It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, that's a subset of atheists. Evangelical atheists, I guess, would be the term.

-Arrian

I gave a few definitions of atheists, and I've already stated 1000 times that there are different kinds of atheists. Can you guys actually read?

Cort Haus:

It gets worse. Continually more absurd and ludicrous definitions of atheism. That's like saying "Christians are those who set fire to people". It it doesn't fit you you're most probably not a Christian.

I didn't give a definition of atheism, I placed an argument within a context, you pull it out of the context and reply to it.
You should read my posts in the context of all my posts in this thread. I tried to write down how an atheist has a very clear opinion, which is totally different then an agnost, who has not such a clear opinion on this issue. I was giving examples of how atheists differ from agnosts and how they, by different examples, were typical religious people.

I dunno ... what do I expect though? This is a CyberShy thread.

Who are you? Have we debated before?
Or are you some silly one line slap dude?

Buddhism is rife with supernatural beliefs, reincarnation, dualism, universal creators. No God doesn't mean no supernaturality

Buddhism as defined by the 1st buddha had no supernatural beliefs, as in extra universal. It of course believed that there was more then we knew, but it's all a part of the reality we live in.
Original buddhism knew no creator or dualism. It just said that desiring leads to suffering and if you can get rid of all your desires you'll be rid of all your suffering and end up in the Nirvana, which is everything and nothing at the same time. And no, you can't desire to reach the nirvana.

Later on parts of buddhism have merged with hinduism.

I think even you are smart enough to tell the difference between a few bozos putting up a short video on youtube versus the continual, traditional, regularly intervaled rituals of religions.

We're not talking about differences but about the things they share. Of course do I know the differences. I also know the differences between Thomists from India and Wahabists from SA. You think that atheism is no religion because there are differences between atheism and other forms of religion.

Religions aren't like football teams in the league, they're all the same but wear another shirt. Religions differ very very very much from each other. There are the old germanic religions, the egyptian religions, all those religions didn't believe in extra-universal gods but just described the stuff they didn't understand to a god. That's totally different from the monotheistic religions that believe in a God outside our reality.

The eastern religions are totally different from the western religion. The new religions are totally different from the old ones. If you want to compare New Age or satanism to Judaism it may be impossible to find anything they share. They're still both religions though.

As they should because agnosticism and atheism are not incompatable and in fact are thoroughly mixed into each other. There is no clear dividing line.

WOW
really, WOW!

I'm studying theology on a secular university. I have professors who are atheists, who are muslim, or are liberal christians and who are orthodox christians. ALL of them agree that atheism is really not the same as agnosticism. They come from The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, all of the EU. They have visited africa, america, asia, etc. etc.
They have more knowledge in the left toe nail then you and me combined in everything we ever learned.

And all of them agree that atheism isn't the same as agnosticism.
It's not as if me, CyberShy, the lunatic, is claming this. It's well known among all experts of religion, theology, gods, ideals and cultures that atheism != agnosticism.
hence, that's why there are two terms to describe these things.

Though I style myself an atheist (the reason is to emphasize the extreme lack of validity of God in my epistimology), I easily fit under the definition of agnostic as well.

"The extreme lack of validity of God in your epistimology" is not an atheistic argument. It's a agnostic argument. Atheists are SURE that there is no god. They even have arguments for that.

quote:
Originally posted by LordShiva
Belief system != Religion

(or has someone already said that?)

Cort Housa: I think nearly everyone has been saying that, but the message is not being heard.

NObody yet has said that believe system != religion.
Nobody has said that believe system = religion either though.

Provost Harrison:

Besides, no one has achieved a successful rebuttal of the pink unicorn yet, nor the spaghetti monster creator..

Nobody has ever given arguments for the existence of the PU or the SMC either.
The old argument that you have been using for 7 years has been rebutted like 1000 times.

And I'll do it again.
I'm not claiming that there is no PU or SMC.
But I know that there's nobody who has ever claimed that they do exist and there's no argument or reason to believe they exist.

That's why they are uncomparable with god(s).
If you keep on comparing these two together you only show that your way of reasoning and argumentating is pretty low level (eventhough you consider yourself to be pretty smart).

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Provost Harrison:



Nobody has ever given arguments for the existence of the PU or the SMC either.

Same with God, apart from some old book says he does. Well I say they do, I've just scribbled it down on a piece of paper, so they must be real!

The old argument that you have been using for 7 years has been rebutted like 1000 times.

Relatively fresh compared to your 2000 year old arguments then!

[Nubclear]

I understand that you would feel bad about raping someone, but how do you attribute that to a moral system and not just your biological system.

Because I consider it wrong to rape someone Now, whether I consider it wrong because of biological or social pressures is an entirely different, and irrelevant question.

I say moral systems always justify our biological wants and needs, not just often.

There are many who say that, yes.

If someone doesn't want to exist anymore I don't think it's because they lack a moral system. I think it could be either they suffer from depression or they have rationally come to the conclusion that there will only be suffering in their life and there is no reason to continue on.

Indeed. I'm not saying that a person who wouldn't mind seeing themselves die suffers from a lack of a moral system: They certainly suffer from a lack of a value in themselves.
Rather, what I'm saying is that a person without any moral system whatsoever would also suffer from a lack of a value in themselves, and thus would rot shortly thereafter

Well, that's only of value to me personally.

But it is a value, and thus a moral system (comprised of that value and possible others)

If I create a moral system based on that feeling, and try to get other people to believe that an action is moral or immoral in some abstract way then I'm being religious.

0. You already have a moral system around the value, since you've judged something to be good or not good.
1. A moral system need not be universalised nor need it have the imperative to "convert" others.
2. Convincing another person that a thing is immoral does not fit the typical definition of "religion" or "religious behaviour"

But I know that there's nobody who has ever claimed that they do exist and there's no argument or reason to believe they exist.

That's why they are uncomparable with god(s).

Hmm. Do I have a reason to believe that your God or Jesus or Zeus exist anymore than I have a reason to believe that the pink unicorn exists?

[Kidlicious]

Tacc,

I think there are two different types of value. There's moral values and there's just value, such as economic value, or in this context just meaning that you want something.

I have to let my son use the computer, but I'll talk about this later on tonight.

sorry, I don't have any kind of instant message system.

[Nubclear]

I think there are two different types of value. There's moral values and there's just value, such as economic value, or in this context just meaning that you want something.

The differentiation is minor. There is no "logical objective reason" to value *anything*. If you want something, then you are placing a value on your own desires.

sorry, I don't have any kind of instant message system.

Because you are a bad person

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Who are you? Have we debated before?
Or are you some silly one line slap dude?

Yeah, I just logged on to this place for the first time 30 seconds ago, while you of course are the most famous and respected poster on here.

In fact we have debated before - not at length, because banging my head against a wall for any length of time is not a good idea. Your premise (atheism is a religion) and various definitions of atheism - in whole and in part, are preposterous.

I'm not a one-line slap dude, as you might know if you read many threads apart from your own, but my point here is the same as about a dozen other peoples :

religion != belief system

[Provost Harrison]

All that happens though Cort Haus is that he gets slapped silly, goes away for a few months and pretend it never happens, and starts the cycle all over again

[Nubclear]

wait, who are you? and why are you talking down to Lord Cybershy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Cybershy]Atheists are SURE that there is no god. They even have arguments for that.[/q]

They? Here is your problem (well one anyway ). You spend all this time trying to say that you understand that there are many, many different varieties of atheism and then you tar all of them with the same brush based on what a group of them does. No wonder people don't take your claim that you know the differences in atheism seriously.

Atheism just means a lack of belief in God. A person who does not believe in God, but is open to finding out if a supernatural deity exists is still an atheist (though a weak one).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yeah, I just logged on to this place for the first time 30 seconds ago, while you of course are the most famous and respected poster on here.

[Odin]

Originally posted by CyberShy


about supernatural beliefs: neither do many eastern religions, like Buddhism.

Depends on what kind of Buddhism one is talking about. The form of Buddhism most of us westerners think about when we hear the word "Buddhism" is the Mahayana form, which is a religion., but there are other forms witch are strictly philosophies, not religions. I've seen Mahayana Buddhism described as a religion conjured out of a philosophy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc

I think there are two different types of value. There's moral values and there's just value, such as economic value, or in this context just meaning that you want something.

The differentiation is minor. There is no "logical objective reason" to value *anything*. If you want something, then you are placing a value on your own desires.

Ok, here's the thing. When someone argues for a moral system, they aren't just claiming to satisfy their own desires. They argue that something higher is satisfied. That something higher is principles, God or whatever (anything other than themselves). When atheists argue that it is morally wrong for things to be legal or illegal they are attaching moral value to such things not just claiming that they would get some personal value.

[Nubclear]

When someone argues for a moral system, they aren't just claiming to satisfy their own desires. They argue that something higher is satisfied.

They may or may not argue such a thing. I recognise that my moral system ultimately is the product of desire.

That something higher is principles,

Thats likely just a confusion in terminology. One way to refer to value-determinations is with the word "principles"

When atheists argue that it is morally wrong for things to be legal or illegal they are attaching moral value to such things not just claiming that they would get some personal value.

A) Not necessarily. They may simply be arguing against the rationale for certain things. For instance, if a religionist were to say that gay marriage should be banned because God hates it, the atheist will say that God doesn't exist, and therefore that reason to ban gay marriage also doesn't exist.

B) Most people like to think that their moral system is "correct", that they believe in it because it is "true" rather than simply because they want to. I think this is an inherently absurd statement (because morality doesn't have a truth value in that sense), but most people will claim that they make some value X because it is a "true" that X is good/bad. Atheists may or may not be different in this case.

C) It is entirely possible for a person to say that X is morally wrong but still recognise that it is *their* morality that says so. I think that the exploitation of workers is wrong, but I don't claim that it is some truth. Rather, I feel this way because exploitation makes me feel bad, because I have other intrinsic values that exploitation infringes upon, etc.

A hedonistic person, for instance, could argue that their hedonism satisifies something "higher" because "God wants [them] to be rich/wealthy/happy/whatever". Or they could simply argue that they are hedonistic because they want to be. It doesn't matter too much.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc

When someone argues for a moral system, they aren't just claiming to satisfy their own desires. They argue that something higher is satisfied.

They may or may not argue such a thing. I recognise that my moral system ultimately is the product of desire.

Well, that's something I had not considered. I don't think it's true in the general case. If someone is aware that the nature of their moral system is the way you say it is I think they would generally not claim to have a moral system.

That something higher is principles,

Thats likely just a confusion in terminology. One way to refer to value-determinations is with the word "principles"

If we have principles we believe that they are universally true. That doesn't necessarily mean that we don't accept that others wont believe in them, but we believe that there is something about those principles that are more important than ourselves or any other individuals. This is similar to the belief in God.

When atheists argue that it is morally wrong for things to be legal or illegal they are attaching moral value to such things not just claiming that they would get some personal value.

A) Not necessarily. They may simply be arguing against the rationale for certain things. For instance, if a religionist were to say that gay marriage should be banned because God hates it, the atheist will say that God doesn't exist, and therefore that reason to ban gay marriage also doesn't exist.

There is still be moral belief that laws should be rational. This seems to be independent of satisfying personal desires. Isn't it a moral principle?

B) Most people like to think that their moral system is "correct", that they believe in it because it is "true" rather than simply because they want to. I think this is an inherently absurd statement (because morality doesn't have a truth value in that sense), but most people will claim that they make some value X because it is a "true" that X is good/bad. Atheists may or may not be different in this case.

But they may, and sometimes do, and if so they have that similar characteristic with religionists.

C) It is entirely possible for a person to say that X is morally wrong but still recognise that it is *their* morality that says so. I think that the exploitation of workers is wrong, but I don't claim that it is some truth. Rather, I feel this way because exploitation makes me feel bad, because I have other intrinsic values that exploitation infringes upon, etc.

Again, that's not what I call morality, although I don't care if you call it that. Certainly its a different kind of morality.

A hedonistic person, for instance, could argue that their hedonism satisifies something "higher" because "God wants [them] to be rich/wealthy/happy/whatever". Or they could simply argue that they are hedonistic because they want to be. It doesn't matter too much.

I think there are a lot of hedonists, maybe they don't call themselves that though.

[Cort Haus]

The simplest way of explaining morality at an emotional level is the impulse to be free of guilt.