Proselytizing
-
I really don't see how this equates to "religion". For example, the book I am reading "Ideas: a history from fire to Freud" does a fantastic job of tracing the achaeological and historical roots of Christianity. For me, anyways, the picture is quite clear - there was nothing divine about Jesus Christ. As far as I'm concerned, consideration of factual evidence and logical reasoning don't equate to athiesim being a religion. It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God". I like how this got turned into a news story though.... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God"
What facts? What evidence? You can't prove nor disprove. I really don't understand the need by atheists to attack the religious nor the need by the religious to attack atheists. Both are entitled to their opinions. Yet it seems to be a oneupmanship game.
This statement was never false.
-
Red Quoted:
The struggling left-wing broadcaster last Saturday aired its first Freethought show, hosted by Barker and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, who co-chair an atheist activist group called the Freedom of Religion Foundation.
Why would they chair a freedom of religion foundation? If it wasn't religion? Or is that a typo that should have read Freedom From Religion?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Why would they chair a freedom of religion foundation? If it wasn't religion?
It would be if "not collecting stamps" was a hobby. The absence of something isn't something in itself.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Or is that a typo that should have read Freedom From Religion?
Not at all. "Freedom of religion" indicates no support or prohibition of any particular choice of religion - including the choice to abandon religion altogether.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God".
Being that there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God and being that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable, the assertion of his existence or non-existence can only be a matter of faith. But beyond that, my intent is more designed to highlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Being that there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God
What are those facts? I haven't ever seen any indisputable "facts" supporting the argument for the existence of anything supernatural? Seriously, I'd love to hear what these are.
Red Stateler wrote:
ighlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
I don't see it as a religion rather an organized philosophy. The problem with humans is that people tend to become dogmatic about anything.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I think you're mistaking structure for the appearance of religion. While I don't doubt that many atheists go out and try to 'convert' others, the more well-known atheists don't really make any attempt to do so.
It's a mixed basket, but I'm sure you would agree that the prosteletyzing is accellerating.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Religion also obviously has a theological component that cannot be compared to the organizing of ideology done by atheists. Merely organizing to share what you have in common cannot be said to be religion, otherwise we'd call every group of every sort 'religion', completely diluting the meaning of the word.
Except for the fact that the commonality is theological belief. What do you call a group of people who organize based on their common theology such that the theology is disseminated among the group?...Religion.
Patrick Sears wrote:
The amendment says "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yes, I realize that seems to lead to a contradiction in which atheism would have to be classed 'religion' in order to qualify for the protection of the amendment. But I would say that's an entirely far too literal reading of the amendment. Interestingly, I don't remember a case in which SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that point. So we'd just be speculating by trying to argue that point anyway.
My opinion isn't a "legal" one, but atheists are certainly treading on foolish ground here. They have enjoyed dual legal protections for many years, being able to both establish their religion under the guise of "secular government" while themselves not being recognized as an organized religion. However, as this organization continues, it will only be fair for atheists to be considered a religion according to the courts such that their arguments aren't given disproportionate consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
It's a mixed basket, but I'm sure you would agree that the prosteletyzing is accellerating.
I would, yes.
Red Stateler wrote:
Except for the fact that the commonality is theological belief. What do you call a group of people who organize based on their common theology such that the theology is disseminated among the group?...Religion.
Hmmm I think a great many theologians would disagree with you. Atheism would be more accurately predicated on naturalist and philosophical notions, not theological ones. It's a thin line here. It depends on how you define theology, and I don't think I'm qualified to do so. It isn't something I've studied in sufficient depth.
Red Stateler wrote:
My opinion isn't a "legal" one, but atheists are certainly treading on foolish ground here. They have enjoyed dual legal protections for many years, being able to both establish their religion under the guise of "secular government" while themselves not being recognized as an organized religion. However, as this organization continues, it will only be fair for atheists to be considered a religion according to the courts such that their arguments aren't given disproportionate consideration.
I do agree that at some point that contradiction is going to need answering. That's why I mentioned I didn't think SCOTUS has ruled on it. At some point it'll be unavoidable.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God
There are? I'm sure this is news to everyone.. please share.
Red Stateler wrote:
there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God and being that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable
Isn't this a contradiction? If there are facts and evidence for the existence of God, wouldn't that lend itself to some sort of proof, even if not one with absolute certainty?
Red Stateler wrote:
being that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable, the assertion of his existence or non-existence can only be a matter of faith.
Absolutely. Which is why many atheists don't actually assert that there is no God - they simply don't believe in one (distinct from not believing that any exists).
Red Stateler wrote:
But beyond that, my intent is more designed to highlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
I think this is the fundamental place where we disagree. The only way atheists can be taken seriously is to establish a social structure that demonstrates that atheists are not "ZOMG THEM DEMONS." This essentially means organizing. As I note above, merely organizing can't be equated to religion, as it renders the word meaningless.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
There are? I'm sure this is news to everyone.. please share.
There very existence of the universe, consciousness, historical accounts. More than there is evidence that there is no God, anyway.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Isn't this a contradiction? If there are facts and evidence for the existence of God, wouldn't that lend itself to some sort of proof, even if not one with absolute certainty?
Evidence isn't "proof". That's why in a trial, a prosecutor submits "evidence" which the jury reviews.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Absolutely. Which is why many atheists don't actually assert that there is no God - they simply don't believe in one (distinct from not believing that any exists).
Asserting that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable is agnosticism and it's quite funny how quickly an "atheist" retreats into agnosticism when his supposedly sound and logical reasons for his beliefs are tested. In reality, the breed of atheism pushed these days is a contradiction in this regard.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I think this is the fundamental place where we disagree. The only way atheists can be taken seriously is to establish a social structure that demonstrates that atheists are not "ZOMG THEM DEMONS." This essentially means organizing. As I note above, merely organizing can't be equated to religion, as it renders the word meaningless.
Organization, when it pertains to theology, is the very definition of religion.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Being that there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God
What are those facts? I haven't ever seen any indisputable "facts" supporting the argument for the existence of anything supernatural? Seriously, I'd love to hear what these are.
Red Stateler wrote:
ighlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
I don't see it as a religion rather an organized philosophy. The problem with humans is that people tend to become dogmatic about anything.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
The problem with humans is that people tend to become dogmatic about anything.
Absolutely. For religion to be an accurate term to describe organized atheism, one would have to agree that religion equates to dogmatism, an admission I doubt few of faith would accept.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Quoted:
The struggling left-wing broadcaster last Saturday aired its first Freethought show, hosted by Barker and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, who co-chair an atheist activist group called the Freedom of Religion Foundation.
Why would they chair a freedom of religion foundation? If it wasn't religion? Or is that a typo that should have read Freedom From Religion?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Why would they chair a freedom of religion foundation? If it wasn't religion? Or is that a typo that should have read Freedom From Religion?
Because legally it suits them to not be considered a religion. It gives them an advantage in all cases regarding the first amendment such that the atheist belief system is supposedly protected (or rather established by government) whereas all others are subject to restriction.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
- Atheism is a theological belief system. 2) Atheism is increasingly organizing itself like an organized religion.
I think you're mistaking structure for the appearance of religion. While I don't doubt that many atheists go out and try to 'convert' others, the more well-known atheists don't really make any attempt to do so. Religion also obviously has a theological component that cannot be compared to the organizing of ideology done by atheists. Merely organizing to share what you have in common cannot be said to be religion, otherwise we'd call every group of every sort 'religion', completely diluting the meaning of the word.
Red Stateler wrote:
If this lawsuit is based on the first amendment, then it seems to be designed to protect the religious practices of atheists. The host of this atheist radio show apparently endorses that idea.
The amendment says "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yes, I realize that seems to lead to a contradiction in which atheism would have to be classed 'religion' in order to qualify for the protection of the amendment. But I would say that's an entirely far too literal reading of the amendment. Interestingly, I don't remember a case in which SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that point. So we'd just be speculating by trying to argue that point anyway.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion? Or are we to believe that what the founders meant was you must practice a religion but you are free to choose which one? Sorry, I'm not buying it. So technically if one believed that following no religion is not easy they might want to practice. Therefore you would be practicing no religion, this practicing might include enlisting the help of others in such a way that might require meetings or radio shows. None of that comes anywhere near the meaning of "Religion".[^] Well unless of course you run the definition through the (D)espeir logic prism. ;)
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God"
What facts? What evidence? You can't prove nor disprove. I really don't understand the need by atheists to attack the religious nor the need by the religious to attack atheists. Both are entitled to their opinions. Yet it seems to be a oneupmanship game.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I really don't understand the need by atheists to attack the religious nor the need by the religious to attack atheists. Both are entitled to their opinions. Yet it seems to be a oneupmanship game.
I don't either. It's why I don't really bother. Hey, you're free to believe whatever you want so long as you don't try to force me or my kids to believe it. Which brings up an interesting point about religion in public schools - removing it altogether isn't an endorsement of atheism, it's the non-endorsement of either viewpoint, leaving parents and/or society to teach such lessons. I think that's how it should be.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
I really don't see how this equates to "religion". For example, the book I am reading "Ideas: a history from fire to Freud" does a fantastic job of tracing the achaeological and historical roots of Christianity. For me, anyways, the picture is quite clear - there was nothing divine about Jesus Christ. As far as I'm concerned, consideration of factual evidence and logical reasoning don't equate to athiesim being a religion. It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God". I like how this got turned into a news story though.... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God".
Not really, it's more about rejecting supernaturalism and pursuing a rational life. Atheism isn't meant to be the polar opposite of specific religion.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion? Or are we to believe that what the founders meant was you must practice a religion but you are free to choose which one? Sorry, I'm not buying it. So technically if one believed that following no religion is not easy they might want to practice. Therefore you would be practicing no religion, this practicing might include enlisting the help of others in such a way that might require meetings or radio shows. None of that comes anywhere near the meaning of "Religion".[^] Well unless of course you run the definition through the (D)espeir logic prism. ;)
led mike wrote:
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion?
That's why I said it'd be a far too literal reading of the Amendment. ;) Because yes, I do think the free exercise would include no religion. But if you read the sentence absolutely literally, it doesn't leave room for that.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God".
Being that there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God and being that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable, the assertion of his existence or non-existence can only be a matter of faith. But beyond that, my intent is more designed to highlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
given that it resembles one more and more.
Well we all know what you resemble more and more. But thanks for another trip down the fantasy of intelligence that is the (D)espeir mind. Do you know how many things you can get to equal the number 23? It must mean it's a magical number, perhaps the number is in fact a God.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It's a mixed basket, but I'm sure you would agree that the prosteletyzing is accellerating.
I would, yes.
Red Stateler wrote:
Except for the fact that the commonality is theological belief. What do you call a group of people who organize based on their common theology such that the theology is disseminated among the group?...Religion.
Hmmm I think a great many theologians would disagree with you. Atheism would be more accurately predicated on naturalist and philosophical notions, not theological ones. It's a thin line here. It depends on how you define theology, and I don't think I'm qualified to do so. It isn't something I've studied in sufficient depth.
Red Stateler wrote:
My opinion isn't a "legal" one, but atheists are certainly treading on foolish ground here. They have enjoyed dual legal protections for many years, being able to both establish their religion under the guise of "secular government" while themselves not being recognized as an organized religion. However, as this organization continues, it will only be fair for atheists to be considered a religion according to the courts such that their arguments aren't given disproportionate consideration.
I do agree that at some point that contradiction is going to need answering. That's why I mentioned I didn't think SCOTUS has ruled on it. At some point it'll be unavoidable.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Hmmm I think a great many theologians would disagree with you. Atheism would be more accurately predicated on naturalist and philosophical notions, not theological ones. It's a thin line here. It depends on how you define theology, and I don't think I'm qualified to do so. It isn't something I've studied in sufficient depth.
Catholicism is also based on "philosophical notions" (read Augustine or Thomas, who both based their theological approaches on Greek philosophy) and, to an extent, natural philosophies (such that Catholicism is designed not to contradict science). Theology[^] is just the study of God's nature and "nonexistence" is a nature.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I do agree that at some point that contradiction is going to need answering. That's why I mentioned I didn't think SCOTUS has ruled on it. At some point it'll be unavoidable.
I agree. I personally encourage atheism being recognized for the organized religion that it is becoming as it has an unfair advantage over others in the legal system.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion? Or are we to believe that what the founders meant was you must practice a religion but you are free to choose which one? Sorry, I'm not buying it. So technically if one believed that following no religion is not easy they might want to practice. Therefore you would be practicing no religion, this practicing might include enlisting the help of others in such a way that might require meetings or radio shows. None of that comes anywhere near the meaning of "Religion".[^] Well unless of course you run the definition through the (D)espeir logic prism. ;)
led mike wrote:
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion?
Wouldn't the free exercise of "no religion" be "no exercise"? The army didn't prevent them from not attending church. They prevented them from "exercising" their belief system.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's more of an acceptance of the facts and evidence that refute the idea of "God".
Not really, it's more about rejecting supernaturalism and pursuing a rational life. Atheism isn't meant to be the polar opposite of specific religion.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Atheism isn't meant to be the polar opposite of specific religion.
True, although it's hard to not define it that way. There's a push among atheists recently to consciously define their atheism in terms of what it IS (positive beliefs) instead of what it IS NOT (a refutation of religion).
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
led mike wrote:
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion?
That's why I said it'd be a far too literal reading of the Amendment. ;) Because yes, I do think the free exercise would include no religion. But if you read the sentence absolutely literally, it doesn't leave room for that.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
But if you read the sentence absolutely literally, it doesn't leave room for that.
Yeah I'm pretty sure it does. Let's say you are the enforcer of the Amendment and you want to make sure I am a law abiding citizen so that would go like this: Patrick: "Hail good citizen!" led: "Well met" Patrick: "Are you full filling your duties under the 1st amendment and practicing a religion?" led: "Yes"
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Being that there are facts and evidence in support of the existence of God
What are those facts? I haven't ever seen any indisputable "facts" supporting the argument for the existence of anything supernatural? Seriously, I'd love to hear what these are.
Red Stateler wrote:
ighlight its budding structure as an organized religion given that it resembles one more and more.
I don't see it as a religion rather an organized philosophy. The problem with humans is that people tend to become dogmatic about anything.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
What are those facts? I haven't ever seen any indisputable "facts" supporting the argument for the existence of anything supernatural? Seriously, I'd love to hear what these are.
The accepted "facts" are based in historical accounts, but if you read one post up I said that the existence of God is just as unprovable as the non-existence. Obviously I won't attempt to prove the existence of God because I can't. The point I made was that to confidently assert the non-existence of God takes exactly as much faith as it does to confidently assert the existence of God. Atheism is an article of faith.
Chris Austin wrote:
I don't see it as a religion rather an organized philosophy. The problem with humans is that people tend to become dogmatic about anything.
Except for the fact that this particular philosophy is organized around a central theology. That's what every religion is.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
No you succumbing to the (D)espeir logic prism. Doesn't the free exercise of religion have to include no religion?
Wouldn't the free exercise of "no religion" be "no exercise"? The army didn't prevent them from not attending church. They prevented them from "exercising" their belief system.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Hmmm I think a great many theologians would disagree with you. Atheism would be more accurately predicated on naturalist and philosophical notions, not theological ones. It's a thin line here. It depends on how you define theology, and I don't think I'm qualified to do so. It isn't something I've studied in sufficient depth.
Catholicism is also based on "philosophical notions" (read Augustine or Thomas, who both based their theological approaches on Greek philosophy) and, to an extent, natural philosophies (such that Catholicism is designed not to contradict science). Theology[^] is just the study of God's nature and "nonexistence" is a nature.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I do agree that at some point that contradiction is going to need answering. That's why I mentioned I didn't think SCOTUS has ruled on it. At some point it'll be unavoidable.
I agree. I personally encourage atheism being recognized for the organized religion that it is becoming as it has an unfair advantage over others in the legal system.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Catholicism is also based on "philosophical notions"
But is primarily the study of God and human relationships to him. That doesn't accurate describe atheist notions, because atheism isn't the assertion of the absence of God and thus our non-relationship to him. There IS a variant of atheism that holds to that (the open assertion in no God), but that's an unreasonable position. What is reasonable is to simply not believe in a God, and establish moral and ethical relations among men based on other (non-religious) principles.
Red Stateler wrote:
I personally encourage atheism being recognized for the organized religion that it is becoming as it has an unfair advantage over others in the legal system.
There's another way to resolve the contradiction without such a step: Reject both sets of influence in the realm of public life. Jefferson, for example, was a firm believer in the Christian God but absolutely refused to mention that belief at all in his public life. He believed it is a personal relationship that has no place in government. That, most definitely, is an incredibly fine line, and one that is very hard if not impossible, for most people to walk. But it's what our founders envisioned. Incidentally, if you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, a great deal of what we've created in government and public institutions would have to be re-worked. That's why, as much as this might be the right way to do things, it will probably never happen. It's too hard.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I really don't understand the need by atheists to attack the religious nor the need by the religious to attack atheists. Both are entitled to their opinions. Yet it seems to be a oneupmanship game.
I don't either. It's why I don't really bother. Hey, you're free to believe whatever you want so long as you don't try to force me or my kids to believe it. Which brings up an interesting point about religion in public schools - removing it altogether isn't an endorsement of atheism, it's the non-endorsement of either viewpoint, leaving parents and/or society to teach such lessons. I think that's how it should be.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Which brings up an interesting point about religion in public schools - removing it altogether isn't an endorsement of atheism, it's the non-endorsement of either viewpoint, leaving parents and/or society to teach such lessons. I think that's how it should be.
Or rather schools, which take up all of childrens' time and energy, should reflect the value of the parents. Hence the need for vouchers.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall