Atheism to be taught in RE..

[mustafhakofi]

snakelord :
I say its about time, they started teaching common sense, the world will become a better place.

 

[mountainhare]

Are we a bit quick to jump to conclusions here? Is talk of atheism within the context of religious education necessarily an accusation that atheism is itself a religion, or simply an acknowledgement that the topic of atheism is in some way relevant to religion (which in a cultural sense it almost certainly is)?

Mystech, I agree partially. However, isn't it also possible that many kids will jump to the conclusion that since atheism is being taught in a religion class, it is a religion? You and me both know that it isn't... but kids often jump to conclusions.

Strong atheism is not a religion because it doesn't involve worship, ritual, a set of beliefs, or anything of that nature

Religion is based on faith. It takes as much faith to claim with absolute certainty that a God does not exist as it does to say that one does exist.
Meanwhile, it is quite reasonable to ASSUME that one doesn't exist, due to lack of evidence. I would even go as far to say that the probability of one is existing is low. But I can't say, with 100% certainty, that a God doesn't exist.

When you define religion the way you did, strong atheism isn't a religion. Yet if religion = blind faith, then perhaps strong atheism does fall in that category.

 

[TheERK]

stuff

Strong atheism doesn't mean you believe 100% that there is no God, and that you are sure about it.

It means that you think there is no God. Confidence is not part of the equation.

 

[slotty]

Great idea. All religion is based on nonsense sprouted thousands of years ago by the intelligensie of the time to control the masses. The ten commandments just seem to me to be a set of rules that any society would put together in order to stop anachy. The first one is what? don't worship a false idol. To me, this just means that if you find another religion, then we would lose our power base and hence our comfortable way of life. Or is that me being cynical? There is still as much proof for any god as there is for elves ,pixies , and faries. We are just an animal with a more developed brain than other animals. We are here ultimatly just to spread our genetic code on. Then we die. Thats it.Thats the reason i'm an atheist. :m:

 

[fadingCaptain]

Tiassa,
Perhaps it would benefit you (as well as the others posting) to read the article presented for discussion. Quote:

"In the framework, the government recommended the teaching of secular philosophies, such as humanism, for the first time, a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman said."

They are not teaching 'atheism' but secular philosophies. I think it only makes sense to offer a secular perspective in religious teachings.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Great idea. All religion is based on nonsense sprouted thousands of years ago by the intelligensie of the time to control the masses.
:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Actually all religion seems to be based in a belief of a supernatural being or so dictionary.com tells me anyway. Maybe they got it wrong???

The ten commandments just seem to me to be a set of rules that any society would put together in order to stop anachy. The first one is what? don't worship a false idol.

Well actually it is like this...

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

and in response to The Lord slotty replies (this is great. stay with me here) ...

To me, this just means that if you find another religion, then we would lose our power base and hence our comfortable way of life.

This is therefore a classic bit of self doubt ...

Or is that me being cynical?

Err thats you realising that God may be listening slotty. I hate to frighten you fella but HE IS ... dun dun daaaaaaahh!

But wait ...

There is still as much proof for any god as there is for elves ,pixies , and faries.

err slotty m8, HE IS STILL LISTENING

but hang on... slotty's intelligence to the rescue

We are just an animal with a more developed brain than other animals.

Then slotty amazes us all and reveals that he is truly innocent after all

We are here ultimatly just to spread our genetic code on. Then we die. Thats it.Thats the reason i'm an atheist. :m:

Bless him. He didn't know The Lord was listening. Little lamb that slotty is.

peace

c20

 

[mustafhakofi]

you been told before, you dont psychoanalyse anybody it's rude.
so pack it in.

 

[slotty]

I don't have any self doubt dude, there aint no god anywhere looking at me, your the one who by the manner of your reply to my post , seem to be the one who is in doubt, not me. Whats this innocent bit about? Thanks for putting that commandment in there for me- it still says don't worship anyone/thing apart from me, ergo i'll lose my/our power base. It was written by humans not a god and most probably not at the time of any actual event, but years, decades later. So i would think its like a huge collection of Chinese whispers, everything getting changed little by little over time. Your not going to tell me that you actually think that there is an original copy written by your gods hand are you?

 

[Roman]

Nihilism's a belief system.
Empiricism's a belief system.
Solpilism's a belief system.

Simply not believing isn't actually a belief system.

However, atheism contains Nihilism, et cetera.

Sooo, GO RED SOCKS WOOO!!!

 

[Tiassa]

Perhaps it would benefit you (as well as the others posting) to read the article presented for discussion

'Tis a fine article, but your point misses my particular agenda in this topic.

"In the framework, the government recommended the teaching of secular philosophies, such as humanism, for the first time, a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman said."

They are not teaching 'atheism' but secular philosophies.

Indeed.

My first post, although somewhat needling, is actually a legitimate question to me specifically in the Sciforums' context.

Atheism has been a contentious issue here. There was a time when even I argued alongside atheists the benefit of the diversity possible within atheism. But all that effort of claiming a higher intelligence and broader range of options eventually saddled Sciforums' atheists with too much responsibility for their tastes, and the argument was quickly reduced to the simplest argument possible.

At which point, you could literally ask one of our atheists what they could offer a potential new atheist that would compensate for the collapse of the moral foundation that occurs when one ejects God from their personal outlook, and suddenly atheists couldn't understand that point.

Which brings us 'round to the teaching of secular philosophies. Calling it "atheistic moralism" or "atheistic philosophy" is well enough, but teaching secular philosophies as "atheism" seems to define atheism according to what many atheists have made a point of stating it isn't.

I'm curious where those atheists are these days. Defining atheism as anything beyond a lack of belief in God seemed to offend them. I guess a state endorsement makes up for the new ideological confines.

What do you expect me to get out of reading the article again?

 

[fadingCaptain]

Tiassa,
Sorry, I should have quoted you:

"Teaching atheism will be an adventure in the sense that there are no relevant factors to discuss."

My point was that there ARE relevant factors to discuss.

Let me try to be as straight with you as I can. We have gotten hung up on this before I think.

-Think of the word 'religion'. It denotes many different belief systems, all with a belief in god(s).

-A person that is 'religious' can choose a particular subset of beliefs or not (see Deism).

-Religious topics can be taught by focusing on certain philosophies or belief systems.

Now,

-Atheism, like religion, denotes many different belief systems or lack thereof.

-A person that is an atheist can choose a particular philosophy/morality/etc or not.

-Atheist topics can be taught in a similar manner as religious studies, ie. focusing on a subset of 'atheism' like secular humanism or even ambiguous beliefs like pantheism.

Now on to some of your points:

"teaching secular philosophies as "atheism" seems to define atheism according to what many atheists have made a point of stating it isn't."

Analogy: Teaching Islam as religion doesn't 'define' religion as a whole.

"Defining atheism as anything beyond a lack of belief in God seemed to offend them."

Analogy: Defining religion as a belief in one creator and god will offend hindus. Summarizing an overarching group by a subset is sure to offend some. When talking specifically about 'atheism', you can either talk of its subsets or its commonality : lack of belief in god.

In summary, there is certainly much to be discussed and taught of atheism in religious education.

 

[slotty]

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! c20 is correct, there is a god. He has shown his displeasure of me by seeing fit to fiddle with my car, for my sins he has made it impossible to get into reverse ..again!.

 

[MarcAC]

..."we", (your kind), shall be proven right. I said how so,.. Let's try again shall we? How would the inclusion of 'teaching' atheism in RE classes "prove that we, (your kind), are right"?

My apologies; I sometimes, wrongly, assume that others and I are on the same wavelength. None-the-less, to give the a,b,c answer... many theists and even agnostics on this forum have contended that atheism is a religion... thus my previous statement. Whatever you mean by "your kind"... I suggest your erase it from you mind if possible.

"In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"

Impressionable children being taught that a lack of belief in god is normal, and safe can surely do more to damage religion than to aid it, or as you quoted "prove it right"?

This statement would be a contradiction in terms. Atheism is a religious view. I was having so much fun I decided to drop that notion... I thought it was obvious.

Is it a surprise then to see Germany very low on the list of countrywide religiosity?

It wouldn't be low if it included atheism now would it?

Kindly try and remember that there is more to life and more to this thread than just you. And if it's at all possible, try answering the questions. Thanks.

Does MarcAC seem that egotistic? One thing I do is speak for myself as much as possibe. I know there is more to life and people's beliefs than what I believe and I'm not of such arrogance to impose my beliefs on others, thus my reference to me, "as a Christian". I notice there is an atheist fraternity on this forum where the term "we" is often used to refer to "you" vs the theists - I recognise those as the ones who became atheistic through peer pressure and sheer rebellion - wagonists. I do hope you notice the "we" in my post did not refer specifically to theists it referred to those who have contended in so many threads before, that atheism is a religion.

Well, they sit in school learning about the "dead jew" that doesn't exist, so what's the difference?

You tell me... aren't you the one expounding on the major changes that will be effected once atheism is officially realised to be a religion?

Me and you both know who the "dead jew" is. What we don't know is who the "booga mooga" is... and you just missed the point;

However, on a serious note: Since when did atheism have anything to do with someone called "booga mooga"? And you dare call me a comedian?

Why go on and on about something that doesn't exist? Don't you get it? Without God there is no atheism. I consider myself a comedian in the sense that I always try to highlight the humourous aspects of other people's posts.

I always have a nice day. Undoubtedly however, it would be a nicer day if you'd answer the actual questions.

Or try to make you understand the answers... 6 = 3 x 2... all depends on how you look at it. Have a nicer day.

 

[MarcAC]

MarcAC
Secondly, literary devices are supposed to help clarify communication. Not all do, as you show quite clearly in your statements that "Hinduism = Atheism" and "Atheism included".

Very true... the '=' is an element of idiolect. Of course, read in context, the statement is rather clear, however some would try, as stated, to isolate, (mis)interpret, and therefore err.

Of that latter point, you seem to be reaching for some sense of personal satisfaction, although that assertion could easily be countered by reconsidering the point about Hinduism; it could simply be that you're so wrapped up in theopolitik that you're suspending conventional definitions of words in order to feel superior about yourself.

Intersting psychology. The fact is, the conventional definitions of words are being suspended, however, it is not to facilitate some feeling of superiority, but to bring a point across about a personal belief. It is generally unwise to speak for anyone but oneself. It is hoped one will notice the use of the personal reference in all cases?

Freedom of religion does not mean you have to subscribe to a given subset of theosophical considerations.

Yet one has to (subscribe to some anchoring set of beliefs) anyway; failing that one would be emotionally unstable and possibly seen as insane.

Hinduism = Atheism for the empty-headed. But then again, Christians, too, were called atheists for the simple reason that their vision of God was so absurd that it constituted no God whatsoever.

One would be careful with the former statement. The teacher will often communicate in language that he thinks the student will understand. He may use oversimplified terms but that doesn't mean his understanding is at the level of those terms. For a Christian, Hinduism may as well be the equivalent to atheism... because regardles... the Hindus don't believe in God according to Christians... that's why the post stated "as a Christian". It might have been better to include "may as well be equal to", however the onus was terseness. The equal goes for Hindus... in-so-far as they do not recognise God as a god. Of course, this restricts the definition of theism and atheism to the God that one believes exists.

The kind of "atheism" that "equals Hinduism" is the atheism perceived by egocentric myopia.

Most revealing, MarcAC, is the pleasure--that egocentric delight--you display without ever providing any basis; it merely reinforces the longstanding prejudice that theists, while human in their passions, think even less than their atheistic neighbors.

It would be assumed that 'egocentric myopia' = 'unbridled faith' in this sense? Of course, that myopic vision is easily reflected by even the use of the term in the first place. It was stated in the post previously that;

atheists... tend to underestimate the impact and influence of faith.

The disparity between theistic and atheistic views on life and the implications when discussing should never be far from ones mind. Especially when such terms as "fantasy", "dogmatism", "arrogance/'egocentric myopia'", and the like are employed. Thus the usual references; "me", "I believe" and "as a Christian". Thus one should be clear that their notion of the view that 'Atheism = Hinduism' is an indication of "egocentric myopia" inherrently displays an "egocentric myopia" in their view of the whole issue, where, of course, one defines egocentricity as some function of faith (in oneself). Christians have faith in God. The whole idea is that the definition of a word or view may not be the absolute one which everyone will recognise. I would hope one employs their insights and doesn't only state them.

 

[SnakeLord]

many theists and even agnostics on this forum have contended that atheism is a religion... thus my previous statement.

Religion:

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

-- Well, atheists don't believe in a supernatural power regarded as creator and governer of the universe. As such, this definition of 'religion' does not apply.

2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

-- Atheists don't have any personal or institutionalized systems grounded in such beliefs and worships. As such, this definition of 'religion' does not apply.

3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

-- This cannot apply to atheists, because they're not in a "religious order".

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader

-- This cannot apply to atheists because they don't have a set of beliefs or practices based on the teachings of a 'spiritual leader'. This however, is open to some petty debate.

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-- This could apply to anyone, from photographers to porn stars.

--------------------

As you can see, regardless to what some people have contended on this here forum, the dictionary would show that atheism is not a religion by any means. Ok, number 4 is slightly dubious, and number 5 can relate to anyone on the planet, but the definitions are overly against atheism being a religion.

As for atheism being taught in RE, it simply involves saying "some think god doesn't exist". This is a disagreement to a religious claim, not a religious claim.

Whatever you mean by "your kind"... I suggest your erase it from you mind if possible.

You kept saying "we", obviously referring to more than one of you, and as such I used "your kind", to refer to the "we" that you were referring to. I can erase it from my mind if you erase "we" from your mind, unless in future you explain who that "we" refers to exactly. Oh, and on the same post if possible instead of 2 pages later.

This statement would be a contradiction in terms. Atheism is a religious view.

No it isn't. So far all you've managed to provide in support of your claim is "some other people on this forum said it was". Come now, even you should understand it takes a little bit more than that. While I have become accustomed to religious people thinking something like that suffices, it doesn't make it any better.

I was having so much fun I decided to drop that notion... I thought it was obvious.

It was obvious? Why, because "some other people on this forum said so, and yes, even agnostics"? Lol.

It wouldn't be low if it included atheism now would it?

But it can't because atheism isn't a religion. Oops I forgot; you heard someone say it was..

Besides, now you're just being petty and ignoring the actual questions I posed. Is it possible once you have recovered from your need to do so that you could actually answer the questions?

Does MarcAC seem that egotistic?

Absolutely. What's with the third person btw?

I notice there is an atheist fraternity on this forum where the term "we" is often used to refer to "you" vs the theists

'our kind' vs 'your kind'?

I recognise those as the ones who became atheistic through peer pressure and sheer rebellion - wagonists.

I can't believe anyone would make such a nonsensical statement. Peer pressured into atheism? Actually I confess, just the other week a bunch of atheists knocked on my door, burnt a bible and said "believe there's no god or burn in hell!".

Just so you understand, I shall explain it to you. Kindly pay attention, because this information is important to know:

There's no evidence for any of it. Only a complete raving nincompoop would accept it and believe it because a book happens to say so. It is no different for anything else, or any other books.. From the vedas to the koran, from the enuma elish to the epic of gilgamesh.

There is no peer pressure, there is no rebellion.. There just is no evidence. Any sane individual would understand this completely. You can't just go through life saying "that's true" whenever something takes your fancy, be it gods, leprechauns, aliens, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that Sauron is taking over middle-earth.

It is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard, and yet that's what people try to force me into. Giving up my sanity to believe the word of a dead shepherd without so much as a solitary droplet of evidence. It is without doubt the biggest act of lunacy much of humanity is afflicted with.

I guess to a degree you're actually right though. When someone tells me to become a mentally void individual, you're damn right I would rebel.

I do hope you notice the "we" in my post did not refer specifically to theists it referred to those who have contended in so many threads before, that atheism is a religion.

It doesn't matter who you refer to, you're still wrong.

You tell me... aren't you the one expounding on the major changes that will be effected once atheism is officially realised to be a religion?

I wasn't 'expounding' anything. I asked a question. They end with '?'. I was after your opinion, I wasn't giving a statement. I understand now though why you didn't answer it. It's because you were confused.

Me and you both know who the "dead jew" is. What we don't know is who the "booga mooga" is... and you just missed the point;

I also know who Harry Potter is and don't believe he's real either. What is your point?

Why go on and on about something that doesn't exist? Don't you get it?

This was your point?

I guess you haven't asked this before, or never payed attention to the answer. People make a claim - other people debate the claim. It's really quite simple at the end of the day. If your mother came up to you and said "I believe in fairies", yes you'd know what fairies are, but you'd still debate the issue, (most likely). If not, fair enough.. but debating a claim doesn't mean you believe in the claim - it actually means the exact opposite.

I hope this has solved your query.

Without God there is no atheism.

This is a fallacious statement. Let me correct it for you: Without the claim of a god/s, there would be no 'atheism' definition. Technically however, we'd all be atheists.

I consider myself a comedian in the sense that I always try to highlight the humourous aspects of other people's posts.

Admittedly I did call you a comedian. That doesn't mean I found you funny. Might I suggest you get better and more relevant material?

Or try to make you understand the answers... 6 = 3 x 2

You haven't even answered the questions, so there are no answers you can try to make me understand. Your post managed little more than to show me you haven't even grasped the very basics. Once you have successfully navigated this, we can move on to bigger and better things.

Have a nicer day.

I will when you finally manage to answer the questions properly.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Here you go again Snakelord ...

Refusing to enter the Kingdom of God yourself and making just as sure as you like that no one else will have it either. It is for this reason that I yoke you with the Pharisee's and for this reason I call you a viper. The very reason Jesus called the Pharisee's vipers. Look again ...

Matthew 12:34-37 - The New American Standard Bible

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 "The good man brings out of {his} good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of {his} evil treasure what is evil. 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

 

[SnakeLord]

Here you go again Snakelord ...

Cool. As I'm not on ignore, do you think you could manage to answer my questions in the other thread? Thanks.

Refusing to enter the Kingdom of God yourself and making just as sure as you like that no one else will have it either.

A) What do I have to do with anyone else getting into this supposed kingdom of god?

B) The refusal is based on the absolute lack of any evidence to support the claim. I'd give you the exact same answer if you asked why I don't believe in el chupacabra.

It is for this reason that I yoke you with the Pharisee's and for this reason I call you a viper.

Judge not others. Do jesus words have any meaning for you?

Matthew 12:34-37 - The New American Standard Bible

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 "The good man brings out of {his} good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of {his} evil treasure what is evil. 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Snakelord 1:1 - 1:10 - The New Snakelord book of sanity

There is no such thing as god, or mothmen, or martians. Toys do not come to life when you leave the room, nor does your car get possessed by demons and then fall in love with you. All of these lack any form of evidence whatsoever, and until such time where evidence can be provided, all of the above must, for any sane person, be confined to the "fantasy" room along with goblins, dragons and flying bananas. As a consequence, Matthew 12:34-37 is completely worthless, as is the rest of the bible.

 

[MarcAC]

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-- This could apply to anyone, from photographers to porn stars.

They're all religious then.

Ok, number 4 is slightly dubious, and number 5 can relate to anyone on the planet, but the definitions are overly against atheism being a religion.

Atheists are on the planet.

..."some think god doesn't exist". This is a disagreement to a religious claim, not a religious claim...

Regardless, they are included by default. Definition 5). Welcome to the flock.

No it isn't. So far all you've managed to provide in support of your claim is "some other people on this forum said it was". Come now, even you should understand it takes a little bit more than that. While I have become accustomed to religious people thinking something like that suffices, it doesn't make it any better.

It was obvious? Why, because "some other people on this forum said so, and yes, even agnostics"? Lol.

But it can't because atheism isn't a religion...

It doesn't matter who you refer to, you're still wrong.

Refer to your quoted definition above. It seems you said it too in the 'canonical' dictionary quote.

You kept saying "we", obviously referring to more than one of you, and as such I used "your kind", to refer to the "we" that you were referring to. I can erase it from my mind if you erase "we" from your mind, unless in future you explain who that "we" refers to exactly. Oh, and on the same post if possible instead of 2 pages later.

Besides, now you're just being petty and ignoring the actual questions I posed. Is it possible once you have recovered from your need to do so that you could actually answer the questions?

You haven't even answered the questions, so there are no answers you can try to make me understand. Your post managed little more than to show me you haven't even grasped the very basics. Once you have successfully navigated this, we can move on to bigger and better things.

I would advise you to re-evaluate the "haven't answered" statements. I do not answer questions to which the answers are obvious and effectively irrelevant. Thus, my answer to the question about the low 'religiosity' in Germany; It wouldn't be low if atheism were included now would it? Now if you think for a while as is the characteristic attributed by some to atheists in general, I'm sure you'd get the point. I'm sure you know a rhetorical question may serve as an answer to a question or statement... as is illustrated below...

'our kind' vs 'your kind'?

Or try to serve as an answer... so when you stated 'your kind' you were referring to those who see the fact that atheism is under the religious umbrella. Fair enough.

I wasn't 'expounding' anything. I asked a question. They end with '?'. I was after your opinion, I wasn't giving a statement. I understand now though why you didn't answer it. It's because you were confused.

Less time spent teaching religious nonsense in preference of teaching "there is no god". In time nobody will care for the spoutings of ancient shepherds, but will be much more interested in hearing about atheism and how there is no god. A while after that, religion will be on it's way to extinction.

I would advise you to hone your memory, to the standard of your thinking ability as assessed by some, in-so-far as you're an atheist. Dull memory leads to confusion.

I also know who Harry Potter is and don't believe he's real either. What is your point?

This was your point?

I guess you haven't asked this before, or never payed attention to the answer. People make a claim - other people debate the claim. It's really quite simple at the end of the day. If your mother came up to you and said "I believe in fairies", yes you'd know what fairies are, but you'd still debate the issue, (most likely). If not, fair enough.. but debating a claim doesn't mean you believe in the claim - it actually means the exact opposite.

I hope this has solved your query.

This is a fallacious statement. Let me correct it for you: Without the claim of a god/s, there would be no 'atheism' definition. Technically however, we'd all be atheists.

In your model, religious claims for God's existence fade away and only atheism prevails (see above). You get the point but it seems you're in some sort of denial. Are you saying that there would be atheism or there wouldn't be? What is the difference between an 'atheism definiton' (new phrase for me) and an atheist (focusing on the descriptive aspect)? Doesn't the definition of atheism apply to atheists? Interesting. You seem to be advocating the notion that if there are no claims of God existing... no 'god definition' God might still exist. I think you got a bit too technical there.

Admittedly I did call you a comedian. That doesn't mean I found you funny. Might I suggest you get better and more relevant material?

Only if the comedy were specifically aimed at you. I would refer you back to one of your posts above about "...you not being the only person in the world..." and "...it's not all about you..."... etc.

I can't believe anyone would make such a nonsensical statement. Peer pressured into atheism? Actually I confess, just the other week a bunch of atheists knocked on my door, burnt a bible and said "believe there's no god or burn in hell!".

Just so you understand, I shall explain it to you. Kindly pay attention, because this information is important to know:

There's no evidence for any of it. Only a complete raving nincompoop would accept it and believe it because a book happens to say so. It is no different for anything else, or any other books.. From the vedas to the koran, from the enuma elish to the epic of gilgamesh.

There is no peer pressure, there is no rebellion.. There just is no evidence. Any sane individual would understand this completely. You can't just go through life saying "that's true" whenever something takes your fancy, be it gods, leprechauns, aliens, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that Sauron is taking over middle-earth.

It is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard, and yet that's what people try to force me into. Giving up my sanity to believe the word of a dead shepherd without so much as a solitary droplet of evidence. It is without doubt the biggest act of lunacy much of humanity is afflicted with.

I guess to a degree you're actually right though. When someone tells me to become a mentally void individual, you're damn right I would rebel.

Interesting nerve I hit there; I would invite the psychologist to offer a psycho-analysis. I would also invite you to be honest with yourself.

I will when you finally manage to answer the questions properly.

Or when you finally manage to understand... or maybe accept... the answers...

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

The fact is, the conventional definitions of words are being suspended, however, it is not to facilitate some feeling of superiority, but to bring a point across about a personal belief. It is generally unwise to speak for anyone but oneself. It is hoped one will notice the use of the personal reference in all cases?

Are you familiar with the theological concept that one of the few limitations of God is that It cannot be something that is mutually exclusive to itself? A classic rhetorical example is that God cannot make a "square circle" because the two definitions necessarily contradict one another. Another classic example is whether God can make a stone too heavy for God to lift.

Your personal belief is your personal belief, but it makes communication rather quite difficult when you randomly assign definitions to words.

Hinduism is a theistic assertion. You can call it infidel, pagan, false, whatever. But the one thing it is not is an atheistic assertion. Hinduism is just as atheistic as Christianity.

The teacher will often communicate in language that he thinks the student will understand.

Of course, this restricts the definition of theism and atheism to the God that one believes exists.

I wouldn't know where to begin with that one.

It would be assumed that 'egocentric myopia' = 'unbridled faith' in this sense?

No, it would imply egocentrism founded on an exceptionally limited sense of personal vision.

Such as your Hinduism/Atheism comparison. It's the same rhetorical device by which Christians were called atheists. As a Christian, it appears easier for you to just ignore all distinctions and hold everyone in equal contempt.

Why cut yourself off from communication? Why render your evangelization mute?

The disparity between theistic and atheistic views on life and the implications when discussing should never be far from ones mind. Especially when such terms as "fantasy", "dogmatism", "arrogance/'egocentric myopia'", and the like are employed. Thus the usual references; "me", "I believe" and "as a Christian". Thus one should be clear that their notion of the view that 'Atheism = Hinduism' is an indication of "egocentric myopia" inherrently displays an "egocentric myopia" in their view of the whole issue, where, of course, one defines egocentricity as some function of faith (in oneself). Christians have faith in God. The whole idea is that the definition of a word or view may not be the absolute one which everyone will recognise. I would hope one employs their insights and doesn't only state them

I suppose I should take the word of a Satanist like you, eh?



Look, if something's not worth your time to understand, it's not worth your effort to disrespect. When you pray to your Devil, do you pray that you might infect innocent minds with the ******** Gospel of your Dark Lord?

Or are you going to try to tell me there's a difference between you and a Satanist?

Because, frankly, having been both Christian and Satanist in the past, I can tell you they're pretty much the same damn thing. Although Satanism's just a hair more honest.

You know, I like this Satanic method of argument you've got going on. It's a lot easier than explaining that you're rather quite disrespectful and ought not take that tone with me.



I mean, look at yourself: you, you believe, as a Christian. So, as a Christian, you redefine words for your convenience in order to teach other people to think as simply as you do? The simple fact is that you're selfishly (egocentric) blurring what you see by insisting on recognizing only that which is in extremely near-orbit (myopia).

A circle is not a square; an apple is not an orange; a man is not a woman; a dog is not a cat.

You responded to the assertion that "religion will be on its way to extinction" with, "Atheism included of course". Now, maybe that felt as good as the smilie might suggest, but it's a dumb line because it's a contradiction in terms.

It should be simple enough, should it not, to point out that humans are religious and will continue to be?

But come the day that religion somehow becomes extinct, the word that will describe the condition of human thought as relates to God will be "atheisic".

Do you realize what you do to your evangelical-communicative potential when you muddle your terms intentionally because you think you should be able to?

 

[c20H25N3o]

So now I see Tiassa.
Has been both Satanist and Christian.

And you claim Tiassa that Satanism was more honest.
That is because you despise self-control and all the other fruits of the Spirit of God.
Yes Satanism is more aligned to your human nature but it is like a thief handing you a loaf of bread that he has taken and saying "See, it tastes much better when you havn't had to pay for it doesn't it"
You just nod and eat and say to yourself "Well it is true. I havn't had to pay for anything. The thief is right!"
And you call this honest. Tut tut.