Religion has its rights.

[David Floyd]

And nothing - just giving my opinion. *shrug*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

Yes, it has - lack of faith in God.

The summary of atheist doctrine is lack of God. Nothing else is needed in that matter

No, it hasn't.


The problem is you're presupposing a default setting of 'belief' or 'faith' in god.

I've already told you what one atheist believes, now YOU'RE telling ME what I believe.


I do not have a lack of god, or gods. I do not find that there is a reasonable argument for the existence of a god, or gods.

This is not a 'lack' of god, or gods. This is as absurd as saying a monotheist lacks 'gods'.


Black is not an absence of pigmentation. If something possessed no hue or colour, one wouldn't see it.

And by the way, I was responding to Ludd when he said atheists replaced priests with scientists- I don't, and nor do any other atheists I know. Even so, science differs from religion in a great many important respects, one of which is a reliance on the observable or measurable, and another of which is willingness to change in the light of experimentation or evidence.

Dogma doesn't really have similar attributes.


With regard to French governmental policy, I'm not quite sure how you think my atheism is responsible for what France does or doesn't do in its schools.

I hold that religion is a private matter, for individuals, and that there should be no coercion involved.

If you have a state such as the United States which was founded on a principle of no state favouritism for any particular religion, then any show of favour towards a particular faith or religious belief in general, is discrimination and against some of the country's founding principles. Unfortunately some of the successors to Jefferson seem not to have his strength of character or principle in that respect.

You seem to be of the opinion that putting god or a mention of god in a state's constitution is more inclusive than leaving it out. I see no logic behind this. A non-religious constitution encompasses all, both those with a religious faith, and those who eschew religious belief.

More to the point, you assert I have a hatred of religion, and that I deny the religious heritage of Europe.
This is untrue.

Where in my posts have I stated a hatred of religion?

Or denied the role religion has played in shaping European history?


And again, atheism is not saying 'religion is wrong'.
Obviously, religion is right for you and many others.
It isn't for me.

Obviously this isn't getting through to you.

Is Christianity a belief in Jesus, in the Christian god, et cetera...?

Or is it disbelief in all other gods, or a specific god?


Atheism for me stems from the conviction that no reasonable argument has been presented to show that a god or gods exist.

It is not 'disbelief' in YOUR god, or 'unbelief' of Allah, or Marduk, or any other particular deity.

It is not anti-clericalism, or irreligion in the sense of hostility to religion ( I find religions usually manage to express that towards each other without any help from me).

I'm afraid unless you stop seeing religious belief as some kind of compulsory default setting for humans, you're not really going to be able to understand atheism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson

You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others.
The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways.

And what?

This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

My point is: Christianty is not a natural cement of "common culture". Just like Indo-European languages aren't a natural cement of "common culture". Just like monotheism isn't a natural cement of "common culture". Just like beliefs in democracy aren't a natural cement of "common culture".
And that's simply because there is NO natural cement of "common culture". The construction of a common culture is completely artificial.

And since it's artificial it means we get to pick our cement.
I refuse to pick indo-European languages, because such cement of our "common culture" would mean that Finns, Hungarians and Basques aren't real members of the EU.
And by the same token, I refuse to pick Christianty, because that would mean that Muslim countries and Muslim people cannot hope to be real members of the EU.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I've already told you what one atheist believes, now YOU'RE telling ME what I believe.

Are You the speaker in the name of all atheists in the world?
I'm not sure if I can call a believing person myself

I do not have a lack of god, or gods. I do not find that there is a reasonable argument for the existence of a god, or gods.
This is not a 'lack' of god, or gods. This is as absurd as saying a monotheist lacks 'gods'.

You do not lack God. you lack belief in Him, and it makes You an atheist. Your opinion in this matter, even if it is based on logic, is a belief, is sort of religion.
How do You explain miracles like Torino veil, which couldn't have been made by technology of its time even if it dates to XIII century only, not as far as to Christ?
Don't You BELIEVE there is some logical explenation even before You find it?

Black is not an absence of pigmentation. If something possessed no hue or colour, one wouldn't see it.

One would see it. As black figure. So I've heard. That black is a lack of colour, and white is all colours united. That's why white light can be crushed into colour ones, but never black one; black light is shadow, it is lack of light

And by the way, I was responding to Ludd when he said atheists replaced priests with scientists- I don't, and nor do any other atheists I know. Even so, science differs from religion in a great many important respects, one of which is a reliance on the observable or measurable, and another of which is willingness to change in the light of experimentation or evidence.
Dogma doesn't really have similar attributes.

Really? You only prove that science can change if confronted by new evidences made by itself. The same You can say about religion - new theologian can make changes to the olf doctrine.

With regard to French governmental policy, I'm not quite sure how you think my atheism is responsible for what France does or doesn't do in its schools.

Did I say it is? Please...

I hold that religion is a private matter, for individuals, and that there should be no coercion involved.

Reliogion can be, but more often it isn't a matter of an individual person.

If you have a state such as the United States which was founded on a principle of no state favouritism for any particular religion, then any show of favour towards a particular faith or religious belief in general, is discrimination and against some of the country's founding principles. Unfortunately some of the successors to Jefferson seem not to have his strength of character or principle in that respect.

and?

A non-religious constitution encompasses all, both those with a religious faith, and those who eschew religious belief.

WHo told You so?

More to the point, you assert I have a hatred of religion, and that I deny the religious heritage of Europe.
This is untrue.
Where in my posts have I stated a hatred of religion?
Or denied the role religion has played in shaping European history?

I don't 'lack' religion.
Frankly, I view that as on a par with saying I lack serious mental illness, or a second head.

distinguishing features of religious creeds

Most of the things You demanded from me is indeed in Spifford's posts

And again, atheism is not saying 'religion is wrong'.
Obviously, religion is right for you and many others.
It isn't for me.

If You find religion wrong for yourself, You find it wrong.

Is Christianity a belief in Jesus, in the Christian god, et cetera...?
Or is it disbelief in all other gods, or a specific god?

Both

Atheism for me stems from the conviction that no reasonable argument has been presented to show that a god or gods exist.

But if You think there's a chance something would convince You, You're not an atheist in my understanding of it, and then, we've been discussing.
But You compared religion to an illness, so either You think others can not be convinced by "proofs" that convinced others, or you indeed BELIEVE that God doesn't exist, not just wasn't convinced by any proof.

( I find religions usually manage to express that towards each other without any help from me).

Even in an unnecessary place, you had to place something
directed against religions. What does it mean?

I'm afraid unless you stop seeing religious belief as some kind of compulsory default setting for humans, you're not really going to be able to understand atheism.

Uou are wrong. What I see as default is that everyone has an opinion in these matters. Your opinion is that You don't know any proof.

This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

False

The construction of a common culture is completely artificial.

the truth is that every square of Europe was once Christian, even if it isn't today
And that most of European cultures are similar when compared to Middle Eastern = north African ones, to Indian ones, to Chineese ones.
And it was religion, Christianity, and part of greek/roman legacy it beared that made this happen.
Turkish culture, most of modern Albanian culture, Muslim culture of part of Bosnia, tatar culture, Kalmuk culture may be different - but these are exceptions, these lands were colonised by other culture.
If we want EU to last, perhaps we should give them some identity. I don't say christian legacy must be the most important one, but it is obvious it should be in.
Alternatively, there should be no preamble at all.
But then, EU could be considered giant body without a soul.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Are You the speaker in the name of all atheists in the world?




Even in an unnecessary place, you had to place something
directed against religions. What does it mean?



Uou are wrong. What I see as default is that everyone has an opinion in these matters. Your opinion is that You don't know any proof.

No I'm not, and as should be readily apparent, which you don't seem to be capable of grasping, there is no atheist pope, or bishop, or creed.


Only individual atheists.


I 'place nothing' against religion to use your terminology, and you have yet to show that I hate religion- feel free to do so before accusing me of it again.

I am aware however, as a keen student of history, of the many religious conflicts and atrocities committed in the name of religion. I would have thought that a passing knowledge or awareness of the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil Wars, the Wars of Religion in France, the rise of Islam, the activities of the Teutonic Knights, the Hussite Wars, the massacre of the Anabaptists, et al., to be at least germane to any discussion about why religion should be in a position of privilege in any state's constitution.

Tinkering with religious dogma no matter what you may think, is not the same as proposing the inverse square law, or refuting the theory of spontaneous generation, nor is it the same as offering a scientific theory for testing or an hypothesis for review.

You can show how a scientific theory will not work, or how an hypothesis is untenable. Try doing that with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception.

You can't.

It simply adds another encrustation of credulity to an already ponderous hulk.

And once more just for effect- you haven't proven the existence of a god, or your god to me. How do I lack belief in something which as far as I am aware, doesn't exist?

I don't believe in the existence of unicorns, trolls, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, the devil, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Garuda or spirits that live in trees.

Is it because I lack faith or is it because I use reason and logic?

You are failing to distinguish between a reasonable 'belief', such as that Wednesday will follow Tuesday, or that a hammer will hurt me if dropped on my bare fingers, which is based on experience, observable fact, reason, and probability, with a leap of faith or credulous belief in supernatural occurrences.

I accept it is true, or likely to be true, that ingestion of poison will prove harmful. A religious person may say however that belief or faith in their deity will render them immune to the poison (it's an extreme example, but only based on stories of past martyrdoms, or snake handling Christian sects in America, for instance).

Of course, since the advent of clinical tests and rigorous application of scientific methods, there seems to have been a falling off in 'miraculous' happenings.

And if you believe the Shroud of Turin is in some way genuine, then good for you. At some point, I seem to recall, there were more than a few religious establishments across Europe claiming to have the head of John the Baptist, a piece of the True Cross, and the Holy Foreskin.

Clearly some of them must have been mistaken.


You are also incorrect in saying I compared religion with mental illness, although it must be said that there are features common to both- aural and visual disturbances, obsessive behaviour, abuse of the body, self-mortification, anti-social activity, et cetera.

What I said, was that your saying I lacked religion was for me, like saying I lacked serious mental illness or a second head.

A second head is superfluous, and serious mental illness an impairment.

I desire neither the superfluous, nor an impairment.

It is the lack of religion which is being compared, not religion.

[Agathon]

For someone like Sartre atheism is a religion, but for someone like a logical positivist the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant (because they believe it to be a meaningless question).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

No I'm not, and as should be readily apparent, which you don't seem to be capable of grasping, there is no atheist pope, or bishop, or creed.

You are not capable of understanding that I don't claim there is.

I 'place nothing' against religion to use your terminology, and you have yet to show that I hate religion- feel free to do so before accusing me of it again.

The quotes in which You find aspects of it disgusting and compare it to a mental disease are quite enough in my opinion.

I am aware however, as a keen student of history, of the many religious conflicts and atrocities committed in the name of religion. I would have thought that a passing knowledge or awareness of the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil Wars, the Wars of Religion in France, the rise of Islam, the activities of the Teutonic Knights, the Hussite Wars, the massacre of the Anabaptists, et al., to be at least germane to any discussion about why religion should be in a position of privilege in any state's constitution.

Thirty Years War - XVI century
the English Civil Wars - XVII century if I'm not wrong
the Wars of Religion in France - XVI century
the rise of Islam - VII century
the activities of the Teutonic Knights XIII - XVI century
the Hussite Wars - XV century
the massacre of the Anabaptists - I don't know, probably XVI century, perhaps XVII
All this is a long long time ago
And religion it is not only politics. It's Micheangelo, it's Leonardo, it's Donatello, it's Bernini, it's Giotto...

Tinkering with religious dogma no matter what you may think, is not the same as proposing the inverse square law, or refuting the theory of spontaneous generation, nor is it the same as offering a scientific theory for testing or an hypothesis for review.

Existance of God is scientific hypothesis.
Religion was the first attempt of understanding what seemed ununderstandable in the first contact

You can show how a scientific theory will not work, or how an hypothesis is untenable. Try doing that with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception.
You can't.

I can. I can claim that there is no proof for it in the holy writings and tradition.

And once more just for effect- you haven't proven the existence of a god, or your god to me. How do I lack belief in something which as far as I am aware, doesn't exist?

You lack belief in it, because You think it doesn't exist.
As simple as that. Why should I prove You existance of God to prove You You lack belief in Him?

Is it because I lack faith or is it because I use reason and logic?

It is because your logic and reason resulted in lack of faith.

You are failing to distinguish between a reasonable 'belief', such as that Wednesday will follow Tuesday, or that a hammer will hurt me if dropped on my bare fingers, which is based on experience, observable fact, reason, and probability, with a leap of faith or credulous belief in supernatural occurrences.

Because there is no real difference.
For some, existance of the world is enough proof for existance of God. It depends on a person. Someone's experience, observation, reasoning may tell Him God exists

I accept it is true, or likely to be true, that ingestion of poison will prove harmful. A religious person may say however that belief or faith in their deity will render them immune to the poison (it's an extreme example, but only based on stories of past martyrdoms, or snake handling Christian sects in America, for instance).

You are failing to distinguish religion and superstition

Of course, since the advent of clinical tests and rigorous application of scientific methods, there seems to have been a falling off in 'miraculous' happenings.

That something can be explained in scientific way, it doesn't mean it stops being a miracle

And if you believe the Shroud of Turin is in some way genuine, then good for you. At some point, I seem to recall, there were more than a few religious establishments across Europe claiming to have the head of John the Baptist, a piece of the True Cross, and the Holy Foreskin.

Again, You laugh at religion/superstition instead of answering me. How do You explain to Yourself existance of Shroud of Turin?

Clearly some of them must have been mistaken.

Which is of no relevance to the question of Shroud of Turin

You are also incorrect in saying I compared religion with mental illness,
What I said, was that your saying I lacked religion was for me, like saying I lacked serious mental illness or a second head.

A second head is superfluous, and serious mental illness an impairment.

I desire neither the superfluous, nor an impairment.

It is the lack of religion which is being compared, not religion.

Comparing lack of religion with lack of mental ilness IS comparing religion with mental illness

although it must be said that there are features common to both- aural and visual disturbances, obsessive behaviour, abuse of the body, self-mortification, anti-social activity, et cetera.

And this is comparing them as well

For someone like Sartre atheism is a religion, but for someone like a logical positivist the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant (because they believe it to be a meaningless question).

Then, they are not quite atheists, but agnostics.

[Odin]

The athiest bashers are out in force.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
The athiest bashers are out in force.

Well, so far, that's only Heresson and BK really. All the other posters in this thread seem to be either agnostics or atheists, unless I missed somebody.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by General Ludd
You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.

Agnotism is basically just apathy.

It's a very easy issue to resolve.

What is your answer to the question, "Do you believe that there exists one or more deities?"

If you answer yes, you a theist.

If you answer no, you are an atheist.

If you answer I don't know, you are an agnostic.

One very important thing to note is an atheist is simply somebody who lacks a belief in a god (or a group of gods). She does not necessarily reject such a notion. This is called weak (or negative) atheism.

There also exists a group of people who hold that there are good reasons to not believe in gods. This is called strong (or positive) atheism. Strong atheists are a subset of weak atheists.

A lot of people confuse the two.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'll give you some good reasons. How about the Thirty Years War for a start?

Or how about the fact that there are so many religions which are in fundamental disagreement in our societies?

People always think that the religion that will be used to make law will be theirs rather than somebody else's. I can't quite work out why people think this way.

I hate when I agree 100% with you, Aggie.

You hit the heart of the matter, though, saying that everybody assumes it will be their religion. A good example near me is considering how quickly Roy Moore's support would have vanished if he had put a monument to the five pillars of Islam in his courtroom instead of the 10 commandments.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

A few more centuries ago, the same could have been said about Paris and Lyons or Madrid and Salamanca.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Heresson
Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans

Eh. Romans were tough on crime. They didn't like vandals going around smashing other people's property just because it was "idolatrous".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by St Leo
A few more centuries ago, the same could have been said about Paris and Lyons or Madrid and Salamanca.

Absolutely. The concept of "common culture" is bound to be an artifician construct, no matter how large or small the community sharing a culture is.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Heresson
Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans

Eh. Romans were tough on crime. They didn't like vandals going around smashing other people's property just because it was "idolatrous".

Such things started pretty late, with the rise of monastery movement.
And pagans used to destroy Christian places of cult legally - because the emperor ordered to do so

Absolutely. The concept of "common culture" is bound to be an artifician construct, no matter how large or small the community sharing a culture is.

But the same You can claim that each person has his own culture. No-one claims that Europeans have identical culture, but compared to a ME culture, Chineese culture etc, it can be treated as one.