"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[DaveC426913]

For the third time now, what you find compelling is subject to opinion.

That is true. But that is the first time you've said that.

 

[Syne]

For the third time now, what you find compelling is subject to opinion.

That is true. But that is the first time you've said that.

Really?

One...

What you find compelling is subjective opinion, short of conclusive evidence.

And two...

Perhaps you honestly missed this: "What you find compelling is subjective opinion, short of conclusive evidence."

 

[wynn]

which in this scenario = starve ... since empiricism is akin to a seasonal food

Come on.

In this scenario, you are the one claiming knowledge of the Absolute Truth. The greater burden is on you, you should come forward.

Did you read the PM's I sent you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

JDawg,

Even if I granted you the attitudes of atheism and religion were the same (which I'm not), it would not follow that therefore atheism is a religion.

No need to grant me anything, as I haven't asked for anything.

I'm talking about MODERN/NEW Atheism, NOT Atheism.
If you can't see the difference, then our discussion is pointless.

And again, atheism is simply a lack of belief, or if you insist, the belief that a particular god does not exist.

Dawkins represents modern/new atheism, his ideals may or may not be fuelled
by ''atheism'' (which holds that one does not believe in God for whatever reason, or due to ignorance).

Just like the Romans used Christianity to further their agenda, he uses atheism, and atheists to further his, or whoever is pulling his strings, agenda.

It goes no further than that. Atheism does not seek the destruction of religion, or to change the minds of the faithful. Atheism is not a worldview.

Modern atheism DOES seek the destruction of God, and God-based religion, to change to mind of the faithful, and it most definately IS a world view.

How's about that then?

You're mistaking the reaction of people of science and reason to the imposition of faith--particularly Christian mythology--upon society for some kind of "atheist doctrine" which does not in fact exist.

I'm not even drawing a distinction between ''reason'', ''science'', and ''atheism''. Peter Gilmore, the High Priest of the the Church of Satan, states outrightly that Satanism starts with being an atheist. That is the distingtion I would draw. Karl Marx made a very similar conclusion. Science CANNOT say anything like this.

In your previous post, you asserted aggression as the defining trait of religion, and through that assertion concluded that because atheism is also aggressive, it is therefore a religion. I disagreed, and stated that your assertion was false.

Although alot of you guys (modern atheists) are aggressive, even though you can't see that you are, the word ''vehement'' has a broader range of definition than just ''aggressive''. It fits what is going on today, with new atheism, perfectly.

If I haven't, it's because you have not been clear. I can only go by what you post.

That's one possible scenario, but I doubt it.
There are quite a few things (doctrine) you stick to, despite having them explained to you on a number of occasions.

I agree that religion is a simple concept to grasp. However, you are asserting a personal definition--religion as an aggressive collection of like-minded people--which is broad enough to include atheism. I demonstrated the flaw in this personal definition by listing several other groups which would then fit the bill, such as any major corporation.

I don't think you have grasped my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Here we go again, with yet another personal definition of religion. Now you say that the simple act of insisting his way is the right way makes what he believes a religion. Mathematicians assert that their formulas are right, too; does that make math a religion?

Read the link above.

You see how your argument crumbles at the slightest touch?

You don't understand my argument, because you're worldview will not allow a reasoned discussion about religion, most likely because you fear turning to God, because God makes the sense in every aspect.

An insistence upon being right does not make a belief religious. In Dawkins' case, his argument is evidentiary, which is more than can be said of the argument in favor of faith.

Well firstly, I implied that his method of indoctrination, is not really different to any other method used by relligions, which shows his intention. The religion is contained within his work, as all real religions are.

As for evidence. Evidence of what.
His idea of religion, or the idea he wants to put across to his atheist parishoners, is, well-- not very good, putting it nicely.

I don't disagree that there are many people self-identifying as "religious" who are not in either practice or belief (particularly practice) but this does not seem to relate to our topic.

As these people would be regarded as ''religious'', and part of a ''religion'', it shows that ''reliigion'' is not necessarily god-based, but is still a ''religion'', or they would be regarded as ''religious'' despite being atheist in the real sense of the word, not the usurped one.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

Are you therefore saying that people who don't believe in God, have this character traits?

But seriously, it says nothing about going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus.

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

​

Please explain this one.

It's not the definition of "feeling at home" that I was confused about, simply its context. I thought you were saying that ideologically, certain kinds of people can find comfort with atheists, rather than simply socially.

From what I recall, I mentioned nothing about atheists.
You do misinterpret me alot, so it's probably best you find the passage.

That's exactly what you said: "The feeling of discomfort is usually of a social, political, racial, and material making."

This is what I said:

There's a difference between ''modern atheism'', and ''atheist''.
A real atheist may tap into ''atheism'' if he is required to give a reason for his views. But otherwise doesn't give a toss. As far as he is concerned he is just going to live is life how he wants to, only paying respect to the law, social etiquette and customs, trying

Outside of that, I don't know what you're talking about.

Not all of them are out to destroy religion. Christopher Hitchens--perhaps paradoxically--said that even if he could wave a wand and make religion disappear, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it.

How generous of him.

He was a lover of poetry, and I think he believed that while faith may not be required to create beautiful imagery, it certainly was the impetus for some of his favorite works. I don't think he would have ever wanted to close the door on that particular inspiration.

He was a lover of the booze moreso.

However, he did--as they do--that religion is all of the things you say above: unscientific, irrational, and purely superstition. Their assertions are based on evidence, and the assertions to the contrary are, necessarily, not.

Yeah, too much booze can be a hinderence, and a problem to the mind.

And please try to remember that if religion was simply a personal belief system that did not intrude upon society, then no one would be taking issue with it. At least not in the way that they take and took issue with it.

If those people were being honest, they would only take issue with it in their own lives. The fact is, these people want to kill God, most, figuratively speaking, and the ones that are in knowledge, literally speaking.

The way I see it, ''modern atheism'' is on the frontline, in the war against God.

Again, I would correct you by saying the anti-theist is the one campaigning against God, not the atheist.

Yes, and the anti-theists have usurped atheism, like the roman empire usurped Christianity.

As I've already said (and we've already agreed upon) atheism is not a worldview, and does not make any claims beyond the existence of god; to take the step and say that religion is bad is to do something quite beyond the reach of atheism.

Modern atheism IS a world view, and to deny that is simply, very silly.
Atheism, like Theism, refer purely to whether or not one believes in God.

This is where the term "anti-theist" comes from. I would personally prefer this term to describe such people as Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens (though Harris does not like any of the labels, and has given many lectures arguing against them, particularly the label of "atheist.")

That's the trouble with empire builders, they prefer B instead of A, and they and they set about making the change by any means necessary.

"Real" is not the opposite of "Modern," so I suggest that your terminology needs work.

I suggest you work on your comprehension.
Maybe you need to adopt a more neutral position in order to: firstly, accept my points, and THEN scrutinize them. Right now, you're simply defending you views.

For example, the inclusion of Christian myth in high school biology textbooks. The people fighting for this to happen are not concerned with what an atheist might think about it, and so this must be combated.

What Christian myth?
And more to the point, if Christianity imposes itself, in such a way, then the problem is with Christianity, and that particular scenario. Not a reason to kill God, and the choice of people who choose to worship Him.

And this is just one example of the way religion imposes itself upon society.

So from your perspective Christianity IS ''Religion'', is it?

Yes, you can win a measure of victory against these initiatives, but what happens ten, fifty, a hundred years from now, when that religion begins forcing the issue again?

You cannot irradicate religion, you can only change, and as such religion will always be the controlling factor, because it deals with the essential part of the human being. Dawkins is merely replacing one religious ideology with another. He and his puppeteers want God out of the picture.

Certainly instead of fighting these individual battles, is it not better than to fight back against the source of these problems? You're saying that atheists should basically keep their mouths shut while Christianity tries to destroy science, and then throw a fit when anti-theists hit back? Come on.

Who were the instigators of the scientific method. Atheists?

It kind of sounds cuckoo. The theists set up civilisation, and now the atheists have become teenagers, they want to kick out the parents and set up home, as if they know better.

Yes you did. You do realize that we can all just go back and look at the posts, right?

Then that's what you're going to have to do.

Except for the fact that Indiana now teaches Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, Christian propaganda pamphlets are found within every biology textbook in a school district within Alabama (where evolution is taught, that is; many science teachers in the US are too afraid of offending their Christian students to even broach the subject), public criticism of established religion can get you thrown in jail in places in Europe--not to mention what it can get you in the Middle East--and Christian religious leaders have argued that Muslim communities in the west should be able to govern themselves through Sharia law.

As for teaching intelligent design, as an alternative to Darwinism, good.

Regarding everything else, it's too much to go into.

And no religion in the mainstream? God is on our money, Jan.

Is that really ''religion'' though? I'd like you to talk me through it.

My understanding is that the motto was put there to oppose communism, which is in effect atheism.

You mean aside from the clouds parting to reveal the giant bearded face of God? I guess the short answer would be any evidence that necessitates a creator. So far, nothing has fit the bill.

IOW, you can't answer it. But yet you sing the no evidence tune, as if you know what you're talking about.

Why? Are you saying there is evidence?

And here's another tactic, ''divert the question away from me, and put the onus on the other guy. I'm not the one spouting there is, or is not evidence for God. When I do, feel free to ask me.

It doesn't manifest with every theists, since theists have given up faith for reason.

So you have no faith at all.
IOW you know everything you think you know.

I was discussing Dinesh D'Souza with a Christian friend of mine, and I was getting into all the reasons why he lost a particular debate to Hitchens, and at the end I said to him, "Hey, sorry to rip your faith a new one," to which he replied "Don't worry, my faith is too strong for that."

I've seen that debate, and I think you're being bias.
Hitchens purely uses the standard arguments, which only serve to point out the part of religion which even theist object to. He then uses humour to win over the audience, and the audience like sheep, lap it up. What then happens is, his opponent then tries to use the same technique, but always falls short.

I saw one debate with him, where he went into his usual schpeal, but this time his charm didn't work, and as result it became embarrassing. To the point where his oppenent felt sorry for him.

They (atheists) are incapable of winning a debate on religion, if their opponent is intellectually equal.

And you mean to say you've never heard a theist talk about the strength of their faith? It's a point of pride for many theists.

Oh sorry, I forgot that for you Christianity IS RELIGION.
I'll try and keep that in mind.

Seems like vague ad hominem. Can't really comment on it unless you want to clarify.

Both have the same mentality and character, they both want to turn the world into their way, by irradicating anything that steps in it's way.

The Roman Catholic church is responsible for alot of people turning away from God.

I get the sneaking suspicion that you want me to answer questions in the way you answer questions, which is to make up my own definitions for terms and have little to no understanding of what any of the things we're discussing actually entail.

That's most probably your brand of ''atheism'' kicking in. Be defensive, and deny everything unless it fits.

Nope, I just want you to be an ordinary human being, having chat with another ordinary human being. It's as simple as that.

I suppose you call my rigor to accepted definitions and reason "the script," and if so, that's your problem. I'm not going to turn off my brain just so your arguments don't look so foolish.

Sorry, I had no idea I was conversing with elite.

Human beings have not existed for millions of years, so that's wrong straight away.

Wrong you say?
Are you aware that there is an abundance of scientific evidence that contradicts that?

Secondly, the Vedic period was something like 1500 years BCE, so not "thousands of years before" as you suggest.

No it wasn't.
And even if it was, that still doesn't answer my question.

As to the scientific merit of the texts, I'm need to see an example. I've never heard it asserted that the Vedas are a source of scientific knowledge. Please share.

I suggest you use your big-ole elite brain and find out for yourself.

jan.

 

[aymanbinmoshi]

I know I am right: You all will go to hale, all the Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews and rest of all except me and my brothers and sisters.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know I am right: You all will go to hale, all the Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews and rest of all except me and my brothers and sisters.

''Hale'' you say?
Is that part of the Moshi-Monsters religion?

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Until I meet him, I don't know if the president really exists. I think it's more likely than not, based on the evidence I have seen, which is mostly audio and video. Do you have audio or video of God?

needless to say if you are prepared to accept hearsay from authority you certainly make the task more easier

My second question would be, how would you personally verify the existence of the president?

By following the guidelines the president sets out for others to personally verify his existence.

How else?

 

[lightgigantic]

No, you haven't. Cherry picking definitional phrases doesn't mean that you have exhaustively defined the only ways the word stance can be used correctly.

Atheism, at its essence, isn't an opinion; it is a structure of logic - that until something is demonstrated compellingly, it is not granted.

the added detail you are omitting is that there are specific guidelines that dictate how something be demonstrated only when the question of god comes up (for instance a vast majority of atheists haven't dna tested their parents to validate their genealogical claim)

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. What else, aside from personal testimony of one kind or another, is there?

2. An ordinary person who does not have a personal revelation from God, necessarily has to depend on other people for any input on the topic of "God."

3. And that which is referred to as "scriptures" is still effectively nothing but personal testimony, to a person who does not have some extraordinary means to establish that the scriptures are more than that.

1. Truth. The testimony may be true, it may depend on alot of factors to make that conclusion. Ultimately we seek the truth, which is found in personal experience.


2. Do you know what a personal revelation from God is? I know I don't.

But you're right, we do have to depend on other people for knowledge of most things. So we learn to discriminate, via trial and error. That's what growing up is about. Ultimately we use our experience to determine what we think is correct.


3. But does it make sense?

As scripture deals with the entire human being, there are always things which are relative to each and every individual, which can be used to access what is true or false.


jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Come on.

In this scenario, you are the one claiming knowledge of the Absolute Truth. The greater burden is on you, you should come forward.

Did you read the PM's I sent you?

At this point I am simply explaining how it does and doesn't work.

In this case, empiricism = starve ...

 

[DaveC426913]

the added detail you are omitting is that there are specific guidelines that dictate how something be demonstrated only when the question of god comes up (for instance a vast majority of atheists haven't dna tested their parents to validate their genealogical claim)

There is a preponderance of evidence that my parents are my biological parents. It is true that that does not mean it's proven. But there is no competing theory that explains the evidence.

In the case of God, there is a competing theory, and it does a good job of explaining the same things. So the God theory must explain things better than the theory that does not include a God. There is not a preponderance of evidence in favour of the God theory over the non-God theory. Atheists apply Occam's Razor.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is a preponderance of evidence that my parents are my biological parents. It is true that that does not mean it's proven. But there is no competing theory that explains the evidence.

In the case of God, there is a competing theory, and it does a good job of explaining the same things. So the God theory must explain things better than the theory that does not include a God. There is not a preponderance of evidence in favour of the God theory over the non-God theory. Atheists apply Occam's Razor.

then you are not quibbling about demonstration for a start ...

 

[spidergoat]

needless to say if you are prepared to accept hearsay from authority you certainly make the task more easier


By following the guidelines the president sets out for others to personally verify his existence.

How else?

As I said, it's more than heresay, it's a set of hard to fake videos of public appearances.

Secondly, the president isn't any different than a meteorite in the requirements to verify it's existence.

 

[lightgigantic]

As I said, it's more than heresay, it's a set of hard to fake videos of public appearances.

and as I said, in this regard finding it convenient to accept the authority of something else other than your direct perception certainly makes things easier

Secondly, the president isn't any different than a meteorite in the requirements to verify it's existence.

Except of course that investigating meteorites isn't complicated by them having over a hundred secretaries and security personal to prevent you doing just that

:shrug:

 

[DaveC426913]

then you are not quibbling about demonstration for a start ...

Sorry, I don't follow.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry, I don't follow.

You: Atheism, at its essence, isn't an opinion; it is a structure of logic - that until something is demonstrated compellingly, it is not granted.

Yet you are not talking about demonstrations, you are talking about opinions - opinions of theories to be precise

:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

and as I said, in this regard finding it convenient to accept the authority of something else other than your direct perception certainly makes things easier


Except of course that investigating meteorites isn't complicated by them having over a hundred secretaries and security personal to prevent you doing just that

:shrug:

Empiricism isn't necessarily direct perception. Indirect observations are also valid, as when we observe the redshift through a telescope. The authority in each case is observable evidence. Many people have also seen the president directly, he has appeared before crowds of millions.

 

[Balerion]

No need to grant me anything, as I haven't asked for anything.

I'm talking about MODERN/NEW Atheism, NOT Atheism.
If you can't see the difference, then our discussion is pointless.

No, you need to qualify that. You don't simply get to say "Oh no, I'm not talking about that atheism, I'm talking about this atheism, but I'm not going to define it." Define the atheism you're talking about, or retract the statement.

Dawkins represents modern/new atheism, his ideals may or may not be fuelled
by ''atheism'' (which holds that one does not believe in God for whatever reason, or due to ignorance).

Just like the Romans used Christianity to further their agenda, he uses atheism, and atheists to further his, or whoever is pulling his strings, agenda.

Dawkins is an anti-theist, a position which holds that religions have a negative impact on society, and as such society would be better without them. Like atheism, anti-theism is a position based on evidence, but otherwise the two positions are not similar. In fact, one does not necessarily need to be an atheist to be an anti-theist. It's entirely possible that a practicing Christian would recognize the damage faith has done to the world and hold the opinion that we would all be better off without it.

Modern atheism DOES seek the destruction of God, and God-based religion, to change to mind of the faithful, and it most definately IS a world view.

It does none of these things, and certainly is not a worldview. By definition, it is not a worldview. I've already shown you the difference between anti-theism and atheism, but even if you don't accept anti-theism as a term, those of the opinion that religion is bad and needs to go away is not represented by atheism, since atheism does not maintain any of these positions. You can't have a personal definition of atheism, which is what you're trying to do here.

And while men like Dawkins would love to see religion gone, they aren't trying to destroy God, because God doesn't exist. They're trying to defend reason against superstition. Remember, it is faith that encroaches upon society, not reason upon faith.

I'm not even drawing a distinction between ''reason'', ''science'', and ''atheism''.

That's absurd, and speaks to your ignorance of all three. You should be embarrassed that you just wrote that.

Peter Gilmore, the High Priest of the the Church of Satan, states outrightly that Satanism starts with being an atheist. That is the distingtion I would draw. Karl Marx made a very similar conclusion. Science CANNOT say anything like this.

Well then Peter Gilmore, unsurprisingly, is an idiot, because Satan is part of the Christian myth, and one cannot be an atheist and also believe in Satan.

Although alot of you guys (modern atheists) are aggressive, even though you can't see that you are, the word ''vehement'' has a broader range of definition than just ''aggressive''. It fits what is going on today, with new atheism, perfectly.

Aggression implies that an assault or offensive is unprovoked, and that is certainly not the case here. Just as atheism is a reactionary position to theism, anti-theism is a reactionary position to fundamentalist or Evangelical theism. It comes from the push by fundamentalists to blow up skyscrapers and bomb abortion clinics, to order the killings of citizens for the crime of drawing a picture, to lie to children and teach mythology as a biological science. If those things did not exist, neither would anti-theism. You make the mistake of putting the cart before the horse--or perhaps you simply assume that theistic aggression is fine, since it is commanded by God, but either way, you're wrong.

That's one possible scenario, but I doubt it.
There are quite a few things (doctrine) you stick to, despite having them explained to you on a number of occasions.

An example?

I don't think you have grasped my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Not only did I grasp it, I debunked it.

Read the link above.

The link above validates my position, not yours. It renders a definition of religion that does not broaden it beyond its intended meaning to include philosophical or logical positions.

You don't understand my argument, because you're worldview will not allow a reasoned discussion about religion, most likely because you fear turning to God, because God makes the sense in every aspect.

You've yet to provide a reasoned argument for God. All you've done to this point is attempt to paint atheism as a religion, and you failed at that. If you want to have a discussion about religion, I'm all for it, but you can't simply redefine the term to suit your needs and then tell me I'm narrow-minded for not agreeing.

Well firstly, I implied that his method of indoctrination, is not really different to any other method used by relligions, which shows his intention. The religion is contained within his work, as all real religions are.

And what is method of indoctrination, exactly? You've yet to specify this.

As for evidence. Evidence of what.
His idea of religion, or the idea he wants to put across to his atheist parishoners, is, well-- not very good, putting it nicely.

How so?

I could smash these last two answers easily, but it comes to me that you haven't actually said what exactly is wrong with Dawkins and his message. You've been vague, which tells me that you don't have the first clue about him. I want answers to these questions: What are his methods of indoctrination, and how is it "not really different" from the methods of indoctrination of religion? And what is erroneous about his "idea of religion?"

As these people would be regarded as ''religious'', and part of a ''religion'', it shows that ''reliigion'' is not necessarily god-based, but is still a ''religion'', or they would be regarded as ''religious'' despite being atheist in the real sense of the word, not the usurped one.

But the point is that they're not regarded as religious. They simply self-identify as such. I could self-identify as a Buddhist today and give as a reason that I eat rice cakes. But that does not therefore validate my definition of Buddhism.

Are you therefore saying that people who don't believe in God, have this character traits?
But seriously, it says nothing about going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus.

No one is saying that unbelievers have these character traits. Not even the scripture is saying that: Unbelievers are listed beside the murderers and whoremongers as a crime unto itself. So yes, it absolutely says something about going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus.

It's typical for an apologist such as yourself to have a flawed understanding of the secular concepts such as science and reason, and to have a poor understanding of atheism, but usually your kind has a relatively solid grasp on the scripture that is the basis for your faith. I'm kind of surprised to see so many Christians arguing on these forums who are wholly unfamiliar with their own texts.

Please explain this one.

An atheist leading Bible study. Who knew?

The larger context of this particular passage is that of a slave waiting upon his master's return, and the decision he makes to either act by his master's accord, or to misbehave by whipping the other slaves and gorging himself on food and drink because he thinks his master won't be home for a while. The message is "Don't act up just because you don't know when I'm coming back, because I could come back in the middle of the night and surprise your asses." And among the punishments for this behavior is death, and a place among the unbelievers.

Which speaks to my point that unbelievers are a class unto themselves, and destined for damnation.

From what I recall, I mentioned nothing about atheists.
You do misinterpret me alot, so it's probably best you find the passage.

:bugeye: Really?

"Some people are just anti-religious, theism, god, etc, which doesn't necessarily qualify them as actual atheists, but psycologically they feel athome in the atheist camp. Here, atheism is nothing more than a name that describes a group, attitude, a comfort zone etc. Not much different than religious groups, which is why modern atheism IS regarded as a religion.​

Again, this stuff is on the forum. You can't just pretend you didn't say something.


This is what I said:

There's a difference between ''modern atheism'', and ''atheist''.
A real atheist may tap into ''atheism'' if he is required to give a reason for his views. But otherwise doesn't give a toss. As far as he is concerned he is just going to live is life how he wants to, only paying respect to the law, social etiquette and customs, trying

Outside of that, I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

How generous of him.

Snipe all you like, but it proves that the so-called "modern atheist" is not what you make him or her out to be.

He was a lover of the booze moreso.

Ad hominem, because you don't have a good answer.

Yeah, too much booze can be a hinderence, and a problem to the mind.

So all atheists are drunkards?

I recommend that you take a different tack, because you're simply arguing against Hitchens as a person, rather than addressing the relevant point, which is that he was not out to "destroy religion" as you accused.

If those people were being honest, they would only take issue with it in their own lives.

Why? They're interested in the betterment and preservation of society. By that logic, no one should have interfered in slavery, or women's rights, unless it was a slave or a woman.

The fact is, these people want to kill God, most, figuratively speaking, and the ones that are in knowledge, literally speaking.

Nope. You don't get to have your own facts.

The way I see it, ''modern atheism'' is on the frontline, in the war against God.

Anti-theism might be on the front-line of the war against faith, yes. Against God? No.

Yes, and the anti-theists have usurped atheism, like the roman empire usurped Christianity.

You've yet to explain how, but it really doesn't matter, because it's not true. Of the four major proponents of atheism, two called themselves anti-theists rather than atheists, and one refused to call himself either of those things. I'm not entirely familiar with Dan Dennett's opinions on the matter, but I would assume he's of like mind with Dawkins and Hitchens in that "atheism" does not properly encompass their positions.

Modern atheism IS a world view, and to deny that is simply, very silly.

How is it a worldview?

Atheism, like Theism, refer purely to whether or not one believes in God.

But this contradicts your previous sentence. Referring purely to whether or not one believes in a god is not a worldview unto itself, so how can atheism therefore be a worldview?

That's the trouble with empire builders, they prefer B instead of A, and they and they set about making the change by any means necessary.

This is a nonsensical statement. And at any rate, Dawkins and Hitchens agree with me.

I suggest you work on your comprehension.
Maybe you need to adopt a more neutral position in order to: firstly, accept my points, and THEN scrutinize them. Right now, you're simply defending you views.

:bugeye: So you want me to AGREE with you first, THEN have a discussion?

And there certainly is nothing wrong with my comprehension. And please, someone whose spelling is as atrocious as yours shouldn't be telling anyone to work on anything. Again "real" and "modern" are not competing terms.

What Christian myth?

The creation myth.

And more to the point, if Christianity imposes itself, in such a way, then the problem is with Christianity, and that particular scenario. Not a reason to kill God, and the choice of people who choose to worship Him.

No one is "killing God," you need to stop using that rhetoric unless you can define what exactly it means, and how it differs from "killing religion."

And at any rate, no one is begrudging people the right to pray and worship as they please, or to avoid eating meat on Fridays. What people are fighting against is the imposition of faith into secular society, and that is not simply a problem of Christianity. If it were, nobody would be talking about the dangers of Islam, or Judaism. You'll notice that none of the "Four Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse" have ever spoke ill of Buddhism. That could be due to Buddhism's benign nature, and that it does not pervade society and present itself as an alternative to science and reason. No one is refusing their child medicine because Buddha told them prayer was better.

And no is taking away anyone's choice to be superstitious. Dawkins and Dennett and Harris aren't threatening to kill you if you keep your gods, and they're not arguing for any institution that would do so. They simply want mythology out of secular society--as in, don't make my child swear an oath "under God," don't make me read the Ten Commandments when I walk into a courthouse, don't pollute my child's mind with the idea that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to evolution, don't oppress a minority because their lifestyle does not mesh with your religious values, don't make it taboo to exercise my constitutional right to criticize religion. If you want your gods, fine. But don't put them in my schools and don't put them in my laws.

So from your perspective Christianity IS ''Religion'', is it?

Christianity is a religion. There are other religions which impose themselves upon society.

You cannot irradicate religion, you can only change, and as such religion will always be the controlling factor, because it deals with the essential part of the human being.

Religion was our first attempt at philosophy. It answered questions and codified our morality. Today, it serves none of these purposes. Reason and science can do everything religion did, but do it better, and much more of it. And as such, religion's role has diminished, and will continue to do so. I don't know if we'll ever be completely free of faith and superstition, but the organized religions will continue to dwindle in importance until they are gone or changed so fundamentally that there is nothing of them that a person from today would recognize. What we see pushing back at secular society are reactions to this impotence, such as Evangelical Christianity in the West, and fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East. This is the death rattle of the Abrahamic religions. It may take a century, or maybe two, but this is the beginning of the end.

Provided, of course, that they are not allowed to continue to silence our criticisms of them, and pass themselves off as science. And this is what makes the fight against them so important.

Dawkins is merely replacing one religious ideology with another. He and his puppeteers want God out of the picture.

Who would Dawkins' puppeteers be, exactly?

At any rate, he is not promoting a religion. He is promoting reason. Are you suggesting reason is a religion?

Who were the instigators of the scientific method. Atheists?

Not always, no. Which is what makes it laughable that at the beginning of your ill-considered post you state that you do not differentiate between science, reason, and atheism. The fact that men of the faith were instrumental in advancing the sciences speaks against that.

But certainly no religion--perhaps until the Catholic Church began its astronomy program--forwarded the scientific method. Religions typically stunted scientific inquiry, because it always seems to contradict holy writ.

It kind of sounds cuckoo. The theists set up civilisation, and now the atheists have become teenagers, they want to kick out the parents and set up home, as if they know better.

The first civilizations were polytheistic, not monotheistic. This would seem an important distinction for your analogy.

At any rate, can you explain how religious society is superior to a secular one? For your analogy to work, the parents must know better. So what is it about a society dictated by your faith that works better than one without it as a governing principal?

Then that's what you're going to have to do.

I've already done it once for you. You can do the rest of the legwork yourself. Or, better yet, try to keep track of what you say.

As for teaching intelligent design, as an alternative to Darwinism, good.

How so?

Regarding everything else, it's too much to go into.

It's all too much for you to go into, since you understand none of it.

Is that really ''religion'' though? I'd like you to talk me through it.

My understanding is that the motto was put there to oppose communism, which is in effect atheism.

Atheism was pretty much inexorable from communism, but that does not make communism a form of atheism. Atheism was simply a component of it. And yes, God being on our money and religion being in our public schools in the form of propaganda is religion in the mainstream.

IOW, you can't answer it. But yet you sing the no evidence tune, as if you know what you're talking about.

What you're asking me is not answerable. You want a specific piece of evidence for something that has not yet been shown to exist. This is like asking me what evidence would prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Short of a giant flying spaghetti monster landing on my front lawn, I couldn't say. All I can say is that the evidence would need to necessitate a creator.

Let's try this: A while back, Creationists advanced the idea of irreducible complexity as evidence that a creator is required. The problem is that because evolution by natural selection removes non-essential pieces and adds new pieces, structures can be irreducibly complex without necessitating a creator. So it isn't important what the evidence is, but what the evidence says.

And here's another tactic, ''divert the question away from me, and put the onus on the other guy. I'm not the one spouting there is, or is not evidence for God. When I do, feel free to ask me.

Pot, meet kettle.

Try answering the question, Jan. Is there evidence for God's existence?

So you have no faith at all.
IOW you know everything you think you know.

Not at all. What would compel you to say that? We're talking about religious faith. I have faith that my brother will do well with his test, or that my sister will pull through her illness. I don't claim to be immune from superstition, either.

I've seen that debate, and I think you're being bias.
Hitchens purely uses the standard arguments, which only serve to point out the part of religion which even theist object to. He then uses humour to win over the audience, and the audience like sheep, lap it up. What then happens is, his opponent then tries to use the same technique, but always falls short.

I saw one debate with him, where he went into his usual schpeal, but this time his charm didn't work, and as result it became embarrassing. To the point where his oppenent felt sorry for him.

There is no question that rhetoric plays a part in these debates, and a man like D'Souza couldn't match Hitchens on that front, but I don't care what the audience thought. I care what the merits of their arguments were. And Hitchens argues the dangers of religion. How can you then hold against him that he cites the examples of such dangers? Why would anyone argue against the dangers of something by arguing its virtues?

"Slavery is bad because it provides free labor."

"The oppression of women is bad because I get to rule my house like a king."

See how these arguments fail to address the problem?

They (atheists) are incapable of winning a debate on religion, if their opponent is intellectually equal.

Oh nonsense. Though I will say it is impossible for a theist to win a debate on merit because there is no logical or reasonable argument for faith. At least not one I've ever heard.

Both have the same mentality and character, they both want to turn the world into their way, by irradicating anything that steps in it's way.

Nonsense. As I've already shown.

The Roman Catholic church is responsible for alot of people turning away from God.

I'm sure. But so is science and reason.

That's most probably your brand of ''atheism'' kicking in. Be defensive, and deny everything unless it fits.

Deny everything unless it fits reason and science. Sure, I'll take that.

Nope, I just want you to be an ordinary human being, having chat with another ordinary human being. It's as simple as that.

I don't buy that for a second.

Wrong you say?
Are you aware that there is an abundance of scientific evidence that contradicts that?

Oh is there? By all means, present it. Give me even one piece of evidence that supports the idea that human beings have been around for "millions" of years.

No it wasn't.
And even if it was, that still doesn't answer my question.

Yes it was. This is basic scholarship.

I suggest you use your big-ole elite brain and find out for yourself.

jan.

In other words, you can't answer it. You probably heard someone else say it, and you're parroting it, but you don't actually have any first-hand knowledge to support it.

 

[wynn]

At this point I am simply explaining how it does and doesn't work.

In this case, empiricism = starve ...

No, they are right to demand empirical evidence. In the very tangible and tasty form of certain food and people with good vibes.

Your founder acharya was gracious and generous enough to provide this for those he took upon himself to teach, esp. in the beginning.

Or do you really wish to argue that prasadam does not have transcendental quality and effect, even on the uninitiated ones, and that personal example makes no difference?

 

[wynn]

2. Do you know what a personal revelation from God is? I know I don't.

But you're right, we do have to depend on other people for knowledge of most things. So we learn to discriminate, via trial and error. That's what growing up is about. Ultimately we use our experience to determine what we think is correct.

What when this personal experience puts you at odds with those you have learned from?