Labelled 'fitna' 96 replies

Please wait...

Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#81 10 years ago

[quote=Stryker500.. sorta I consider atheism religions anyway as they deal with matters beyond our understanding, like God and the afterlife.[/quote] The english language is not on your side, there is nothing about nonbelief that is in any way religious. Just because you assert the existance of a christian-ish diety and creation for which there is no subjective proof or evidence does not mean others need contrairy belief in order to not believe. That would be weak atheism. Strong atheism does assert a nonexistance, which is a belief of sort but is still not a religion. You may believe a brick you are holding weighs 2kilograms but that does not mean you have a "thisparticularbrickweighs2kilo" religion. Look up the definition of "religion" and stop making up your own definitions when it is convinient.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#82 10 years ago

Sedistix;4810797I can see the reference to behaving religiously. Tony plays his play station religiously, or Sarah is religious about her shopping, but that doesn’t necessarily denote that they are actually religious about it. It’s just cheap terminology used to describe one’s persistent interest in any given thing. The term “religiously” doesn’t constitute a real religion by any means. Atheism can be part of religion, say with pagans perhaps, but all by itself, its not possible. [/quote]

What you and others here fail to realize is that there is not a single conclusive definition for religion. A broader definition for example is simply "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", atheism certainly fits that definition considering it has a response to those questions.

Sedistix;4810797 As for science and technology, those areas of study and development affect just about every aspect of your life in one way or another. From the car you drive, to the elevator you ride, to the food you eat. Intentionally avoiding science and technology is not only a mistake, but a lie as well. If you were really against either, you'd toss away everything you own, move to the woods, hunt to eat, and laugh in your self-righteous science free existence. [/quote]

Now where have I implied that science is inherently evil or something to be rejected? It is just not something people should live their lives.

Sedistix;4810797 So basically what you're implying here, is that scientists use religions, or religious affairs to justify their research and development? Or perhaps it’s that people, who are professionals in one form or another, but still just people, have opinions on certain subjects dealing with our world both politically, and socially?

No I am implying that it is wrong for one to use their "scientific experience" as some sort of argument for atheism as certain outspoken scientists do. It is the equivalent of an economics professor arguing for Islam and trying to use his background as some sort of "boost" to his effort.

[quote=Sedistix;4810797] Me and several others did this with the same user in the religious discussion thread months ago. Willful disavowal to say the least. Perhaps it is a lost cause, but in the event anyone else is reading this, why not take advantage of the opportunity?

Your snide remarks get tiring, especially after accusing me of being at least two different people. If anything your the lost cause here.

[quote=Tas;4811066]The english language is not on your side, there is nothing about nonbelief that is in any way religious. You may believe a brick you are holding weighs 2kilograms but that does not mean you have a "thisparticularbrickweighs2kilo" religion. Look up the definition of "religion" and stop making up your own definitions when it is convinient.

As I have said earlier there is no universal definition for religion. What makes you think yours is correct?




Inyri Forge VIP Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#83 10 years ago
Stryker500;4811866What you and others here fail to realize is that there is not a single conclusive definition for religion. A broader definition for example is simply "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", atheism certainly fits that definition considering it has a response to those questions.

Athiesm in general makes no claims about the 'purpose of the universe.' Athiests simply do not believe in the existence of deities.

Now where have I implied that science is inherently evil or something to be rejected? It is just not something people should live their lives.

I disagree. ;)

No I am implying that it is wrong for one to use their "scientific experience" as some sort of argument for atheism as certain outspoken scientists do. It is the equivalent of an economics professor arguing for Islam and trying to use his background as some sort of "boost" to his effort.

So it's alright for you to argue for Christianity with no evidence, but scientists that have some evidence for their beliefs should be hushed? And as soon as economics provides some evidence for the existence of Islam I'm all for it being used as a foundation for it, but until then try to provide reasonable examples. ;)

As I have said earlier there is no universal definition for religion. What makes you think yours is correct?

Actually the definition provided in the Oxford English Dictionary would likely be considered the official definition by most educated individuals. If anyone here is at a university that has a subscription to it, or would like to take a field trip to a library, I'm sure we could clear this whole thing up.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#84 10 years ago

Stryker500;4811866What you and others here fail to realize is that there is not a single conclusive definition for religion. A broader definition for example is simply "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", atheism certainly fits that definition considering it has a response to those questions.[/quote]

That’s priceless! Your entire rebuttal consists of “Atheism is a religion because it prepossess answers to questions”, despite the inconvenient fact that it doesn’t! Atheism doesn’t assert any answer too “cause, nature purpose or universe” Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god(s). That doesn’t mean it is the presence of anything else.

Your own posting here, is more damning then anything I could contribute. Please continue.

Stryker500;4811866 It is just not something people should live their lives.[/quote] It is not something people should live their lives. Wow, that’s incredibly incoherent. What does that even mean?

Stryker500;4811866 No I am implying that it is wrong for one to use their "scientific experience" as some sort of argument for atheism as certain outspoken scientists do.[/quote] When the evidence points to material causes, instead of divine interference, who’s to blame? Is it the scientists fault that some things in this world occur because of natural laws and principles? Is it their fault that through study and research they inadvertently disprove comfortable myths and divine interventions? Or is it your fault for placing so much weight on the truthfulness of myths?

[quote=Stryker500;4811866] It is the equivalent of an economics professor arguing for Islam and trying to use his background as some sort of "boost" to his effort.

It’s hardly that at all. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence that lists the species represented changes throughout time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Theism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing “does not!”.

[quote=Stryker500;4811866] Your snide remarks get tiring, especially after accusing me of being at least two different people. If anything your the lost cause here.

Is that all you can say?

[quote=Stryker500;4811866] As I have said earlier there is no universal definition for religion. What makes you think yours is correct?




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#85 10 years ago

Religion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary

The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971
  • Religion: Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. A particular system of faith and worship. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life. Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.

[/quote]

This is how the OED defines Atheism[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Try a different argument, lad. Your argument has less feet to stand on than a snail.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#86 10 years ago

Crazy Wolf;4811953Religion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary This is how the OED defines Atheism Try a different argument, lad. Your argument has less feet to stand on than a snail.[/quote]

Yet there are many dictionaries. There is simply no standardized definition of religion. Here is an interesting article I found quickly on the subject. What is "religion"?

Sedistix;4811916That’s priceless! Your entire rebuttal consists of “Atheism is a religion because it prepossess answers to questions”, despite the inconvenient fact that it doesn’t! Atheism doesn’t assert any answer too “cause, nature purpose or universe” Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god(s). That doesn’t mean it is the presence of anything else. [/quote]

No atheism is the belief (certainty) that said God/gods do not exist. Agnosticism is the absence of belief.

Sedistix;4811916 Your own posting here, is more damning then anything I could contribute. Please continue. [/quote]

Would you cut out your childish little remarks, if you don't have anything important to say, don't bother.

Sedistix;4811916 It is not something people should live their lives. Wow, that’s incredibly incoherent. What does that even mean?

Excuse me, I meant to say it is not something people should live their whole lives by. There are times when you must "let your gut decide."

[quote=Sedistix;4811916] When the evidence points to material causes, instead of divine interference, who’s to blame? Is it the scientists fault that some things in this world occur because of natural laws and principles? Is it their fault that through study and research they inadvertently disprove comfortable myths and divine interventions? Or is it your fault for placing so much weight on the truthfulness of myths?

Will you agree that a scientist should be objective and not let his personal biases get involved? Trying to use your work to further your personal (in this case atheistic) beliefs is clearly not being objective. Also science has not disproved Christianity, God, etc. Personally I actually find the complexity of the universe more evidence for God.

[quote=Sedistix;4811916] It’s hardly that at all. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence that lists the species represented changes throughout time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Theism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing “does not!”.

How exactly is this any evidence against the existence of God? Let me say I don't really give a damn about the whole evolution vs. intelligent design debate. You also ignore the countless Christians, not to mention theists in general who accept evolution to some degree or another. You claim I don't understand atheism but you evidently don't understand theism if you think a belief in the literal translation of Genesis is a requirement.

[quote=Sedistix;4811916] Is that all you can say? …

And is trying to insult theists all you can do?




Rogue Nine

Imperial Russian

50 XP

26th October 2008

0 Uploads

669 Posts

0 Threads

#87 10 years ago

Stryker500;4812055Yet there are many dictionaries. There is simply no standardized definition of religion. Here is an interesting article I found quickly on the subject. What is "religion"?[/quote] Aaaand this is what that website has to say about religion:

[quote=ReligiousTolerance.org]"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

Really don't think that's supportive of your previous assertions that atheism is a 'religion'. =p




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#88 10 years ago

There are plenty of different dictionaries, but there's generally a few that are considered to be the "expert" dictionaries on the English language. If it is a common word (like religion/religious or atheism), it will be pretty much the same definition in all serious dictionaries, and the standard for most fields is the Oxford English Dictionary. Webster's is fine, too.

Webster's Re`li´gion Pronunciation: rė`lĭj´ŭn n.1.The d act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.

Hmm. Now, I could be wrong, but with this post, the last two posts of mine have covered the definitions of "religion" by what are considered to be the master rulebooks of the English language.

Try another argument, dude.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#89 10 years ago
Stryker500;4812055Yet there are many dictionaries.

Okay, so perhaps you could go and find one that supports your assertions.

There is simply no standardized definition of religion.

This is faulty reasoning here. When you don't know the exact definition of a word, you don't claim that none exists and you can define it any which way you like. You open a dictionary and inform yourself.

Here is an interesting article I found quickly on the subject. What is "religion"?

Great, but it's no more reliable than any other internet commentator. How people think a word should be defined is of no consequence. You simply want to define religion in a way that puts atheism on an equal footing.

No atheism is the belief (certainty) that said God/gods do not exist. Agnosticism is the absence of belief.

Where does this definition of agnosticism come from? Agnosticism is the position that God's existence is either unknown (weak agnosticism) or unknowable (strong). Neither proposition is incompatible with atheism in the broadest sense or, for that matter, religious faith. An agnostic who lacks belief in God is still an atheist.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#90 10 years ago

Stryker500;4812055Yet there are many dictionaries. There is simply no standardized definition of religion. Here is an interesting article I found quickly on the subject. What is "religion"?[/quote]

A self-defeating argument when inspected closer, and as others have pointed out.

Stryker500;4812055 No atheism is the belief (certainty) that said God/gods do not exist. Agnosticism is the absence of belief.[/quote]

A belief system is based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion. This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a “group” of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism down to nothing more than denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs.

Defining atheism as a “belief system” of it’s own is tantamount to stating that “not collecting stamps is a hobby”.

Stryker500;4812055 Would you cut out your childish little remarks, if you don't have anything important to say, don't bother.[/quote]

That was a legitimate comment. The damnation I spoke of is palpable. I liken it to watching a movie where someone is making an incredible ass of them self, and you instinctively have a certain level of embarrassment for them. This willful disavowal you’ve been demonstrating here, and of something so rudimentary, draws upon the same feeling.

Stryker500;4812055 Excuse me, I meant to say it is not something people should live their whole lives by. There are times when you must "let your gut decide."[/quote] Sounds familiar. When in doubt fill in the blanks with your own presumptions. Come to think of it, that’s how a lot of people handle religious doctrines as well.

[quote=Stryker500;4812055] Trying to use your work to further your personal (in this case atheistic) beliefs is clearly not being objective.

Someone trying to use their work to further their personal beliefs. Sounds right to me. I’d rather have it that way, as opposed to personal beliefs furthering their work. In the first case, the work, study, research, ect define belief. However in the second, belief precedes work, study, research, ect. How objective would is that? Coincidentally isn’t that what most religions do?

[quote=Stryker500;4812055] Also science has not disproved Christianity, God, etc. Personally I actually find the complexity of the universe more evidence for God.

Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that god does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “god does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “god exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it, or even care much about the claim in the first place.

[quote=Stryker500;4812055] How exactly is this any evidence against the existence of God? Let me say I don't really give a damn about the whole evolution vs. intelligent design debate. You also ignore the countless Christians, not to mention theists in general who accept evolution to some degree or another. You claim I don't understand atheism but you evidently don't understand theism if you think a belief in the literal translation of Genesis is a requirement.

The theism you’re talking about is probably the belief about a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father and can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Yeah sure, that’s possible….

[quote=Stryker500;4812055] And is trying to insult theists all you can do?

I’m not trying too, its an unavoidable side effect that arises when attempting to reason with religious zealots.