Pat Robertson Confirms D&D destroys lives


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

DM Wellard wrote:
Notice that it's only games with Magic that are 'evil'..so you can play homicidal xenphobic modern day characters without endangering your soul...no wonder the world is in the state it is.

YES. We need more magic in the world.

Though I am worried of Pat Robertson wielding the powers of a Cleric, an Inquisitor, or even (Gygax forbids) A PALADIN !!!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
You are assigning probability based on your own belief structures. I accuse you of using "religion" to make scientific claims.

My belief structures are based on things that can be tested and falsified, even if they are imprecise. The opposite of religion.

Can be tested doesn't mean they have been.

"I believe X is true. I have no factual basis for this belief, but one day it could be tested. Therefore I am right. Suck it religion!"

Dark Archive

And what is it that you believe that science has failed to properly test Marthkus?

Liberty's Edge

Science is not a belief structure BTW

Atheism is. And it can no more be proven true than a theist belief/religion.

In fact, a belief structure cannot really be based on things that can be tested. Because if they are tested, they are proven either wrong or right. If wrong, they are errors, if right they are facts. A fact is not a belief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From reading his posts here, I have no idea what Marthkus believes.
Or more accurately I can't make any sense out of it.

As near as I can tell:
that the standard evolutionary theory of common descent is "extreme"
that we have no understanding of the origin of life
that said origin probably occurred multiple times
Possibly that multicellular life spontaneously originated.
Possibly that humans spontaneously originated - that is, did not evolve from non-human ancestors
that no religion makes a claim that organisms could not speciate
that everyone is a creationist
that creationism is scientific and definitely not religious
that possible spontaneous origination of singlecelled life has anything to do with what creationism is about or what more religious opponents of evolutionary theory oppose

In many cases, I don't think he's actually saying what he means. I think when he says things like "No religion claims evolutionary speciation does not happen", I don't think he's saying there is no religious group that makes that claim on religious grounds, but that, based on his interpretation of the biblical texts, the claim isn't justified.


My guess is that he believes that science supports his belief of creation (my guess is the Bible with a non-literal interpretation of the Creation story).

Silver Crusade

I would like Markthus to tell us himself what his beliefs are. So far he's been content to take poorly-aimed potshots at the positions held by others without putting forward his own for equal scrutiny.

Silver Crusade

The black raven wrote:

Science is not a belief structure BTW

Atheism is. And it can no more be proven true than a theist belief/religion.

In fact, a belief structure cannot really be based on things that can be tested. Because if they are tested, they are proven either wrong or right. If wrong, they are errors, if right they are facts. A fact is not a belief.

Once again for those not paying attention...!

There is really no such thing as 'Atheism', it is just an insulting term for those without a belief in any deity!

In the same way that there is no such thing as 'cold', merely a lack of heat.

In the same way that there is no such thing as 'dark', merely a lack of light.

There is no such belief as 'Atheism', merely a lack of 'Theism'.

The reason religious types like to portray Atheism as a 'belief in a lack', rather than a lack of a particular belief is so that they can deflect criticism of Theism by claiming that Atheism is just one form of Theism.

Imagine that there is a specific part of your concilusness that deals with belief in a god. If that space contains the God of the Old Testament then you are a Theist. If that space contains the gods of the Hindus then you are a Theist. If it contains the gods of ancient Greece then you are a Theist.

If that space is empty, you're not a Theist, you are A-Theist; not a believer but an unbeliever!

Agnostics aren't sure wether to fill that space or leave it empty.

Those religious apologists would have us believe that unbelief is a belief and that Atheists fill the space with 'no god', and because the space is filled then they must be Theist! When we ask what happens if the space is empty they say 'Agnostic'.

Nothing more than a shameless debating tactic which does not stand up to scrutiny.


Though atheism is a world view, if nothing else. "I believe what I can see and measure."

And I get the feeling that atheists generally get frustrated when they're called a religion (which apparently there is a small subsect who actually are?!). Why would they get frustrated when they are told they have a belief system built on the fact that they believe there is no divine beings?

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. (and I realize you think you addressed this, but I'm just now seeing why you so vehemently object to being classified as a person who has a belief as it pertains to the divine.)


... and i'm not trying to cleverrly come up with a way to lump you in with Theists. I just think that claiming you don't hold a belief about divine - even if the belief is that such doesn't exist – is... a headscratcher, if nothing else.

Dark Archive

I believe the problem lies with the misconception that one can be a theist or an atheist, that that these are religions, they are not, they are a gauge in a line for religious (or not)

first you have a line for belief in gods (polytheist), god (theist), or no gods (atheists)

then you have religions which these lines fit in:
Polytheist have most of the death religions from mythology
theist have the current world religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism
atheists can have religions (like some sects of Buddhism) or no religion (most atheist who call them selves as such fall in this category)

and i think that is where confusion (or willing ignorance) comes from

Silver Crusade

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

Though atheism is a world view, if nothing else. "I believe what I can see and measure."

And I get the feeling that atheists generally get frustrated when they're called a religion (which apparently there is a small subsect who actually are?!). Why would they get frustrated when they are told they have a belief system built on the fact that they believe there is no divine beings?

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand.

I can help you, here. : )

If someone is a Christian, or a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc. you know know several things about them. You know that one belief each has is a belief in at least one deity. You can also know other things about each one. For example, Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and many other things that define Christianity.

But you don't know anything about an Atheist beyond the fact that he does not believe in any gods! You don't know his philosophy, world-view or views on science. The word 'Atheist' tells you nothing about what he does believe, whereas the word 'Christian' (for example) tells you a lot!

You can make any guesses you want about what an Atheist does believe, but the word 'Atheist' tells you nothing about that!


Let me try it another way (and please tell me if I mis-represent the other side of the discussion).

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: Sure there is, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?

Atheist: How can you believe in God(s)? There is no actual proof.

Theist: Sure there is... (goes on to list experiencial or non-scientific proof).

Atheist: No, I mean scientific proof. Can you prove God to me? Here. Now.

---

the problem is that, at least by my interpretation of my Bible, God doesn't exist in a manner that's provable. He is above and outside of His Creation.

So if God is improvable, no one can prove or disprove him.

You simply choose to disbelieve, while I choose to believe. Both are beliefs and world views, aren't they?


ulgulanoth wrote:

I believe the problem lies with the misconception that one can be a theist or an atheist, that that these are religions, they are not, they are a gauge in a line for religious (or not)

first you have a line for belief in gods (polytheist), god (theist), or no gods (atheists)

then you have religions which these lines fit in:
Polytheist have most of the death religions from mythology
theist have the current world religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism
atheists can have religions (like some sects of Buddhism) or no religion (most atheist who call them selves as such fall in this category)

and i think that is where confusion (or willing ignorance) comes from

a) Theist is generally used for any belief in any number of gods.

Monotheist would be a single god. Monotheists and polytheists would both be theits.

b) "death religions"? Not at all sure what you mean by that, but I wouldn't apply it all polytheistic religions.

c) Hinduism is still a major current world religion and definitely polytheistic. Other, smaller ones also still exist. Shinto probably qualifies. Some of the folk versions of Taoism and even Buddhism do as well.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I can help you, here. : )

If someone is a Christian, or a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc. you know know several things about them. You know that one belief each has is a belief in at least one deity. You can also know other things about each one. For example, Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and many other things that define Christianity.

But you don't know anything about an Atheist beyond the fact that he does not believe in any gods! You don't know his philosophy, world-view or views on science. The word 'Atheist' tells you nothing about what he does believe, whereas the word 'Christian' (for example) tells you a lot!

You can make any guesses you want about what an Atheist does believe, but the word 'Atheist' tells you nothing about that!

Agreed, but in this specific conversation (where you and a few others seem to be discussing the merits of commonly held religious beliefs in light of varying degrees of agreed-upon evolution theories), it simplifies the discussion somewhat.

I realize that by claiming to be a Christian, you have a somewhat good chance of guessing what i believe (though based off what I've read in this thread, that may not actually be true). But by saying you're an Atheist, there's really only one thing we know about you.

But at the same time, in the context of this discussion, it's one of the main things there is to know: is there or is there a supernatural Creator?


Eben TheQuiet wrote:

Let me try it another way (and please tell me if I mis-represent the other side of the discussion).

Atheist: There is no God.
Theist: Sure there is, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?
Atheist: How can you believe in God(s)? There is no actual proof.
Theist: Sure there is... (goes on to list experiencial or non-scientific proof).
Atheist: No, I mean scientific proof. Can you prove God to me? Here. Now.

Hopefully I can clarify; as an atheist, the discussion with me often goes something more like this:

Atheist: The existence of humans doesn't necessarily require a god.
Theist: Sure it does, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?
Atheist: In this case, we've got a pretty good explanation, one with scientific evidence, and it doesn't require any gods.
Theist: Sure it does... (goes on to list personal beliefs or discredited pseudoscience).
Atheist: Never mind.

I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

Eben TheQuiet wrote:
You simply choose to disbelieve, while I choose to believe. Both are beliefs and world views, aren't they?

Well, not exactly.

You simply choose to believe. In my case, after looking at the evidence for, I've found it kind of lacking, so I provisionally withold belief.
See the difference?


Eben TheQuiet wrote:

Let me try it another way (and please tell me if I mis-represent the other side of the discussion).

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: Sure there is, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?

Atheist: How can you believe in God(s)? There is no actual proof.

Theist: Sure there is... (goes on to list experiencial or non-scientific proof).

Atheist: No, I mean scientific proof. Can you prove God to me? Here. Now.

---

the problem is that, at least by my interpretation of my Bible, God doesn't exist in a manner that's provable. He is above and outside of His Creation.

So if God is improvable, no one can prove or disprove him.

You simply choose to disbelieve, while I choose to believe. Both are beliefs and world views, aren't they?

What I find funny about that argument is that, back in Biblical days, God was all about showing proof. The Bible is full of things that if it could be proven that they happened would certainly count as strong hard evidence if not 100% proof.

But we don't see that today. And so we get "proof would destroy faith" or your "God is improvable."

Liberty's Edge

I put Atheism as a belief structure because I do not see it as a fact.

Actually, I never thought of myself as any kind of religious type. Very far from it.

What I dislike in many outspoken atheists is that they parade their own understanding of the world as THE ONLY TRUE WAY, intrinsicaly superior to that of people who do not agree with them, with nothing to uphold this hubris, all the while bashing any and all religious view for doing THE EXACT SAME THING.

I dislike any fanaticism whatever its stripes.

thejeff wrote:

a) Theist is generally used for any belief in any number of gods.

Monotheist would be a single god. Monotheists and polytheists would both be theits.

Quite right.

Quote:
b) "death religions"? Not at all sure what you mean by that, but I wouldn't apply it all polytheistic religions.

I think he means "dead religions" such as the Egyptian or Greek/Roman pantheons.

Quote:
c) Hinduism is still a major current world religion and definitely polytheistic. Other, smaller ones also still exist. Shinto probably qualifies. Some of the folk versions of Taoism and even Buddhism do as well.

Actually, in some ways, Catholicism might qualify with all its saints to worship, which was one of the reasons that Protestantism rejected it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:


I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

That's pretty much it for me.

To use the aprocryphal LaPlace quote again "I have no need of that hypothesis."

I'm not claiming anything with certainty, but a God is one of many many things I can't disprove but have no reason to believe exist.

If you want to call that agnosticism, that's fine, but then I'm agnostic about a whole range of other things from the Loch Ness monster through UFOs. Not to mention all the things I do believe in, but haven't actually proven: like China for example. It could be a massive worldwide conspiracy to trick us into believing there's a giant country on the other side of the world. I've never seen it. :)

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:

Let me try it another way (and please tell me if I mis-represent the other side of the discussion).

Atheist: There is no God.
Theist: Sure there is, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?
Atheist: How can you believe in God(s)? There is no actual proof.
Theist: Sure there is... (goes on to list experiencial or non-scientific proof).
Atheist: No, I mean scientific proof. Can you prove God to me? Here. Now.

Hopefully I can clarify; as an atheist, the discussion with me often goes something more like this:

Atheist: The existence of humans doesn't necessarily require a god.
Theist: Sure it does, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)?
Atheist: In this case, we've got a pretty good explanation, one with scientific evidence, and it doesn't require any gods.
Theist: Sure it does... (goes on to list personal beliefs or discredited pseudoscience).
Atheist: Never mind.

I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

Then I would consider you a moderate atheist :-)

My take on things would be :

Moderate Atheist: The existence of humans doesn't necessarily require a god.
Me: You are quite right. But it does not preclude the existence of one either.
Moderate Atheist: In this case, we've got a pretty good explanation, one with scientific evidence, and it doesn't require any gods.
Me: Does this explanation demonstrate that there is no god ?
Moderate Atheist: No. Just that maybe there is no god.
Me: Okay. No problem with that

And when confronted with the "holier than thou" atheist :

Extreme Atheist: There is no God.
Me: What proof do you have ? Why do you think that all religious people are ignorants/fools/misguided ?
Extreme Atheist: How can you believe in God(s)? There is no actual proof.
Me: People do not require proof to believe.
Extreme Atheist: No, I mean scientific proof. Can you prove God to me? Here. Now.
Me : Can you disprove God to me ? Here. Now . With scientific proof.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Then I would consider you a moderate atheist

Probably not... because then I take the next step, and say "since we don't need God to explain the presence of humans, let's restrict ourselves to the scientific evidence in biology class, and not tell a bunch of lies about 'Intelligent Design,' OK?"

And then I'm invariably labeled a "militant atheist."

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
You simply choose to disbelieve, while I choose to believe. Both are beliefs and world views, aren't they?

Well, not exactly.

You simply choose to believe. In my case, after looking at the evidence for, I've found it kind of lacking, so I provisionally withold belief.
See the difference?

The way I see things, after looking at the evidence, both of you made a decision. And I have nothing that can make me say that one is better than the other. So I respect both decisions.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

That's pretty much it for me.

To use the aprocryphal LaPlace quote again "I have no need of that hypothesis."

I'm not claiming anything with certainty, but a God is one of many many things I can't disprove but have no reason to believe exist.

If you want to call that agnosticism, that's fine, but then I'm agnostic about a whole range of other things from the Loch Ness monster through UFOs. Not to mention all the things I do believe in, but haven't actually proven: like China for example. It could be a massive worldwide conspiracy to trick us into believing there's a giant country on the other side of the world. I've never seen it. :)

That's not Agnosticism.

The existence of China is testable and falsifiable. Just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't reduce your belief in it to the level of mere 'faith'.

We can analyse any claim and use our reason. One stance is to believe a claim. Another is to think a claim is absurd, and thus require proof to even take the claim seriously (like the Atheist standpoint), another is to think that the claim has a reasonable chance of being true but also of being made-up, so reserve judgement (the Agnostic standpoint).

Do you really think that there is a reasonable chance that China is fictional, like Never-Never Land (Agnostic), or do you think that the overwhelming probability is that China exists without having seen it yourself, based on film, meeting Chinese people, not having a belief that the entire world exists to deceive you, etc. (Atheist: evidence asked for and received).

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The black raven wrote:
Then I would consider you a moderate atheist

Probably not... because then I take the next step, and say "since we don't need God to explain the presence of humans, let's restrict ourselves to the scientific evidence in biology class, and not tell a bunch of lies about 'Intelligent Design,' OK?"

And then I'm invariably labeled a "militant atheist."

Not by me and not in France :-))

I feel that "creationism" and "intelligent design" are very much Americanisms.

In France, ID is never ever studied in school, except maybe in some obscure philosophy classes as an interesting American oddity. And all scientific classes (including biology) are based on scientific evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

That's pretty much it for me.

To use the aprocryphal LaPlace quote again "I have no need of that hypothesis."

I'm not claiming anything with certainty, but a God is one of many many things I can't disprove but have no reason to believe exist.

If you want to call that agnosticism, that's fine, but then I'm agnostic about a whole range of other things from the Loch Ness monster through UFOs. Not to mention all the things I do believe in, but haven't actually proven: like China for example. It could be a massive worldwide conspiracy to trick us into believing there's a giant country on the other side of the world. I've never seen it. :)

That's not Agnosticism.

The existence of China is testable and falsifiable. Just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't reduce your belief in it to the level of mere 'faith'.

We can analyse any claim and use our reason. One stance is to believe a claim. Another is to think a claim is absurd, and thus require proof to even take the claim seriously (like the Atheist standpoint), another is to think that the claim has a reasonable chance of being true but also of being made-up, so reserve judgement (the Agnostic standpoint).

Do you really think that there is a reasonable chance that China is fictional, like Never-Never Land (Agnostic), or do you think that the overwhelming probability is that China exists without having seen it yourself, based on film, meeting Chinese people, not having a belief that the entire world exists to deceive you, etc. (Atheist: evidence asked for and received).

No, I don't. I acknowledge the possibility. (Though a brain-in-a-vat simulation scenario is probably more likely than the China conspiracy one.) And then I ignore it as so mind-bogglingly unlikely as to not be worth my time to consider.

And I consider various theories about God to be on the same level, but on the other side of the divide. I acknowledge the possibility and then I ignore it as so mind-bogglingly unlikely as to not be worth my time to consider.

I don't think it has a reasonable chance. I also can't disprove it. But the point is, I don't require proof for anything. I require evidence. Proof is an unreasonable standard for epistemological questions. You can always fall back on brain-in-a-vat or Last Thursdayism or God makes himself not-provable.( Even though he used to go to great lengths to prove himself.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The reason religious types like to portray Atheism as a 'belief in a lack', rather than a lack of a particular belief is so that they can deflect criticism of Theism by claiming that Atheism is just one form of Theism.

As a not-religious-type, I call your statement here hogwash.

Part of the reason I consider Atheism (capitalized by you, not me) a religion is the zealotry displayed by those who defend their beliefs - illustrated quite nicely by your posts.

You have an established belief system - one that may not be consistent with other denominations or sects of Atheism, but ultimately, a generally consistent belief system.

Much like Christianity - the various denominations or sects don't agree on everything, either.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Nothing more than a shameless debating tactic which does not stand up to scrutiny.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Really, it's amusing that you go to such an extent to disprove that your religion is a religion in it's own right, because it's not as if the label harms your belief structure or your argument.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:

No, I don't. I acknowledge the possibility. (Though a brain-in-a-vat simulation scenario is probably more likely than the China conspiracy one.) And then I ignore it as so mind-bogglingly unlikely as to not be worth my time to consider.

And I consider various theories about God to be on the same level, but on the other side of the divide. I acknowledge the possibility and then I ignore it as so mind-bogglingly unlikely as to not be worth my time to consider.

I don't think it has a reasonable chance. I also can't disprove it. But the point is, I don't require proof for anything. I require evidence. Proof is an unreasonable standard for epistemological questions. You can always fall back on brain-in-a-vat or Last Thursdayism or God makes himself not-provable.( Even though he used to go to great lengths to prove himself.)

Fair enough! Well put, sir. : )


Oof… obviously I should have waited for a day when i have more posting availability. :)

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Hopefully I can clarify; as an atheist, the discussion with me often goes something more like this:

Atheist: The existence of humans doesn't necessarily require a god.

Theist: Sure it does, why wouldn't you believe in God(s)? 

Atheist: In this case, we've got a pretty good explanation, one with scientific evidence, and it doesn't require any gods. 

Theist: Sure it does... (goes on to list personal beliefs or discredited pseudoscience). 

Atheist: Never mind.

And I can understand why your annoyance with that conversation.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I consider myself an atheist. For me, the non-existence of God is not in any way a starting point; it's a provisional statement coming from all the gazillions of areas in which an physical explanation already suffices.

I'd imagine most people who don't believe in the divine wouldn't construct a world-view based on their disbelief of said divine being. It's just (from their perspective) one more thing in the periphery of their mind that they don't believe exists. (this, if I understand, was one of the main points of Malachi's posts)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Not by me and not in France :-))

Ah! Pardonnez-mois, mon ami. Je n'ai pas d'idée que vous habitez un pays civilisé.

Silver Crusade

Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'd imagine most people who don't believe in the divine wouldn't construct a world-view based on their disbelief of said divine being. It's just (from their perspective) one more thing in the periphery of their mind that they don't believe exists. (this, if I understand, was one of the main points of Malachi's posts)

Yes. : )

I'm glad I was able to communicate my position successfully. : )

'The conversation' would go like this:-

'Do you believe in God?'

'Which god?'

'There is only One!'

'I've heard lots of people say that, but they each describe something different.'

'I'll try again; do you believe in the Christian God?'

'No! Why would I?'


well, don't take my understanding of your point to mean I agree that even atheists don't have a chosen belief about the divine. They still have made a choice whether or not the idea of the improvable divine does or does not exist.


Eben TheQuiet wrote:
They still have made a choice whether or not the idea of the improvable divine does or does not exist.

Honest question: can you, personally, choose to believe in Santa Claus? I mean, you have no evidence that such a being exists, despite the fact that millions of people believe in him (granted, those people are all kids, but still, the belief was successfully implanted in their minds). As far as evidence against, you've got your parents/guardians admit that they're making it up, but that's just hearsay, not proof of Santa's non-existence.

My guess is that, for most people, when the scales tilt too far one way or the other then it's no longer possible to totally withold some gut sense of which way things seem to you to be. You're not "choosing" to disbelieve in Santa, you just eventually get to the point where it's not possible to talk yourself into accepting the reasons to believe in him.

Silver Crusade

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The reason religious types like to portray Atheism as a 'belief in a lack', rather than a lack of a particular belief is so that they can deflect criticism of Theism by claiming that Atheism is just one form of Theism.

As a not-religious-type, I call your statement here hogwash.

Part of the reason I consider Atheism (capitalized by you, not me) a religion is the zealotry displayed by those who defend their beliefs - illustrated quite nicely by your posts.

Passion in defence of a point of view =/= religious.

Quote:
You have an established belief system - one that may not be consistent with other denominations or sects of Atheism, but ultimately, a generally consistent belief system.

What my 'belief system' may or may not be is not indicated by the word 'Atheist', which only indicates the lack of a belief in any gods. There is no such thing as 'Atheism', beyond an absence of 'Theism'.

What do you imagine my 'generally consistent belief system' to be?

There are no 'sects of Atheism'. Atheists don't gather together on non-holy days to tell each other how much we don't believe something. Do those who don't believe in horoscopes gather together in groups to discuss their unbelief? What different sects could there be of those who don't believe in horoscopes?

Quote:
Much like Christianity - the various denominations or sects don't agree on everything, either.

What is there to disagree about?

'Do you believe in any gods?'

'No.'

'Then you're an Atheist.'

'Great! Where do I pay my tithe? Is there a guidebook to tell me exactly how not to believe in any gods?'

Preposterous.

Quote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Nothing more than a shameless debating tactic which does not stand up to scrutiny.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Really, it's amusing that you go to such an extent to disprove that your religion is a religion in it's own right, because it's not as if the label harms your belief structure or your argument.

The deliberate misunderstanding of the word 'atheist' is why I and others avoid using it in real life (that, and the hatred of Atheists). That's why, when asked, we describe ourselves as 'not religious'.

Although not strictly the same in terms of dictionary definitions, for the purposes of our debate:-

Theist = religious
Atheist = not religious

The idea that 'not being religious' is a kind of religion is absurd.

I like American Football. I've followed the Redskins since just before Superbowl XVII, and was thrilled when we won. But when I ask someone which team they follow, the answer, 'not the Redskins' isn't a team!

Football is a sport, but 'not playing football' is not a sport!

Christianity is a religion, but 'not Christian' is not a religion!

'Not religious' is not a religion, and 'A-Theism' means 'not Theism'.

Silver Crusade

Eben TheQuiet wrote:
well, don't take my understanding of your point to mean I agree that even atheists don't have a chosen belief about the divine. They still have made a choice whether or not the idea of the improvable divine does or does not exist.

I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either, but that doesn't mean that this disbelief is some kind of religion or worldview!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What is there to disagree about?

Currently, the disagreement seems to be between the so-called "New Atheists" (whose attitude is summarized as "No, I don't believe in any gods, and yes, if you ask, I honestly do think it's a little silly to do so") on one hand, and the so-called "Accommodationists" (whose attitide is summarized as "Don't admit you don't believe, or at least not openly, and make sure you say lots and lots of nice things about religion and give religious people whatever they want, so that maybe they'll like us better") on the other.

That seems to be a pretty big disagreement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Question on Santa

Do I choose or can I choose? I don't believe in Santa. Though I guess I could, as I've never seen hard evidence that disproves him.

I'm not asking any of the atheists in here or elsewhere to change their minds. I have an old friend who is an atheist. We grew up together in the church. Not much that guy doesn't know about me.

I completely understand why he's decided he doesn't believe any more. There was a day when I tried to get him to change his mind.

Then I got about an ounce of awareness about what I believe and what he believes. I get it. The evidence is lacking to a lot of smart, informed people. My friend is an incredibly good guy who's got a strong sense of ethics who cares for others in a way that I can't help but approve of (and frankly a lot of the people I go to church with could learn from him in terms of loving others).

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
My guess is that, for most people, when the scales tilt too far one way or the other then it's no longer possible to totally withold some gut sense of which way things seem to you to be. You're not "choosing" to disbelieve in Santa, you just eventually get to the point where it's not possible to talk yourself into accepting the reasons to believe in him.

What I do not like in this kind of example is that it seems to say that atheists have a clearer/truer understanding of the world than religious people, just as adults do over children who believe in Santa.

It does not strike me as tolerant, while I feel that atheists, having no god to defend, should be more tolerant than most.

BTW, Malachi, you should come to France. We have no "hatred of Atheists" that I know of.

Mind you, things were different a full century ago, when the School of the Devil and the Forces of Reaction were at each other's throats.

These days, the energy of the religious debate in France is mostly focused against Islam with both Christian extremists and atheists fighting together against the building of mosques, ladies wearing the hijab or the burqa and the development of hallal food. A sacred union of sorts I guess.

BTW, Kirth, thank you for your courtesy. Rest assured that my country has its lot of bad points too :-))

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
My friend is an incredibly good guy who's got a strong sense of ethics who cares for others in a way that I can't help but approve of (and frankly a lot of the people I go to church with could learn from him in terms of loving others).

THIS is the most important thing.

A friend of mine openly supports the French far-right party. I hate this party and all its stands for.

But I understand why he decided to support it, even though I do not agree with him.

I still would trust him in every ways because he is a deeply good and decent person, ready to help at an instant's notice.

What we believe in, the political choices we make, do not really define who we are. They are just some clothes put on our core.

How we treat others is the real measure of who we are deep down.


The black raven wrote:
These days, the energy of the religious debate in France is mostly focused against Islam with both Christian extremists and atheists fighting together against the building of mosques, ladies wearing the hijab or the burqa and the development of hallal food. A sacred union of sorts I guess.

Are atheists really fighting against Islam in France? In the US atheists tend to support the right of Muslims to build mosques. The hijab/burqa debate is a little more polarized, since there's a sense that many, but not all, women are pressured into wearing it.

But is anti-Islam really a common atheist position? I'm sure there are some atheists among the racist groups that make up the opposition, but are they a significant part of it? More likely to be opposed than the general population? A quick bit of Googling didn't find anything on atheists being anti-Islam in France.

Scarab Sages

Just a quick note: Theism doesn't equal religion. Religion is a collection of a wide variety of beliefs and cultural practices. Heck, Eastern and Western Christianity can look VERY different, and might only share a few beliefs and customs.

On that front, Atheism obviously wouldn't be considered a religion itself, but there are Atheist religions ( http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ ).


The black raven wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My guess is that, for most people, when the scales tilt too far one way or the other then it's no longer possible to totally withold some gut sense of which way things seem to you to be. You're not "choosing" to disbelieve in Santa, you just eventually get to the point where it's not possible to talk yourself into accepting the reasons to believe in him.

What I do not like in this kind of example is that it seems to say that atheists have a clearer/truer understanding of the world than religious people, just as adults do over children who believe in Santa.

It does not strike me as tolerant, while I feel that atheists, having no god to defend, should be more tolerant than most.

Well, there's tolerance and then there's tolerance.

I'm not going to pretend that I don't find my understanding of the world clearer and truer than a religious one. If I found the religious one truer, I would adopt it.
I'm very tolerant of religion. If someone tells me he's going to church I don't mock for it. If he asks about it, I'll tell him I don't believe. If he wants to debate religion and atheism, I'll be honest. And he might find that offensive. OTOH, some religious people find any public defense of atheism offensive but see no problem in public messages pushing their religion.

I know some religious people find the Santa example (or similar ones) offensive, but it isn't intended that way and it is a good example. To someone who does believe, it's hard to get across that there really are things we all disbelieve without the level of absolute proof that theists often demand of atheists in these discussions.
As I said above, I don't really care if you want to call me agnostic or atheist, labels don't really matter to me as long as the intent gets across, but if I'm agnostic about God, then I'm also agnostic about the Loch Ness monster, UFOs and Santa too. I can't absolutely prove any of them aren't real, but I'm not going to waste my time thinking they are.


When I read this long thread I see it more as a battle to define the words and the definitions therein. If you control the definition you control the argument. Should someone succeed in define Atheism as a religion it basically delegitimizes and undermines the principal definition of what Atheism is all about. One can argue that opponents of Atheism have already achieved that victory.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
well, don't take my understanding of your point to mean I agree that even atheists don't have a chosen belief about the divine. They still have made a choice whether or not the idea of the improvable divine does or does not exist.
I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either, but that doesn't mean that this disbelief is some kind of religion or worldview!

No, it's the reverse. Im guessing you don't believe in the Toothfairy because you lack empirical (sp?) evidence. The world view is that of a skeptic... I'll believe when it's proven true. Either way, its a choice to believe that way as opposed to being undisputedly right.

Silver Crusade

The arena of debate is different from real life. I don't go around bothering children with the 'Truth' about Santa, nor do I bother my friends about their various beliefs just because they're 'wrong'.

My father is a priest and a Doctor of Theology, and we have stimulating debates on the subject. We still love each other, admire each other as people and don't cruelly make fun. When someways says, 'God bless you!', I may be surprised (it's not very common to do that in Britain) but I'm not about to launch into a diatribe; I accept it as intended: good wishes.

In a real life example, once every ten years I'm required to fill out a Census form. When it asks me what religion I am, I don't write 'Athiest', or even 'Jedi'. I write 'None', which is the correct answer for an atheist.

This forum is an arena of debate, and I feel perfectly justified in robustly defending my point of view, and I'm not offended when others do likewise even if they don't share my point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
Though atheism is a world view, if nothing else. "I believe what I can see and measure."

Except that this isn't true.

Atheists aren't necessarily empiricists or materialists. They're just people who aren't theists. If I believe in faeries, ghosts, sorcerers, and warlocks, but not gods, I'm still an atheist.


Eben TheQuiet wrote:
The world view is that of a skeptic... I'll believe when it's proven true. Either way, its a choice to believe that way as opposed to being undisputedly right.

I still maintain that it's not a choice. I'm a skeptic because I've seen too much stuff be proved B.S. for me to be able to accept anything anymore without seeing evidence for it. That's not a choice; it's been beaten into my head by experience enough times that it's automatic. I couldn't choose to stop being a skeptic if I wanted to.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
If I believe in faeries, ghosts, sorcerers, and warlocks, but not gods, I'm still an atheist.

Can you point to some examples of people for whom this is true? It seems bizarre to me that you'd provisionally reject the existence of god(s) but accept ghosts and fairies, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If I believe in faeries, ghosts, sorcerers, and warlocks, but not gods, I'm still an atheist.
Can you point to some examples of people for whom this is true? It seems bizarre to me that you'd provisionally reject the existence of god(s) but accept ghosts and fairies, for example.

A substantial fraction of Taoists consider themselves atheists, including a substantial number of Taoist mystics who believe in the "magical" aspects of Taoism. The key difference (for them), is that Gods are sentient. While the Tao is indeed a universal overarching principle, it's simply a law of nature, and is no more a deity than the law of gravity.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was rather famously an atheist who believed in faeries.

Many version of theosophy are also rather explicit in their belief in ghosts, but rather coy about whether or not God exists. If anyone wants to go wading through the sewage farm of Mme. Blavatsky's writing to cherry pick quotes on either side of the issue, they'll probably find them; this kind of random eclecticism is very characteristic of the theosophists.

Really, in order to believe in faeries, ghosts, etc., all you really need to do is believe that there's something out there that science has not yet discovered. But just because you believe that science has not yet learned the truth about ghosts does not imply that you believe that science has not yet learned the truth about faeries, and vice versa. Similarly, belief in God is independent of belief in faeries.

And in the case of God, there are various well-founded arguments against Him (at least as traditionally defined) that rule Him out as incoherent, instead of simply unknown. The problem of evil is one such -- defining God as omnicognizant, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent really means defining Him as self-contradictory, the equivalent of a square circle. I can certainly believe in ghosts while still believing in geometry.

Project Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My guess is that, for most people, when the scales tilt too far one way or the other then it's no longer possible to totally withold some gut sense of which way things seem to you to be. You're not "choosing" to disbelieve in Santa, you just eventually get to the point where it's not possible to talk yourself into accepting the reasons to believe in him.
What I do not like in this kind of example is that it seems to say that atheists have a clearer/truer understanding of the world than religious people, just as adults do over children who believe in Santa.

Tolerance isn't believing all viewpoints are equal -- it's believing all viewpoints have an equal right to exist and be heard.

I don't believe communism is an equally sensible form of government to democracy. I do, however, believe that people have a right to be communists.


@ Orfamay,

Thanks for the references -- interesting! Now I have some reading ahead of me.

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pat Robertson Confirms D&D destroys lives All Messageboards