Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Once again i hazard a guess that this is a Christian vs Jewish civilizational thing, and cybershy is taking, though he may not know it, a Jewish perspective. Christians are focused on dogmas, creeds, statements of faith, and have been for 2000 years. Atheist christians take this civilizational quality with them, and so spend hours discussing the precise definition of "worship" to show they dont do it.

This is a good point. Many of the more vocal and offensive Christian sects say that it doesn't matter how somebody lives their life, it only matters what they believe. I.e., man is judged by his faith, not by his works. (The most common explanation I've heard for the part in Revelations that says that man is judged by his works is "faith gets you into heaven, good works get you a better seat when you get there.")

If somebody were to say to me "atheism is like a religion in that it influences the way in which you live your life," then I'd agree with them. In this sense, atheists can be "more religious" than theists if, e.g., an atheist's adherence to the teachings of Jesus or Kant or whoever is stronger than the theist's adherence to the teachings of Jesus or Isaiah or whoever. Unfortunately, it's far more common to hear "atheism is like a religion in that you have faith that there is no god," which is idiotic. I have never met an atheist whose "there is no god" dogma is of the same order of magnitude as a theist's "there is a god" dogma.

So one of the problems with CyberShy's threadjack is that I (and I assume many others) assumed that his "atheism is a religion" stance was of the "atheism is a faith/creed/dogma/whatever" variety and not of the "atheism influences how you live your life" variety. But the main problem was that he said

Originally posted by CyberShy
Religion sucks and is pure human. Atheism is religion as well btw.

In other words, "religion is bad, and atheism is a religion." He's not trying to say that atheism is a religion in an attempt to shed some common light on the atheism/theism debate, he's just trolling.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I think it's hard to give a general definition of worshipping /gods.

Cool, but why then should anyone accept your defs, esp. when they are so vague that you could label everything a religion?

[Elok]

Originally posted by loinburger
Unfortunately, it's far more common to hear "atheism is like a religion in that you have faith that there is no god," which is idiotic. I have never met an atheist whose "there is no god" dogma is of the same order of magnitude as a theist's "there is a god" dogma.

Well, no, but what does that mean? It's very difficult to extrapolate a complicated doctrine from a simple negatory statement. There's no tradition to go with the statement "there is no God," unless there are stories about Voltaire descending from heaven with a basket of condoms and censored books or something that I haven't heard. The "faith" involved is only on an abstract philosophical level, insofar as it involves an assertion which lacks positive evidence to support it. Of course, this very abstract-ness (if that's a word) makes the faith component pretty near irrelevant. But that's another issue entirely.

And one's fervor doesn't necessarily correlate with the complexity of one's beliefs. The RCC has a far more complex and nuanced set of doctrine than any fundy protestant, but the church is positively mellow compared to the real brimstone lunatics whose beliefs are restricted to a few abstract assertions. Remember that fundamentalism is, by definition, a wish to get "back to the basics."

REMINDER: I am not siding with CS. I don't even know what he's arguing for or against anymore. I suspect he doesn't either. I am merely pointing out a perceived logical flaw in what Loin just said.

[Kuciwalker]

Not having read the thread, I have to wonder: what the fuck does this have to do with the thread title?

[Arrian]

Nothing. The threadjack began one the first page, and had totally taken over by page 2.

-Arrian

[Elok]

Well, the thread seems to have died down, so allow me to introduce this gem I just stumbled across. It totally burst my bubble, I must admit:

The Horrible truth!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
The "faith" involved is only on an abstract philosophical level, insofar as it involves an assertion which lacks positive evidence to support it.

The issue I have is not with the claim that atheism is a "faith" in the sense that it is an assertion which lacks positive evidence to support it (as you say, such a claim is fairly irrelevant, because watch as I trot out that invisible pink unicorn that everybody asserts does not exist despite lack of positive evidence to support said claim, ha ha ha), it's the implication that said "faith" is of the same kind as that held by religious people. F'rinstance, a Christian might ask "what would Jesus do" when trying to determine what course of action to take, or at the very least said Christian might claim to ask that question (and then do whatever it is that Jesus wouldn't necessarily do but that said Christian wants to do anyway). This action/claim is predicated by faith in Jesus's divinity. An atheist might ask the same question (or claim to ask the same question) when attempting to determine what course of action to take, but this action/claim is predicated by faith in Jesus's righteousness. Both are expressions of faith (the Christian cannot prove that Jesus is divine, nor can the atheist prove that Jesus (or his hypothetical actions/judgments/etc.) was righteous), but they're not comparable.

On the other hand, if the atheist were to ask "what would Jesus not do" in attempting to choose a course of action, acting on faith that Jesus was divine and that divinity is a BAD THING and so performing acts that a divine being would not perform is a GOOD THING, then the claim that "atheism is based on faith and is the same as theism" would hold some merit. However, I've never met an atheist like this, and so IMO religious faith is not comparable to non-religious faith (here I mean "non-religious" in the sense of "there is no god, or at the very least if there is a god then I don't acknowledge it," which is non-religious in that it rejects or ignores god(s), and not in the sense of "mathematical intuitionism is better than mathematical constructivism," which non-religious in that it doesn't even bring up god(s)).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy


molly bloom

A god is a supernatural deity

It is?

Uh, yes, it is, by any reasonable person's definition.

DEITY :

Noun: godhood: divinity: godhead: a god or goddess: with capital, the Supreme Being

What do I mean by supernatural ? Easy peasy.

SUPERNATURAL

Above or beyond nature: not according to the course of nature: miraculous: spiritual; a supernatural being.

That seems fairly clear and reasonable to me.

Were the ancient gods of the greek and the romans supernatural? The greek gods weren't supernatural, they were antropomorphic beings with more power but certainly not supernatural. Only the monotheistic God (Jahweh, Allah) is supernatural

Have you ever studied ancient history or comparative mythology ?


If so, let me assure you seem to have missed out on the fact that the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians (and Babylonians and Phoenicians and Etruscans and Assyrians and Iranians) did indeed attribute supernatural powers and aspects to their deities.

Even the Roman emperor was a god and the egyptian pharaoh was concidered to be a god.

So ? How is this meant in any way to contradict what I've said ?

Deifying rulers while alive or dead wasn't a Roman invention and had been part of African and Asian civilizations before the more prosaically minded Romans came along. However, even the Romans endowed their emperors with the attributes of 'numen' and 'aeternitas' - not normal, human limited powers, but aspects of divinity, or the supernatural.

Egyptian gods may have begun life as tribal and city emblems and nature gods, but as Egyptian civilization grew more organised and sophisticated, what had been crocodiles and wolves and falcons and the sky evolved from animal deities to anthropomorphized part human part animal deities, either with an animal head or vestigial animal remnants such as modified horns or ears or human heads and bodies.

In no way does this suggest that the Egyptians did not credit their gods with powers outside and beyond the natural world.

In one stone palette, Horus is depicted as a falcon with a human arm, delivering 6 000 captives to Narmer. Not a sight commonly seen amongst birds you must admit. Similarly, the gods of the sky and underworld and so forth are credited with the ability to intercede in the human limited natural realm with inexplicable powers.

The myths and gods of these civilizations served several functions, to explain how the world came into being, where humanity originated, how the world will end, and if there is an afterlife, and what might happen to our essence or soul or consciousness when we die.

Then of course there is the social aspect of mythology, where the organisation of society and the submissiveness of the majority of the people is justified by the accepted or state religion, which codifies and regulates traditional rites and customs.

Thus, in Egyptian, the word for sky which is feminine, becomes personified or embodied in the goddesses Nut and Hathor.

Roman mythology which was actually quite practical in nature, had a catalogue, the Indigitamenta which people could consult to find the names of protective powers each of which performed special functions and which had to be propitiated or entreated with certain rites, to ensure their favours.

How this is not meant to imply a belief in the supernatural, I don't know- I'd have thought that burning an animal or slitting a bird's throat in the hope that some future event or blessing might occur through the intervention of an unseen being with vastly superior inexplicable powers, fairly fits the definition of belief in the supernatural.

All other gods are just beings who most of the time represent something on earth. Love, hate, sex, money. Not much has really changed since then.

There are theories that Yahweh was a volcano god. In the Old Testament, Yahweh comes across as a rather unpleasant capricious petulant spoilt being (in my view) with a tendency towards overkill.

But I do think that you worship yourself because I think that think that you yourself is really important and that you sacrifice a lot of things that improve yourself.

You don't know me, and as far as I can tell from this thread and your posts, you don't know many other atheists. So you're simply making unfounded assertions and unwarranted suppositions based on a lack of specific knowledge.

there are many forms of worshipping.

So ? You have failed to show how I or any other atheist worships themselves in an equivalent manner to the worship carried out in organised religions by the devotees of those religions. Asserting it doesn't make it so.

Which again proves that you only have a very specific view on what a god is. Which is a very very very shortsighted view on what gods are in the entire history of mankind all over the world.

For someone who's demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of what the gods and goddesses of the ancient world supposedly did or were capable of, that's a hugely ironic remark.

That's the dogma of your religion.

No it isn't. I don't have a dogma in the way that organised religions do.

What makes you assume that there is a single 'theist' that fits all sizes?

I don't. You're very fond of asserting things, aren't you ?

There are no atheist dogmas. Really not?

Yes, really not. As I've said before, there is no Cult of Atheism, no central authority, no priestly caste, no holy scripture, no Caesaro-Papism, no mullahs, no Presbyters.

Who do you suggest is capable of insisting on or promulgating these atheist dogmas ?

Beyond the common link of not accepting the unproven (and unprovable) assertion that a god or gods exist, what else 'dogmatically' do you suppose links atheists, and by whose authority ?

Modern atheists insist on things like democracy, liberalism, freedom.

As do lots of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, animists, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Wiccans, pagans and so on.

I think there are people that value liberalism really really really heigh and it's a taboo to even discus liberalism. Not to mention things like 'abortion'. People who accept abortion concider those who are against it oftenly as barbarians, as idiots. Of course the opinion of abortion oftenly comes from the dogma that live has no eternal value and people should take the most of their lives, which sometimes doesn't include a baby, thus it must be allowed to abort it. I'm not starting a discussion on abortion, I just try to show you how atheistic dogmas and views have concequences for acting, thinking and handeling.

Again, this is just one long list of assertions, which you decide have something inherently to do with or are a consequence of, atheism.

You don't know for certain that there aren't atheists who oppose abortion, you simply decide that 'the dogmas' of atheism in your opinion lead inexorably to abortion. What a surprise.

There are many many religions that don't have a church or cult. You just compare atheism to roman catholicism, as if roman catholicism is the only way to have a religion.

No, really...

This is simply rubbish.
I have not compared atheism only or mainly to Roman Catholicism. That would seem to be in your head.

The word church (and cult) have a wide variety fo meanings, not restricted to a house set apart for worship. Church can mean the whole body of Christianity, the clergy, any individual sect or denomination of Christians (the Free Church of Scotland, the Orthodox Church, the Church of Scientology), or any group that professes a common creed, not restricted to Christianity, for instance the Church of Satan.

Notice- by this definition, logically there is no Church or Cult of Atheism.

In fact your reactions to 'atheism is a religion' only show that you have hardly any knowledge about religion. And I wonder even if you have knowledge about yourself and your own reasons behind your actions and opinions. In fact you think that you're a free person, a free-thinker, no dogmas. Strange that you're very alike to hundreds of millions of people in europe, america and australia who think in the same way, follow the same dogma's and all insist on how unique and modern and free thinking they are.

O.k., now you're simply degenerating into being boorish, insulting, rude and ignorant.

How very Christian of you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"I'm afraid it does nothing of the sort. Firstly, what makes you assume that there is a single 'atheism' that fits all sizes ? There isn't."

Just as there no single, Judaism, no single Islam, and no single Christianity, much less any single monotheism.

Yes, and ? Where exactly have I stated that monotheism is the same the world over ? Oh, I haven't. And thanks for assuming that I don't know much about comparative religion too.

So I take it youre a "Reform" atheist.

I have no idea what a 'Reform' atheist is. I do not accept the unproven and unprovable assertion that there exists a god or gods. That's my atheism in a nutshell. No theology, no dogma, just no supernatural entities.

Why is that so hard for some to understand ?

Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, of Blessed Memory, insisted there was no supernatural deity, and that the word God should be applied to "the forces in nature that make salvation" (THATs not a simple thing, of course, and there is evidence, IIUC, that Kaplans views on what those forces were, and what it meant to "make salvation" changed over the course of his life) Kaplan insisted to the end of his long life that he was no atheist.

I'm afraid that 'the forces in nature that make salvation' is meaningless for me.

Salvation for or from what ?

I believe in my previous post I've given a fairly clear, concise and accurate definition of what a deity is, its supposed attributes, and what 'supernatural' means, especially when applied to the powers attributed to gods.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Come with arguments mr. Know All.
We're not redefining any terms.

Hilarious, and (unwittingly) ironic.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

"I have no idea what a 'Reform' atheist is. "

As should be clear from your statement to which this was a reply, one who doesnt believe in dogmas. As opposed to some who do.


"I'm afraid that 'the forces in nature that make salvation' is meaningless for me.

Salvation for or from what ? "


I dont know Kaplan well enough to teach his philosophy. And im not too fond of reducing such things to sound bites anyway. If youre really interested in what he said, I can find a link to get one of his books, but I doubt you really want me to do that.

Im going to stop discussing religion in this thread. Its bad enough trying to get an alternative POV in when some heated Christians and Atheists go at it. Here it just seems like there was a troll, a counter troll, and a bunch of people getting all overwrought.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

"I have no idea what a 'Reform' atheist is. "

As should be clear from your statement to which this was a reply, one who doesnt believe in dogmas. As opposed to some who do.

Which dogmas are atheists supposed to believe in ?

Given that there is no set text or collection of scriptures or compendium of principles for all or most atheists, this still doesn't make any sense to me.

...and a bunch of people getting all overwrought.

Religion will do that to you, I've observed.

It seems to me that the person getting overwrought is Cybershy, with his ex cathedra pronouncements on what all atheists supposedly hold to be true, and what necessary logical consequences follow on from these atheist 'dogmas'.

Before simply degenerating into a rant about what I allegedly do or don't know about religion and mythology, he'd mangled definitions of not particularly abstruse English words and used such woolly generalities about other terms as to make any putative comparisons between atheism and religious faith utterly meaningless.


Perhaps he was on the verge of a psychotic break, or as some credulous folk might see it, a religious experience.....

[DRoseDARs]

In other words, "speaking in tongues" should be classified as a mental illness.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
In other words, "speaking in tongues" should be classified as a mental illness.

Glossolalia or echolalia or the Toronto Blessing is just so much arsegas, in my considered opinion.


Funny how no useful information is ever produced from all that turkey gobbling....

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


AFAIK, communists do not look to the supernatural. That's a big difference.

Don't be too sure about that - dialectic materialism comes pretty close to a semi-religious theory of everything . Einstein's theory of relativity was suppressed in communist countries for quite some time , because some of its conclusions , when interpreted in a certain way , could come in conflict with DM . It was only after a satisfactory interpretation which did not conflict ( directly or by implication ) with DM was found that it was finally accepted .

Originally posted by Arrian

Second, look at what you wrote about communism and consider all other political or economic theories. If the shoe fits for communism, it fits for the other theories too. All modes of thought, even...

Not really . There is a difference between totalitarian and non-totalitarian ideologies ( and religions ) .