Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Deicide on August 15, 2008, 02:00:25 PM
-
-ism) takes the cake?
Which has the silliest, most laughably impossible tenets?
Discuss....
I say Christianity...
-
I say islam.
This this thread require information to back up your opinion?
-
I say islam.
This this thread require information to back up your opinion?
Of course...
You say Islam because of its abhorrent morals, but I am talking about sheer abundance of silliness and 'miracles'.
-
Atheism.
-
Atheism.
agreed, the idea that there is no higher being or higher level of existence is just as laughable. I dont pretend to know what God but i do believe that there is a God.
-
agreed, the idea that there is no higher being or higher level of existence is just as laughable. I dont pretend to know what God but i do believe that there is a God.
Yep. And the fact they are an organized group, and in essence a religion themselves, is sort of funny.
-
Yep. And the fact they are an organized group, and in essence a religion themselves, is sort of funny.
Atheism is not a religion. It has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a guy or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.
Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.
Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.
Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.
-
Of course...
You say Islam because of its abhorrent morals, but I am talking about sheer abundance of silliness and 'miracles'.
There are many.
How about muhammad flying to Jerusalem one night on the back of a donkey with wings. Nobody even noticed he was gone!
This is all in one night, there and back on a donkey with wings :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq
Also might have had the face of a women.
-
There are many.
How about muhammad flying to Jerusalem one night on the back of a donkey with wings. Nobody even noticed he was gone!
This is all in one night, there and back on a donkey with wings :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq
Also might have had the face of a women.
Hmm...how about this:
-
I don't get your position here tho mate.
Here's my view: in regards to "logical impossibility" (which is what I think you're trying to get at with "stupidity") they are all equal in that respect for the simple fact of the belief in a God(s).
The Abrahamic religions all have a second coming, which nullifies the above image because they all subscribe to that in some form or other.
-
I don't get your position here tho mate.
Here's my view: in regards to "logical impossibility" (which is what I think you're trying to get at with "stupidity") they are all equal in that respect for the simple fact of the belief in a God(s).
The Abrahamic religions all have a second coming, which nullifies the above image because they all subscribe to that in some form or other.
But the whole 'I am the father of the son of whom I am also the father bit' just takes the cake....just my opinion.
-
What about religions with reincarnation, where an organisms spirit is TRANSFERRED to another organism (not necessarily the same i.e. from a human to a goat).
Now THAT is some wacky shit right there.
-
Atheism is not a religion. I has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort.
Incorrect,
rituals- atheists spend the bulk of their lives trying to convince everyone that religion is wrong, when in truth no one really cares what an atheist has to say.
Creed- be out spoken, obnoxious, and unbending.
Ultra critical of others- will take the time to poke fun of others (even if they cant spell or proof read themselves) :)
-
Incorrect,
rituals- atheists spend the bulk of their lives trying to convince everyone that religion is wrong, when in truth no one really cares what an atheist has to say.
Creed- be out spoken, obnoxious, and unbending.
Ultra critical of others- will take the time to poke fun of others (even if they cant spell or proof read themselves) :)
Even if it were true, this is not a ritual. Do I need to provide the definition of ritual for you, Mr. Thick Skull?
I am not unbending. Please give me evidence for the existence of your deity and I will gladly believe.
Please prove to me that Zeus does not exist.
Thank you.
-
Atheism is not a religion. It has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort.
Wrong. They have national organizations: http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
They have a TV show called Atheist Viewpoint: http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
They are have national conventionsl: http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Sounds pretty organized to me.
-
Wrong. They have national organizations: http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
They have a TV show called Atheist Viewpoint: http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
They are have national conventionsl: http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Sounds pretty organized to me.
Yes, it is unfortunate because atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods of any sort. In the United States where the 'godly' far outnumber the 'godless', and seek to bully and intimidate those who don't believe, there is perhaps a need for such organisations.
-
Yes, it is unfortunate because atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods of any sort. In the United States where the 'godly' far outnumber the 'godless', and seek to bully and intimidate those who don't believe, there is perhaps a need for such organisations.
You're contradicting yourself. You said "Atheism is not a religion. It has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort." Now you say perhaps there is a need for organized atheism. Which is it?
Also, why do people who believe in nothing need to organize? This is partly why they should sit atop your "sheer and utter stupidity" list.
That said, I do admit that (outside of this board) most of the atheists I know are smart, honest, good people.
-
You're contradicting yourself. You said "Atheism is not a religion. It has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort." Now you say perhaps there is a need for organized atheism. Which is it?
Also, why do people who believe in nothing need to organize? This is partly why they should sit atop your "sheer and utter stupidity" list.
That said, I do admit that (outside of this board) most of the atheists I know are smart, honest, good people.
This is a non-sequitur. Religious people in the USA seek to impose their will on the irreligious. These organisations are simply people coming together to protect themselves. There are no rituals, prayers or anything else even remotely related.
Atheism is in its purist form is simply the nonbelief in gods. There is also antitheism. I am an antitheist as well as an atheist because I believe religion does more harm than good in the world (beyond the harm of its claims simply being untrue). You can be both an atheist and an antitheist or just an atheist. I am sure the 'atheists' you know are fine people because they allow you to preach your mythology to them without much resistance.
-
This is a non-sequitur. Religious people in the USA seek to impose their will on the irreligious. These organisations are simply people coming together to protect themselves. There are no rituals, prayers or anything else even remotely related.
Atheism is in its purist form is simply the nonbelief in gods. There is also antitheism. I am an antitheist as well as an atheist because I believe religion does more harm than good in the world (beyong the harm of its claims simply being untrue). You can be both an atheist and an antitheist or just an atheist. I am sure the 'atheists' you know are fine people because they allow you to preach your mythology to them without much resistance.
You're not making sense. You can't be an unorganized organized group. What are atheists talking about when they have these annual conventions? Did you look at the websites for their national organizations? The fact they have national organizations directly conflicts with your contention they are unorganized. The whole idea of organizing just to talk about something you don't believe in is absurd.
You like to make assumptions don't you? In real life, I don't preach to anyone and do not talk about my faith unless someone asks.
-
organized,unorganized, who cares i see your talking snake and burning bush and raise you alien infestation and tom cruse.
-
You're not making sense. You can't be an unorganized organized group. What are atheists talking about when they have these annual conventions? Did you look at the websites for their national organizations? The fact they have national organizations directly conflicts with your contention they are unorganized. The whole idea of organizing just to talk about something you don't believe in is absurd.
You like to make assumptions don't you? In real life, I don't preach to anyone and do not talk about my faith unless someone asks.
Then, there's the little matter that, in some spots like California, atheists actually have humanist centers where they go every Sunday, as a answer to their neighbors who attend church on Sunday. I saw this in an article from TIME magazine. According to one lady that was interviewed, she felt that it's tougher for atheists, when they have families, because unlike their Christian counterparts, they usually don't have support groups and centers to help raise their kids and pass their morals and values.
The term "atheist" and "anti-theist" tends to be interchangeable. The self-described atheists, on the sites you linked, don't just believe that there is no God. They are quite hostile to religion and religious people.
-
Then, there's the little matter that, in some spots like California, atheists actually have humanist centers where they go every Sunday, as a answer to their neighbors who attend church on Sunday. I saw this in an article from TIME magazine. According to one lady that was interviewed, she felt that it's tougher for atheists, when they have families, because unlike their Christian counterparts, they usually don't have support groups and centers to help raise their kids and pass their morals and values.
The term "atheist" and "anti-theist" tends to be interchangeable. The self-described atheists, on the sites you linked, don't just believe that there is no God. They are quite hostile to religion and religious people.
As a life long atheist I have never had the need for such organisations, nor have my parents. I think the idea of 'humanist' centres is laughable but unfortunately man is a social animal and has the urge to be 'part of something' ::). Getting atheists together of a genuine sort that is, is like hearding cats and I am really only hostile to religion on the internet. Here in Europe I don't have a single friend who is a believer; all are fairly apathetic atheists and the subject of religion is so irrelevant it never comes up.
-
This is a non-sequitur. Religious people in the USA seek to impose their will on the irreligious. These organisations are simply people coming together to protect themselves. There are no rituals, prayers or anything else even remotely related.
Then again, it's awfully easy to "impose" on atheists. Mentioning Jesus Christ during the Christmas holiday really oppresses them. And, don't let them see a Nativity scene; they'll go into epileptic shock. If two rocks happen to resemble the tablets of stone, on which the Ten Commandments were written, let the weeping and teeth-gnashing begin.
I wonder if these same American atheists are (or will be) demanding that their bosses keep their place of employment open during Christmas. Will they take day off WITHOUT PAY? Are they going to give their Christmas bonuses back?
-
I wonder if these same American atheists are (or will be) demanding that their bosses keep their place of employment open during Christmas. Will they take day off WITHOUT PAY? Are they going to give their Christmas bonuses back?
That doesn't make too much sense. It's not like Christmas bonuses are sent from above. Of course an atheist will demand all the benefits his coworkers get, regardless of the traditional motivation behind them.
-
All religions are laughable, if you misinterpret them.
IMO the same could be said about sciences.
-
lets get two of every animal together.i heard its gonna rain.
-
That doesn't make too much sense. It's not like Christmas bonuses are sent from above. Of course an atheist will demand all the benefits his coworkers get, regardless of the traditional motivation behind them.
Try reading that again. No one said anything about their not getting Christmas bonuses or getting Christmas day off with pay.
They aren't giving their bonuses back or demanding to go to work that day, or taking the day off without pay, which they are getting because of the Christmas holiday, a celebration (even at its superficial least) is about the birth of Jesus Christ.
-
All religions are laughable, if you misinterpret them.
IMO the same could be said about sciences.
Interpretation of scientific data and religious mythology has NOTHING to do with the other...
One deals with facts and understanding those facts, the other with fables, mythology and fabrications...
Wrong again, Herr Wienerschnitzel!
-
Try reading that again. No one said anything about their not getting Christmas bonuses or getting Christmas day off with pay.
They aren't giving their bonuses back or demanding to go to work that day, or taking the day off without pay, which they are getting because of the Christmas holiday, a celebration (even at its superficial least) is about the birth of Jesus Christ.
Who are these people; my progenitors and I always ignored Christmas.
-
Interpretation of scientific data and religious mythology has NOTHING to do with the other...
... and that's not what I said ...
One deals with facts and understanding those facts, the other with fables, mythology and fabrications...
... and that's not true, as proven time and time again.
Wrong again, Herr Wienerschnitzel!
The term 'again' would require at least one incident were you could actually prove me wrong, Herr Altersdemenz. :D
-
Who are these people; my progenitors and I always ignored Christmas.
First, try calling them "parents".
Second, you've just made my point. Your parents didn't "ignore" the day off with pay (demanding to work); nor did they "ignore" the Christmas bonuses.
-
... and that's not what I said ...
... and that's not true, as proven time and time again.
The term 'again' would require at least one incident were you could actually prove me wrong, Herr Altersdemenz. :D
how has it been proven time and time agin?ohh I know some one saw the face of jesus in there grilled cheese sandwich.
-
Try reading that again. No one said anything about their not getting Christmas bonuses or getting Christmas day off with pay.
They aren't giving their bonuses back or demanding to go to work that day, or taking the day off without pay, which they are getting because of the Christmas holiday, a celebration (even at its superficial least) is about the birth of Jesus Christ.
OK, you meant as a demonstration of their disapproval.
-
how has it been proven time and time agin?ohh I know some one saw the face of jesus in there grilled cheese sandwich.
I was talking about science providing "facts", which by definition of science it does not. It provides scientific theories.
-
First, try calling them "parents".
Second, you've just made my point. Your parents didn't "ignore" the day off with pay (demanding to work); nor did they "ignore" the Christmas bonuses.
I have made no point. The existence of Christmas was only acknowledged inasmuch as others talked about. It was never mentioned in my household. My point was that it always was an irrelevant issue to my progenitors and to me.
-
OK, you meant as a demonstration of their disapproval.
YEP!!!
It appears that, to some atheists, everything about Christmas is offensive: Nativity scenes, songs that have the audacity to mention Jesus Christ, etc. But, for some reason, the extra $$$$$/having the day off with pay (because of the celebration of Christ's birth) don't seem to bug them as much.
-
Then, there's the little matter that, in some spots like California, atheists actually have humanist centers where they go every Sunday, as a answer to their neighbors who attend church on Sunday. I saw this in an article from TIME magazine. According to one lady that was interviewed, she felt that it's tougher for atheists, when they have families, because unlike their Christian counterparts, they usually don't have support groups and centers to help raise their kids and pass their morals and values.
The term "atheist" and "anti-theist" tends to be interchangeable. The self-described atheists, on the sites you linked, don't just believe that there is no God. They are quite hostile to religion and religious people.
Humanist centers?? Sounds like organized religion to me.
-
I have made no point. The existence of Christmas was only acknowledged inasmuch as others talked about. It was never mentioned in my household. My point was that it always was an irrelevant issue to my progenitors and to me.
Sucks for you. The Christmas season is awesome. Thanksgiving through New Year's Day is the most wonderful time of the year IMO.
-
Sucks for you. The Christmas season is awesome. Thanksgiving through New Year's Day is the most wonderful time of the year IMO.
Not necessarily so, if you were born into a Jewish family, as deicide was. The Jews have their own set of holidays to coincide with the Christmas holidays. I'm told that many Jews do enjoy Christmas because movie theatres are empty Christmas Eve. By the same token, many New Yorkers of Christian faith find that the best night to get a last minute restaurant reservation is Yom Kippur. It's a symbiotic relationship I think.
-
Humanist centers?? Sounds like organized religion to me.
Here's the link to that TIME magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html)
Here's an excerpt:
On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?
Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
-
Not necessarily so, if you were born into a Jewish family, as deicide was. The Jews have their own set of holidays to coincide with the Christmas holidays. I'm told that many Jews do enjoy Christmas because movie theatres are empty Christmas Eve. By the same token, many New Yorkers of Christian faith find that the best night to get a last minute restaurant reservation is Yom Kippur. It's a symbiotic relationship I think.
I agree. I know Jewish people who love the Christmas season. But tt doesn't sound like he actually enjoyed the holiday season. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Even if it were true, this is not a ritual. Do I need to provide the definition of ritual for you, Mr. Thick Skull?
I am not unbending. Please give me evidence for the existence of your deity and I will gladly believe.
Please prove to me that Zeus does not exist.
Thank you.
Since you have no life to speak of, yes please provided the definition of ritual, use it in a sentence, its origin, and please site sources.
Thank you
-
Here's the link to that TIME magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html)
Here's an excerpt:
On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?
Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
Sounds like church to me. :)
-
Humanist centers?? Sounds like organized religion to me.
does it have doctrine?
Does it have ritual?
Does it have a holy book of stories?
I think Atheism is just a POV. nothing more.
-
BTW i think of the main stream religions, Islam takes the cake.
-
does it have doctrine?
Does it have ritual?
Does it have a holy book of stories?
I think Atheism is just a POV. nothing more.
Is that the definition of "religion"? I don't things like a "book of stories" is necessary. I think the way these folks have organized to discuss their nonbelief in a non-entity is not only humorous, but qualifies as a "religion."
If it's just a point of view and nothing more, than why all this?
National organizations: http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
A TV show called Atheist Viewpoint: http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
National conventions: http://www.atheists.org/convention/
-
Claiming atheism to be a religion is utterly absurd.
But I imagine it makes people who suffer from a constant pervading sense of persecution feel better to lump a wide variety of others into a single "group."
-
No more absurd than multiple organizations, TV shows, annual conventions, "humanist centers," etc. where folks talk about their nonbelief in a nonexistent being.
But I guess paranoid, anti-religious extremists need outlets too.
-
No more absurd than multiple organizations, TV shows, annual conventions, "humanist centers," etc. where folks talk about their nonbelief in a nonexistent being.
The claim that people who get together for political reasons or to socialize are part of an organized religion does nothing other than denigrate your own faith.
But I guess paranoid, anti-religious extremists need outlets too.
Exaggerate much? ::)
-
The claim that people who get together for political reasons or to socialize are part of an organized religion does nothing other than denigrate your own faith.
Exaggerate much? ::)
No more than you. ::)
They even have a magazine: http://atheists.org/aam/ I bet they have t-shirts too.
How does calling atheism a religion denigrate my faith?
-
No more than you. ::)
They even have a magazine: http://atheists.org/aam/ I bet they have t-shirts too.
A magazine and t-shirts!!! That clinches it then. Atheism is a religion!!! Do you hear yourself write? ;D Gosh, I sure hope all those atheist orgs made sure to apply for tax-exempt status.
The SPCA also puts out a mag, and they sent me a nice t-shirt. Am I now indoctrinated into my local chapter of SPCAism? I had no idea.
How does calling atheism a religion denigrate my faith?
Is that all your faith is to you? Getting together with people on a Sunday to socialize and talk about politics? If so, then I can see where your threshold for what constitutes faith or religion is pretty low.
-
A magazine and t-shirts!!! That clinches it then. Atheism is a religion!!! Do you hear yourself write? ;D Gosh, I sure hope all those atheist orgs made sure to apply for tax-exempt status.
The SPCA also puts out a mag, and they sent me a nice t-shirt. Am I now indoctrinated into my local chapter of SPCAism? I had no idea.
Is that all your faith is to you? Getting together with people on a Sunday to socialize and talk about politics? If so, then I can see where your threshold for what constitutes faith or religion is pretty low.
The t-shirt part was a joke. :)
This isn't just about putting out a magazine. It's about people organizing around a core belief, meeting on a regular basis, having TV and probably radio shows, national conventions, and having all of the structure of a mainstream religion.
I never said my faith was just about getting together on Sunday. Where you getting that from? Is this the basis for your statement that I denigrate my faith?
-
I agree. I know Jewish people who love the Christmas season. But tt doesn't sound like he actually enjoyed the holiday season. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
I was raised in a secular Jewish household, Jewish holidays were ignored as well.
I enjoyed the time off during the holiday season; why there was time off was irrelevant to me; could have been the birthday of Zarcon the 4578th Alien Emperor and I would not have cared.
-
Since you have no life to speak of, yes please provided the definition of ritual, use it in a sentence, its origin, and please site sources.
Thank you
So you basically have no evidence?
-
Is that the definition of "religion"? I don't things like a "book of stories" is necessary. I think the way these folks have organized to discuss their nonbelief in a non-entity is not only humorous, but qualifies as a "religion."
If it's just a point of view and nothing more, than why all this?
National organizations: http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
A TV show called Atheist Viewpoint: http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
National conventions: http://www.atheists.org/convention/
All organizations are religious? Just because there is an organization doesn't make it religious.
It's ridiculous to say an organization that rejects the belief of God is a religion.
-
Is that the definition of "religion"? I don't things like a "book of stories" is necessary. I think the way these folks have organized to discuss their nonbelief in a non-entity is not only humorous, but qualifies as a "religion."
If it's just a point of view and nothing more, than why all this?
National organizations: http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
A TV show called Atheist Viewpoint: http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
National conventions: http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Come to think of it, I remember a guy, with whom I'd have lots of heated discussions (he was sort of like Deicide, minus the swearing) on a now-defunct forum. He would go to these conventions on a regular basis. I found it particularly "interesting" that this convention was held on the weekend of Easter/Resurrection Sunday. He, of course, claimed that was mere coincidence. But, if I'm not mistaken, that convention was started by one of America's most notorious and rabid atheists, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who intentionally planned such an event to mock the celebration of Christ's resurrection.
-
All organizations are religious? Just because there is an organization doesn't make it religious.
It's ridiculous to say an organization that rejects the belief of God is a religion.
Why, especially when the argument can be made that this organization has a "deity", an object of worship, if you will?
I suggested some time ago that atheism, at its core, is simply man worshipping himself. That rubbed some people the wrong way. But, that's my take on the issue.
-
Why, especially when the argument can be made that this organization has a "deity", an object of worship, if you will?
I suggested some time ago that atheism, at its core, is simply man worshipping himself. That rubbed some people the wrong way. But, that's my take on the issue.
I'm not an atheist, However, worshipping ourselves seems silly.
Are you suggesting it's impossible to live without worshipping something?
Recognizing that we are an animal and the universe is random does not seem like worship to me. (I don't believe either premise)
-
I'm not an atheist, However, worshipping ourselves seems silly.
Are you suggesting it's impossible to live without worshipping something?
Recognizing that we are an animal and the universe is random does not seem like worship to me. (I don't believe either premise)
Silly? Yes!!! But, it's done, nonetheless!!!
If there is no God, then who is the most sentient being in the universe? As far as atheists are concerned, it's man. Atheists love talking about using "logic" and "reason". But whose logic and reason are they using? Is it God's logic and reason? No. They believe in no supernatural deity. Is it that of animals or plants? No.
By default, they are (to borrow a phrase from Scripture) leaning unto their own understanding. Having appointed themselves as the highest of beings and arbitraitors of logic and reason, they have deemed themselves the highest of beings. Hence, this is the reason I make the claim that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself.
-
Silly? Yes!!! But, it's done, nonetheless!!!
If there is no God, then who is the most sentient being in the universe? As far as atheists are concerned, it's man. Atheists love talking about using "logic" and "reason". But whose logic and reason are they using? Is it God's logic and reason? No. They believe in no supernatural deity. Is it that of animals or plants? No.
By default, they are (to borrow a phrase from Scripture) leaning unto their own understanding. Having appointed themselves as the highest of beings and arbitraitors of logic and reason, they have deemed themselves the highest of beings. Hence, this is the reason I make the claim that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself.
Who says they have to believe they or any other are the most sentient being? I would think in an atheist mind it's simply an unanswered question as the entire universe and everything in it isn't known.
The idea that there has to be a sentient being is of a more religious idea than anything else.
It's as if you are attaching that false idea or assumption in hopes of bringing atheism down to earth in a manner of speaking.
-
All organizations are religious? Just because there is an organization doesn't make it religious.
It's ridiculous to say an organization that rejects the belief of God is a religion.
Who said all organizations are religious?
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
They meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
-
Who says they have to believe they or any other are the most sentient being? I would think in an atheist mind it's simply an unanswered question as the entire universe and everything in it isn't known.
The idea that there has to be a sentient being is of a more religious idea than anything else.
It's as if you are attaching that false idea or assumption in hopes of bringing atheism down to earth in a manner of speaking.
I do not worship anything. I do not worship man. Man is a poorly evolved ape/mammal who has just crawled out of the primordial mists in terms of evolution. Why would I worship anything as pathetic as that? MCWAY just can't imagine a person worshipping nothing; it's mindboggling to him.
-
Who said all organizations are religious?
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
The meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
So does the local Mustang Car Club. Or the Moose Lodge or the Chess Club, or the Food Network. :)
Atheism is the opposite of religion.
-
Who said all organizations are religious?
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
The meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
You could say they even have a prophet. You have, of course, seen the "Darwin" fish on the back of some non-believers' cars.
-
You could say they even have a prophet. You have, of course, seen the "Darwin" fish on the back of some non-believers' cars.
So does the local book club. They are polytheistic.
-
So does the local Mustang Car Club. Or the Moose Lodge or the Chess Club, or the Food Network. :)
Atheism is the opposite of religion.
No they don't.
-
No they don't.
What don't they do?
There are probably millions of different organizations in the world that have nothing to do with religion that meet some or all of those things you talked about.
It's a ridiculous comparison.
-
What don't they do?
There are probably millions of different organizations in the world that have nothing to do with religion that meet some or all of those things you talked about.
It's a ridiculous comparison.
Which organizations meet all of the criteria I mentioned?
That's your opinion. :)
-
Which organizations meet all of the criteria I mentioned?
That's your opinion. :)
It's a very weak argument, opinion based or not.
To say that there are no organizations that don't share those points is ridiculous also.
Who's opinion it is doesn't matter. It's just the way it is.
-
Silly? Yes!!! But, it's done, nonetheless!!!
If there is no God, then who is the most sentient being in the universe? As far as atheists are concerned, it's man. Atheists love talking about using "logic" and "reason". But whose logic and reason are they using? Is it God's logic and reason? No. They believe in no supernatural deity. Is it that of animals or plants? No.
By default, they are (to borrow a phrase from Scripture) leaning unto their own understanding. Having appointed themselves as the highest of beings and arbitraitors of logic and reason, they have deemed themselves the highest of beings. Hence, this is the reason I make the claim that atheism is effectively man worshipping himself.
Your thinking is falacious.
-
It's a very weak argument, opinion based or not.
To say that there are no organizations that don't share those points is ridiculous also.
Who's opinion it is doesn't matter. It's just the way it is.
What, no examples? And to be more specific, it should be an organization almost mirrors traditional religions and needs to be an organization that bases its existence on the nonbelief in a nonentity.
That's what makes all of these atheist organizations so ridiculous. They're really trying too hard to express the lack of belief in something that they believe doesn't exist. It's comical.
-
Who said all organizations are religious?
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
They meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
The first requirement for a religion is the worship of a deity or prophet. Please refer to a dictionary for the proper meaning of the word. Fundamental belief doesn't cut it.
As for the rest of what you've listed, is this what defines YOUR faith and religion? The producing of television shows and magazines? If so, that's a lot of spirituality you got going for yourself Beach Bum. ;) That's what I meant when I said all you're doing is denigrating yourself.
What you've listed there could be describing any organized entity, as Ozmo kindly did for you, even the democratic or republican parties. Would you call either of those a religion as well? I think some people simply find it easier to earmark all atheists into a single group as it makes it easier to fear and hate an entity... like islam, or satanism, or what have you, rather than a hodge podge of zillions of unidentifiable people.
-
What, no examples? And to be more specific, it should be an organization almost mirrors traditional religions and needs to be an organization that bases its existence on the nonbelief in a nonentity.
That's what makes all of these atheist organizations so ridiculous. They're really trying too hard to express the lack of belief in something that they belive doesn't exist. It's comical.
I'm not going to waste my time trying to show that some group, like for example the NRA, shares these points. What you outlined applies to many organizations BIG and small.
Whether or not Atheists organizations are comical or not is simply a matter of opinion, the same matter of opinion that many share about religious myths. I think it's silly that they would actually have an organization, but what ever, good for them.
I don't care what they or anyone else believes. If someone believes strongly enough in something, then good for them if they want to share their beliefs with like minded individuals. But to call Atheism a religion is plain stupid. It's the opposite of religion.
-
I love Jesus
-
The first requirement for a religion is the worship of a deity or prophet. Please refer to a dictionary for the proper meaning of the word. Fundamental belief doesn't cut it.
As for the rest of what you've listed, is this what defines YOUR faith and religion? The producing of television shows and magazines? If so, that's a lot of spirituality you got going for yourself Beach Bum. ;) That's what I meant when I said all you're doing is denigrating yourself.
What you've listed there could be describing any organized entity, as Ozmo kindly did for you, even the democratic or republican parties. Would you call either of those a religion as well? I think some people simply find it easier to earmark all atheists into a single group as it makes it easier to fear and hate an entity... like islam, or satanism, or what have you, rather than a hodge podge of zillions of unidentifiable people.
Great post DeeDee.
Especially the last sentence. The whole "create something to fear and hate mentality" is a corner stone of doctrine driven religion.
-
The first requirement for a religion is the worship of a deity or prophet. Please refer to a dictionary for the proper meaning of the word. Fundamental belief doesn't cut it.
As for the rest of what you've listed, is this what defines YOUR faith and religion? The producing of television shows and magazines? If so, that's a lot of spirituality you got going for yourself Beach Bum. ;) That's what I meant when I said all you're doing is denigrating yourself.
What you've listed there could be describing any organized entity, as Ozmo kindly did for you, even the democratic or republican parties. Would you call either of those a religion as well? I think some people simply find it easier to earmark all atheists into a single group as it makes it easier to fear and hate an entity... like islam, or satanism, or what have you, rather than a hodge podge of zillions of unidentifiable people.
Yes I know what the dictionary definition says, and if I wasn't sitting on the beach right now I'm sure I could find a definition of "religion" that doesn't include belief in a deity or prophet. Sounds too narrow.
I did not say the list defines my faith, but nice try.
-
I'm not going to waste my time trying to show that some group, like for example the NRA, shares these points. What you outlined applies to many organizations BIG and small.
Whether or not Atheists organizations are comical or not is simply a matter of opinion, the same matter of opinion that many share about religious myths. I think it's silly that they would actually have an organization, but what ever, good for them.
I don't care what they or anyone else believes. If someone believes strongly enough in something, then good for them if they want to share their beliefs with like minded individuals. But to call Atheism a religion is plain stupid. It's the opposite of religion.
Dude I could care less if you think it's a stupid opinion. I don't. You think I'm going to change my view because you think it's stupid?? Also, a pretty smart guy posting in this thread agrees with me. :)
You said the Mustang club, Elks, and book club fit all of the criteria I mentioned. They don't.
I don't expect you to list organizations that fit the criteria I mentioned, because I doubt many, if any, exist.
-
Without a doubt Islam is in a category all by itself because of the way people who believe in being muslim conduct themselves by wrongly name calling by using the word-infidel. It is difficult to respect people who are muslims in Islam for a number of other reasons including how they wrongly dislike Jews.
-
Great post DeeDee.
Especially the last sentence. The whole "create something to fear and hate mentality" is a corner stone of doctrine driven religion.
Lol, well you were doing great. :) I don't get why it irks some people that a tiny minority want to find a few others in a sea of Church going Christians to eat donuts and socialize on Sunday mornings. ;D I could think of better things to do... but oh well. Those other organized groups just seem highly political in nature, although I checked out the convention menus and it seems worth going just for the food!
-
Dude I could care less if you think it's a stupid opinion. I don't. You think I'm going to change my view because you think it's stupid?? Also, a pretty smart guy posting in this thread agrees with me. :)
Since when was this thread about convincing you of anything? Is that how you interpret other people's posts? Are they all an attempt to convince you of something?
And because a someone who you think is pretty smart that agrees with you is supposed to make the idea that Atheism is a religion any less ridculous? I think not.
You said the Mustang club, Elks, and book club fit all of the criteria I mentioned. They don't.
I also said there are millions of organizations in the world that fit all those points or fit some of them. So because the a Mustang car club's website doesn't look like a lobby Atheism is a religion? ::)
I don't expect you to list organizations that fit the criteria I mentioned, because I doubt many, if any, exist.
Almost all do in part or in principle. Lots of religions out there outside the church based ones. All praise the the NRA. Give thanks to the NRA's and give it al it's glory.......
-
Yes I know what the dictionary definition says, and if I wasn't sitting on the beach right now I'm sure I could find a definition of "religion" that doesn't include belief in a deity or prophet. Sounds too narrow.
I did not say the list defines my faith, but nice try.
But you've arbitrarily ascribed that list as your definition of faith for others. Your pretzel logic isn't such a nice try. ::)
I already know the definition of religion, but please do inform yourself.
-
Lol, well you were doing great. :) I don't get why it irks some people that a tiny minority want to find a few others in a sea of Church going Christians to eat donuts and socialize on Sunday mornings. ;D I could think of better things to do... but oh well. Those other organized groups just seem highly political in nature, although I checked out the convention menus and it seems worth going just for the food!
lol hehehe. Food is always a good attraction :)
-
But you've arbitrarily ascribed that list as your definition of faith for others. Your pretzel logic isn't such a nice try. ::)
I already know the definition of religion, but please do inform yourself.
Yeah, let's just dismiss the standard definition religion and find one we like that supports our ridiculous notions.
-
Since when was this thread about convincing you of anything? Is that how you interpret other people's posts? Are they all an attempt to convince you of something?
And because a someone who you think is pretty smart that agrees with you is supposed to make the idea that Atheism is a religion any less ridculous? I think not.
I also said there are millions of organizations in the world that fit all those points or fit some of them. So because the a Mustang car club's website doesn't look like a lobby Atheism is a religion? ::)
Almost all do in part or in principle. Lots of religions out there outside the church based ones. All praise the the NRA. Give thanks to the NRA's and give it al it's glory.......
No, this thread is not about trying to convince me of anything. You are the one who responded to my posts by calling my opinion stupid. I honestly don't care if you agree with me or if you think my viewpoint is stupid. Just so we're clear.
Millions of groups fit all of the criteria I mentioned but you can't name a single one. lol. Yawn.
The NRA doesn't qualify. Now that's stupid.
-
But you've arbitrarily ascribed that list as your definition of faith for others. Your pretzel logic isn't such a nice try. ::)
I already know the definition of religion, but please do inform yourself.
You need a new phrase. "Pretzel logic" is a little old.
Oh quit putting words in my mouth. ::)
I "inform" myself everyday. I am learning today that the State of Hawaii should regulate the wearing of speedos. They ought to hand out licenses for those things. :-\
-
No, this thread is not about trying to convince me of anything. You are the one who responded to my posts by calling my opinion stupid. I honestly don't care if you agree with me or if you think my viewpoint is stupid. Just so we're clear.
Millions of groups fit all of the criteria I mentioned but you can't name a single one. lol. Yawn.
The NRA doesn't qualify. Now that's stupid.
I have.
NRA does.
So does a mustang car club in principle.
And why even take into account the definition of religion? ::)
Is it that Atheism's attack showing the flawed logic of Faith based religion so strong that the only way to marginalize it is to make atheism a religion also?
-
Your criteria is also flawed.
Because there are religions that don't have TV shows or don't publish magazines. So if they don't have TV shows then they are not a religion?
-
Just for the fun of it...........
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion Audio Help [ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely]
—Related forms
re·li·gion·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopćdia Britannica, Inc.
religion
To learn more about religion visit Britannica.com
© 2008 Encyclopćdia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion Audio Help (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast; see rely.]
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
"The equal toleration of all religions ... is the same thing as atheism." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
religion
noun
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
-
this has turned into a wikapedia forum on what constitutes a organization.stick to the topic.who's religion has the most whacked out beliefs
-
I have.
NRA does.
So does a mustang car club in principle.
And why even take into account the definition of religion? ::)
Is it that Atheism's attack showing the flawed logic of Faith based religion so strong that the only way to marginalize it is to make atheism a religion also?
The NRA and the "mustang car club" have mock churches that meet every week? News to me.
I'm not trying to marginalize Atheism and haven't really thought or said anything about Atheism's "attack," so I don't know what you're talking about. That is what we call a straw man.
-
Your criteria is also flawed.
Because there are religions that don't have TV shows or don't publish magazines. So if they don't have TV shows then they are not a religion?
No, I didn't say a religion has to have a TV show or publish magazines. You can parse out any single thing I mentioned, but you're just taking what I said out of context.
-
does everyone here have ADHD
-
Just for the fun of it...........
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion Audio Help [ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely]
—Related forms
re·li·gion·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopćdia Britannica, Inc.
religion
To learn more about religion visit Britannica.com
© 2008 Encyclopćdia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion Audio Help (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast; see rely.]
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
"The equal toleration of all religions ... is the same thing as atheism." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
religion
noun
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Who are you, xxxLinda (three posts in a row)? :)
Some of the definitions you posted include:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
. . .
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Now, if you can't see how Atheism, based on all of things they are involved in that I have previously mentioned in this thread, falls into one of the preceding definitions, then I don't know what else to say.
What these definitions show is the common use of the word "religion" refers to a belief in a supernatural power, but that it can mean any set of beliefs that "one believes in and follows devotedly."
-
does everyone here have ADHD
Guilty! lol. At least on this board. :)
-
Who are you, xxxLinda (three posts in a row)? :)
Some of the definitions you posted include:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
. . .
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Now, if you can't see how Atheism, based on all of things they are involved in that I have previously mentioned in this thread, falls into one of the preceding definitions, then I don't know what else to say.
What these definitions show is the common use of the word "religion" refers to a belief in a supernatural power, but that it can mean any set of beliefs that "one believes in and follows devotedly."
Sometimes, it's best to say nothing.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Both of these definitions point to "set of beliefs and practices" using examples that illustrate organized faith groups, i.e. Christian and Buddhist.
Atheists share no particular faith beliefs or practices among them. There is no book of rules, no particular dress code, no prayer rituals, no houses of worship, traditions, holidays, etc... nothing that sets them apart as a group from others. One atheist might be an ardent existentialist, another a humanist. Some might feel some measure of spirituality with the earth, while others have no spirituality whatsoever. Your examples of "some" people participating in politicized meetings, producing magazines or getting together for donuts doesn't measure up to the definition. Disbelief in something doesn't require faith in something else.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
This is an example of the word religion utilized in the metaphorical sense. "One" might view one's work as a religion. Someone else might view Sunday golf, or weekly baseball game as "a religion" and never miss it. Someone might fight for human rights with a fervor approaching the religious. Again, this doesn't apply to all atheists, all the time, as it's a reference applied in the personal sense. The millions of atheists all over the world are not tied together by some enthusiastic embrace of any one activity or interest. If this poetic, or metaphorical meaning is what you had in mind in calling atheism a religion, then that's a joke.
btw... I recently heard pretzel logic applied to Pelosi's views on offshore drilling... it may be old, but thought it applied in your roundabout application of what constitutes faith and religion. I didn't put words into your mouth at all.
-
Who are you, xxxLinda (three posts in a row)? :)
Some of the definitions you posted include:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
. . .
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Now, if you can't see how Atheism, based on all of things they are involved in that I have previously mentioned in this thread, falls into one of the preceding definitions, then I don't know what else to say.
What these definitions show is the common use of the word "religion" refers to a belief in a supernatural power, but that it can mean any set of beliefs that "one believes in and follows devotedly."
lol. :) Isn't xxxLinda Retired?
And those parts of the definition of religion apply to thouands if not million of other things many other things........ just one example of each:
#2: The medical profession.
#3: The I.O.C.
#6: Playing the violin
That's why there is more to the definition of religion than what you conveniently picked out. Namely: worship and God. That's specifically why definitions need to be specific :D
Otherwise everything that's the color brown is feces for the same reason Atheism is a religion.
-
Sometimes, it's best to say nothing.
Both of these definitions point to "set of beliefs and practices" using examples that illustrate organized faith groups, i.e. Christian and Buddhist.
Atheists share no particular faith beliefs or practices among them. There is no book of rules, no particular dress code, no prayer rituals, no houses of worship, traditions, holidays, etc... nothing that sets them apart as a group from others. One atheist might be an ardent existentialist, another a humanist. Some might feel some measure of spirituality with the earth, while others have no spirituality whatsoever. Your examples of "some" people participating in politicized meetings, producing magazines or getting together for donuts doesn't measure up to the definition. Disbelief in something doesn't require faith in something else.
This is an example of the word religion utilized in the metaphorical sense. "One" might view one's work as a religion. Someone else might view Sunday golf, or weekly baseball game as "a religion" and never miss it. Someone might fight for human rights with a fervor approaching the religious. Again, this doesn't apply to all atheists, all the time, as it's a reference applied in the personal sense. The millions of atheists all over the world are not tied together by some enthusiastic embrace of any one activity or interest. If this poetic, or metaphorical meaning is what you had in mind in calling atheism a religion, then that's a joke.
btw... I recently heard pretzel logic applied to Pelosi's views on offshore drilling... it may be old, but thought it applied in your roundabout application of what constitutes faith and religion. I didn't put words into your mouth at all.
It was probably better for you to say nothing.
The facts simply don't agree with you. If atheists were just people who didn't believe in God, rather than a group of people (at least some of them) who organized in the manner I've already shown, then you might have a point. But in reality, some of them meet every week in what is essentially a mock church, form organizations, hold conventions, publish magazines, meet annually, if not more, to talk about . . . the fact they don't believe in a nonexistent being. That's just laughable.
I watched part of their annual convention last year (?). It was a complete joke. About 90 percent or more of the portion I watched involved people mocking religion, God, etc. I can't speak for anyone else, but I just find it ridiculous that people spend so much time talking about something they don't believe in.
And yes you put words in my mouth. You've done that throughout this thread.
You've used "pretzel logic" on more than one occasion on the board. Time to retire that one.
-
lol. :) Isn't xxxLinda Retired?
And those parts of the definition of religion apply to thouands if not million of other things many other things........ just one example of each:
#2: The medical profession.
#3: The I.O.C.
#6: Playing the violin
That's why there is more to the definition of religion than what you conveniently picked out. Namely: worship and God. That's specifically why definitions need to be specific :D
Otherwise everything that's the color brown is feces for the same reason Atheism is a religion.
You forgot football. Definitely a religion for me. :)
I didn't "conveniently" pick out anything. I highlighted the definitions you posted to show how it applies to what I've been saying.
If religion was only about God, then I guess you think the definitions you posted are wrong?
Bad analogy. I'm not going to touch that one. :)
-
You forgot football. Definitely a religion for me. :)
I didn't "conveniently" pick out anything. I highlighted the definitions you posted to show how it applies to what I've been saying.
If religion was only about God, then I guess you think the definitions you posted are wrong?
Bad analogy. I'm not going to touch that one. :)
When did i say religion was only about God?
I'm not saying what the definition of religion is. The dictionaries are. And Atheism doesn't fall into that definition.
But on a much important note yet mostly irrelevant to the regular season. The Niner's did look good this weekend.
-
When did i say religion was only about God?
I'm not saying what the definition of religion is. The dictionaries are. And Atheism doesn't fall into that definition.
But on a much important note yet mostly irrelevant to the regular season. The Niner's did look good this weekend.
Right here:
That's why there is more to the definition of religion than what you conveniently picked out. Namely: worship and God. That's specifically why definitions need to be specific :D
The Niners looked good. On the other hand, I can't believe Nolan went into camp with those three QBs. He could have at least brought in Culpepper or Leftwich as a QB3. He's starting J.T. O'Sullivan? ??? If we don't get solid QB play this year then Nolan needs to go, even though I like the other personnel decisions he has made.
-
Right here:
Put it in context.....maybe you should have bolded the whole thing:
That's why there is more to the definition of religion than what you conveniently picked out. Namely: worship and God. That's specifically why definitions need to be specific
So we have what you listed (2,3,6), and the other aspects of the definition that you or haven't yet talked about, and the parts of the definition that included Worship and God.
Hence i did NOT say "only" God.
I'm no longer sold on Nolan as much. but they did look good, this one preseason game. lol
-
Put it in context.....maybe you should have bolded the whole thing:
That's why there is more to the definition of religion than what you conveniently picked out. Namely: worship and God. That's specifically why definitions need to be specific
So we have what you listed (2,3,6), and the other aspects of the definition that you or haven't yet talked about, and the parts of the definition that included Worship and God.
Hence i did NOT say "only" God.
I'm no longer sold on Nolan as much. but they did look good, this one preseason game. lol
Actually, I believe what you've said is the definition of religion must include God, which the same definitions you provided do not entirely support.
One of the things that separates all of the items you mentioned are weekly mock church meetings. I don't think doctors have anything like that, or violinists, etc.
We might sniff the playoffs given how watered down the NFL is these days. Parity sucks.
-
It was probably better for you to say nothing.
The facts simply don't agree with you. If atheists were just people who didn't believe in God, rather than a group of people (at least some of them) who organized in the manner I've already shown, then you might have a point. But in reality, some of them meet every week in what is essentially a mock church, form organizations, hold conventions, publish magazines, meet annually, if not more, to talk about . . . the fact they don't believe in a nonexistent being. That's just laughable.
I watched part of their annual convention last year (?). It was a complete joke. About 90 percent or more of the portion I watched involved people mocking religion, God, etc. I can't speak for anyone else, but I just find it ridiculous that people spend so much time talking about something they don't believe in.
And yes you put words in my mouth. You've done that throughout this thread.
You've used "pretzel logic" on more than one occasion on the board. Time to retire that one.
What are your facts? That a relatively small group of people meet for annual conventions to mock God? It may be laughable, but the idea that mocking God constitutes a religion is even more laughable. Did this group of people from somewhere in the US come up with a set of rules for all atheists the world over to follow? A God mocking Code of Ethics perhaps? Cause I didn't get the email, nor did millions of other atheists spanning the globe. I haven't interested myself in these conventions so you would know better than I. Do we now have atheist baptisms? A ritual atheist prayer, secret handshake, any practices wherein I can recognize fellow Atheists within our "faith?"
I didn't think so.
If you get the time, plse point out where I've put words in your mouth as I don't see it.
I'll try to keep from using archaic phrases, so thanks for pointing it out, although it is funny coming from somebody who proclaims "that's absurd" every three posts and who's used ::) to absolute death on a board mostly populated by adults. ;D Sorry, I made myself laugh.
-
What are your facts? That a relatively small group of people meet for annual conventions to mock God? It may be laughable, but the idea that mocking God constitutes a religion is even more laughable. Did this group of people from somewhere in the US come up with a set of rules for all atheists the world over to follow? A God mocking Code of Ethics perhaps? Cause I didn't get the email, nor did millions of other atheists spanning the globe. I haven't interested myself in these conventions so you would know better than I. Do we now have atheist baptisms? A ritual atheist prayer, secret handshake, any practices wherein I can recognize fellow Atheists within our "faith?"
I didn't think so.
If you get the time, plse point out where I've put words in your mouth as I don't see it.
I'll try to keep from using archaic phrases, so thanks for pointing it out, although it is funny coming from somebody who proclaims "that's absurd" every three posts and who's used ::) to absolute death on a board mostly populated by adults. ;D Sorry, I made myself laugh.
Excuse me while I laugh at the fact you amused yourself. ::) What an absurd commentary. (That was just for you.)
I believe if you go back and look at every time I had to correct you in this thread when you attributed various conclusions to me, then you have your answer about putting words in my mouth. Not that hard to figure out. I'm not going to do it for you. Or, as I tell my kids, "I'm not going to think for you." (Since we're using the "adult" vs. child references . . . .)
Yes, all I mentioned were annual conventions. ::) Obviously, what these people talk about at their conventions and in their newsletters, magazines, TV shows, and weekly mock church meetings include their fundamental disbelief in God. It's absurd. (I would use a different word, but I'm working and don't feel like it.)
-
The NRA is a religion. It worships THE GUN.
-
Oh, and can we get back on topic now please?
-
no doubt!there still talking about definitions like there a couple dictionaries.get back to topic or start a separate thread.
-
here ill start us back on the right path.tom cruse joined a religion started by a science fiction novelist.
-
here ill start us back on the right path.tom cruse joined a religion started by a science fiction novelist.
He joined a cult.
-
Oh, and can we get back on topic now please?
no doubt!there still talking about definitions like there a couple dictionaries.get back to topic or start a separate thread.
He (Beach Bum) is on topic. You asked which religion takes the cake, in terms of sheer and utter stupidity.
Bum's answer: The "religion" that takes the cake (in terms of sheer and utter stupidity) is the one whose members spend an inordinate amount of time and resources, blubbering about something/Someone they don't believe to exist, ATHEISM.
The only way he is going off topic is if you are operating under the premise that his only three choices are (or should be) Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
-
Actually, I believe what you've said is the definition of religion must include God, which the same definitions you provided do not entirely support.
One of the things that separates all of the items you mentioned are weekly mock church meetings. I don't think doctors have anything like that, or violinists, etc.
We might sniff the playoffs given how watered down the NFL is these days. Parity sucks.
So now I've went from "only" to "must". Why didn't you say i said "must" to begin with then?
I'm only stating what the definition says. Nothing more.
and by your logic, Footballs are also a pile of crap becuase crap is also brown.
It's not the type of meetings they have, it's the fact they have meetings, just like any other group. and i'm more than sure it's not doctrine in any atheist organization that they have mock church meetings every week.
-
Oh, and can we get back on topic now please?
No ,this thread is free of thread doctrine.
-
Iglesia Maradoniana (Spanish "Maradonian Church")
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Maradona-212369675_3c30adbbb4_o.jpg/250px-Maradona-212369675_3c30adbbb4_o.jpg)
Iglesia Maradoniana (Spanish "Maradonian Church") was created by fans of the retired Argentine football player Diego Maradona, who they believe to be the best player of all time. It was founded on October 30, 1998 (Maradona's 38th birthday) in the city of Rosario. But it wasn't until the year of 2001 that they had their first gathering. They now reportedly count over 100,000 members from more than 60 countries around the world.
It could be seen as a type of syncretism. It's clear that the passion between the different members is what glues them together. As Alejandro Verón, one of the founders tells us “I have a rational religion and that’s the Roman-catholic church, and I have a religion passed on my heart, passion, and that’s Diego Maradona.”
Supporters of the Maradonian Church, supposedly from all parts of the world, count the years since Maradona's birth in 1960. It is popular, among the followers of this religion (and also among other football fans), the use of the neo-Tetragrammaton D10S as one of the names of Maradona: D10S is a portmanteau word which fuses 10 (diez in Spanish), Maradona's shirt number, and Dios, the Spanish word for god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_Maradoniana
The 'Hand of God' church
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/2396503.stm
-
Iglesia Maradoniana (Spanish "Maradonian Church")
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Maradona-212369675_3c30adbbb4_o.jpg/250px-Maradona-212369675_3c30adbbb4_o.jpg)
Iglesia Maradoniana (Spanish "Maradonian Church") was created by fans of the retired Argentine football player Diego Maradona, who they believe to be the best player of all time. It was founded on October 30, 1998 (Maradona's 38th birthday) in the city of Rosario. But it wasn't until the year of 2001 that they had their first gathering. They now reportedly count over 100,000 members from more than 60 countries around the world.
It could be seen as a type of syncretism. It's clear that the passion between the different members is what glues them together. As Alejandro Verón, one of the founders tells us “I have a rational religion and that’s the Roman-catholic church, and I have a religion passed on my heart, passion, and that’s Diego Maradona.”
Supporters of the Maradonian Church, supposedly from all parts of the world, count the years since Maradona's birth in 1960. It is popular, among the followers of this religion (and also among other football fans), the use of the neo-Tetragrammaton D10S as one of the names of Maradona: D10S is a portmanteau word which fuses 10 (diez in Spanish), Maradona's shirt number, and Dios, the Spanish word for god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_Maradoniana
The 'Hand of God' church
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/2396503.stm
wow..................... ....... Give that one the cake.
-
wow..................... ....... Give that one the cake.
;D
-
Maradona is satan. We were robbed by the scummy little coke snorting podge.
-
Maradona is satan. We were robbed by the scummy little coke snorting podge.
;D
"The Hand of Satan"
(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/gabriele_marcotti/10/11/rugby.controversy/p1_maradona_1011.jpg)
-
i see your crazy soccer fans and raise you a hippie that walks on water.
-
End of Thread.... :-\
-
End of Thread.... :-\
I guess this thread didn’t morph into the Christianity (or other religion) bashfest for which Deicide was hoping.
-
I guess this thread didn’t morph into the Christianity (or other religion) bashfest for which Deicide was hoping.
Nothing to do with that...just went way off topic...
;D
-
Excuse me while I laugh at the fact you amused yourself. ::) What an absurd commentary. (That was just for you.)
I think it's fairly obvious that I amuse myself very easily. I don't think my commentary was absurd; thought it was quite lucid actually, and it's also fairly obvious that you've just been playing dumb or the devil in this thread.
I believe if you go back and look at every time I had to correct you in this thread when you attributed various conclusions to me, then you have your answer about putting words in my mouth. Not that hard to figure out. I'm not going to do it for you. Or, as I tell my kids, "I'm not going to think for you." (Since we're using the "adult" vs. child references . . . .)
Meaning... you can't, because I didn't put any words into your mouth.
Yes, all I mentioned were annual conventions. ::) Obviously, what these people talk about at their conventions and in their newsletters, magazines, TV shows, and weekly mock church meetings include their fundamental disbelief in God. It's absurd. (I would use a different word, but I'm working and don't feel like it.)
Atheists discussing their non-belief in any deity! Shocking. :o
Yes, I know you've already stated that all it takes for a group to be considered a religion is getting their message out via mass media. Guess that means everything from the republican party to homosexuality should therefore be viewed as religions.
And while it's absurd, I'm not sure it's any more so than Christians railing at non-believers and sinners through those very same avenues, except a thousands times over, rather than minding their own business. That pesky thing called freedom of speech is only nice when it works in one's favor. :)
What's a mock church? ;D Do they have ritual mock prayers? They must be secret satan worshipers!!! >:(
-
End of Thread.... :-\
Sorry. :-[
-
I'm actually starting to think that the idea that atheism as a religion is right up there with 9/11 CT'ers.
That's the best defense against atheism's attack of logic?
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Also, there are the former atheists turned agnostics, deists and theists who say that they came to a point in their life where denying the existence of God any longer would take more faith than accepting it...their words, not mine.
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Also, there are the former atheists turned agnostics, deists and theists who say that they came to a point in their life where denying the existence of God any longer would take more faith than accepting it...their words, not mine.
Indeed!! In fact, as you already know, one of your favorite apologists, Josh McDowell, was once an atheist. If I'm not mistaken, his conversion came (ironically enough) during a research project of his, in which he was going to show unequivocally that Jesus Christ never existed and that Christianity was a myth.
Now, he's a bona fide believer. I've seen him mainly on TV specials, in particular "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?"
What's a mock church? ;D Do they have ritual mock prayers? They must be secret satan worshipers!!! >:(
Beach Bum is referring to the humanist centers, from the TIME magazine article I mentioned (and linked) earlier. The article focused specifically on the "atheist Sunday schools". The non-religious parents wanted to have their godless values and ideas reinforced, along with a support network, mirroring what Christians have with churches and Sunday school.
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Also, there are the former atheists turned agnostics, deists and theists who say that they came to a point in their life where denying the existence of God any longer would take more faith than accepting it...their words, not mine.
Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby... ::)
-
Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby... ::)
I see your parting of the sea.and raise you turning water to wine,or colt 45.
-
Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby... ::)
Without God, or even the idea of God, many people would still NOT collect stamps, but there would be neither atheists nor organized atheism.
-
Without God, or even the idea of God, many people would still NOT collect stamps, but there would be neither atheists nor organized atheism.
That still doesn't make atheism a religion. How are ser and estar doing with you these days?
-
That still doesn't make atheism a religion. How are ser and estar doing with you these days?
I did not say that atheism is a religion, only that organized atheism can't be compared to political parties, car clubs or gun clubs.
Ser and estar doing with me muy bien these days. Gracias!
-
I did not say that atheism is a religion, only that organized atheism can't be compared to political parties, car clubs or gun clubs.
Ser and estar doing with me muy bien these days. Gracias!
I see. Being is not a bad thing.
-
The claim that people who get together for political reasons or to socialize are part of an organized religion does nothing other than denigrate your own faith.
They're not getting together merely to socialize or for political reasons. Political and social groups assemble for SPECIFIC political and social purposes; These atheist groups come together for one specific and overriding purpose: To reaffirm their "faith" that THERE IS NO GOD. That is the primary (if not the sole) reason for the groups' existence.
That's especially true with the humanist centers. The lady interviewed stated that she notices her neighbors have church groups and families to help teach values and that are a source of strength on which to lean. That's why they pack up the minivan with the kids and head to "mock church", as Beach Bum calls it.
From reading the article, it would appear that Bum's name is appropriate. It's complete with a basic doctrine ("There is no God"), a deity (man, focusing on man's "logic" and "reason"), hymns, etc. Heck, the particular one in Palo Alto literally has a "bishop" ;D.
It appears the only thing missing is having deacons collect tithe and offering. Of course, if this place is run on donations.........
-
They're not getting together merely to socialize or for political reasons. Political and social groups assemble for SPECIFIC political and social purposes; These atheist groups come together for one specific and overriding purpose: To reaffirm their "faith" that THERE IS NO GOD. That is the primary (if not the sole) reason for the groups' existence.
That's especially true with the humanist centers. The lady interviewed stated that she notices her neighbors have church groups and families to help teach values and that are a source of strength on which to lean. That's why they pack up the minivan with the kids and head to "mock church", as Beach Bum calls it.
From reading the article, it would appear that Bum's name is appropriate. It's complete with a basic doctrine ("There is no God"), a deity (man, focusing on man's "logic" and "reason"), hymns, etc. Heck, the particular one in Palo Alto literally has a "bishop" ;D.
It appears the only thing missing is having deacons collect tithe and offering. Of course, if this place is run on donations.........
Bunch of fucktards....I personally would never join anything like that.
-
Beach Bum is referring to the humanist centers, from the TIME magazine article I mentioned (and linked) earlier. The article focused specifically on the "atheist Sunday schools". The non-religious parents wanted to have their godless values and ideas reinforced, along with a support network, mirroring what Christians have with churches and Sunday school.
Teaching morality doesn't define a religion.
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Also, there are the former atheists turned agnostics, deists and theists who say that they came to a point in their life where denying the existence of God any longer would take more faith than accepting it...their words, not mine.
Interesting point loco.
So you are saying atheism doesn't exist without religion?
Does that go fro Democrats and Republicans too?
-
Interesting point loco.
So you are saying atheism doesn't exist without religion?
Does that go fro Democrats and Republicans too?
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Also, there are the former atheists turned agnostics, deists and theists who say that they came to a point in their life where denying the existence of God any longer would take more faith than accepting it...their words, not mine.
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Sure they would. Atheism is simply the non-belief in a supernatural being. If Christianity, Islam etc never existed, you would have a world populated by people who did not believe in the supernatural. Those would be atheists. It is the word by which we refer to people who don't believe in supernatural beings. Some would argue that atheism came first, man invented the supernatural later on.
Atheism is a label to describe that little part of people that they are not. It doesn't label what they ARE. People who don't believe in the supernatural might wholeheartedly subscribe to existentialism, absolute idealism, romanticism, naturalism, etc... any number of belief systems.
How can atheism be a religion when all it is, is a component of many belief systems.
(this isn't aimed at you in particular loco.)
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club.
The dictionary doesn't, nor do I. The first requirement for a religion is the belief in a deity. I would say that faith, spirituality and giving all of your heart and trust in the God you believe in are the most important aspects of a religion. A couple of doods on this thread basically said "nah, all you need is a group of people with a cause who use the media to get their message out." It's kind of weird for people who claim to have faith to want to align themselves with the godless and say "yeah they're just like me" but considering how consumeristic many religions have become, maybe it isn't that far fetched.
-
They're not getting together merely to socialize or for political reasons. Political and social groups assemble for SPECIFIC political and social purposes; These atheist groups come together for one specific and overriding purpose: To reaffirm their "faith" that THERE IS NO GOD. That is the primary (if not the sole) reason for the groups' existence.
From what I saw of those websites, there is a political aspect to it. Namely the liberal left agenda against what they see as the stifling Christian agenda. That convention website had a talk by an activist lawyer listed. Another had other topics relating to "take back our rights, don't be silent" topics. In general in the US, religion has become very politicized, so it's only natural that the "other" side would be as well.
I have faith that it won't rain tomorrow. Doesn't mean I worship rain or sunshine. You can also say that people worship man as a deity, but you're talking metaphorically, and all interpretations are subjective. But that's like playing the "what animal do you see in the cloud" game.
That's especially true with the humanist centers. The lady interviewed stated that she notices her neighbors have church groups and families to help teach values and that are a source of strength on which to lean. That's why they pack up the minivan with the kids and head to "mock church", as Beach Bum calls it.
From reading the article, it would appear that Bum's name is appropriate. It's complete with a basic doctrine ("There is no God"), a deity (man, focusing on man's "logic" and "reason"), hymns, etc. Heck, the particular one in Palo Alto literally has a "bishop" ;D.
It appears the only thing missing is having deacons collect tithe and offering. Of course, if this place is run on donations.........
That's one humanist center. Kooky people.
-
my work buddy said his chuch pastor was telling them they should vote mccain.do you guys feel this is ok?
-
Meaning... you can't, because I didn't put any words into your mouth.
. . .
Yes, I know you've already stated that all it takes for a group to be considered a religion is getting their message out via mass media.
Talk about illustrating my point. Where exactly did I state this?
-
I'm not here to argue that Atheism is a religion, and I am aware that not all atheists are the same. However, you can't compare organized Atheism to Republicans, Democrats, the NRA or the Mustang club. Those organizations would still exist even if so much as the idea of God did not exist. But if the idea of God did not exist at all, neither would atheists nor organized Atheism. Therefore, Atheism is attached to and dependent on the idea of God. This is why some might think of organized Atheism as a religion.
Great point.
-
Indeed!! In fact, as you already know, one of your favorite apologists, Josh McDowell, was once an atheist. If I'm not mistaken, his conversion came (ironically enough) during a research project of his, in which he was going to show unequivocally that Jesus Christ never existed and that Christianity was a myth.
Now, he's a bona fide believer. I've seen him mainly on TV specials, in particular "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?"
Beach Bum is referring to the humanist centers, from the TIME magazine article I mentioned (and linked) earlier. The article focused specifically on the "atheist Sunday schools". The non-religious parents wanted to have their godless values and ideas reinforced, along with a support network, mirroring what Christians have with churches and Sunday school.
lol . . . It is . . . absurd :) to say these places aren't an attempt to mimic traditional churches.
-
my work buddy said his chuch pastor was telling them they should vote mccain.do you guys feel this is ok?
It's OK.....IF you want folks like the ACLU all up in your business. It's more about issues, not the candidates themselves. Case in point. Rod Parsley, from World Harvest Church (in Ohio), took a lot of flak for backing the state's marriage amendment in 2004. He is often cited as touting the Republican party. However, many of his critics didn't seem to notice that he had a number of Democrats at that rally, who also supported the Ohio's marriage amendment.
From what I saw of those websites, there is a political aspect to it. Namely the liberal left agenda against what they see as the stifling Christian agenda. That convention website had a talk by an activist lawyer listed. Another had other topics relating to "take back our rights, don't be silent" topics. In general in the US, religion has become very politicized, so it's only natural that the "other" side would be as well.
You can oppose what's known as the "religious right" WITHOUT abandoning your faith in God (or any other supernatural entities). That may be part of the agenda. But, mere political opposition is NOT the primary reason why they assemble. It's beyond politics; this is about philosophy, about "doctrine". BTW, I’d love to know what atheists are supposedly trying to “take back”, considering that no one stripped them of any rights, in the first place.
That's one humanist center. Kooky people.
That's the one referenced in the article. However, I'm sure that the other have similar practices. If you find one that differs, please list it here.
-
It's OK.....IF you want folks like the ACLU all up in your business. It's more about issues, not the candidates themselves. Case in point. Rod Parsley, from World Harvest Church (in Ohio), took a lot of flak for backing the state's marriage amendment back in 2004. He is often cited as backing the Republican party. However, many of his critics didn't seem to notice that he had a number of Democrats at that rally, who also backed the Ohio's marriage amendment.
You can oppose what's known as the "religious right" WITHOUT abandoning your faith in God (or any other supernatural entities). That may be part of the agenda. But, mere political opposition is NOT the primary reason why they assemble. It's beyond politics; this is about philosophy, about "doctrine". BTW, I’d love to know what atheists are supposedly trying to “take back”, considering that no one stripped them of any rights, in the first place.
Why do you think belief in Zeus and Ares is so wrong?
-
Why do you think belief in Zeus and Ares is so wrong?
They are real, except they are not gods. They are fallen angels who are now in spiritual prisons until judgement day. ;D
Genesis 6:4
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
2 Peter 2:4
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment"
Jude 1:6
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
-
Sure they would. Atheism is simply the non-belief in a supernatural being. If Christianity, Islam etc never existed, you would have a world populated by people who did not believe in the supernatural. Those would be atheists. It is the word by which we refer to people who don't believe in supernatural beings. Some would argue that atheism came first, man invented the supernatural later on.
Atheism is a label to describe that little part of people that they are not. It doesn't label what they ARE. People who don't believe in the supernatural might wholeheartedly subscribe to existentialism, absolute idealism, romanticism, naturalism, etc... any number of belief systems.
How can atheism be a religion when all it is, is a component of many belief systems.
(this isn't aimed at you in particular loco.)
The dictionary doesn't, nor do I. The first requirement for a religion is the belief in a deity. I would say that faith, spirituality and giving all of your heart and trust in the God you believe in are the most important aspects of a religion. A couple of doods on this thread basically said "nah, all you need is a group of people with a cause who use the media to get their message out." It's kind of weird for people who claim to have faith to want to align themselves with the godless and say "yeah they're just like me" but considering how consumeristic many religions have become, maybe it isn't that far fetched.
I was not referring to religion itself. I was referring to God, the belief or idea of God. God can still exist without religion, and religion can exist without God. Just look at the Maradonian Church religion I posted above. These people gather, worship, exalt and pray to whom they consider to be, not a god, but the greatest football player ever. This isn't just a soccer fan club, it is an official religion without God in it.
Religion was not there in the beginning, but God was. Religions came later.
We could argue that atheism is not a religion, but anybody can make a religion out of anything. In the case of those atheists in the Time magazine article that MCWAY posted, they clearly have made an organized religion out of atheism.
-
Why do you think belief in Zeus and Ares is so wrong?
That’s a question you should ask yourself, Deicide.
-
Sure they would. Atheism is simply the non-belief in a supernatural being. If Christianity, Islam etc never existed, you would have a world populated by people who did not believe in the supernatural. Those would be atheists. It is the word by which we refer to people who don't believe in supernatural beings. Some would argue that atheism came first, man invented the supernatural later on.
Atheism is a label to describe that little part of people that they are not. It doesn't label what they ARE. People who don't believe in the supernatural might wholeheartedly subscribe to existentialism, absolute idealism, romanticism, naturalism, etc... any number of belief systems.
How can atheism be a religion when all it is, is a component of many belief systems.
All of those systems have ONE common doctrine: The belief that there is no supernatural being. In its place, they put a natural being/entity (usually, MAN) as the object of worship and reverence. Or, as the apostle Paul put it, they worship the created, instead of the Creator.
-
Teaching morality doesn't define a religion.
It isn’t the mere teaching of morality, Ozmo. It’s the SOURCE of such. Whose morals are they teaching? Who do they claim has the ULTIMATE authority of determining right and wrong?
My point is that, if God is not that ultimate authority, then it is man. And, if such is the case, then man is the highest sentient being, whose views and ethics are being revered and “worshipped”. That effectively makes man the “deity” of atheism, a natural “deity” vs. a supernatural one.
-
My point is that, if God is not that ultimate authority, then it is man.
Such is not the case, but instead a condition you place to make a point. Nothing says there has to be any ultimate authority.
And, if such is the case, then man is the highest sentient being, whose views and ethics are being revered and “worshipped”.
I wouldn't think atheist see man as the highest sentient being. I could be wrong, but i don;t think atheism has any roots in the idea that man is the highest being in the universe when 99.999999999999999999999 99999999% is unknown.
That effectively makes man the “deity” of atheism, a natural “deity” vs. a supernatural one.
No i doesn't. What I've read from the atheist on this board is no where near what you just wrote here. It's just an conclusion you've made to make sense of them in your belief system.
It isn’t the mere teaching of morality, Ozmo. It’s the SOURCE of such. Whose morals are they teaching? Who do they claim has the ULTIMATE authority of determining right and wrong?
That's the difference between some people. Some people need a book or set of laws or rules to show them how to be good. Truly good people don't need laws or rules to follow Biblical or otherwise to be good.
-
All of those systems have ONE common doctrine: The belief that there is no supernatural being. In its place, they put a natural being/entity (usually, MAN) as the object of worship and reverence. Or, as the apostle Paul put it, they worship the created, instead of the Creator.
Where does this happen?
Maybe some Pagan off shoot ritual cult does.
-
Such is not the case, but instead a condition you place to make a point. Nothing says there has to be any ultimate authority.
But, there is an ultimate authority, Ozmo. They are teaching morals and values from some source or standard. If it's not man or God, then who/what is it?
I wouldn't think atheist see man as the highest sentient being. I could be wrong, but i don;t think atheism has any roots in the idea that man is the highest being in the universe when 99.999999999999999999999 99999999% is unknown.
I missed the part where atheists claimed that there’s a being higher than man. If they "don't know", they assume that there is no such being. And, until they "find" such a being, they place man in that position, by default.
No i doesn't. What I've read from the atheist on this board is no where near what you just wrote here. It's just an conclusion you've made to make sense of them in your belief system.
That's the difference between some people. Some people need a book or set of laws or rules to show them how to be good. Truly good people don't need laws or rules to follow Biblical or otherwise to be good.
That makes no sense, Ozmo. Again, who/what determines whether or not someone is being good? You can NOT qualify “good” vs. “evil” without some sort of standard. My statements make the point that the atheists have such a standard and a source. But, they spend so much time screaming about what/who that source is NOT, that little attention is placed on who/what that source IS.
Someone taught YOU how to be good and they got their values and morals from a certain source. You didn't learn how to be good on your own (and neither did your parents).
Where does this happen?
Maybe some Pagan off shoot ritual cult does.
Not necessarily! Man is a created being. Therefore, if he is effectively worshipping himself (his own logic, reason, and understanding), the statement from Paul sticks.
-
But, there is an ultimate authority, Ozmo. If it's not man or God, then who/what is it?
Why does there have to an ultimate authority? That's something you assume needs to be.
If they don't know, they assume that there is no such being. And, until they "find" such a being, they place man in that position, by default.
You are the one that seems to be assuming much. It seems to me that a condition you put on life is the prerequisite of the existence of an ultimate being. Being that, if you don;t believe there is a God ,then you must replace God with man.
That's not the case at all. From what i understand Atheists look at themselves as higher animals.
That makes no sense, Ozmo. Again, who/what determines whether or not someone is being good? You can NOT qualify “good” vs. “evil” without some sort of standard. My statements make the point that the atheists have such a standard and a source. But, they spend so much time screaming about what/who that source is NOT, that little attention is placed on who/what that source IS.
Someone taught YOU how to be good and they got their values and morals from a certain source. You didn't learn how to be good on your own (and neither did your parents).
I think I see what you are saying about sources. God is the source of morality.
However, I believe in the atheist's mind, the root of morality, which has manifested itself in many forms and in many cultures through out time stems from the idea of victimization. If your actions produce a victim then it's wrong. And morals evolve as cultures evolve.
My parents raised me with a strong set of moral standards based in Christian teachings. However, those teachings do not keep from doing bad things. So whether it is God or not, I choose not to do bad things.
I have a friend, who is now a former pastor, who got angry at God becuase of his divorce. He's womanizing, lying, cheating, drug user now. He was never a truly good person IMO. The only thing that keep him "in check" was his belief in God. And that was fine by me becuase i would rather have the way he was.
Not necessarily! Man is a created being. Therefore, if he is effectively worshiping himself (his own logic, reason, and understanding), the statement from Paul sticks.
Not worshiping God doesn't mean you will replace him. Worshiping is not a core function of man. In your way of thinking it may be, but not with those who don't believe in God.
-
That’s a question you should ask yourself, Deicide.
I do, I have; they are much cooler than your deity! :P
-
There are probably beings much more highly evolved than we are; far greater than homo sapiens.
Hey Ozmo,
I heard on a radio show once how some guy called in and said if he didn't believe in Jebus and the Bible he would murder his neighbors and the host kept asking him, are you serious and he kept saying yes I am serious; for people like that I am glad they have their religion but personally I think they should be hospitalised.
I obviously cannot speak for all atheists but to me morality is simple; cause the least pain and make life as tolerable as possible. This is based on mutual understanding; I don't want others to rob me or stab me so I don't do it myself. I don't need an angry war god shouting out barbarism to me to 'not steal or murder'. People like that should be locked away.
-
Why does there have to an ultimate authority? That's something you assume needs to be.
Because morals and standards, "good" and "evil", are based on some sort of authority. The question remains, what/who is that authority for atheists, since it is not a supernatural being?
You are the one that seems to be assuming much. It seems to me that a condition you put on life is the prerequisite of the existence of an ultimate being. Being that, if you don;t believe there is a God ,then you must replace God with man.
Would you prefer He be replaced with sheep? Again, if it ain't God or man, then who is this ultimate being?
That's not the case at all. From what i understand Atheists look at themselves as higher animals.
And, unless there's a higher "animal" than man, he is on top of the hiearchy, as is his doctrine, logic, and reason, when it comes to determining "good" and "evil".
I think I see what you are saying about sources. God is the source of morality.
EXACTLY!!! But, atheists don't believe in God; therefore someone/something else drives their sense of morality. What is that source?
However, I believe in the atheist's mind, the root of morality, which has manifested itself in many forms and in many cultures through out time stems from the idea of victimization. If your actions produce a victim then it's wrong. And morals evolve as cultures evolve.
My parents raised me with a strong set of moral standards based in Christian teachings. However, those teachings do not keep from doing bad things. So whether it is God or not, I choose not to do bad things.
I have a friend, who is now a former pastor, who got angry at God becuase of his divorce. He's womanizing, lying, cheating, drug user now. He was never a truly good person IMO. The only thing that keep him "in check" was his belief in God. And that was fine by me becuase i would rather have the way he was.
His anger was misplaced. Just because people do wrong to you doesn't mean you have license to do wrong to others, especially when (most of the time) your victims aren't the ones who did you dirty.
Not worshiping God doesn't mean you will replace him. Worshiping is not a core function of man. In your way of thinking it may be, but not with those who don't believe in God.
I beg to differ. Plus, worship does not imply that the fashion in which it's done will be similar or identical. Just as Muslims don't worship Allah in the exact method that Christians worship God, man doesn't worship himself in the same fashion that Christians worship God or Muslims worship Allah.
-
There are probably beings much more highly evolved than we are; far greater than homo sapiens.
Then why aren't you following their standards of right and wrong, instead of your own?
Hey Ozmo,
I heard on a radio show once how some guy called in and said if he didn't believe in Jebus and the Bible he would murder his neighbors and the host kept asking him, are you serious and he kept saying yes I am serious; for people like that I am glad they have their religion but personally I think they should be hospitalised.
I obviously cannot speak for all atheists but to me morality is simple; cause the least pain and make life as tolerable as possible. This is based on mutual understanding; I don't want others to rob me or stab me so I don't do it myself. I don't need an angry war god shouting out barbarism to me to 'not steal or murder'. People like that should be locked away.
The apostle Paul had a term for that. It’s called “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” There are many people who follow the principles of the Lord, without giving Him honor and glory for such.
As for your “mutual understanding”, (notwithstanding that such is based on humanistic reasoning) saying that “I don’t want (fill in the blank) done to me; so I won’t do that to other people” ain’t the most sound principle in the world. It's quite easy to justify doing something to someone else that you DON'T want done to you.
You may want to have sex with someone else’s wife/girlfriend; but, it’s highly unlikely that you would want another guy to bone your wife/girlfriend. And, even thieves lament when someone takes their possessions from them. And, virtually no murderer wants to be murdered himself; no rapist wants to be raped.
-
Then why aren't you following their standards of right and wrong, instead of your own?
The apostle Paul had a term for that. It’s called “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” There are many people who follow the principles of the Lord, without giving Him honor and glory for such.
As for your “mutual understanding”, (notwithstanding that such is based on humanistic reasoning) saying that “I don’t want (fill in the blank) done to me; so I won’t do that to other people” ain’t the most sound principle in the world. It's quite easy to justify doing something to someone else that you DON'T want done to you.
You may want to have sex with someone else’s wife/girlfriend; but, it’s highly unlikely that you would want another guy to bone your wife/girlfriend. And, even thieves lament when someone takes their possessions from them. And, virtually no murderer wants to be murdered himself; no rapist wants to be raped.
This statement shows clearly that you understood nothing of my statement; Zeus is much cooler than your god is.
-
Because morals and standards, "good" and "evil", are based on some sort of authority. The question remains, what/who is that authority for atheists, since it is not a supernatural being?
Who says?
Again that's a condition "you" are establishing and not necessarily the truth.
Would you prefer He be replaced with sheep? Again, if it ain't God or man, then who is this ultimate being?
You got to remember i strongly believe in God. That being said, i would think an Atheist sees life void of an ultimate being until such is proven to exist.
And, unless there's a higher "animal" than man, he is on top of the hiearchy, as is his doctrine, logic, and reason, when it comes to determining "good" and "evil".
I would think intelligent Atheists don't assume they are the highest in the universe.
EXACTLY!!! But, atheists don't believe in God; therefore someone/something else drives their sense of morality. What is that source?
I told you in the other part about the pastor.
His anger was misplaced. Just because people do wrong to you doesn't mean you have license to do wrong to others, especially when (most of the time) your victims aren't the ones who did you dirty.
I agree. but he was this way before he was "saved" and now that his faith is disillusioned he's back to the way he was. Shows me, he was never what he thought he was at the core.
I beg to differ. Plus, worship does not imply that the fashion in which it's done will be similar or identical. Just as Muslims don't worship Allah in the exact method that Christians worship God, man doesn't worship himself in the same fashion that Christians worship God or Muslims worship Allah.
Well that brings into question the definition of the word worship:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
wor·ship Audio Help /ˈwɜrʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or (especially British) -shipped, -ship·ping.
–noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
–verb (used with object)
6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object)
8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.
I suppose you could apply some of what you saying regarding worship but it's quite a reach to compare it with worshiping God. In fact, it's not applicable.
-
Because morals and standards, "good" and "evil", are based on some sort of authority. The question remains, what/who is that authority for atheists, since it is not a supernatural being?
Would you prefer He be replaced with sheep? Again, if it ain't God or man, then who is this ultimate being?
And, unless there's a higher "animal" than man, he is on top of the hiearchy, as is his doctrine, logic, and reason, when it comes to determining "good" and "evil".
EXACTLY!!! But, atheists don't believe in God; therefore someone/something else drives their sense of morality. What is that source?
His anger was misplaced. Just because people do wrong to you doesn't mean you have license to do wrong to others, especially when (most of the time) your victims aren't the ones who did you dirty.
I beg to differ. Plus, worship does not imply that the fashion in which it's done will be similar or identical. Just as Muslims don't worship Allah in the exact method that Christians worship God, man doesn't worship himself in the same fashion that Christians worship God or Muslims worship Allah.
So if god decides tommorow that murder and rape are cool (as he had in the past) then it's the moral thing to do? He is the ultimate authority here and remember, before you go on saying he would never do that, A) how can you know the mind of God and B) when you say that you are applying your own standards to him...
-
They are real, except they are not gods. They are fallen angels who are now in spiritual prisons until judgement day. ;D
Genesis 6:4
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
2 Peter 2:4
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment"
Jude 1:6
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
have u met them?r they cool cats?how much can they bench?
-
I was talking about science providing "facts", which by definition of science it does not. It provides scientific theories.
a theory is a collection of facts which science or observation has elucidated. Facts exist, wait i know what you will ask, what is existence, what is what?
you seem like you wish to delve deep into these subjects beneth the surface, however some form of philosophical training is required in order to concisely form meaningful objections. I see you failing in your posts to connect any meaning.
-
There are probably beings much more highly evolved than we are; far greater than homo sapiens.
Hey Ozmo,
I heard on a radio show once how some guy called in and said if he didn't believe in Jebus and the Bible he would murder his neighbors and the host kept asking him, are you serious and he kept saying yes I am serious; for people like that I am glad they have their religion but personally I think they should be hospitalised.
I obviously cannot speak for all atheists but to me morality is simple; cause the least pain and make life as tolerable as possible. This is based on mutual understanding; I don't want others to rob me or stab me so I don't do it myself. I don't need an angry war god shouting out barbarism to me to 'not steal or murder'. People like that should be locked away.
exactly, evolutionary psychology has produced many answers as to why morality or altruism exists. It all has to do personal gratification, doing something good produces good feelings, as well as providing service to others who may in fact return the favor if needed. It has been demonstrated in social psychology and morality is extremely beneficial to have as humans prefer order and patterns insted of chaos and disorder. It allows us to increase our fitness and recieve physical/psychologica benefits.
NO GOD NEEDED.
-
There are probably beings much more highly evolved than we are; far greater than homo sapiens.
Hey Ozmo,
I heard on a radio show once how some guy called in and said if he didn't believe in Jebus and the Bible he would murder his neighbors and the host kept asking him, are you serious and he kept saying yes I am serious; for people like that I am glad they have their religion but personally I think they should be hospitalised.
I obviously cannot speak for all atheists but to me morality is simple; cause the least pain and make life as tolerable as possible. This is based on mutual understanding; I don't want others to rob me or stab me so I don't do it myself. I don't need an angry war god shouting out barbarism to me to 'not steal or murder'. People like that should be locked away.
Just a clarification, being more "evolved" in regards to natural selection doesn't make sense. Evolution is a mechanism not a measuring stick.
A slug is just as "evolved" as an homo sapien, an homo sapien however is a much more complex organism tho.
-
Just a clarification, being more "evolved" in regards to natural selection doesn't make sense. Evolution is a mechanism not a measuring stick.
A slug is just as "evolved" as an homo sapien, an homo sapien however is a much more complex organism tho.
By 'evolved' I meant this more in an abstract sense, not the technical sense of the word...
-
By 'evolved' I meant this more in an abstract sense, not the technical sense of the word...
Abstract?
Next you'll be posting ambiguous philosophical responses like wavelength!
-
exactly, evolutionary psychology has produced many answers as to why morality or altruism exists. It all has to do personal gratification, doing something good produces good feelings, as well as providing service to others who may in fact return the favor if needed. It has been demonstrated in social psychology and morality is extremely beneficial to have as humans prefer order and patterns insted of chaos and disorder. It allows us to increase our fitness and recieve physical/psychologica benefits.
NO GOD NEEDED.
There's at least one major problem with this statement of yours: Doing something good DOES NOT always produce good feelings nor provide personal gratification.
What about reporting a wrongdoing, when the perpetrator is a close friend or relative? Does it produce good feelings, when that buddy of yours now hates your guts, because he's in trouble?
Then, there are people that give and help out a friend financially, even though they are barely making it themselves. How gratifying is it, when such sacrifice goes without gratitude or even returned with scorn?
If everybody did good, simply because it produce good feelings or it was gratifying, this planet would be in even WORSE moral shape that it currently is now.
-
exactly, evolutionary psychology has produced many answers as to why morality or altruism exists. It all has to do personal gratification, doing something good produces good feelings, as well as providing service to others who may in fact return the favor if needed. It has been demonstrated in social psychology and morality is extremely beneficial to have as humans prefer order and patterns insted of chaos and disorder. It allows us to increase our fitness and recieve physical/psychologica benefits.
NO GOD NEEDED.
That's a great point.
How do we know that God is the source of morality? B/c some guys told us God told/inspired them of good/evil. That looks like nothing more than some biblical guys giving us their own opinion on how they derived their own views of right and wrong. Divine Inspiration is a human-centered conclusion. I think it speaks more to the psychology of the person asserting the claim of divine knowledge than it does to the value of the claim.
It is the human mind that makes sense of and establishes order on reality.
-
There's at least one major problem with this statement of yours: Doing something good DOES NOT always produce good feelings nor provide personal gratification.
What about reporting a wrongdoing, when the perpetrator is a close friend or relative? Does it produce good feelings, when that buddy of yours now hates your guts, because he's in trouble?
Then, there are people that give and help out a friend financially, even though they are barely making it themselves. How gratifying is it, when such sacrifice goes without gratitude or even returned with scorn?
If everybody did good, simply because it produce good feelings or it was gratifying, this planet would be in even WORSE moral shape that it currently is now.
Why does a martyr do what he does? "Good feelings", to me, indicate some sort of psychological satisfaction in doing something. That would include dying for a cause--running into a burning building to save a child, throwing oneself on a grenade, or just plain sacrifice for a cause bigger than one's self.
-
Who says?
Again that's a condition "you" are establishing and not necessarily the truth.
YOU say!!! Your statement was "that God is the source of morality". My question was that, since atheists don't believe in God, what is their source or standard of morality? Who/what is the measuring stick for right and wrong?
You got to remember i strongly believe in God. That being said, i would think an Atheist sees life void of an ultimate being until such is proven to exist.
I beg to differ. Until an atheist feels that the existence of an ultimate being has been proven, he will insert himself (man) as that being.
I would think intelligent Atheists don't assume they are the highest in the universe.
I told you in the other part about the pastor.
I agree. but he was this way before he was "saved" and now that his faith is disillusioned he's back to the way he was. Shows me, he was never what he thought he was at the core.
Well that brings into question the definition of the word worship:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
wor·ship Audio Help /ˈwɜrʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or (especially British) -shipped, -ship·ping.
–noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
–verb (used with object)
6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object)
8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.
I suppose you could apply some of what you saying regarding worship but it's quite a reach to compare it with worshiping God. In fact, it's not applicable.
Definitions 1, 7, and 10 seem to fit the bill, as to the type of "worship", that atheists do. In particular, I point out definition 1:
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
Key words: "Or a sacred personage". With atheism, the "or" option is taken and the "sacred personage" is man himself. "an's thoughts, man's logic, and man's reason have become revered.
-
Why does a martyr do what he does? "Good feelings", to me, indicate some sort of psychological satisfaction in doing something. That would include dying for a cause--running into a burning building to save a child, throwing oneself on a grenade, or just plain sacrifice for a cause bigger than one's self.
There's a reason it's called "sacrifice", Decker. It's because it DOES NOT feel good. It hurts: physically, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, financially, or any combination thereof.
Anyone can do something good, when it feels good. How many can do something good, when it hurts? Can you love someone who doesn't love you back?
Can you help someone, knowing they don't or won't appreciate it? Can you give, knowing that it's going to put you in financial strain?
-
There's a reason it's called "sacrifice", Decker. It's because it DOES NOT feel good. It hurts: physically, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, financially, or any combination thereof.
Anyone can do something good, when it feels good. How many can do something good, when it hurts? Can you love someone who doesn't love you back?
Can you help someone, knowing they don't or won't appreciate it? Can you give, knowing that it's going to put you in financial strain?
That's why I termed the phenomenon 'satisfaction' and not 'good feelings'. Why do people visit graves of loved ones? There's no one there to speak with. It's an emotional event...usually negative in some aspect b/c the subject is dead. Yet the living visit the dead all the time.
Why do people sacrifice their lives for strangers? Why does the martyr exist?
I agree with you. It is most definitely not 'good feelings'. There is something more profound at play here.
-
I beg to differ. Until an atheist feels that the existence of an ultimate being has been proven, he will insert himself (man) as that being.
That's an assumption you are making FOR atheists. Show me where atheists say that. We are back to you putting a false condition on something to make your point make sense.
YOU say!!! Your statement was "that God is the source of morality". My question was that, since atheists don't believe in God, what is their source or standard of morality? Who/what is the measuring stick for right and wrong?
I don't believe the God that's identified in the bible is the source of morality. But that's another discussion, a horse well beaten to death by us.
Victimization is a great measuring stick.
Definitions 1, 7, and 10 seem to fit the bill, as to the type of "worship", that atheists do. In particular, I point out definition 1:
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
Key words: "Or a sacred personage". With atheism, the "or" option is taken and the "sacred personage" is man himself. "an's thoughts, man's logic, and man's reason have become revered.
"a" (a sacred personage) denotes singularity. It does not denote an entire species.
in definition 7 it's the same.
In definition 10, it's a general statement. I view my children and parents with "reverence or regard" Does that mean worship them instead of God?
-
Talk about illustrating my point. Where exactly did I state this?
Here. Am I not reading English ???
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
They meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
-
Here. Am I not reading English ???
You are reading but apparently not comprehending. Here is what you said:
Yes, I know you've already stated that all it takes for a group to be considered a religion is getting their message out via mass media.
Here are my comments you contend support the preceding statement:
It's ridiculous to say that atheists who have all of the earmarks of a religion are not, in essence, a religion. Don't just point to one item. Look at everything I mentioned.
They have a fundamental belief (there is no God).
They meet on a regular basis, sometimes every week, at "humanist centers."
They have national and probably local organizations.
They have annual conventions.
They have a cable TV show.
They probably have radio shows.
They publish magazines and likely newsletters.
Based on their website, it looks like they lobby.
The website also looks like they have support groups.
If you view these factors together, it absolutely qualifies as a religion in my book.
You are a smart lady Deedee. Your statement was false and I think you know that. It's right there in black and white.
-
You can oppose what's known as the "religious right" WITHOUT abandoning your faith in God (or any other supernatural entities). That may be part of the agenda. But, mere political opposition is NOT the primary reason why they assemble. It's beyond politics; this is about philosophy, about "doctrine". BTW, I’d love to know what atheists are supposedly trying to “take back”, considering that no one stripped them of any rights, in the first place.
Why must there necessarily be something to abandon? You cannot fashion a belief out of something that doesn't exist in your heart. Plain and simple.
That's the one referenced in the article. However, I'm sure that the other have similar practices. If you find one that differs, please list it here.
You're making me work MCWAY ;D but it's okay. I like new learning experiences. :)
QUEENS, NY -- This one is totally political, of which much I don't agree with, but anyway.
http://humanistcenterqueens.blogspot.com/
CT -- I would totally spend evenings with these people!!!
http://www.cthumanist.org/about.html
JOISEY ;D -- More of a family humanism group.
http://www.njhn.org/index.php
I just don't see this "mock church" aspect with services and fake bishops that you and BB point to with sneering dismissiveness. The last one appears to have more "atheist" teachings within its concept, but as Ozmo says, parents do need to teach their children morality in some fashion after all. I could also ask you why so many sermons at any given moment focus so much on the "godless" and alleged "sinners." Why does Ben Stein need to make anti-evolution flicks, and go on religious talk shows to spew stuff like "God is love, science leads to killing people?" With two thirds of the US population being Christian, surely you have nothing to fear.
I only have a few mins and will answer the other stuff later, but usmokepole, Ozmo and Decker have done a good job of trying to explain it. I think you're just so inured to the idea of obeying a great father that you can't imagine morality without supernatural punishment or reward. It does exist though.
-
You are reading but apparently not comprehending. Here is what you said:
Here are my comments you contend support the preceding statement:
You are a smart lady Deedee. Your statement was false and I think you know that. It's right there in black and white.
No, I think what it says in black and white is that you don't require spirituality or faith in your concept of religion. I don't see it there.
We've already covered this idea that Atheism is the fundamental belief. It isn't. It's a component of the larger picture.
The common thread I share with deicide and nordic is that we don't believe ia supernatural being created us. I have very deep spiritual feelings regarding the beliefs that I hold close to my heart and that make me who I am. My beliefs would make both nordic and deicide fall over laughing if they got a hint of them. So how do we "share" a religion?
-
I have very deep spiritual feelings regarding the beliefs that I hold close to my heart and that make me who I am. My beliefs would make both nordic and deicide fall over laughing if they got a hint of them. So how do we "share" a religion?
What are your spiritual beliefs? I thought atheists did not believe in the spiritual, spirit, soul, etc.
-
That's an assumption you are making FOR atheists. Show me where atheists say that. We are back to you putting a false condition on something to make your point make sense.
That's not a false condition. Here's an excerpt from one of the links that Beach Bum posted (www.atheists.org)
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
That pretty much backs what I've said from the start. Atheists put themselves (MAN) as the top hiearchy, as far as authority is concerned.
I don't believe the God that's identified in the bible is the source of morality. But that's another discussion, a horse well beaten to death by us.
That is another story. But, it goes back to my earlier statements. Atheists don't believe that God (whether you think it's the one defined in the Bible or not) is the source of moral authority. Once again, the question is asked: Who/What is this moral authority or standard for atheists?
"a" (a sacred personage) denotes singularity. It does not denote an entire species.
in definition 7 it's the same.
In definition 10, it's a general statement. I view my children and parents with "reverence or regard" Does that mean worship them instead of God?
Definition 10 is a general statement, which is why I added definitions 1 and 7, to specify it.
-
What are your spiritual beliefs? I thought atheists did not believe in the spiritual, spirit, soul, etc.
Some people with atheistic values don't have any spirituality within their worldview, but that doesn't apply to all. Loco, I'd rather not get into wackiness on the board :) but I think I once mentioned something about our human hive connectivity. That's about as far as I'll go. :)
-
No, I think what it says in black and white is that you don't require spirituality or faith in your concept of religion. I don't see it there.
We've already covered this idea that Atheism is the fundamental belief. It isn't. It's a component of the larger picture.
The common thread I share with deicide and nordic is that we don't believe ia supernatural being created us. I have very deep spiritual feelings regarding the beliefs that I hold close to my heart and that make me who I am. My beliefs would make both nordic and deicide fall over laughing if they got a hint of them. So how do we "share" a religion?
Forgive me for being a little stuck on your misstatement. You really did prove my point about putting words in my mouth. Pretty blatant.
What I've described has the earmarks of a religion. As either loco or McWay said earlier, these people wouldn't exist without God. They have organized themselves to mimic traditional Christian churches. The "humanist centers" really take the cake.
-
Why must there necessarily be something to abandon? You cannot fashion a belief out of something that doesn't exist in your heart. Plain and simple.
I made that remark, because you said that some of the atheist groups were more political in nature, specifically to oppose the "religious right". Again, there are a number of groups that oppose the "religious right" but DO NOT claim that there's no God. In fact, some of these folks proclaim quite adamantly that they are Christians.
You're making me work MCWAY ;D but it's okay. I like new learning experiences. :)
QUEENS, NY -- This one is totally political, of which much I don't agree with, but anyway.
http://humanistcenterqueens.blogspot.com/
CT -- I would totally spend evenings with these people!!!
http://www.cthumanist.org/about.html
JOISEY ;D -- More of a family humanism group.
http://www.njhn.org/index.php
I'm afraid you've linked more of the same stuff that Bum did. The "Joisey" group, for instance. It may be a family humanism group, but check out the very first paragraph at the top of the home page:
The New Jersey Humanist Network is a vibrant and growing community of secular humanists. Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. We believe that virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity derive from natural human values and reason, and are realized fully only when free from belief in supernatural powers and a spiritual afterlife. Please consider joining us for our free monthly meetings in Bridgewater.
That's another example of what I've been saying. These humanists see THEMSELVES (man) as the ultimate authority on morality and are joined by the common doctrine/belief that there is no God.
I just don't see this "mock church" aspect with services and fake bishops that you and BB point to with sneering dismissiveness. The last one appears to have more "atheist" teachings within its concept, but as Ozmo says, parents do need to teach their children morality in some fashion after all. I could also ask you why so many sermons at any given moment focus so much on the "godless" and alleged "sinners." Why does Ben Stein need to make anti-evolution flicks, and go on religious talk shows to spew stuff like "God is love, science leads to killing people?" With two thirds of the US population being Christian, surely you have nothing to fear.
I only have a few mins and will answer the other stuff later, but usmokepole, Ozmo and Decker have done a good job of trying to explain it. I think you're just so inured to the idea of obeying a great father that you can't imagine morality without supernatural punishment or reward. It does exist though.
With regards to the Palo Alto center, I was making a joke, because the last name of the guy who runs the place happens to be "Bishop". How ironic is that?
As for Stein's statement, that's rather silly. Science is simply the study of nature, God's nature. It has been used to do what Jesus charged His disciples to do: Heal the sick; clothe the naked; feed the hungry; and, execute what Christians have coined the Great Commission, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost".
Christians have been charged to spread the Gospel. Scientific discovery has aided GREATLY to that end.
-
That's not a false condition. Here's an excerpt from one of the links that Beach Bum posted (www.atheists.org)
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
That pretty much backs what I've said from the start. Atheists put themselves (MAN) as the top hiearchy, as far as authority is concerned.
It doesn't back anything up. You are taking statements out of context and attaching your own meaning to them to validate your assertions. It's not even related to worship.
what does: only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment?
What does it have to do with worship? If i want to knowledge about a subject or of a thing I'd look to that subject or thing. That doesn't mean i worship it. That's really silly.
I can see why you think it, but it's not reality. I see that your life hinges on the idea of the GOD of the Bible being everything. You cannot fathom life in any aspect with out an ultimate being as identified in the Bible.
So you have to construct a connection, no matter how ambiguous or irrelevant, to make sense of how anyone else might see things differently to justify your assertions.
It's cool. I get it and respect you for it.
But don't for one minute try and pass off what you put in bold as worship.
Who/What is this moral authority or standard for atheists?
That's been answered pretty well in other posts on this thread. I even provided you a standard.
Definition 10 is a general statement, which is why I added definitions 1 and 7, to specify it.
And statement 1 and 7 don't mean anything close to what atheist do.
-
Forgive me for being a little stuck on your misstatement. You really did prove my point about putting words in my mouth. Pretty blatant.
What I've described has the earmarks of a religion. As either loco or McWay said earlier, these people wouldn't exist without God. They have organized themselves to mimic traditional Christian churches. The "humanist centers" really take the cake.
Your criteria didn't include anything regarding faith or spirituality did it? Am I blind? If not, then virtually anything could be a religion and someone should rewrite every existing dictionary. Which was my point. I'm apparently not the only one who misread and misstated you.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of it because you neither read or consider anyone's point of view merely repeat yours over and over. Those humanist centers I posted don't look like anything you propose.
-
It doesn't back anything up. You are taking statements out of context and attaching your own meaning to them to validate your assertions. It's not even related to worship.
what does: only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment?
What does it have to do with worship? If i want to knowledge about a subject or of a thing I'd look to that subject or thing. That doesn't mean i worship it. That's really silly.
I can see why you think it, but it's not reality. I see that your life hinges on the idea of the GOD of the Bible being everything. You cannot fathom life in any aspect with out an ultimate being as identified in the Bible.
And the atheists' life hinges on the idea that nothing but the natural phenomema exists. If there's any hierachy or order, then it's merely a natural one. Therefore, the highest entity in that order is the ultimate authority. Take a wild guess as to who the highest entity is.
So you have to construct a connection, no matter how ambiguous or irrelevant, to make sense of how anyone else might see things differently to justify your assertions.
It's cool. I get it and respect you for it.
But don't for one minute try and pass off what you put in bold as worship.
That's been answered pretty well in other posts on this thread. I even provided you a standard.
And statement 1 and 7 don't mean anything close to what atheist do.
I don't have to construct anything, as the words are there in black and white. They belief that there's nothing beyond the natural and that "Humankind (man) is on his own". If that's the case, why is there such a problem with stating that man is effectively worshipping himself? He believes in nothing he can't detect with his senses or can't grasp with his own logic and reason. He thinks that he is the highest being. Man's logic and reason set the bar for morality, right and wrong, "good" and "evil".
He ain't getting his moral compass from sheep, cattle, and the fowls of the air.
-
I don't have to construct anything, as the words are there in black and white. They belief that there's nothing beyond the natural and that "Humankind (man) is on his own". If that's the case, why is there such a problem with stating that man is effectively worshipping himself?
As per the definition he is NOT worshiping himself.
Your idea, is that in absence of GOd he must therefore be worshiping himself. You cannot seem to see life without some sort of worship. Atheists do.
He believes in nothing he can't detect with his senses or can't grasp with his own logic and reason. He thinks that he is the highest being.
Not true at all. Based on known evidence yes. but as the universe is 99.999999999999999999999 unknown.......and they know that.
And if it was, they still don't worship themselves just as monkeys wouldn't if there wasn't man on earth.
And the atheists' life hinges on the idea that nothing but the natural phenomema exists. If there's any hierachy or order, then it's merely a natural one. Therefore, the highest entity in that order is the ultimate authority. Take a wild guess as to who the highest entity is.
Again, known entity, AND they don't, based on the definition, worship the species.
Man's logic and reason set the bar for morality, right and wrong, "good" and "evil".
It may always have and is constantly developing.
-
As per the definition he is NOT worshiping himself.
Your idea, is that in absence of GOd he must therefore be worshiping himself. You cannot seem to see life without some sort of worship. Atheists do.
Not necessarily. The issue isn't the lack of "worship", but the object of such. In the Christian's case, it's God; in the atheists' case, it's man.
Not true at all. Based on known evidence yes. but as the universe is 99.999999999999999999999 unknown.......and they know that.
Oh really!? They appear awfully confident that they ain't going to find any higher being than themselves anytime soon, "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be".
That don't sound like "we don't know" or it's "99.9999999999999999% unknown" to me.
Exactly why can there not be any forces or entites that transcend nature (as man knows it, anyway)?
And if it was, they still don't worship themselves just as monkeys wouldn't if there wasn't man on earth.
You are, once again, assuming such would be in the same format as that of Christians or others who worship a supernatural deity.
Again, known entity, AND they don't, based on the definition, worship the species.
Yes, they do. Based on the definition, they do have a sacred personage (that would be man). They hold the logic and reason of man in as high esteem as Christians do the Word of God.
It may always have and is constantly developing.
Developing or not, it's still man's reasoning and logic, not God, that they hold in highest esteem.
-
Not necessarily. The issue isn't the lack of "worship", but the object of such. In the Christian's case, it's God; in the atheists' case, it's man.
You should get into politics. :)
It's "only man" becuase you can't see or understand life without an object of worship.
Oh really!? They appear awfully confident that they ain't going to find any higher being than themselves anytime soon, "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be".
That don't sound like "we don't know" or it's "99.9999999999999999% unknown" to me.
Exactly why can there not be any forces or entites that transcend nature (as man knows it, anyway)?
I'm not sure what you are getting here. True atheism allows for the possibility of God, but in the absence of evidence currently there is none.
the possibility of gaining the 99.99999999999 of unknown universe is very unlikely.
Yes, they do. Based on the definition, they do have a sacred personage (that would be man). They hold the logic and reason of man in as high esteem as Christians do the Word of God.
Are you saying they give the reverence to man as you do to God? hahahahahaha. not.
Just from what little i know of you. You are by far one of the most truest Christians i have ever met. And you seem to live your life the same way you talk about God. No way that can be compared to an atheist view of man.
Developing or not, it's still man's reasoning and logic, not God, that they hold in highest esteem.
Holding something in the highest esteem doesn't denote worship.
And who knows what each athiest holds in their highest esteem category or if they do? You assume they do becuase of your view on life.
-
You should get into politics. :)
It's "only man" becuase you can't see or understand life without an object of worship.
I'm not sure what you are getting here. True atheism allows for the possibility of God, but in the absence of evidence currently there is none.
IF that's the case, these these folks from "www.atheists.org" aren't true atheists, as the statement "Nor can there be" (with regards to the existence of supernatural forces or entities) doesn't allow for any possibility of God existing.
the possibility of gaining the 99.99999999999 of unknown universe is very unlikely.
Are you saying they give the reverence to man as you do to God? hahahahahaha. not.
Maybe not. They may be even MORE devoted to their object of "worship" ;D .
Just from what little i know of you. You are by far one of the most truest Christians i have ever met. And you seem to live your life the same way you talk about God. No way that can be compared to an atheist view of man.
I thank you for the compliment, but I feel it's an undeserved one, as I fall short of that more times than I care to admit.
Holding something in the highest esteem doesn't denote worship.
And who knows what each athiest holds in their highest esteem category or if they do? You assume they do becuase of your view on life.
I may not know what each atheist holds in their highest esteem. But, I can take an educated guess, if he happens to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups, referenced on this thread.
-
IF that's the case, these these folks from "www.atheists.org" aren't true atheists, as the statement "Nor can there be" (with regards to the existence of supernatural forces or entities) doesn't allow for any possibility of God existing.
I've heard said by atheists before. But I'm not anywhere near being truly knowledgeable about atheism save that they don't believe in God in anyway.
Maybe not. They may be even MORE devoted to their object of "worship" .
heheheheheh
I thank you for the compliment, but I feel it's an undeserved one, as I fall short of that more times than I care to admit.
Yes, the burdens of being human. But your intent, from what i see, is true.
I may not know what each atheist holds in their highest esteem. But, I can take an educated guess, if he happens to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups, referenced on this thread.
Even though i don't agree, I respect your view on this and see why based on your beliefs why you could conclude that.
-
Your criteria didn't include anything regarding faith or spirituality did it? Am I blind? If not, then virtually anything could be a religion and someone should rewrite every existing dictionary. Which was my point. I'm apparently not the only one who misread and misstated you.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of it because you neither read or consider anyone's point of view merely repeat yours over and over. Those humanist centers I posted don't look like anything you propose.
Actually you didn't say anything about faith or spirituality initially. You misrepresented my comments about why I don't have a problem calling atheism a religion. You then changed the subject when I pointed out how you clearly misstated by views. It really isn't necessary to distort my comments to get your point across. But enough whining. :)
What I've said previously in the thread is the commonly accepted definitions of religion do include belief in a supernatural power, but that denotative meanings are actually broader, based on the definitions Ozmo posted. I personally wouldn't include groups like the NRA under that definition, because they don't have all of the activities that I've mentioned.
I don't read or consider anyone's point of view? Are you kidding? Absolutely not true. Don't confuse my disagreement with failure to consider. I actually make a sincere effort to understand the opposing point of view, even if I don't agree with it.
But hey reasonable and unreasonable minds can disagree. :)
Regarding the humanist centers, I'm sorry but these places sound just like a church. You've spent time in church. Are you really saying this doesn't sound like church to you?
Sunday School for Atheists
Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007 By JENINNE LEE-ST. JOHN / PALO ALTO
Sunday morning at The Children's Program at the Humanist Community of Palo Alto, California.
Kathrin Miller for TIME
On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?
Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. "It's important for kids not to look weird," says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.
The pioneering Palo Alto program began three years ago, and like-minded communities in Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., plan to start similar classes next spring. The growing movement of institutions for kids in atheist families also includes Camp Quest, a group of sleep-away summer camps in five states plus Ontario, and the Carl Sagan Academy in Tampa, Fla., the country's first Humanism-influenced public charter school, which opened with 55 kids in the fall of 2005. Bri Kneisley, who sent her son Damian, 10, to Camp Quest Ohio this past summer, welcomes the sense of community these new choices offer him: "He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world."
Kneisley, 26, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, says she realized Damian needed to learn about secularism after a neighbor showed him the Bible. "Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," says Kneisley. In most ways a traditional sleep-away camp--her son loved canoeing--Camp Quest also taught Damian critical thinking, world religions and tales of famous freethinkers (an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics and other rationalists) like the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
The Palo Alto Sunday family program uses music, art and discussion to encourage personal expression, intellectual curiosity and collaboration. One Sunday this fall found a dozen children up to age 6 and several parents playing percussion instruments and singing empowering anthems like I'm Unique and Unrepeatable, set to the tune of Ten Little Indians, instead of traditional Sunday-school songs like Jesus Loves Me. Rather than listen to a Bible story, the class read Stone Soup, a secular parable of a traveler who feeds a village by making a stew using one ingredient from each home.
Down the hall in the kitchen, older kids engaged in a Socratic conversation with class leader Bishop about the role persuasion plays in decision-making. He tried to get them to see that people who are coerced into renouncing their beliefs might not actually change their minds but could be acting out of self-preservation--an important lesson for young atheists who may feel pressure to say they believe in God.
Atheist parents appreciate this nurturing environment. That's why Kitty, a nonbeliever who didn't want her last name used to protect her kids' privacy, brings them to Bishop's class each week. After Jonathan, 13, and Hana, 11, were born, Kitty says she felt socially isolated and even tried taking them to church. But they're all much more comfortable having rational discussions at the Humanist center. "I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," Hana says. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html
-
I've heard said by atheists before. But I'm not anywhere near being truly knowledgeable about atheism save that they don't believe in God in anyway.
That's why I went to the links provided here. Again, by their own words (at least, those on atheists.org), they are quite confident that there is no God nor can there be one. If I want to know what atheists believe, I simply ask them or link their sites.
The term "anti-theist" is a better fit for many, because there's not just a lack of a belief but a hearty disdain for religion (and sometimes, people of faith).
Even though i don't agree, I respect your view on this and see why based on your beliefs why you could conclude that.
The feeling's mutual.
-
Atheism is not a religion. It has no rituals, no creed, nothing of the sort.
No creed? Then, what the heck do you call these:
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. - From "atheists.org"
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. We believe that virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity derive from natural human values and reason, and are realized fully only when free from belief in supernatural powers and a spiritual afterlife. - New Jersey Humanist Network
Bunch of fucktards....I personally would never join anything like that.
What exactly is your beef with these folks (or others like them)?
-
There's one other aspect that the "religion" of atheism shares with religions with supernatural deities: The belief that those who don't think and believe as they do have some moral and/or intellecual flaw or shortcoming.
Christians often referred to themselves as "saved", implying that others who aren't Christians are "lost".
Atheists call themselves "freethinkers", implying that people of faith are "enslaved" mentally. At times, they've called themselves "brights", hinting that believers in God are not so bright (or flat-out stupid).
-
No creed? Then, what the heck do you call these:
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. - From "atheists.org"
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. We believe that virtues like morality, kindness, justice and generosity derive from natural human values and reason, and are realized fully only when free from belief in supernatural powers and a spiritual afterlife. - New Jersey Humanist Network
What exactly is your beef with these folks (or others like them)?
Just more primitive tribalism and people's innate need for social activities; I would never join THAT sort of organisation; Dungeons and Dragons conventions, maybe ;D. I think true atheists are much more like cats, i.e. you can't herd them together. Most of my friends are atheists (I have no theist friends) and they also shun such outward displays of tribalistic neediness.
-
Actually you didn't say anything about faith or spirituality initially. You misrepresented my comments about why I don't have a problem calling atheism a religion. You then changed the subject when I pointed out how you clearly misstated by views. It really isn't necessary to distort my comments to get your point across. But enough whining. :)
What I've said previously in the thread is the commonly accepted definitions of religion do include belief in a supernatural power, but that denotative meanings are actually broader, based on the definitions Ozmo posted. I personally wouldn't include groups like the NRA under that definition, because they don't have all of the activities that I've mentioned.
I don't read or consider anyone's point of view? Are you kidding? Absolutely not true. Don't confuse my disagreement with failure to consider. I actually make a sincere effort to understand the opposing point of view, even if I don't agree with it.
But hey reasonable and unreasonable minds can disagree. :)
Regarding the humanist centers, I'm sorry but these places sound just like a church. You've spent time in church. Are you really saying this doesn't sound like church to you?
With me being the unreasonable one I suppose? :) I did say something about spirituality right away, but you're right. Who cares. I really don't see that these Humanist groups are so Church-like, and the first two links I posted couldn't be less "church-like." But for the sake of argument, let's say that Humanism is a religion, not a world-view or philosophy.
Do they:
1. have a book which tells them to murder all infidels?
2. believe that 72 virgins await dead murderers in heaven?
3. get hysterical if a glass of milk spills onto their filet mignon and throw away a perfectly good piece of meat?
4. have dozens of wives and marry underage children?
5. picket the funerals of soldiers and create even more upset for grieving families?
6. withhold medical attention that would save the lives of their children if it weren't for their beliefs?
Do the women:
7. shave their heads upon marriage and wear wigs for the rest of their lives?
8. believe that their bodies are unclean two weeks out of the month and have to race across town to a communal bath before they can love their husbands in the biblical sense?
9. think it's okay for their husbands to beat them cause it says so in their book?
You and MCWAY are saying the Humanists have the dumbest world-view or tenets because they meet on the weekend and their format is similar to yours, (guess Jews and Christians have first dibs on the weekend, and everyone else gets school nights ;D) but seems to me, there are stranger ones belonging to other faiths, than believing an appreciation of art and music are one way to enlightenment and that all human beings should be treated ethically and equally. :-\
-
With me being the unreasonable one I suppose? :) I did say something about spirituality right away, but you're right. Who cares. I really don't see that these Humanist groups are so Church-like, and the first two links I posted couldn't be less "church-like." But for the sake of argument, let's say that Humanism is a religion, not a world-view or philosophy.
Do they:
1. have a book which tells them to murder all infidels?
2. believe that 72 virgins await dead murderers in heaven?
3. get hysterical if a glass of milk spills onto their filet mignon and throw away a perfectly good piece of meat?
4. have dozens of wives and marry underage children?
5. picket the funerals of soldiers and create even more upset for grieving families?
6. withhold medical attention that would save the lives of their children if it weren't for their beliefs?
Do the women:
7. shave their heads upon marriage and wear wigs for the rest of their lives?
8. believe that their bodies are unclean two weeks out of the month and have to race across town to a communal bath before they can love their husbands in the biblical sense?
9. think it's okay for their husbands to beat them cause it says so in their book?
You and MCWAY are saying the Humanists have the dumbest world-view or tenets because they meet on the weekend and their format is similar to yours, (guess Jews and Christians have first dibs on the weekend, and everyone else gets school nights ;D) but seems to me, there are stranger ones belonging to other faiths, than believing an appreciation of art and music are one way to enlightenment and that all human beings should be treated ethically and equally. :-\
Not quite. What I've said is that the primary cause for their meeting isn't art appreciation or music. Nor is it about the ethical/equal treament of human beings. All of those things can be, have been, and are currently done in religious institutions (at least, in the Christian ones).
The focal point of their assembly is based on one doctrine: Their DISBELIEF in a supernatural being and, by default, asserting that man is the highest entity.
-
As for your “mutual understanding”, (notwithstanding that such is based on humanistic reasoning) saying that “I don’t want (fill in the blank) done to me; so I won’t do that to other people” ain’t the most sound principle in the world. It's quite easy to justify doing something to someone else that you DON'T want done to you.
You may want to have sex with someone else’s wife/girlfriend; but, it’s highly unlikely that you would want another guy to bone your wife/girlfriend. And, even thieves lament when someone takes their possessions from them. And, virtually no murderer wants to be murdered himself; no rapist wants to be raped.
Are you saying belief in God is an infallible deterrent? There are no Jewish fraudsters or soddomites, no Christian murderers, theives, liars, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers? It can't be that the 15% of the population that are Atheists are commiting all of the crime in the country.
And going back to your other question about where atheists get their morality... mostly it was already answered but it's also a question of consequences. People know that if they murder and steal, society will degenerate and
humanity will extinguish itself. Even the animal world exhibits some "morality." They don't generally eat their own species, live in herds for protection, the alpha males protect the females, they cooperate on the hunt, etc.
You may think that God is the beginning and end of your morality, but aside from the Big Ten, man is always evolving in his sense of morality. You simply can't own slaves today, even though God seems to be okay with it. You can't sell your daughter for $500 to her rapist, and you can't have your meth-addicted no-good 22-year-old son executed for mouthing off. We keep changing our morality through the ages.
-
Are you saying belief in God is an infallible deterrent? There are no Jewish fraudsters or soddomites, no Christian murderers, theives, liars, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers? It can't be that the 15% of the population that are Atheists are commiting all of the crime in the country.
And going back to your other question about where atheists get their morality... mostly it was already answered but it's also a question of consequences. People know that if they murder and steal, society will degenerate and
humanity will extinguish itself. Even the animal world exhibits some "morality." They don't generally eat their own species, live in herds for protection, the alpha males protect the females, they cooperate on the hunt, etc.
For starters, we ain't animals; we're people, unfortunately with sinful nature. What happens when man stops caring about what happens to "society" and "humanity", as long as his fleshy needs get gratified?
You may think that God is the beginning and end of your morality, but aside from the Big Ten, man is always evolving in his sense of morality. You simply can't own slaves today, even though God seems to be okay with it. You can't sell your daughter for $500 to her rapist, and you can't have your meth-addicted no-good 22-year-old son executed for mouthing off. We keep changing our morality through the ages.
Owning slaves isn't an issue, especially since the lion's share of the "slaves" in the OT were what we called "indentured servants". Not that such was mandatory, anyway. Certainly, there were NOT the chattle slaves that blacks were in America.
Once again, you have the rapist thing wrong. First, 50 shekels was about 5-7 years wages. In US dollars today, that's an average of at least $200,000. Secondly, as we've discussed before, the whole issue centered on one aspect: MATERIAL CARE for the victim (the sole reason the rapist is kept alive). And, it's not mandatory that she be married to the victim, anyway. He simply has to cough up the dough or become a "slave" to pay off the debt. Of course, if the victim is already married or bethroed, that care is already in place.....BYE-BYE RAPIST!!!!
As for that last blurb, it takes a whole lot more than "mouthing off" to get the death penalty.
We have changed our morality, throughout the ages. But, it ain't always for the better. Going back to the rapist thing, they can get a light sentence and "paid their debt to society"; meanwhile, the victims are devastated for years to come, with no aid (of any source). Again, the rapist don't foot the medical care for physical wounds or pay for the shrink that the victim may have to see for months/years. Nor, does he pay for back wages lost.
-
For starters, we ain't animals; we're people, unfortunately with sinful nature. What happens when man stops caring about what happens to "society" and "humanity", as long as his fleshy needs get gratified?
I only brought up animals to show that all creatures have an impetus to survive and flourish, even on instinct alone. Human beings will always "care" for the reasons stated in this thread, which I guess you can accept or not. As a few people stated, you are a Christian believer, maybe since the time you could walk, so you're inured to the idea of God as the only deterrent to crime or sin. It's quite obvious that this isn't so and there are many devout criminals among us. Actually, you could say it's easier to be good when there is no chance for forgiveness, no supernatural being to wipe the slate clean. You're stuck with your miserable life and the horrible things you did. Death row inmates who've 'found" God seem to be more serene than the Atheist murderer who knows what a piece of crap he is.
Owning slaves isn't an issue, especially since the lion's share of the "slaves" in the OT were what we called "indentured servants". Not that such was mandatory, anyway. Certainly, there were NOT the chattle slaves that blacks were in America.
Once again, you have the rapist thing wrong. First, 50 shekels was about 5-7 years wages. In US dollars today, that's an average of at least $200,000. Secondly, as we've discussed before, the whole issue centered on one aspect: MATERIAL CARE for the victim (the sole reason the rapist is kept alive). And, it's not mandatory that she be married to the victim, anyway. He simply has to cough up the dough or become a "slave" to pay off the debt. Of course, if the victim is already married or bethroed, that care is already in place.....BYE-BYE RAPIST!!!!
As for that last blurb, it takes a whole lot more than "mouthing off" to get the death penalty.
We have changed our morality, throughout the ages. But, it ain't always for the better. Going back to the rapist thing, they can get a light sentence and "paid their debt to society"; meanwhile, the victims are devastated for years to come, with no aid (of any source). Again, the rapist don't foot the medical care for physical wounds or pay for the shrink that the victim may have to see for months/years. Nor, does he pay for back wages lost.
I don't believe there are many women who want to be married off to their rapists these days. You could take a survey and I doubt you'd find any at all. Women are no longer considered the property of the patriarch. And for every light sentence there are rapists who get many, many years. Serial rapists often don't get out at all. I know we've gone through this before, but the fact is, MOST people find indentured servitude/slavery, etc... immoral today. The point is simply... we create our laws based on man's reasoning... mutual cooperation.
-
I only brought up animals to show that all creatures have an impetus to survive and flourish, even on instinct alone. Human beings will always "care" for the reasons stated in this thread, which I guess you can accept or not. As a few people stated, you are a Christian believer, maybe since the time you could walk, so you're inured to the idea of God as the only deterrent to crime or sin. It's quite obvious that this isn't so and there are many devout criminals among us. Actually, you could say it's easier to be good when there is no chance for forgiveness, no supernatural being to wipe the slate clean. You're stuck with your miserable life and the horrible things you did. Death row inmates who've 'found" God seem to be more serene than the Atheist murderer who knows what a piece of crap he is.
I don't believe there are many women who want to be married off to their rapists these days. You could take a survey and I doubt you'd find any at all. Women are no longer considered the property of the patriarch. And for every light sentence there are rapists who get many, many years. Serial rapists often don't get out at all. I know we've gone through this before, but the fact is, MOST people find indentured servitude/slavery, etc... immoral today. The point is simply... we create our laws based on man's reasoning... mutual cooperation.
Not to change the topic, but would you accept the idea that men are property of the matriarch?
-
I only brought up animals to show that all creatures have an impetus to survive and flourish, even on instinct alone. Human beings will always "care" for the reasons stated in this thread, which I guess you can accept or not. As a few people stated, you are a Christian believer, maybe since the time you could walk, so you're inured to the idea of God as the only deterrent to crime or sin. It's quite obvious that this isn't so and there are many devout criminals among us. Actually, you could say it's easier to be good when there is no chance for forgiveness, no supernatural being to wipe the slate clean. You're stuck with your miserable life and the horrible things you did. Death row inmates who've 'found" God seem to be more serene than the Atheist murderer who knows what a piece of crap he is.
Not necessarily. There are many who think they've reached the point of no return, that God could never forgive them for what they've done. And, forgiveness of sin doesn't always wipe out earthly consequences for sinful behavior. King David is a prime example of that.
I don't believe there are many women who want to be married off to their rapists these days. You could take a survey and I doubt you'd find any at all. Women are no longer considered the property of the patriarch. And for every light sentence there are rapists who get many, many years. Serial rapists often don't get out at all. I know we've gone through this before, but the fact is, MOST people find indentured servitude/slavery, etc... immoral today. The point is simply... we create our laws based on man's reasoning... mutual cooperation.
There aren't many women who would want to be married off to their rapists. But, there are many who would want high accountability for the man responsible for their assault. In the OT, paying the bride-price and being committed to caring for a woman's material needs FOR LIFE was part of that accountability (if the victim was unmarried). Otherwise, it's the DEATH PENALTY. And, I'm sure there are plenty of rape victims who wouldn't mind seeing their assailants, strapped to Old Sparky. Based on OT laws, there would be NO serial rapists.
As for slavery, I couldn't agree more. But, as I've said before, when people think of slavery, they often think of the chattel slavery to which blacks were subjects, where the masters could do whatever, whenever with virtually no consequence.
-
Neo-Darwinism
"As a scientist I am quite hostile to a rival doctrine" - Richard Dawkins
results for: doctrine Browse Nearby Entries
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
doc·trine Audio Help /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < AF < L doctrīna teaching, equiv. to doct(o)r doctor + -īna -ine2]
—Synonyms 1. tenet, dogma, theory, precept, belief.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
-
Not to change the topic, but would you accept the idea that men are property of the matriarch?
Are you talking about the fans of female bodybuilding who frequent this board? Or just in general?
-
Are you talking about the fans of female bodybuilding who frequent this board? Or just in general?
In general...
-
Not necessarily. There are many who think they've reached the point of no return, that God could never forgive them for what they've done. And, forgiveness of sin doesn't always wipe out earthly consequences for sinful behavior. King David is a prime example of that.
If you're speaking of Catholics and Jews, I believe you.
There aren't many women who would want to be married off to their rapists. But, there are many who would want high accountability for the man responsible for their assault. In the OT, paying the bride-price and being committed to caring for a woman's material needs FOR LIFE was part of that accountability (if the victim was unmarried). Otherwise, it's the DEATH PENALTY. And, I'm sure there are plenty of rape victims who wouldn't mind seeing their assailants, strapped to Old Sparky. Based on OT laws, there would be NO serial rapists.
As for slavery, I couldn't agree more. But, as I've said before, when people think of slavery, they often think of the chattel slavery to which blacks were subjects, where the masters could do whatever, whenever with virtually no consequence.
As far as I know, that OT reference requires marriage to one's rapist, but in any case, NO, I wouldn't want some rapist working off his bride-price debt in my dad's store or whatever, because I was now "ruined." Wouldn't want his money or anything to do with him, EVER. I'd want him locked away so he couldn't harm anyone else, while walking around free. Death penalty? Sure... but I'd hope they'd get hit with bigger rocks than the non-virgins.
Anyway, point is STILL that man interprets the bible, etc... according to moral ethics of the times. People thought slavery was okay based on their interpretations of the OT at the time. Today we don't. You must make your own judgements every day as well. You defend the rape laws, but I'm sure you'll enjoy a cheeseburger, and your wife doesn't go to the mikvah. You probably despise homosexuality, but would eat shellfish.
-
In general...
lol... I don't believe anyone should be the property of anyone else, unless if it was mutually agreeable to both for whatever emotional and other reasons. :)
Are you asking because you feel we live in a matriarchal society?
-
lol... I don't believe anyone should be the property of anyone else, unless if it was mutually agreeable to both for whatever emotional and other reasons. :)
Are you asking because you feel we live in a matriarchal society?
Define matriarchal and I may answer yes, depending on the definition.
-
Define matriarchal and I may answer yes, depending on the definition.
hmmm... not sure, how about lineage, wealth, property passed down through the females. Positions of power held by same within the community.
If you're thinking emotional/sexual holding of all the cards, that doesn't apply. :D
-
hmmm... not sure, how about lineage, wealth, property passed down through the females. Positions of power held by same within the community.
If you're thinking emotional/sexual holding of all the cards, that doesn't apply. :D
Why not?
-
Drow society is a matriarchal society. ;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YWAH5990L._SS500_.jpg)
-
hmmm... not sure, how about lineage, wealth, property passed down through the females. Positions of power held by same within the community.
That did occur in the Old Testament, to a degree. If a man had no sons, the eldest daughter became the father’s heir. However, if memory serves me correctly, she had to marry within her father’s tribe. And there were female judges and prophetesses, such as Deborah and Anna, the prophetess who saw Jesus' dedication at the temple as a 6-week old baby.
-
If you're speaking of Catholics and Jews, I believe you.
As far as I know, that OT reference requires marriage to one's rapist, but in any case, NO, I wouldn't want some rapist working off his bride-price debt in my dad's store or whatever, because I was now "ruined." Wouldn't want his money or anything to do with him, EVER. I'd want him locked away so he couldn't harm anyone else, while walking around free. Death penalty? Sure... but I'd hope they'd get hit with bigger rocks than the non-virgins.
I believe non-virgins didn't get put to death......UNLESS they're involved in adulterous affairs or prostitution. I agree with you about the rocks, though ;D. Besides, I'd think that the modern equivalent would be making the guy work and syphoning the guy's check (ala child support from deadbeat dads). Of course, I'd prefer the trip to the chair for the rapist, but that's just me.
Anyway, point is STILL that man interprets the bible, etc... according to moral ethics of the times. People thought slavery was okay based on their interpretations of the OT at the time. Today we don't. You must make your own judgements every day as well. You defend the rape laws, but I'm sure you'll enjoy a cheeseburger, and your wife doesn't go to the mikvah. You probably despise homosexuality, but would eat shellfish.
I don't eat shellfish. As for the rape laws, what I've said about them is that they make sense. At one point, I thought the concept was bizzare and unthinkable. But, after doing some research on the subject, it made a lot more sense.
-
Drow society is a matriarchal society. ;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YWAH5990L._SS500_.jpg)
Yes, I am well aware...all because of this bitch:
-
Yes, I am well aware...all because of this bitch:
LOL ;D
-
LOL ;D
Did you know that she has now eliminated all the other drow gods?
-
Did you know that she has now eliminated all the other drow gods?
Really? No, I haven't kept up with all that. I really enjoyed reading the first few Drizzt books. I also enjoyed reading Entreri's and Jarlaxle's short stories and their first of three books. I have also read some of their comic book versions that are now coming out. There is a rumor that they are going to try to make a movie. I hope it is a good one and not one that will ruin the story and the characters.
-
Really? No, I haven't kept up with all that. I really enjoyed reading the first few Drizzt books. I also enjoyed reading Entreri's and Jarlaxle's short stories and their first of three books. I have also read some of their comic book versions that are now coming out. There is a rumor that they are going to try to make a movie. I hope it is a good one and not one that will ruin the story and the characters.
Yes, total overhaul of everything. All the other drow gods were killed...and much, much more...tell me, how much are you into D&D? Or was it just the novels?
-
Yes, total overhaul of everything. All the other drow gods were killed...and much, much more...tell me, how much are you into D&D? Or was it just the novels?
Some friends talked me into playing it for a while before I knew anything about it. I was not any good at it and I did not enjoy it much. I guess I did not have the imagination for it and it was too slow for me. But I did love the worlds created for it, the different races, the magic, the art, the novels, etc. Most of it reminds me of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". I then played some video games, "Eye of the Beholder", "Baldur's Gate", "Forgotten Realms Demon Stone", etc. I did like the video games a lot. That's about it.
-
Some friends talked me into playing it for a while before I knew anything about it. I was not any good at it and I did not enjoy it much. I guess I did not have the imagination for it and it was too slow for me. But I did love the worlds created for it, the different races, the magic, the art, the novels, etc. Most of it reminds me of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". I then played some video games, "Eye of the Beholder", "Baldur's Gate", "Forgotten Realms Demon Stone", etc. I did like the video games a lot. That's about it.
You, a lack of imagination? Never...what about Jebus?
-
You, a lack of imagination? Never...what about Jebus?
You mean Jesus? Oh, I did not imagine Him. D&D is a fantacy world. Jesus however is real and He transformed the real world and He transformed me too. ;D
-
You mean Jesus? Oh, I did not imagine Him. D&D is a fantacy world. Jesus however is real and He transformed the real world and He transformed me too. ;D
About as real as Drizzt Do'Urden I would say...