Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
And where exactly are the beliefs in this description?... feel free to list them.
Does it say that the practical atheist believes there is no God?
Does it say that the practical atheist believes anything else at all?
It says they have a tacit adoption "with or without fully accepting or believing it"... thus belief is not a requirement.
And where exactly are the beliefs in this description?... feel free to list them.
Does it say in this that the theoretical atheist necessarily believes their own arguments?
Does it say that they do anything other than explicitly positing arguments against God's existence.
Heck, I could posit arguments against the existence of anything and it need only be a theoretical exercise.
So, I guess we should ask again, as you have failed thus far:
spidergoat said:
Also bear in mind that question implicitly asks for beliefs that apply to ALL atheists, not just to specific sub-sets that may have adopted additional positions.
Last edited:
Feel free to re-read the passage to see what beliefs they adopt so as to not resort to the divine. (Hint : one very clear option is spelt out in the last sentence)
Do you know what an onotology (much less a physical one) is?
You are simply not paying attention
He must only read the headlines because its quite hard to come across an article that actually details conflicting theistic principles that apparently contribute to violence. Instead they tend to opt for political discourse.
:shrug:
Oh you mean the one with the insanity plea?
Perhaps if we had the opportunity to collect info from the other party we could make an informed decision (the very fact you could name him as the local minister seems to indicate you were not just passing through at a local gas station or something)
The first one was declared clinically insane.
The second one makes us wonder what the other half of the story is.
With these arguments you couldn't even shred a wet paper bag.
:shrug:
What makes you think that is the essential principle that religion operates on?
@lightgigantic --
*Sigh*
Again you fail to understand such a simple question. So I'll phrase it as a statement instead:
I maintain that in order to state that a good deed is motivated by religion you must believe these six things.
1. The good deed is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.
2. The claims of the people in question are to be taken at face value.
3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.
4. Some religious scriptures instruct the care of the downtrodden. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.
5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.
6. People make no mistakes.
*Sigh*
Again you fail to understand such a simple question. So I'll phrase it as a statement instead:
I maintain that in order to state that a good deed is motivated by religion you must believe these six things.
1. The good deed is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.
2. The claims of the people in question are to be taken at face value.
3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.
4. Some religious scriptures instruct the care of the downtrodden. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.
5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.
6. People make no mistakes.
Perhaps first you should explain what you mean by "good deed" and the essential role you think it plays in religion.
Then perhaps we could discuss issues of application that surround it.
Reread, and there are none.
You do know the difference between a "tacit adoption or assumption" and a "belief", I hope?
Yes thanks. Do you?
Presumably you can point out where the requirement for belief lies within it - rather than merely its acceptance until evidence arrives to the contrary.
I am indeed paying attention and noted that you are simply not answering the question. :shrug:
why would feeding the homeless be an example of deeds intrinsic to the religious when an atheist is capable of it?
Here's a link to help you establish the distinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
I guess this is a good start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology#Some_fundamental_questions
(keeping in line with the previous link about belief, I think you have to start defining exactly what sort of belief you are talking about... unless you have some sort of argument that evidence establishes ontology which would certainly be a remarkable explanation ..... )
Then I guess you are just using vague terms in order to maintain your arguments credibility
:shrug:
Last edited:
Bit hard to discuss the application of an act when the act isn't clear.
Before we progress I think you have to explain what you mean by "good deed" and the essential role you think it plays in religion.
Then I suggest you abide by it.
"Holding an assumption" (such as in Practical Atheism) merely means that the assumption holds within the scope of their practical application and that they have had no evidence they have interpreted to contradict that assumption... not that it is universally/objectively true... i.e. it is not a belief.
And you can point out where in those questions there is a need to believe anything, as opposed to merely holding an assumption and exploring the limits of that assumption?
On the contrary, you are trying to obfuscate through merely linking to descriptions of generic concepts without actually answering the question. You might as well just link to www.wikipedia.org and
saying "Well, the answer's in there!".
I don't generally accept nonmaterial explanations for things. I prefer to keep the two realms (or the frosted and flaky sides, if you prefer) entirely distinct.
So there's a sharp difference between assumptions and beliefs in my world.
In the view of the following people...
Demons cause physical and mental illness:
http://greatbiblestudy.com/biblical_demonology.php
The believer may be infested with demons.
http://greatbiblestudy.com/satan_demons.php
In fact,Christians are besieged by an army of demons:
http://greatbiblestudy.com/satan_demons.php
Why the followers of "deliverance theology" have a deep inner need to picture themselves as the heroes of some sort of low-budget apocalyptic hollywood occult flick, this I really don't get.
Some religious people have no problem believing evolution happens. Others do. Some of those think the earth is only 6,000 years old.
I guess they must like their answers simple?:shrug:
@ LightGigantic, the universe certainly appears to be a material thing.
@ Arioch, Could you explain how #'s4, 5, and 6 are necessary prerequisites for a good deed to be inspired by religion?
I don't follow.
I mean, I kind of assume every holy book there is has been mangl...er, shaped by, politics, and has morphed over time.
Honestly, as far as I can tell, religion inspires both good AND evil. Not so much on an individual as a subcultural basis...that is the mindset that violence OR virtuousness arises from is due to the particular subculture the individual is in...
And this may or may not even be a religious group.
Too often, there is violence due to religion, though.
But sometimes it isn't.
Hitler took advantage of the long-standing anti-Jewish bigotry of Catholic Germany. But the Society of the White Rose agitated against National Socialism...because of thier Christian ideals.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/whiterose.html
Looky! it's not a nice, neat 1/1 correlation.
Hey, welcome to social science, where we like to get funky with it!
Ok, babbling now...bedtime! *waves goodnight*.
Last edited:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
I fail to see the difference
EDIT - note that the part from the atheism link reads " ... the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."
note how the belief link deals with this already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in
lol
just try answering some of them without referencing states of being given in the wiki link about belief
There's nothing generic about it.
Practically the first sentences of both links undo your ideas about distinctions between beliefs and assumptions or maintaining a position about existence bereft of beliefs
:shrug:
Last edited:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: something one accepts as true or real.
How I see you err, Lightgigantic is, with atheism, there is nothing to accept, objective reality is blatantly obvious.
Atheism simply means without god, that boils down to lacking belief in the claims of a god, it is a term that was coined by the believer, Nobody is born with a god belief, we are all born tabu rasa: non-believers and are without god thus lacking belief in gods. and as such are atheists.
Can you explain where you see any "belief" in atheism, in there. thanks
Oh and to OP could you answer the question I posed in post #58 thank you