, much like God, specifically precludes testability.
So if you assert something ridiculous but falsifiable, it's not equally valid, it's just dumb.
Pinky can turn invisible, and avoid all known forms of detection.
Please, someone, explain how this is any different.
So if you assert something ridiculous but falsifiable, it's not equally valid, it's just dumb.
Hey! Me not dumb. I saw you looking and turn invisible. Silly man no find Pinky.
--Pinky