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

[lightgigantic]

And if there were no death, there would be no religions. A pointless statement really, both yours and mine.

My point was that atheism can and very often is political (no matter how many times one makes a show of retreating to the ramparts of the implicit atheism of chairs and stones)

 

[Bells]

My point was that atheism can and very often is political (no matter how many times one makes a show of retreating to the ramparts of the implicit atheism of chairs and stones)

Perhaps if religion and theism in general stayed out of politics, atheism would not become political. Unless of course you deem atheists support of no political agenda based on people's faith as being political?

But when lawmakers and politicians govern based on their religious beliefs, atheists and others will fight back against that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps if religion and theism in general stayed out of politics, atheism would not become political.

Theism has just as much necessity for a political agenda as atheism

Unless of course you deem atheists support of no political agenda based on people's faith as being political?

i am simply pointing out how trying to ply atheism as bereft of a necessary political agenda because it is based on "science" doesn't work (and more often than not turns out to be a political ploy)

But when lawmakers and politicians govern based on their religious beliefs, atheists and others will fight back against that.

similarly when lawmakers and politicians govern based on their atheist beliefs, theists and others will fight back against that

 

[Syne]

So when Coke tries to eliminate Pepsi, that makes it a religion? When Microsoft and Apple battle for supremacy, that's a religion?

Since when is Coke or Pepsi a world view?! :bugeye:

 

[DaveC426913]

My point was that atheism can and very often is political (no matter how many times one makes a show of retreating to the ramparts of the implicit atheism of chairs and stones)

No. Atheists, by definition, want religion to be separate from politics. (That way, atheists can dismiss the issues of religion without it interfering with the normal running of politics - however the politics work out.) That does not give atheism any kind of political stance - quite the opposite in fact.

 

[lightgigantic]

No. Atheists, by definition, want religion to be separate from politics. (That way, atheists can dismiss the issues of religion without it interfering with the normal running of politics - however the politics work out.) That does not give atheism any kind of political stance - quite the opposite in fact.

If you are talking about atheists vouching for some social norm you have politics (which clearly aren't the chairs and stones type of atheists ... before you quickly try and scurry off in that direction) .

Its as simple and as difficult as that

:shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona,

I love it when people pull the actual definition card to try and redefine terms suiting their argument.

And I find it tedious and boring when people constantly apply brakes to the momentum of a discussion, because to remain at the same velocity would reveal a serious lack of the big picture.

Definitions are important in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
''Atheist'' means one does not believe in God, all the other bunkem (strong, weak, 20% north-east) has no bearing on that in the broad sense.
So if I was atheist, my position would be, I don't believe in God, period. Everything else pertaining to that definition, are modern interpolations, which seem to change every fracking day, depending on who you're talking to.

Some people are just anti-religious, theism, god, etc, which doesn't necessarily qualify them as actual atheists, but psycologically they feel at
home 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.

By whom?

Here's one for a start: Court Rules Atheism a Religion

More importantly, with discussion one can easily determine that the type of atheism espoused by Dawkins and his followers, is nothing more than a replacement of Christianity, and eventually all religions.

It is a protected form of belief, but religion entails much more, and look at this, see - you are now missing the actual definition of what religion actually is. Prophets, holy books, Gods, central dogmas, main tenets and beliefs, yes indeed, atheism is a religion just like vin disel's haircolor - bald!

[/QUOTE]


You're understanding of religion is a part of your indoctrination.
You just don't get it.

No hair, and, hair, have absolutely nothing in common.
Atheists do not believe in God, and by "God'' I mean the general term as used in the scripture. Why? Because in this day and age, and in our part of the world, that is the basis of all religions, and spirituality. Even a rejection of this, is based on scripture. So the (yawn) boring analogy doesn't even make sense. You are atheist because you don't believe in God, not because God (or the notion) is not in you life, or because you know nothing of God.

It meant exactly what it said. However, as mentioned, you must strip ''atheist'' down to it's bare-bones to fully understand what is meant.
I'd also like to add that one's testimony isn't reliable, because one can lean towards that which is popular and acceptable, giving themselves a leg up, so to speak.

And somehow the same standards dont apply the other way round? And where does the justification for your atheism = basically wrong or bad and theism = right and good, regardless of what the subject may say, come from?

Not sure what you're question pertains to.

I didn't say atheism is wrong or bad, and theism the opposite.
You call yourself an atheist, meaning you don't believe in God. But are you really an atheist? Maybe you are, maybe you're not, I suppose you have to be put to the test. The famous atheist, Anthony Flew, thought he was an atheist, and dedicated his adult life to preaching atheism, and attempting to debunk God, and religion, only to find that he wasn't atheist, at the fag end of his life.

You're talking now, making a show of your atheism on an intellect platform, but this all very materialistic, and contrived. There will come a time (it's probably happened already) when your real position will manifest itself.

Wow, wynn first and now you. Tall order, these assertions, very tall indeed. The problem for theism is that we extend the same amount of ruthless scepticism and scrutinity to religious claims as we do to any other.

Regarding religion, you and other atheists here, don't know what you're talking about. In all honesty it's like trying to explain the reason why we can't afford XBox to little kids, who all they have on their mind is XBox. They don't see the bigger picture, just like you.

Hope you don't take that as an insult, as I am not saying you have the same mentality as little kids. That's just how it feels.
You cannot possibly scrutinize all religious claims, and come to a solid conclusion, without actually wanting to arrive at your conclusion to justify your views.

But guess what, thats not how you indoctrinate followers - the loopholes and mistakes are taboo, not to be questioned, blind acceptance is somehow suppossed to be a virtue [it is never explained why this is the case, but anyway, atleast they are consistent in their illogic].

Here again, you're off on a tangent talking about stuff that has nothing to do with ''religion''. Sure, some religions may operate in such a way, but to use that as brush to paint ''religion'' with, only proves my point.


How can one really explain what one feels?
If someone say's ''everytime she comes near me'', my heart skips a beat. Does that mean in order to prove that we consult a heart surgeon the next time, to tell if he is telling the truth?

Or is being ''crazy about someone'' necessarily a reason to be psychiatrically assessed? But nevertheless, these statement merely try to explain what one experiencing, or feeling

The point here is what? That if A is inexplicable, B is naturally the solution without any need to actually demonstrate why this is so or that it indeed is?

The QUESTION is: How did they know these things without modern scientific aids?

A straight answer would be really lovely. Thanks in advance.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Since when is Coke or Pepsi a world view?! :bugeye:

Since when is atheism a worldview?! :bugeye:

 

[Balerion]

i am simply pointing out how trying to ply atheism as bereft of a necessary political agenda because it is based on "science" doesn't work (and more often than not turns out to be a political ploy)

Atheism in and of itself is bereft of political agenda. It does not have a value system or ideals. Some atheists themselves have political agendas, but atheism itself does not. For example, there is nothing about atheism that would preclude an atheist from wanting Christian myths to be taught in public schools.

In other words, a lack of belief in god (or even the belief that a particular god does not exist) does not necessitate the belief that religion is poisonous, or its teachings immoral.

This lack of any kind of political foundation is evidenced by the fact that despite there being a greater number of atheists in the country than Jews or some ethnic minority groups, its political presence and influence is virtually nil.

 

[Bells]

Theism has just as much necessity for a political agenda as atheism

Well, religious beliefs or lack there of, should not enter the political fray at all.

i am simply pointing out how trying to ply atheism as bereft of a necessary political agenda because it is based on "science" doesn't work (and more often than not turns out to be a political ploy)

But atheism has no political agenda, unlike theism which attempts to force the whole of society to comply with the religious rules of some. It is when pushed to extremes that atheists speak out and are thus accused of having a political agenda. Surely are you not denying that theists, especially those in the political arena, are not being swayed by their religious beliefs?

similarly when lawmakers and politicians govern based on their atheist beliefs, theists and others will fight back against that

Indeed. Because how dare society be expected to view homosexuals, as one example, as being human beings with equal rights and the same goes for women.. The horror..

 

[wynn]

Well, religious beliefs or lack there of, should not enter the political fray at all.

Then we can not do politics. At least not for actual people.

 

[Jan Ardena]

JDawg,

So when Coke tries to eliminate Pepsi, that makes it a religion? When Microsoft and Apple battle for supremacy, that's a religion?

Religion pertains to the essence of the human/person.
Modern atheism seeks to change the essence of the human, by elimination of religion. No different to what Christians, and Muslims have tried throughout the centuries. From my perspective, there is no difference between these attitudes.

Just because your faith is aggressive does not mean that aggression is a defining value of religion.

Wtf, does that even mean?

It wasn't an analogy. I was demonstrating the error in your assertion that social groups are religions. If that were true, then Facebook would be a religion, since it fits your description.

ou


Then you haven't understood my point.

You don't get to assert your own personal definition of the term "religion," for one.

I'm not. Religion is a simple concept to grasp.

Secondly, this is a blatant mischaracterization of atheism. While people like Dawkins (and myself) would love to see superstition fall to the wayside, their complaints about religion are not in their existence, but in their insistence upon imposing themselves upon society.

Yeah! By insisting your way is right. Dawkins IS imposing his religion on the world, by dishonest means. No different to other dishones organisation over the centuries.

I honestly don't know what the point of this comment is.

My point is that one cannot accept the testimony of others regarding theism and atheism, as a definate. They proclaimed to be theist, but were ACTUALLY atheist in reality as their actions (reality) were undertaken without belief.

Again, you are asserting your own personal definitions of these words, and that's not going to fly. A Mormon is not an atheist as it relates to Catholicism. A Sunni is not an atheist as it relates to Shia. It could be said colloquially that one is an atheist "as it relates to" certain gods they don't believe in, but again, that's a colloquial application of the term (I believe Dawkins used it). It would be like calling yourself a rock star at work; you're not really a rock star. At any rate, this wouldn't change the definition of the word, it would simply be a less-clear way for a theist to explain their beliefs.

Actually, I'm ok with that. I was demonstrating the fickleness of modern atheism when dealing with definitions.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It's not a difference of opinion regarding holidays or the which kind of meat you can eat on a Friday.

Agreed.

You make it more complicated than it is by expanding it's definition beyond it's actual definition.

This is due to the shifting goalposts atmosphere that we have here.
But I'm glad you say this because at least we can talk about ''atheism'' properly.

That's right form the Bible, so how isn't it a God-based statement?

I disagree. So maybe you can point it out.

And anyway, I thought you meant "feel at home" in an intellectual sense.

I wasn't aware that there were different categories of ''feeling at home with''.

If you're talking simply in a social sense, it's absurd to say that an atheist couldn't feel at home around religious people.

I'm quite sure I didn't say that.

My mother's religion, and I certainly don't feel uncomfortable around her. And the bigwigs you like to trash (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) each have deeply personal friendships with not only religious people, but religious leaders.

So why are they trying to destroy religion, making it out to be purley superstition, irrational, unscientific, and all the other pretend reasons they have? How can they really have an affinity with someone who they think idiotic? Don't they understand that religion is much more than what they think it is?

Again, these are stipulations of your own invention. For example, the "atheist who doesn't give a toss" can exist today, so why do you define the proactive atheist as "modern?" Makes no sense.

Because the modern atheist is just simply campaigning to become free of religion, as there is no need to. He is campaigning to destroy God (notion), and the means to develop a relationshipt with God. This is all based on nothing. While we can all agree on stopping mad people doing things in the name of God or religion, we don't all agree that that is what religion is, or what it breeds.

The real atheist is not concerned with changing the world to his pov, only in living his life without believing in God. Or having religion shoved down his throat. That's the difference.

And being a proactive atheist doesn't preclude you from living your life, paying respect to the law and social etiquette.

I didn't say it did.

I think if there's one thing a vocal atheist might do differently is ask why faith--which imposes itself upon society regardless of what a person believes--is immune to criticism, and given respect. Questioning these norms does not mean that atheists therefore call babies ugly and ask women their age.

While these situations may have been heavily enforced at one time, it is certainly not the case now, save a few pockets of the world. In the west, there is no religion in the mainstream.
I think you are exagerating these claims, to spur you on. That's just my opinion.

There is no evidence of God. None.

Do you know what IS evidence for God?

What's laughable about your claim here--and the accusations of theists in general--is that theists, who pride themselves in their faith being strong enough to withstand any argument, are accusing atheists, who have arrived at this intellectual position through reason, of having faith. It's absurd.

''Pride themselves in their faith''! Please explain what that means, and how it manifests with every theist.
Otherwise it's just more nonesence.

The thing is, the circuit, standard responses from atheists, regarding God, and religion, only works on people who have not really given much thought to their position, who themselves only spout what's on the script. A bit like the atheists they argue with.
You're all cut off the same cloth. Out with the old, in with the new.
Try answering some of my questions (without the script), and let's see how you do.

No, I read the question. If you meant something other than what you wrote, by all means, clarify.

The question is as clear as a bell.
In vedic litarature there are numerous accounts of the things I mentioned. The vedas were written thousands of years before, and spoken for millions of years (according to itself). How so?


jan.

 

[Balerion]

JDawg,
Religion pertains to the essence of the human/person.
Modern atheism seeks to change the essence of the human, by elimination of religion. No different to what Christians, and Muslims have tried throughout the centuries. From my perspective, there is no difference between these attitudes.

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.

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

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'd also add that atheists do not seek to change the "essence" of anything, though I'm not entirely certain how you mean that word.

Wtf, does that even mean?

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.

Then you haven't understood my point.

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

I'm not. Religion is a simple concept to grasp.

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.

Yeah! By insisting your way is right. Dawkins IS imposing his religion on the world, by dishonest means. No different to other dishones organisation over the centuries.

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?

You see how your argument crumbles at the slightest touch?

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.

My point is that one cannot accept the testimony of others regarding theism and atheism, as a definate. They proclaimed to be theist, but were ACTUALLY atheist in reality as their actions (reality) were undertaken without belief.

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.

Actually, I'm ok with that. I was demonstrating the fickleness of modern atheism when dealing with definitions.

But as I've demonstrated, the fickleness is yours, not ours. You were the one (of many) trying to stretch atheism to mean things it does not. That isn't to say there aren't different schools of thought regarding varying degrees of atheism (ie strong atheism vs weak atheism) but this would not include worldviews or any other of the uses you've tried to attribute to it.

This is due to the shifting goalposts atmosphere that we have here.

As I said (and showed), atheists aren't the ones shifting the goalposts. Some try to refine the definitions, but it is largely theists who try to make atheism out to be something other than what it is. Take your insistence upon it being a religion, for example.

I disagree. So maybe you can point it out.

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.

Luke 12:46The 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.​

Just a couple here off the top of my Google. Whether you believe Hell is a physical place, or simply representative of a final and permanent separation from God, the hows and whys of condemnation are not in question.

I wasn't aware that there were different categories of ''feeling at home with''.

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.

I'm quite sure I didn't say that.

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

So why are they trying to destroy religion, making it out to be purley superstition, irrational, unscientific, and all the other pretend reasons they have? How can they really have an affinity with someone who they think idiotic? Don't they understand that religion is much more than what they think it is?

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. 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.

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.

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.

Because the modern atheist is just simply campaigning to become free of religion, as there is no need to. He is campaigning to destroy God (notion), and the means to develop a relationshipt with God. This is all based on nothing. While we can all agree on stopping mad people doing things in the name of God or religion, we don't all agree that that is what religion is, or what it breeds.

Again, I would correct you by saying the anti-theist is the one campaigning against God, not the atheist. While I roll my eyes somewhat at the pedantic sub-definitions philosophers have foisted upon atheism, there is a need to refine our terms a bit (as well as create new ones). 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. 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.") Certainly they are all atheists as well, but the actions you're talking about are those of an anti-theist (sort of like how one can be a Conservative but not necessarily a Republican).

The real atheist is not concerned with changing the world to his pov, only in living his life without believing in God. Or having religion shoved down his throat. That's the difference.

"Real" is not the opposite of "Modern," so I suggest that your terminology needs work. I think I've done a fair job of explaining why "anti-theist" would better suit the people you're decrying than "modern atheist," so I won't repeat myself here. I will say, however, that no one is giving us the option to simply be concerned with not having religion shoved down our throats. 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.

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

I didn't say it did.

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

While these situations may have been heavily enforced at one time, it is certainly not the case now, save a few pockets of the world. In the west, there is no religion in the mainstream.

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.

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

I think you are exagerating these claims, to spur you on. That's just my opinion.

Your opinion is based on false preconceptions, and therefore invalid.

Do you know what IS evidence for God?

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.

Why? Are you saying there is evidence?

''Pride themselves in their faith''! Please explain what that means, and how it manifests with every theist.
Otherwise it's just more nonesence.

It doesn't manifest with every theists, since theists have given up faith for reason. But it does manifest in many, and it is simply what I said it is: a pride in being able to withstand all arguments against religion without one's faith being broken. As an example, 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."

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.

The thing is, the circuit, standard responses from atheists, regarding God, and religion, only works on people who have not really given much thought to their position, who themselves only spout what's on the script. A bit like the atheists they argue with.

An example?

You're all cut off the same cloth. Out with the old, in with the new.

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

Try answering some of my questions (without the script), and let's see how you do.

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. 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.

The question is as clear as a bell.
In vedic litarature there are numerous accounts of the things I mentioned. The vedas were written thousands of years before, and spoken for millions of years (according to itself). How so?
jan.

Human beings have not existed for millions of years, so that's wrong straight away. Secondly, the Vedic period was something like 1500 years BCE, so not "thousands of years before" as you suggest.

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.

 

[spidergoat]

Religion pertains to the essence of the human/person.
Modern atheism seeks to change the essence of the human, by elimination of religion. No different to what Christians, and Muslims have tried throughout the centuries. From my perspective, there is no difference between these attitudes.

I disagree. Religion robs us of the one thing that makes us uniquely human, our ability to reason. As long as there is fear of death, people will gravitate towards religion. Atheists have to be realistic about this. We aren't at war with religion, we just want to point out it's fallacies and promote reason in public and personal life.

 

[lightgigantic]

I disagree. Religion robs us of the one thing that makes us uniquely human, our ability to reason.

On the contrary, atheist views exclusively rely on reductionist claims that are not evidenced in order to reason that there are no transcendental elements to understanding reality (a very unreasonable approach to the problem ... since its not really expected that a reductionist investigation could hope to impart anything about about transcendental subject matter ... what to speak of non-evidenced reductionist investigation).

IOW much like the reason of any other social movement aiming at establishing a norm, it simply calls upon reason as it is applicable to its own specific world view

As long as there is fear of death, people will gravitate towards religion.

Just but one of the many things a reductionist view cannot hope to solve ...

Atheists have to be realistic about this. We aren't at war with religion, we just want to point out it's fallacies and promote reason in public and personal life.

lol
sounds political ....

 

[aaqucnaona]

My point was that atheism can and very often is political (no matter how many times one makes a show of retreating to the ramparts of the implicit atheism of chairs and stones)

Yes, because religion is political. If stamp collection or astrology were political, us non-stamp collectors and non-horoscopers would be political too. Atheism is a rectionary stance, not a definitive one.

 

[aaqucnaona]

And I find it tedious and boring when people constantly apply brakes to the momentum of a discussion, because to remain at the same velocity would reveal a serious lack of the big picture.

Definitions are important in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
''Atheist'' means one does not believe in God, all the other bunkem (strong, weak, 20% north-east) has no bearing on that in the broad sense.
So if I was atheist, my position would be, I don't believe in God, period. Everything else pertaining to that definition, are modern interpolations, which seem to change every fracking day, depending on who you're talking to.

Granted.

Here's one for a start: Court Rules Atheism a Religion

More importantly, with discussion one can easily determine that the type of atheism espoused by Dawkins and his followers, is nothing more than a replacement of Christianity, and eventually all religions.

Strong atheism + reactionary anti-theism is a definitive world-view, but I wonder if you can call it a religion. Semantics in not my subject, take it up with FR if you wish. But Agnostic/weak Atheism + Passive apatheism is not a definitve world-view and cannot in any sense be termed a religion. Either way, at least Dawkins are doing a better thing than burning witches and suppressing progress.

You're understanding of religion is a part of your indoctrination.

Interesting assertion. Any elaboration?

You just don't get it.

Of course not!

No hair, and, hair, have absolutely nothing in common.
Atheists do not believe in God, and by "God'' I mean the general term as used in the scripture. Why? Because in this day and age, and in our part of the world, that is the basis of all religions, and spirituality. Even a rejection of this, is based on scripture. So the (yawn) boring analogy doesn't even make sense. You are atheist because you don't believe in God, not because God (or the notion) is not in you life, or because you know nothing of God.

In bold - explain/elaborate/substantiate pls before this para can be discussed further.

Not sure what you're question pertains to.

I

didn't say atheism is wrong or bad, and theism the opposite.
You call yourself an atheist, meaning you don't believe in God. But are you really an atheist? Maybe you are, maybe you're not, I suppose you have to be put to the test. The famous atheist, Anthony Flew, thought he was an atheist, and dedicated his adult life to preaching atheism, and attempting to debunk God, and religion, only to find that he wasn't atheist, at the fag end of his life.

You're talking now, making a show of your atheism on an intellect platform, but this all very materialistic, and contrived. There will come a time (it's probably happened already) when your real position will manifest itself.

It like that idea, is a person's actions/ideas/behaviour really what he really is? It doesnt actually matter because it is not relevant right now. Right now, I am in all sense, an atheist. Thats what I really am. I might become a theist someday but that wouldnt make me a theist right now.

Regarding religion, you and other atheists here, don't know what you're talking about. In all honesty it's like trying to explain the reason why we can't afford XBox to little kids, who all they have on their mind is XBox. They don't see the bigger picture, just like you.

Do tell me the bigger picture then.

Hope you don't take that as an insult, as I am not saying you have the same mentality as little kids. That's just how it feels.

I dont, for I can completely empathise.

You cannot possibly scrutinize all religious claims, and come to a solid conclusion, without actually wanting to arrive at your conclusion to justify your views.

Which is why I and most atheists consider strong athiesm irrational and baised. You cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong. All we need to do is not claim any one of you to be right. We cannot however claim all of you to be wrong.

Here again, you're off on a tangent talking about stuff that has nothing to do with ''religion''. Sure, some religions may operate in such a way, but to use that as brush to paint ''religion'' with, only proves my point.


How can one really explain what one feels?
If someone say's ''everytime she comes near me'', my heart skips a beat. Does that mean in order to prove that we consult a heart surgeon the next time, to tell if he is telling the truth?

Or is being ''crazy about someone'' necessarily a reason to be psychiatrically assessed? But nevertheless, these statement merely try to explain what one experiencing, or feeling

Again, you are not making your point clear. I do get your argument, but I can neither argue nor agree until you lay out your version of what God, religion and theism [in your sense] really is.

The QUESTION is: How did they know these things without modern scientific aids?

A straight answer would be really lovely. Thanks in advance.

Ah, straight answers. Once more the double standards reveal themselves. But perhaps I do you an injustice, maybe religion and theism are inherently systemic in their vaugeness. But onto the question, the real question is, show us that these things were really known by them [and understood] and arent projected or updated in translation or interpretation. Then we can take on the job of explaining how they knew the alleged things.

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, atheist views exclusively rely on reductionist claims that are not evidenced in order to reason that there are no transcendental elements to understanding reality (a very unreasonable approach to the problem ... since its not really expected that a reductionist investigation could hope to impart anything about about transcendental subject matter ... what to speak of non-evidenced reductionist investigation).

IOW much like the reason of any other social movement aiming at establishing a norm, it simply calls upon reason as it is applicable to its own specific world view


Just but one of the many things a reductionist view cannot hope to solve ...



lol
sounds political ....

When you use the word reductionist, I assume you mean science, which is evidence based. If there is no evidence for the transcedent, then it has no logical basis in objective reality. I acknowledge that it might still be a useful concept in philosophy, but it speaks more to a subjective mental experience. Such ideas are not reality, they are aspects of the mind, which is illusory.

You can't assert the reality of the transcedent without evidence. You can't just invent a special class of phenomenon and say it cannot be proven with science. That's a form of logical fallacy called special pleading:

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption {wiki}​

 

[Balerion]

On the contrary, atheist views exclusively rely on reductionist claims that are not evidenced in order to reason that there are no transcendental elements to understanding reality (a very unreasonable approach to the problem ... since its not really expected that a reductionist investigation could hope to impart anything about about transcendental subject matter ... what to speak of non-evidenced reductionist investigation).

You keep saying this, or some variety of this, but never provide one working example of these supposedly non-evidenced and reductionist claims.

Read Sam Harris and try to say that atheists exclusively believe that there is no such thing as transcendence. Hell, even reading Hitchens will show you the contrary.

IOW much like the reason of any other social movement aiming at establishing a norm, it simply calls upon reason as it is applicable to its own specific world view

Nonsense. And again, atheism is not a worldview.

Just but one of the many things a reductionist view cannot hope to solve ...

You say that as if faith offers a workable alternative.

 

[Syne]

Since when is Coke or Pepsi a world view?!

Since when is atheism a worldview?! :bugeye:

Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

At the bare minimum, you must admit that any atheism is a result of, or directly justified by, a specific world view.

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. -wiki

Denying the impact of one's world view on an atheistic opinion is moot.