Now again.
Since you chose to drag this out into a lengthy debate, I reread your post and decided to give it a proper response this time.
Not really. Your still going to just argue blindly for the Atheist talking points. Heaven forbid you give me any credit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. There is a difference between firmly believing that there is no God and merely doubting the existence of one.
Not really. In the end they are just shades of the same thing; Different levels of conviction. In the end, its still belief that there is no God, or belief that there is.
You're looking at this as having two sides when it is really has three. You have those that are absolutely sure that there is no God (Strong Atheism), you have those that are absolutely sure that there is a God (Theism), then you have those who are undecided and therefore lack a belief in a God, but are open to the possibility (Weak Atheism).
Weak and Strgn Atheism are semantics created by the Atheist Community, and proof of a shared language that you deny. The distinction isn’t real.
There is no such thing as a Strong or Weak Atheist. Again, the only difference is the level fo conviction in ones belief, but the terms “Strong Atheism’ and “Weak Atheism’ are in the end meaningless twaddle.
Just erecting terms to back up a self referential belief system is not good enough.
Two of those camps both fall under the banner of Atheism, because much like Theism there are many facets. You have many, many types of theism. They are not all one and the same, and the same goes for Atheism. There is no one specific group of Atheists. They're all different.
And, I did mention differing Atheist groups, so your point is meaningless. You act like I lump all Atheists into a single category when, in fact, I didn’t.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it [Atheism] was [a religion].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you did.
No, I didn’t. If you want to say I did then quote me.
However, my actual stance is that Atheists have Religious beliefs and that everyone has a Religion. I never once said “Atheism is a Religion”. Just because you are incapable of following what I’ve actually said because your busy following the Atheist apologetics responses to “Atheism is a Religion” doesn’t mean I actually said this.
But its good to see how shallow and unthinking you are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, you turned around and said it AGAIN right after you said that you never said that.
S what your saying is, you lack reading comprehension.
I still didn’t say “Atheism is a Religion” here. I did say that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. But this is not saying “Atheism is itself a Religion”.
Just like Theism is not a Religion, Atheism is not a Religion. However, all Atheists have a set of beleifs hat define how they understand the world, and that set of beliefs is their Religion. So rather than saying “Atheism is a Religion”, what I’m actually saying is that Atheistic “Non-Religious Philosophy’ is actually Religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, being an Atheist doesn’t make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesn’t require Theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isn’t saying “Atheism is a Religion”, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but there’s more to it than this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secular Humanism is not the same thing as Atheism.
Christianity is not the same thing as Theism.
However, Christianity is Theistic, and Secular Humanism is Atheistic.
It is also not a religion. It is a philosophy.
Secular Humanism covers all the same ground Religion covers and fills the same role in an individuals life as Religion would. He only distinction between this “Philosophy’ and a Religion is that its Atheistic. But given that Theism is not a prerequisite to Religion, I have to wonder why this “Philosophy’ shouldn’t be counted as a Religion in its own Right? Because it fits the definition of Religion.
That’s the point. Secular Humanists insist that their belief is a Philosophy and not a Religion, but there is no discernable distinction you can make between their beliefs and Religion. Their beliefs are, in fact, Religious.
Simply trying to remove Humanism from the Religion category to better enable you to lambast everyone else doesn’t really mean anything.,
Religion doesn't just mean a set of beliefs.
Actually, it’s a set of beliefs about the nature, origin, and meaning of our existence, specifically. This is why even Secular Humanism is actually a Religion.
If that were the case, then the U.S. Government is a religion because they have a strict set of beliefs that are set forth in the constitution.
Again, its “ A set of beliefs
about he nature of our existence, its origins, and its ultimate meaning. Why is it that you can’t follow the complete definition I am using?
You seem to be confusing the word "religion" with the words "ritual" and "tradition".
No I’m not. But you did in the other post.
Not everything that has rituals and traditions is a religion, but all religions have rituals and traditions. Get it yet?
Actually not al Religions have Rituals, but I don’t expect you to be smart enough to grasp that. Just like not all Religions hold meetings for its adherents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone has a Religion because everyone has some sort of Paradigm that tells them how the world works and that’s all Religion is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, so now knowledge of anything is a religion?
No. Religion is a Philosophical model (Paradigm) that explains how we came to be, what our ultimate purpose is, and the nature of our existence. That is not “Knowledge f anything”. You are again ignoring what I’m actually saying.
So if I say that I'm pretty darn sure that a toaster works by using electricity to produce heat via heating elements, that is a religion? The fact that I know not to touch a hot stove or I'll get burned as a result is a religion? The fact that I know that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West is a religion? According to your logic, it apparently is.
I know your slow but, Religion is being defined here as a comprehensive Philosophical belief system about he nature of our existence. That is not “knowledge of anything” and your again being stupid.
The reason Secular Humanism is a Religion and believing a toaster uses electricity is not I because Secular Humanism defines how you understand your own existence in this world, an the toaster tidbit does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is only True is Religion is defined as Theism. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. But Theism is not the same thing as Religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is!
Theism is not the same thing as Religion, and there are non-theistic Religions even by your shallow estimation.
Theism is just one type of religion, but it still has to do with spiritual beliefs! Like I said in my other post, you can try to proclaim yourself a "deist" instead of a "theist",
You know, the distinction between Deism and theism is nonexistent too. Theism means you belief in a god,. It doesn’t mean this god has to be active. If you are a Deist, you are automatically a Theist.
but ultimately you still believe in something greater than yourself, so in my book "deism" is interchangeable with "theism" and without either of those you can't have religion. Religion is about the organized, ritualistic belief in something. What you choose to call that something is up to you.
Religion does not require theism by ay real measure. Theravada Buddhism is Atheistic an is still a Religion. He only reason Secular Humanism is said to not be a Religion is because of its Atheism, but as noted, other Atheistic Religions exist, and he First Humanist Manifesto itself declares Humanism a Religion,
Religion does not require Theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misdefine Atheism, and Religion. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, and Religion is not the same thing as belief in gods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only person misdefining anything here is you.
Not really. You cant lack belief in something you have a concept of. It is epistemologically impossible to do so. Religion has never required Theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I never said “Atheism is a Religion”, I just said that being an Atheist doesn’t make you Non-Religious and even Atheists have Religious beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep repeating this, but it makes zero sense.
Only because you refuse to even listen to reason.
Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a religious belief?
It’s very simple. A Religion is a set of beliefs, Atheism is a singular belief. Religion details the nature of our existence and how we relate to it. Religion is the same thing as “Worldview”. Atheism can be a part of this set of beliefs or Philosophical system, or even the ore of it. But Atheism remains only one belief, not a set of beliefs.
Just ike Theism is not a Religion, but Theists have religious beliefs.
That's what I meant by contradictory.
But its not contradictory.
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it a contradiction. It’s also not that complex so your failure to understand is not a good reflection on you.
You can't be both religious and non-religious at the same time,
I didn’t say you could be. I said that Atheism is not all by itself a Religion. But Theism is not all by itself a Religion either. Theism is however a part of many Religions. The same applies to Atheism. Atheism is a component part of various Religions, but id not in itself a Religion. I don’t see how this is saying “You are Religious” and :”You aren’t Religious” at the same Time.
Do I need to get the crayons and explain it?
which is exactly what you're saying. Atheism isn't a religion, but Atheistic beliefs are religious? You might want to rethink that logic.
Actually I’m saying that things like Secular Humanism are Religions, despite its modern adherents insisting otherwise.
Again, if I said “Theism is not a Religion” would you find that hard to understand? Because it’s the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they aren’t. Religion is in fact nothing more than a type of Philosophy dealing with the foundational matters of our existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many religions contain philosophical concepts, but they are not a philosophy in and of themselves.
Actally they are.
They are two different things. Philosophy tries to explain things rationally and logically. Religion explains things supernaturally. Even your Stanford article pointed that out.
No it didn’t. it also makes no sence.
1: Not all Religions even hold to belief in the Supernatural. Even if we exclude Atheists from being Religious, many forms of Religion do not have a concept of the Supernatural.
2: You also assume that supernatural explanations cant be logical or rational. There is no basis for this.
3: It is obvious that Religious Thinkers have, in fact, employed Logic and Reason in their writings. Thomas Aquinas spent 30 years of his life writing the Suma Theologica using Aristotelian logic to back up the Christian faith, for example. The ides that “they use the Supernatural, not Logic and Reason’ is therefore absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith is not belief without evidence, before that cobbler is thrown out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiritual faith is exactly that.
No its not. The only people to define Spiritual Faith as belief without evidence are idiot Atheists trying to attack Religion.
You won’t find any actual writer who defines it that way who aren’t in the the New Atheist movement, and recently even many Atheist Philosophers or other assorted Scholars have criticised this definition.
A Christian cannot prove in any way the existence of God, but they choose to believe in him anyway.
Actually there are rational arguments for the existence of God. Remember Aquinas? He postulated five such using Aristotelian logic. Rene Des carte came up with his own argument in his Meditations. You can find modern Theologians or even Scientists like Francis Collins who would make arguments for God’s existence base don evidence and Logic. Our statement is thus wrong.
That is exactly what faith is - belief even the face of a lack of any evidence.
O, its not. Only moronic Neo-Atheists use the word that way, and its simply stupid to project that definition onto all “Religious people” as if they agree with it and use the word the same way. This is just another example fo how you lot are just lemmings following each other off a cliff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Relgiion is also about Logic and Reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, using Christianity as an example,
But you didn’t use Christianity as an example…
Caricature of Christianity is a sign of a weak mind.
a magical half God/half man
Christianity doesn’t have a magical half god half man. Not only does Magic not show up in the actual Bible, despite idiots like you conflating Miracles with Magic, but Jesus is said to be filly God and fully Man, not half god and half man.
If your going to try to criticise Christianity, Criticise what Christians actually believe in, not stupid rubbish you get from places like the Rational Response Squad.
You just sound like an idiot here.
that was given birth to by a virgin
Which isn’t even impossible today…
that could walk on water and raise that dead
Which isn’t really illogical if you, I don’t know, read why Christians believe he could do that. Simply positing that eh walked on Water and raised the Dead doesn’t prove that Christianity forsakes Logic and Reason.
that was killed and came back as a zombie
Jesus didn’t come back as a Zombie. The whole “ZXombie Jesus” joke may be funny to you, but it only proves two things.
1: You are an idiot.
2: All claims you make about Atheist being Free Thinkers who don’t copy each other is a lie, as this is just a vain repetition.
Here’s the thing, images of Jesus coming back, skin rotting and craving brains, may make you chuckle butt actual Christian belief has him coming back to life. He isn’t a Zombie. Only a moron would call him a Zombie.
Resurrected Humans aren’t Zombies.
How on earth are you proving Christianity is not logical by making obviously false claims? Do you really think these Caricatures make you seem cleaver?
All you prove by them is that Atheists like you are illogical and irrational.
to ride to heaven on a cloud
Christians don’t believe that Jesus rode to Heaven on a Cloud. This is another stupid Caricature that is horrifically inaccurate.
just so that we could be forgiven for being the sinners that God created us as in the first place is reasonable and logical?
God didn’t create us as Sinners. If you are going to distort, and outright lie, about Christianity, then you really don’t have standing to prove its actually Irrational. All you have proven is that you can copy standardised arguments form the Atheist community.
The Irony is, nothing you’ve said is Original and none of it contains the least but of thought, yet you want me to believe that Atheists are a Herd of Cats, each one unique. How on earth is repetition of obviously distorted claims about Christianity prove that Atheists are individual thinkers? And why am I supposed to think Christianity is Irrational just because you can repeat what amounts to as lies about it?
What you posted above is not what Christians actually believe, but it is what Neo-Atheists love to pass along to others in their own Faith community, and repeat despite claiming to have no shared beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that Religion rejects Reason in Favour of Faith is nothing but a Talking point in the neo-Atheist community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not a talking point, it's the truth.
No, its not. I mean, you even pull the “Zombie Jesus” routine. Am I supposed to beelive your assessment here?
Continued Below.
reply
share
ZAROVE
12 years ago
[Continued From Above.
quote]
Not every single religious person on Earth is illogical and irrational, but many of them are and there is no denying that fact.[/quote]
But by repeating an Atheistic Caricature about what Christians believe, you’ve proven that you are illogical and irrational, just like you’ve proven that Atheists do, in fact, have an organised community with shard beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but anyone whose bothered to look into Religion realises that Religious thought is actually rooted in observation and logic as much as anything else. The idea that its not is simply daft nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was at one point. That was thousands of years ago, however.
Actually I can name contemporary Theologians who would very much disagree with you. Religion wasnt just about Logic and Reason thousands of Years Ago tis about that now, as anyone who has read Rowan Williams or Dallas Ward can tell you.
You know, back when we had just barely discovered fire and the wheel? Back when we had no concept of math and science and no idea of how the world worked, so we made up whatever explanations that we could come up with based on our observations? Back then is was reasonable and logical to assume that "god did it". In this day and age, its absurd.
This is another Time in which you repeat another part of your Faith Communities claims without thinking. The idea that Religion was invented to give us explanations about the world before we have Science.
The whole “Science VS Religion’ Canard has, of course, been disproven ages ago but it’s a central tenet of your Religious Faith.
You need to pretend that Religion is made up stories we don’t need now that we have Science, just like you need to pretend you are Scientific and Rational, and need to pretend you think for yourself and Atheist are all unique and different.
You wont admit of course that your presentation of Christian beliefs came form others, and that you mindlessly repeated it. And even if we buy into this rubbish explanation for origin of Religion, you have just made Science and Religion the same thing.
Not that you can admit that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually plenty of Philosophers have dealt with the Supernatural, and plenty of Religion deals in the Natural. Indeed, the very idea of the Supernatural didn’t even exist till about 200-300 years ago, so what your saying is that Religion didn’t exist at all till 300 years ago. This is of course silly nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know where you got your information, but I hope you didn't pay for it. Otherwise, you should demand your money back.
Given your “Zombie Jesus’ crack, you’d best be careful whom you disparage.
So what you're telling me is that Greek and Roman mythology isn't supernatural?
Its not. The gods were aspects of Nature and bound to its laws. They did not exist separately from, and superior to nature.
That Egyptian mythology isn't supernatural? That Norse mythology isn't supernatural?
None of the gods in any of those mythologies actually had the power to change the laws fo nature, and in many of them the gods were aspects of nature itself.
That Krishna having an epic battle with space aliens 12,000 years ago isn't supernatural?
Krishna didn’t battle space aliens… again, learn what your mocking before you speak.
That Moses receiving magical stone tablets from a talking bush isn't supernatural?
Moses didn’t receive magical stone tablets, and your a moron if you think he did.
Even in the context of the story, nothing magical exists about the tablets.
That Jesus walking on water and raising the dead isn't supernatural?
Not necessarily. It depends on how you view god and his nature. The term Supernatural” once applied only to God. Pagan gods were not supernatural, nor were Angels or Demons or Souls. The idea of a separate Supernatural Realm was unheard of in the Middle Ages.
See, the term “Supernatural” means you are above nature. Angels, even Satan, were not seen as above nature, but as part of it as they were part of the created order.
This is also why in the Middle Ages it was said that Satan could not perform genuine Miracles, only counterfeits,.
The term “Supernatural” was applied to God because some theologians believed that God was separate from and superior to nature. Still, others identified God as the source of all natural law and thus not separable from it.
Not that I expect you to understand tis, before you ridicule me for it.
At this point I don't even know if it's worth continuing this debate with you because, quite frankly, you just lost all credibility with that last statement.
As opposed to your vain repetition of the Caricature of Jesus as a Zombie? Or as a Magical half god and half man?
I don’t think you have room to talking terms of credibility.
I'm starting to think that you're just talking out of your ass.
Well, your just cutting and pasting arguments from Atheist websites whilst pretending that Atheist all disagree with each other and are wonderfully diverse…
reply
share
wel_da_war
12 years ago
Well, your just cutting and pasting arguments from Atheist websites
That is absurd! I haven't copied and pasted a damned thing except for one lone url and the quotes from your posts, of course.
After all the time I spent typing those long replies, this is what I get in return? An accusation of copying and pasting?
Fine. No more lengthy replies for you. If you can't appreciate the effort that I've made to have an actual civil debate with you, then you can just politely sod off.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on.
reply
share
wel_da_war
12 years ago
What part of I AM NOT AN ATHEIST do you not understand?
Yes, I find the zombie Jesus joke to be funny. In fact, I find it friggin' hilarious.
I actually know a lot more about the Bible than you give me credit for. I'm just making light of this entire situation because you obviously have problems comprehending even your own nonsense.
For the record, Moses did receive stone tablets, everything about classical mythologies is supernatural, and so was Jesus.
You're really starting to come off like a lunatic.
Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time! Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Everything Jesus did can be logically explained! Sounds legit to me.
A talking bush that is on fire, but does not burn and gives a man named Moses 10 commandments to take back to his people - nothing odd about that.
Virgin births? Completely normal.
Faith isn't about belief in something even when there is no evidence to prove the existence of the thing that you believe in? Sure buddy, if you say so.
Come talk to this nice lady in the white lab coat. Don't pay any attention to the big guys in security uniforms. They're your friends! That straight-jacket? Don't worry about it. It's cold out and they thought that you could use a coat..
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on.
reply
share
benmasta
12 years ago
i gotta say that anyone who goes through that many posts argueing with someone (and at that length) is as crazy as the person they call crazy.
i have never once seen posts that huge. even if half of it is quoting the last.
just insane.
reply
share