Religon Influence Fading

[dellmanlego]

Many forget the GOLDEN RULE "treat others the way you want to be treated"!

[Napoleon Ier]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

[got tonkaed]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

[Napoleon Ier]

Defining "religion" in such restrictive terms as to exclude atheism from being an element of its set may be possible (though I've yet to see it done convincingly), but only through the grossest semantic sophistries can most of the arguments being made by the atheists here be posited, for the good reason that the definition of religion they're left with is so empty and meaningless as to render any analytic on it a futile exercise.

I dont think thats necessarily the issue. I think there are a few athiests on the board who wouldnt argue that atheism can possibly end up manifesting itself in religious fashions. I certainly wouldnt as i know athiests who would identify themselves as religious or spirtual.

I think the issue is luns seems to make an effort from time to time to posit that all athiests are religious (usually done by pointing out the secular humanism example). I dont think this is really a credible point and im still not entirely sure why it happens.

SImply because religion is a very approximate term used to describe a broad and disjointed group of ideologies about metaphysics, and it's immensely frustrating when people posit vast theorems designed to undermine Christianity based on this concept of "Religion is Superstition", "Religion is the Root of Evil" or "Religion is Brainwashing", when religion is such an empty term if the definition they use of it is to have any sense within the parametres of their theorem. It's a semantic sophistry that mars cultural perceptions with philosophical reality.

[Napoleon Ier]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

Your ignorance is showing

[got tonkaed]

i dont disagree with anything you said in that paragraph. However i will say i dont think its necessarily connected to the luns issue i was primarily referencing. Or if it is we have differing views about why he is doing it. I also dont necessarily think the religion issue is a solvable problem in terms of semantics, though id assume we disagree on this.

[Napoleon Ier]

i dont disagree with anything you said in that paragraph. However i will say i dont think its necessarily connected to the luns issue i was primarily referencing. Or if it is we have differing views about why he is doing it. I also dont necessarily think the religion issue is a solvable problem in terms of semantics, though id assume we disagree on this.

Oh God, I'm not accusing you of this tonky. I've never doubted you're IQ is actually higher than Bob Marley's average diastolic b.p...

[got tonkaed]

i dont disagree with anything you said in that paragraph. However i will say i dont think its necessarily connected to the luns issue i was primarily referencing. Or if it is we have differing views about why he is doing it. I also dont necessarily think the religion issue is a solvable problem in terms of semantics, though id assume we disagree on this.

Oh God, I'm not accusing you of this tonky. I've never doubted you're IQ is actually higher than Bob Marley's average diastolic b.p...

i didnt think you were, i think we are currently having two different conversations that magically intersected at a leprechaun convention.

[Napoleon Ier]

i dont disagree with anything you said in that paragraph. However i will say i dont think its necessarily connected to the luns issue i was primarily referencing. Or if it is we have differing views about why he is doing it. I also dont necessarily think the religion issue is a solvable problem in terms of semantics, though id assume we disagree on this.

Oh God, I'm not accusing you of this tonky. I've never doubted you're IQ is actually higher than Bob Marley's average diastolic b.p...

i didnt think you were, i think we are currently having two different conversations that magically intersected at a leprechaun convention.

LOL

As Backglass would no doubt laconically but succinctly put it.

No, but the crux here, is that atheism is either very much a religion, or you renounce yourself to a pretty empty meaning of the term you'd be advised not to use in a careful logical analysis because of the blurred connotations and reality...

If on the other hand, you are, like mpjh, trying to pull a piece of political snake-oil selling, well... different story, as we know.

[jonesthecurl]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

Never heard of LepreCon?

[muy_thaiguy]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

Never heard of LepreCon?

Artemis Fowl?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

...am I real?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/118663/

[jonesthecurl]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.

I cant see Backglass and you cant prove him... let me know when you attend a leprechaun convention and try to piss them off

But you won't debate this LOL. You're too brainwashed to understand...

leprechauns have conventions? I always thought they would be sort of solitary creatures with their pots o'gold and the like.

Never heard of LepreCon?

Artemis Fowl?

Dunno - I just made it up...

[mpjh]

LepreCon:
They are much like neo-cons. They believe in using their great wealth to force their Leprechaun form of government (little monarchy) on others. Fortunately, most people cannot see them, so they are largely ignored.

[Backglass]

Fine, I'd be willing to trade off on that one.

Glad you understand.

So do I since I was going by your definition of religion.

I don't believe that "I" have ever given a definitive definition of religion...have I?

Good for you, but many of your fellow atheists do.

So I am guilty of association now? Can I assume you are shooting at Abortion Clinic Doctors as some of your "fellow christians" do?

Perhaps you non-religious atheists should start your own Reformation against the religious ones who attend in DFW, Texas, Houston, formerly in Santa Rosa, CA or Colorado (you might even be able to get an autograph from Reverand Newdow )

I don't know any of those people/groups and don't see what this has to do with me. In my mind, atheists who gather at a "church" to do religious things are not atheists.

Could you say that again, please? Look, I tried agreeing with your definition and it didn't go over well with the other non-believers. Tell them about it...not me.

Well you didn't hear it the first dozen times evidently. What exactly is the purpose of this 3rd party debate anyway? You keep referring to these other people that you are arguing for. Are you a debating liason now?

Actually, I don't think you've "devoted" your life to atheism but rather that you've devoted your time to attacking and ridiculing religious people, especially of the Christian variety.

Nah...just a few minutes daily on this site actually. Hardly a lifelong devotion.

You try and equate us with leprechaun worshipers.

I think they are equal. It's belief in invisible beings when you boil it down. I am sorry if this offends you but that's my view of it.

If you weren't bothered by the message of the Bible then you wouldn't dedicate most of your posts towards ridiculing those who accept its message.

Ah! The Jay tactic! I must be horribly bothered and woefully unhappy! I have said before that I believe the bible is a good self-help book actually. It teaches many good things, I agree. But stories in a book are not proof of magical, invisible, supernatural beings.

It doesn't drive us nuts...it's just that we find it funny to watch atheists form a religion called secular humanism and then in the next breath declare "hey, it's not a religion".

OK, but that's not me or arguably most atheists.

Leprechauns have never been seriously introduced as a first cause for the universe. It's apples and oranges.

Is it? How do you know they didn't have a hand in it?

Personally, I think it's a back-handed attempt to ridicule those who accept a belief system which bothers you...especially the part about hell.

Huh? Your hell bothers me now? Is that how you reconcile me in your mind? Is it easier to brush me aside if you picture me as a frightened, godless, angry, bothered and unhappy man? There is no hell just as there is no heaven. THIS is the world we live in. No Disneyland afterlife to help you sleep better at night. Your belief in this doesn't bother me in the slightest, you obviously needed the help in order to turn your life around.

[OnlyAmbrose]

This seems like an awful lot of arguing over what appears to be semantics.

I think what luns is trying to say is that atheism is the foundation for a major "worldview," if you will, which in many cases presumes to preach a "right" and a "wrong" way of going about things.

[joecoolfrog]

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct.

Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical. I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

Actually, a religion is basically a belief system and atheist believe there is no God. You can claim it is a lack of belief, but in reality it is still a belief. It is like saying that black is the absence of color and yet it is still a color also. So, it is both. Yes, atheism is a lack of a belief in God and at the same time it is the belief that there is no God, and it is the fact that it is that belief system that makes it a religion. Argue all you want, but that is what it is plain and simple.

JH

So anything I dont believe in is religious.....ludicrous just plain ludicrous !
My non belief in Santa Claus is not based on faith.
My non belief in Fairies is not based on faith.
My non belief in any one thing is not based on faith.
I learn, I make judgements and come to conclusions, if Im proved horribly wrong then I know better next time and think/act accordingly
What I dont do is base my entire life on one conclusion and one strain of thought, I have no overpowering belief or faith in anything, my political stance for example has shifted a great deal over the years.....I have no religion ok !

[got tonkaed]

This seems like an awful lot of arguing over what appears to be semantics.

I think what luns is trying to say is that atheism is the foundation for a major "worldview," if you will, which in many cases presumes to preach a "right" and a "wrong" way of going about things.

Id still argue this isnt really the case though. I mean according to some numbers there are over a billion people in the world who are either atheist, non-theistic or just generally dont fall into a particular religious category. I dont think you can argue theres one coherent worldview out of that, in the same way that i dont know if theres one coherent worldview out of Christianity or Islam, or any other large major world religion.

I think Luns could clean his argument up a lot more if he stuck to secular humanists as id buy that argument quite farther than this all athiest = x which while not entirely what he is arguing is more or less where that argument goes.

[OnlyAmbrose]

This seems like an awful lot of arguing over what appears to be semantics.

I think what luns is trying to say is that atheism is the foundation for a major "worldview," if you will, which in many cases presumes to preach a "right" and a "wrong" way of going about things.

Id still argue this isnt really the case though. I mean according to some numbers there are over a billion people in the world who are either atheist, non-theistic or just generally dont fall into a particular religious category. I dont think you can argue theres one coherent worldview out of that, in the same way that i dont know if theres one coherent worldview out of Christianity or Islam, or any other large major world religion.

I think Luns could clean his argument up a lot more if he stuck to secular humanists as id buy that argument quite farther than this all athiest = x which while not entirely what he is arguing is more or less where that argument goes.

I see your point, but I can also kind of see luns'. The basic premise of "there is no God" leads to several basic conclusions about life, truth, and morality.

But seriously, this is semantics! The basic claim we should be debating is "Is there a God?", not "Is it religious to not believe in God?" because that is the root question which prompts difference between atheism and theism.

[got tonkaed]

I think the issue is, for large numbers of people the question really doesnt matter, as either way they arent all that interested. Id say the majority of non-religious people here arent atheists in the way that someone back home who was take a stance against a particular western religion was. They just didnt really have an opinion on it. Granted i think that is changing and there is a strong Christian presence here, but i think its a truism for a fair number of atheists. I mean i dont particularly believe there is a God, but its not really something i have to get into great arguments about anymore.

[Backglass]

I think what luns is trying to say is that atheism is the foundation for a major "worldview," if you will

And this assumes that atheists are all in agreement with each other and somewhat organized.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think what luns is trying to say is that atheism is the foundation for a major "worldview," if you will

And this assumes that atheists are all in agreement with each other and somewhat organized.

No, it doesn't assume any such thing.

[CrazyAnglican]

It only assumes that secular humanists are basing their worldview on atheism to a large degree. It says nothing about atheists that aren't secular humanists.

[MeDeFe]

It only assumes that secular humanists are basing their worldview on atheism to a large degree. It says nothing about atheists that aren't secular humanists.

Now get luns to claim that secular humanism is a religion while not making the same claim about atheism. I think that could turn into a fruitful debate.

[OnlyAmbrose]

It only assumes that secular humanists are basing their worldview on atheism to a large degree. It says nothing about atheists that aren't secular humanists.

Now get luns to claim that secular humanism is a religion while not making the same claim about atheism. I think that could turn into a fruitful debate.

Right. Because I do agree with GT on one thing: a lot of people who "don't believe in God", ie by definition, atheists, just don't care, or don't think about it, etc. That could certainly constitute a "lack of belief" - it's not just a negative claim, it's almost no claim at all.

Secular humanism may be a different story because (in my understanding) it makes a positive claim about the nature of reality and how people should live their lives.