Proselytizing
-
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
-
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
Patrick Sears wrote:
There's a push among atheists recently to consciously define their atheism in terms of what it IS (positive beliefs)
To me, there is an issue with using the term "belief." I prefer the term idea or philosophy simply because it opens the door for rational discourse and an open mind. From my point of view, a belief is immutable. I may just be a bit uptight about the terminology so please forgive me if I am being pedantic.
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:
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"
led mike wrote:
Yeah I'm pretty sure it does.
I can agree to disagree on that point :) Because we actually agree on the outcome.. which is, the 1st Amendment still protects atheism.
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
Red Stateler wrote:
Or rather schools, which take up all of childrens' time and energy, should reflect the value of the parents. Hence the need for vouchers.
Are you referring to private schools? I'm not sure I understand where you're going with 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:
There's a push among atheists recently to consciously define their atheism in terms of what it IS (positive beliefs)
To me, there is an issue with using the term "belief." I prefer the term idea or philosophy simply because it opens the door for rational discourse and an open mind. From my point of view, a belief is immutable. I may just be a bit uptight about the terminology so please forgive me if I am being pedantic.
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:
I may just be a bit uptight about the terminology so please forgive me if I am being pedantic.
Not at all :) Actually I agree with your distinction. When discussing evolution, for example, I never say I believe in evolution. I don't. I accept that its scientific tenets are true, which is different.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
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
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
The specifics of the nature of the theology are unimportant (after all, some mainstream religions do not preach a personal relationship with God). Just the fact that it is centered around a theology.
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
Agnosticism is often confused with atheism and vice-versa. Some of these authors describe the basis of their beliefs as agnostic in nature, but then proclaim atheism. I view agnosticism as relatively benign, but I view atheism as a flawed religion.
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
Whereas Washington riddled his farewell address with references to God.
Patrick Sears wrote:
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.
Hence the damaging nature of atheism. In recent decades leftists (please excuse my inability to avoid the term) have essentially sought to establish atheism as the national religion. That has enormous implications so far as truly secular government goes and could threaten the very foundation of democracy in the long run.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Or rather schools, which take up all of childrens' time and energy, should reflect the value of the parents. Hence the need for vouchers.
Are you referring to private schools? I'm not sure I understand where you're going with 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:
Are you referring to private schools? I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that.
Yes, government encroachment into areas well-suited by private organizations only leads to restrictions on freedom. Our public school system has lead to the inability of most moderately-incomed people to make school choices.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
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
Red Stateler wrote:
xcept for the fact that this particular philosophy is organized around a central theology.
I haven't been to school for a while but a Theology is a discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality. Atheism is a rejection of the supernatural, no deity involved there. Logically, I just don't see the connection that you do. I think you confuse theology with philosophy.
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
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Wouldn't....
... you want to prove that your views on Multiculturalism are right by explaining them rather than leaving the thread in the middle of the conversation to start this new one on a different subject?
led mike wrote:
... you want to prove that your views on Multiculturalism are right by explaining them rather than leaving the thread in the middle of the conversation to start this new one on a different subject?
You know, I told you I didn't know what you were asking and asked you to be more specific and you ignored me...
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall