Forced to be atheists (and still refusing)

[Juan_Bottom]

But as we've pointed out on countless occasions, disbelief and belief are just two arbitrary categories you've set up which can be used as starting points for definition of whatever ideology you choose. I can define Christianity philosophically as a series of disbeliefs, just as easily as I can atheism as a series of beliefs.

In other words, your distinction is semantic, and of no real value to logical analysis.

That's unfair.
Christianity has many rules, that's why it's religion.
Atheism has no rules. Once you have rules it's not Atheism, it's something else. The individual Atheist may have his/her own rules, but that does not make those rules part of Atheism.
You're being ultra simplistic.

[Neoteny]

This thread is suffering from a lack of agreed upon definitions. Where's a philosopher when you need one?

*raises hand*

Fix this. It's painful.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fix this. It's painful.

Your face is painful.


OH BURN!!!

This thread is now about making no sense.


There, I fixed it guys.

[Napoleon Ier]

OK.

I am no longer an atheist, I simply have no religion and don't believe in gods. Is that better?

So, by definition, are an atheist... I could similarly say I'm "not a Christian", just someone who doesn't believe the universe occurred through random process and that humanity is able to sustain itself independent of a metaphysical logos.

[GabonX]

OK.

I am no longer an atheist, I simply have no religion and don't believe in gods. Is that better?

So, by definition, are an atheist... I could similarly say I'm "not a Christian", just someone who doesn't believe the universe occurred through random process and that humanity is able to sustain itself independent of a metaphysical logos.

You can say what ever you want but I have no idea what you're getting at here..

[Napoleon Ier]

That "religion" is essentially a sociological term that has no place in philosophical discussion, and hence, that sweeping statements like "religion is evil" are void of any real sting.

[got tonkaed]

Long story short, if anyone who is venturing down this road (it may not be just napoleon) can get atheists to identify that they have a shared set of beliefs, they can more persuasively posit them as a similar entity to Christians. Thusly, any attempts to discredit an individual Christian by pointing out failures of the faith of a few are rendered meaningless in the future because the exact same can be leveled against atheists (as a uniform group) because of the acts of few. I think this was already successfully accomplished earlier in thread, but i guess napoleon could be going for it again against a more stubborn foe in backglass.

Fast posted pwned by the author. look how right i was though!

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't think anyone is trying to say "look North Korea are atheist and evil, so all atheists must be", just saying that drawing a similar comparison for Christians is basically invalid.

[Neoteny]

1/gt = right.

gt = 1/ right

[CrazyAnglican]

Okay,

Atheism, as its generally posited, is a disbelief in God/ gods. The converse is equally true that an atheist believes that no gods exist.

Theism is merely the belief in one or more gods. Conversely, its the disbelief in a world without the presence of a god or gods.

These statements are equally statements of belief and disbelief (one believes this and the other that, and both are mutually contradictory). Doctrines are built on both assumptions, and both of them are assumptions. The doctrines built on them can lead people to a range of actions good, bad, and indifferent. A secular humanist is following a doctrine just as surely as an Episcopalian. How closely they follow it is up to the individual in both cases.

Juche is an ideology based on the starting point (or at least, in practice, includes as part of its make up) the assumption that no gods exist, and is therefore a doctrine based on atheism. It is just as surely an atheistic doctrine as Eastern Orthodoxy is a theistic one.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/gt = right.

gt = 1/ right

∫(gt)dx = ln (right) + c ?

[Frigidus]

Okay,

Atheism, as its generally posited, is a disbelief in God/ gods. The converse is equally true that an atheist believes that no gods exist.

Theism is merely the belief in one or more gods. Conversely, its the disbelief in a world without the presence of a god or gods.

These statements are equally statements of belief and disbelief (one believes this and the other that, and both are mutually contradictory). Doctrines are built on both assumptions, and both of them are assumptions. The doctrines built on them can lead people to a range of actions good, bad, and indifferent. A secular humanist is following a doctrine just as surely as an Episcopalian. How closely they follow it is up to the individual in both cases.

Juche is an ideology based on the starting point (or at least, in practice, includes as part of its make up) the assumption that no gods exist, and is therefore a doctrine based on atheism. It is just as surely an atheistic doctrine as Eastern Orthodoxy is a theistic one.

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

[CrazyAnglican]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

Not at all, and the difference is a great one. What I am suggesting is that in terms of theology there are believers and non-believers, and that neither is above being duped by unscrupulous leaders. More to the point a doctrine doesn't have to claim to be the word of God to hold sway over any large group. Some doctrines, that claim there is no word of God, do exactly the same thing.


Basically, the difference between you and I is probably less than the difference between you and someone who commits atrocities in the name of Juche. It's probably also less than the difference between me and a Cursader or Inquisitioner. That is, in general, we probably agree on how people should be treated. The major difference between us is probably only that I believe in God and you do not, with regard to over all morality.

[PLAYER57832]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

Not at all, and the difference is a great one. What I am suggesting is that in terms of theology there are believers and non-believers, and that neither is above being duped by unscrupulous leaders. More to the point a doctrine doesn't have to claim to be the word of God to hold sway over any large group. Some doctrines, that claim there is no word of God, do exactly the same thing.


Basically, the difference between you and I is probably less than the difference between you and someone who commits atrocities in the name of Juche. It's probably also less than the difference between me and a Cursader or Inquisitioner. That is, in general, we probably agree on how people should be treated. The major difference between us is probably only that I believe in God and you do not, with regard to over all morality.

It think what you are speaking of is actually something entirely differant.

The morality you speak of is evolving for Western society. It is our entire society that has changed. Set aside the "insane" and atheists today, pagans today , Christians today all have more or less the same basic morals. Though there are members of each group (more Christians, largely because there simply are more Christians today, compared to other religions today). There is likely as much variation within each of the moderate representatives of each of these groups as between the groups in the West. Aztecs just don't fit well in our modern societal values, nor would the religion of ancient Greece or the brand of Christianity that resulted in the Inquisition. All of these influenced who we are today, but we are no longer of those times.

Religion is the backdrop of this, but separate.

In the East, there is an entirely differant set of predominant values. There, too, all the religions and the secularists moralities are merging/have tended to merge.

One point not often brought up in that this makes for some very distinct differances between their societies and ours. It also seems to give a lie to the idea of a standard atheistic morality.

Western culture, western morality borrows from Christian and pagan traditions. Eastern culture has other roots.

These very fundamental differances in values have lead, continue to lead to serious misunderstandings, mis-estimations and other errors.

[Juan_Bottom]

true^

[2dimes]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

I think this is backglass' perception and he's probably not alone.

[MeDeFe]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

I think this is backglass' perception and he's probably not alone.

Don't underestimate him, he'd probably say that both positions are equally silly, but also acknowledge that there are some differences, for example regarding human sacrifices and the like.

[Snorri1234]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

I think this is backglass' perception and he's probably not alone.

Don't underestimate him, he'd probably say that both positions are equally silly, but also acknowledge that there are some differences, for example regarding human sacrifices and the like.

Word. Anyone can see the difference between cutting out people's hearts over a nice cup of chocolate milk and sitting in your church every week exclaiming how much you love some carpenter is rather big.

[2dimes]

I'm not underestimating him or trying to make a statement for or against him some particular way. Of course he'll see some diffences, he seem pretty intelligent. I'm just saying that he has stated plainly before that all religions are the same in that they believe in something that he does not. He should be by to state it in his own words at some point.

[CrazyAnglican]

So you would also suggest that the difference between Christianity and the Pagan religion of the Aztecs is minimal? That's a rather strange way to look at things in my opinion.

I think this is backglass' perception and he's probably not alone.

Don't underestimate him, he'd probably say that both positions are equally silly, but also acknowledge that there are some differences, for example regarding human sacrifices and the like.

Word. Anyone can see the difference between cutting out people's hearts over a nice cup of chocolate milk and sitting in your church every week exclaiming how much you love some carpenter is rather big.

Certainly but all too often people who have an unfavorable view of religion focus on crimes that are over a hundred years old to show how "bad" or "dangerous" organized religion (generally assumped to be the theistic variety) is. It's a silly argument that backfires when atheistic dogma is used to carry out much worse crimes (at least in terms of scale) right now. It's merely a case of clean up your own act before going out and criticizing others for their shorcomings. Especially when those others are far ahead of you when it comes to reforming old ways.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not underestimating him or trying to make a statement for or against him some particular way. Of course he'll see some diffences, he seem pretty intelligent. I'm just saying that he has stated plainly before that all religions are the same in that they believe in something that he does not. He should be by to state it in his own words at some point.

Well obviously. But does the fact that he says all religions are the same in regards to believing in something that does not exist mean that the difference between those religions is minimal?

[CrazyAnglican]

So, you didn't have an answer about Christian organizations being ahead of Marxists and the Junche in terms of ethical treatment others?

[Snorri1234]

Certainly but all too often people who have an unfavorable view of religion focus on crimes that are over a hundred years old to show how "bad" or "dangerous" organized religion (generally assumped to be the theistic variety) is.

You have to admit that those people do have a point. Religion is very often misused both in history and current events (think about Bush who invoked religion to gather support, or all the nations where religious doctrines are used to form laws).

The problem is that religious people (and I'm going to say "you" from now on to refer to them because I don't want to type two words all the time) often miss the significance of the argument. You miss the point of it because the point doesn't make any sense from your viewpoint. You keep bringing up that you would never support such things or that there are others who rally against it, but you fail to see that that was always the case in all those examples. People didn't start out from 'yeah i love crusades let's go do it', they were lead there by increasing control of the church (organized religion) over them. Organized religion is such a "danger" because it can slowly creep up and you only notice the bad thing about it untill it is too late.

I don't actually think that you or any christian on this forum would ever support such atrocious crimes as recorded in history. (Well, most christians here.) But religious control over anything, no matter how small, can and nearly always does (according to history) lead to horrific shit. Allowing a little opens the way for allowing a little more and then even more and so on.


The argument is like a "slippery-slope"-argument, except that that slippery slope seems to exist very much.

It's a silly argument that backfires when atheistic dogma is used to carry out much worse crimes (at least in terms of scale) right now.

Yet this "atheistic dogma" of which you speak does not exist. Atheism has only one idea; "there is nothing supernatural". To form a system from this means you have to come up with certain guidelines not inherent to atheism, which then means you are not talking about actual atheism.

The counterclaim to atheism is "there is a God/gods/omnipotent Matt Damon" and that also does not make any other claim. You falsely assume, whether out of habit or not, that Christianity is an opposite to atheism. It is not, it is an elaboration from the opposite that does not have to follow any rule except the admission that there is an omnipotent Matt Damon somewhere.


The problem of your argument is that Juche is not the same as atheism, and while theism is not the same as christianity, christianity is the same as christianity. Theism and atheism say that omnipotent Matt Damon is there or not there, but Christianity claims a hell of a lot more. Juche is organized atheism and christianity is organized theism, and both are bad. But none of the atheists I've met here or elsewhere believe in organized atheism. We may have beliefs, hell some even have beliefs bordering on organized atheism, but at the end our only common ground is atheism itself. Our clan was formed based on atheism, not on christianity or Juche.


In short; The claims about organized theism and the claims about organized atheism might be equal, but you forget that atheists here and mostly in the whole of Europe/Americuh aren't organized. You don't let non-christians (i.e. any other set of organized theism) in, while we let any atheist in.

[CrazyAnglican]

You have to admit that those people do have a point. Religion is very often misused both in history and current events (think about Bush who invoked religion to gather support, or all the nations where religious doctrines are used to form laws).

Bush was a secular leader, who happened to be Christian, speaking to a secualr nation with lots of Christians in it. He used (to a point) religion but by far there was more rhetoric about other issues. Beyond that there are Christians (and members of other religions) voting, what's the crime there? That's the way a representative government is supposed to work. If a group is denied a voice then it's no longer representative. Voting is supposed to insure that the will of the majority of the people is carried out. THe courts are there to keep the rights of the minorities from being trodden upon.

The problem is that religious people (and I'm going to say "you" from now on to refer to them because I don't want to type two words all the time) often miss the significance of the argument. You miss the point of it because the point doesn't make any sense from your viewpoint. You keep bringing up that you would never support such things or that there are others who rally against it, but you fail to see that that was always the case in all those examples. People didn't start out from 'yeah i love crusades let's go do it', they were lead there by increasing control of the church (organized religion) over them. Organized religion is such a "danger" because it can slowly creep up and you only notice the bad thing about it untill it is too late.

I don't actually think that you or any christian on this forum would ever support such atrocious crimes as recorded in history. (Well, most christians here.) But religious control over anything, no matter how small, can and nearly always does (according to history) lead to horrific shit. Allowing a little opens the way for allowing a little more and then even more and so on.


The argument is like a "slippery-slope"-argument, except that that slippery slope seems to exist very much.

Yes, that's most definitely a slippery slope. The problem is that is isn't as much of an accurate criticism of religion as you might think. The assumption is that

religious control over anything, no matter how small, can and nearly always does (according to history) lead to horrific shit.

But the things that you point to are invariably 200 or more years old, unless it amounts to a secular figure using it along with a great many other arguments in support of something, or people voting in a way that you would oppose (not real crimes there when placed up against Kim Jung Il and his cronies). Like I've said, this backfires because religion has, very much, moved toward policing themselves.

Yet this "atheistic dogma" of which you speak does not exist. Atheism has only one idea; "there is nothing supernatural". To form a system from this means you have to come up with certain guidelines not inherent to atheism, which then means you are not talking about actual atheism.

You admit to letting "anyone in" and then deny that Junche is an atheistic doctrine? If the only criteria for being an atheist is to no believe in a god or gods, then they are certainly atheists. If they have a doctrine (with atheism being a part of it) then it's an atheistic doctrine. You certainly disagree with them, and you should. If the slippery slope argument that you were using before is you main concern, then why are you not loudly decrying these thugs? Why hasn't their atrocities been your main focus? They are much worse than any strictly religious group operating right now. It seems that you are keeping close watch on the dog while the wolves are allowed to roam free.

You falsely assume, whether out of habit or not, that Christianity is an opposite to atheism. It is not, it is an elaboration from the opposite that does not have to follow any rule except the admission that there is an omnipotent Matt Damon somewhere.

I had actually been keeping the two separate but the argument has demanded switching back and forth from theism, in general, to Christianity specifically. Sorry if I confused you there it wasn't intentional.

The problem of your argument is that Juche is not the same as atheism, and while theism is not the same as christianity, christianity is the same as christianity. Theism and atheism say that omnipotent Matt Damon is there or not there, but Christianity claims a hell of a lot more. Juche is organized atheism and christianity is organized theism, and both are bad. But none of the atheists I've met here or elsewhere believe in organized atheism. We may have beliefs, hell some even have beliefs bordering on organized atheism, but at the end our only common ground is atheism itself. Our clan was formed based on atheism, not on christianity or Juche.


In short; The claims about organized theism and the claims about organized atheism might be equal, but you forget that atheists here and mostly in the whole of Europe/Americuh aren't organized. You don't let non-christians (i.e. any other set of organized theism) in, while we let any atheist in.

There is a doctrine that is very much in existence in Europe and America though. In the US secular humanists are very much interested in how/what children are taught in schools, etc. There are many things the atheists here seems to agree on that go beyond mere atheism. This is a worldview which has adherents that are just as interested in moving countries more toward secularism. The slippery slope argument doesn't wash because the slope is canted in the other direction. In the US, there haven't been that many sucessful movements to move public schools more in line with the Christian ideals that were prevalent 40 years ago. The reason for this is most certainly the organization of these "disoragnized" secular humanists. Is secualr humanism to be considered "bad" as well?

By way of conclusion though, you have to conceed that the millions killed in the name of Marxism and Junche is by far worse than anything any specific church has cooked up in a very long time. Why aren't you spending more time decrying organized atheism? It seems to be the most dangerous ideal at the moment.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, that's most definitely a slippery slope. The problem is that is isn't as much of an accurate criticism of religion as you might think. The assumption is that

religious control over anything, no matter how small, can and nearly always does (according to history) lead to horrific shit.

But the things that you point to are invariably 200 or more years old, unless it amounts to a secular figure using it along with a great many other arguments in support of something, or people voting in a way that you would oppose (not real crimes there when placed up against Kim Jung Il and his cronies). Like I've said, this backfires because religion has, very much, moved toward policing themselves.

While certainly "religion" (like there aren't thousands of them) has been keeping a low profile and held itself in check, the criticism is still valid.

The criticism is not "YOU ARE GOING TO CRUSADE AND KILL AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER NASTY STUFF". It is "religion has been used and abused very often over the course of history, do not act like the minimal change you've shown ultimately prevents any atrocity".

There needs to be constant watch by yourselves over what happens. Even here religion is crawling back into politics. Last thing they want to change is that cities shouldn't have a bunch of sundays where they open their shops. (Like they can't fucking decide whether they want to open their shop or not.)

While that is not major, it shows that religion can crop up if people don't pay attention. The argument is a warning. A warning against letting religion control everything.

Yet this "atheistic dogma" of which you speak does not exist. Atheism has only one idea; "there is nothing supernatural". To form a system from this means you have to come up with certain guidelines not inherent to atheism, which then means you are not talking about actual atheism.

You admit to letting "anyone in" and then deny that Junche is an atheistic doctrine?

?

If the only criteria for being an atheist is to no believe in a god or gods, then they are certainly atheists. If they have a doctrine (with atheism being a part of it) then it's an atheistic doctrine.

Actually, no.

The doctrine does not logically flow from atheism. Therefore the doctrine is not atheistic. It is certainly Junche doctrine, but not atheism.

You certainly disagree with them, and you should. If the slippery slope argument that you were using before is you main concern, then why are you not loudly decrying these thugs? Why hasn't their atrocities been your main focus?

Because you still don't understand in the slightest what I'm talking about.

You falsely assume, whether out of habit or not, that Christianity is an opposite to atheism. It is not, it is an elaboration from the opposite that does not have to follow any rule except the admission that there is an omnipotent Matt Damon somewhere.

I had actually been keeping the two separate but the argument has demanded switching back and forth from theism, in general, to Christianity specifically. Sorry if I confused you there it wasn't intentional.

No actually, you did not keep them separate even in your initial post. The examples of atrocity that people have been bringing up are examples of an organized religion that show your organized religion (which is the same) that organized religion can very well be bad.

The example that you bring up is not of our concern because we do not subscribe to organized atheism.

There is a doctrine that is very much in existence in Europe and America though. In the US secular humanists are very much interested in how/what children are taught in schools, etc.

Ofcourse they are.

There are many things the atheists here seems to agree on that go beyond mere atheism.

...like?

This is a worldview which has adherents that are just as interested in moving countries more toward secularism. The slippery slope argument doesn't wash because the slope is canted in the other direction. In the US, there haven't been that many sucessful movements to move public schools more in line with the Christian ideals that were prevalent 40 years ago. The reason for this is most certainly the organization of these "disoragnized" secular humanists. Is secualr humanism to be considered "bad" as well?

No.

Secular humanism strives to make the country secular, which is what a country should be.