Proselytizing
-
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
-
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
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
My understanding is that it's treated in theology courses.
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
But it considers the supernatural in order to make a judgement on it. "Natural philosophy" simply does not consider the supernatural...Only the physical world.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
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
Red Stateler wrote:
I told you I didn't know what you were asking and asked you to be more specific and you ignored me...
Not true. You said (paraphrasing) Multiculturalism is bad because it says all Religions must have the same weight. I asked "Equal weight in what"? You responded with:
Red Stateler wrote:
How about weighing them by their merits?
I replied with:
led mike wrote:
As you observed each religion believes it's merits are greater than any other since that is the nature of Religion. So how do you apply a weight based on merits? Who decides the weights?
then you said:
Red Stateler wrote:
And people are also free to choose their religion in a free society. They therefore choose which religion they vest their faith based on the merits. And sometimes practitioners of a religion determine that religious leaders have abandoned principles of the religion, and a schism occurs. That is the nature of freedom and democracy. People are capable of weighing and deciding for themselves and the idea that an opinion must be considered reasonable merely by virtue of the fact that it exists is deeply flawed.
and finally I asked:
led mike wrote:
Very well written as usual but you should know by now you cannot throw me off track with your prolific writing skills. I am only interested in the content not the prose. You have not answered the questions. 1) Equal weight in what? 2) Who decides the weights? We live in a free society based on democracy and you are free to assign whatever weights you like to religions, so unless you are talking about something else and have not "EXPLAINED" it.....????
-
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
Actually, there are none which is why the Christian God is just as likely to exist as the pantheon of Roman, Greek and Viking Gods to this very day....which, of course, makes the entire debate rather pointless. You take it on faith that God exists in the absence of evidence. I take it that God does not exist due to a complete lack of evidence as well as previous history - which is why, today, Christians discount all other Gods. I think, one day, there will be sufficient evidence to discount any notion of the religious divine. That's why it is vastly more probable that God does not exist - previous experience, archaeological evidence, biblical studies and history point us to that conclusion. The fact that this viewpoint is not in the majority is because the number of athiests is in the minority for now.
"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)
-
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
My understanding is that it's treated in theology courses.
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
But it considers the supernatural in order to make a judgement on it. "Natural philosophy" simply does not consider the supernatural...Only the physical world.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
But it considers the supernatural in order to make a judgement on it.
Not really, at least as I see it. It is just a rejection not a judgment.
Red Stateler wrote:
My understanding is that it's treated in theology courses.
Don't know how this applies or maybe I am just not following your argument. My point simply is that atheism has no theology just a 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
-
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:
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:
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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology[^] A central tenet of anything properly labeled "theology" is a claim about the existence of God. An interesting point is that some religions are atheistic - which calls into question the definition of "religion" at all. A more appropriate distinction would then seem to be theistic belief systems versus atheistic ones.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
This dichotomy is too simple. There are four classes of atheism:[^] Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists. Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists. Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist. Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist. From the linked article:
Mere absence of belief in gods is, they claim, properly labeled agnosticism — even though agnosticism has it's own definition and is about a different concept entirely.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
It could be argued there's simply an attempt to return to what our founders envisioned for a secular government. Thing
-
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)
The problem isn't that atheism is a religion per se, it is a question of what substitutes for moral authority without the moral authority inherent in religious tenents. The entire point of separation of church and state was to prevent the state from being able to directly control a society's moral agenda. But if there is no church than there is no moral authority at all. In an athiest society there can be no separation of church and state because there is no church, so you are right back to the state being in direct control of a society's moral agenda. Therefore, the state re-assumes its role as church for all practical purposes as it is the society's only source of moral authority and thus serves effectively as an atheistic religion.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
My understanding is that it's treated in theology courses.
Chris Austin wrote:
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.
But it considers the supernatural in order to make a judgement on it. "Natural philosophy" simply does not consider the supernatural...Only the physical world.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
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.
Schools -- especially in this country -- take up the children's school day, and little more. If the parents are so irresponsible that they can't find enough time before and after school, and on weekends, to pass their values on to their children, they should not expect the state to take up the slack.
-
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:
What facts? What evidence? You can't prove nor disprove.
The facts and evidence in the archaeological and historical records that show the events in the bible did not occur. The fact that Christianity was built on the foundations of pagan religions who worshiped other gods, the fact that the bible (supposedly from a divine source) is not internally consistent. The list goes on... you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture. Genesis is glaringly wrong, for instance, yet it is the literal word of God. How could God be wrong? Is Genesis not meant to be interpreted literally? Well, perhaps the entire Bible is not supposed to be literally interpreted then - perhaps it's just a nice fable...which, really, that's what it is - a complicated discourse on morality. Nothing less, nothing more.
"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)