Militia members sought to spark uprising

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rogue Jedi
This might belong in the Religion forum, but here we go, I guess it can be moved:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security/


I'm Christian, my faith is unshakable, but WTF is wrong with these people?

Wild Shadow
piss poor planning, poor education, lack of security?

would be my guess.

Rogue Jedi
I mean why are they the way they are?

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I mean why are they the way they are?

poor education, warped world view justified by government abuse of power in turn strengthening their beliefs and willingness to act out against said government oppression.

possibly poor genetics and also environmental influences.

nature and nurture driving them toward a certain thought pattern behavior.

Rogue Jedi
Or maybe they are just crazy.

Wild Shadow
what would make you think they are mentally unstable or "crazy"?

Rogue Jedi
Well, don't they think that public local and federal law enforcement is in league with the Antichrist? Related somehow?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
This might belong in the Religion forum, but here we go, I guess it can be moved:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security/


I'm Christian, my faith is unshakable, but WTF is wrong with these people?

Extremism!

It's not lack of education - educated people can be extremists.
It's not Christianity - there are many Christians who are not extremists.
It's not bad genes - extremist have family members who are not extremists.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well, don't they think that public local and federal law enforcement is in league with the Antichrist? Related somehow?

majority of this nation think that the founding father and this country is christian. whats ur point?


having a religious view and believing it doesnt make one crazy at least that is the majority view.

to me anyone with religious supernatural belief fall under being "crazy" dementia.

but then again everyone can be crazy or is crazy in one way or another.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
majority of this nation think that the founding father and this country is christian. whats ur point?


having a religious view and believing it doesnt make one crazy at least that is the majority view.

to me anyone with religious supernatural belief fall under being "crazy" dementia.

but the again everyone can be crazy or is crazy in one way or another. Well, you guys sold me.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
This might belong in the Religion forum, but here we go, I guess it can be moved:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security/


I'm Christian, my faith is unshakable, but WTF is wrong with these people?
Their faith is unshakable.

Robtard
Bombing a funeral and killing people, certainly what Jesus taught.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Robtard
Bombing a funeral and killing people, certainly what Jesus taught.

nah, he taught us a body is just a shell and has no real importance and should not be venerated in death.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Extremism!

It's not lack of education - educated people can be extremists.
It's not Christianity - there are many Christians who are not extremists.
It's not bad genes - extremist have family members who are not extremists.


1. being properly educated doesn't mean one has a grasp of the knowledge imparted to them by study. look at bush as an example.
2. true.
3. genes is only a part of it also nurture plays a part... but being aggressive, emotional can be a genetic trait.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow

1. being properly educated doesn't mean one has a grasp of the knowledge imparted to them by study. look at bush as an example.
2. true.
3. genes is only a part of it also nurture plays a part... but being aggressive, emotional can be a genetic trait.

1. Your example is not appropriate, but the fact you gave that example proves your point. wink
2. Cool.
3. But being aggressive and emotional does not equal extreme.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. Your example is not appropriate, but the fact you gave that example proves your point. wink
2. Cool.
3. But being aggressive and emotional does not equal extreme.

yeah, bush sealed and made a concrete case for me. smile
2. as a glacier
3. that is why you have nature/nurture to reinforce their already aggressive traits... their religious/political or personal beliefs simply gives them a reason and a target. growing up and living with ppl with strong beliefs helps.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
yeah, bush sealed and made a concrete case for me. smile
2. as a glacier
3. that is why you have nature/nurture to reinforce their already aggressive traits... their religious/political or personal beliefs simply gives them a reason and a target. growing up and living with ppl with strong beliefs helps.

1. Be careful about becoming an extremist. Just because everyone around you believes something does not mean it is true.
2....
3. You can be an atheist and still be an extremist.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. Be careful about becoming an extremist. Just because everyone around you believes something does not mean it is true.
2....
3. You can be an atheist and still be an extremist.

1. what do you consider an extremist? why would i need to be careful?
2....
3. being an atheist is a belief.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
1. what do you consider an extremist? why would i need to be careful?
2....
3. being an atheist is a belief.

The people who are a part of the extremist group mentioned in this thread most likely do not believe they are extremists. A false belief can become popular within a group of people and not be viewed as extreme. The problem comes into existence when an outside group beliefs run counter. Example: Osama Bin Laden is viewed by the west as an extremist, but many people around the world do not view him in that way. From their point of view, he is a hero. That is the problem with extremism; it is difficult to identify from just one point of view.

The Dark Cloud
This is what can happen when religion dominates peoples thinking. More violence has been comitted in the name of religion throughout history than anything else. Religion is the one thing that can trump greed for it's negative impact.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is what can happen when religion dominates peoples thinking. More violence has been comitted in the name of religion throughout history than anything else. Religion is the one thing that can trump greed for it's negative impact.

That is incorrect. In the past most people were part of a religion. It is only recently that Atheism has come into popularity. We are yet to see the destructive power of this belief. I will tell you that the only commonality in the violence of the past are people.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by King Kandy
Their faith is unshakable. You see me killing cops and bombing funerals? Theres a right way and a wrong way to worship your deity.

Kneeling in a certain direction on a rug and praying, right way. Sacrificing virgins, wrong way.

Robtard
Going through rituals is silly, why not just worship your god in your heart and mind.

Doubt the creator of time, space and everything in between in overly concerned if you lay on a rug, light a candle or do go into a certain building, while giving homage. Imo, of course.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Robtard
Going through rituals is silly, why not just worship your god in your heart and mind.

Doubt the creator of time, space and everything in between in overly concerned if you lay on a rug, light a candle or do go into a certain building, while giving homage. Imo, of course.

If said ritual makes the person feel closer to their deity, then good for them. That's why people go to church, to feel closer to God, and congregate with fellow worshippers.

Me? I am like you say, my church is within me. I worship God in my heart and mind.

Robtard
You're so going to hell, dude.

Ms.Marvel
whos that soon to be obese child in your avatar rob?

Robtard
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
whos that soon to be obese child in your avatar rob?

Ralphie Parker (Peter Billingsley), character from A Christmas Story. One of the best film ever made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085334/

BTW, that's a bar of soap.

Bouboumaster
Are you really surprised?

Some americans are completly batshit insane in christianism.

How can it be different, when you give this dudes your spiritual education?

John Hagee:
http://videosift.com/video/Rev-John-Hagee-Anti-Catholic-Homophobe-McCain-Supporter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y43CkCzyPq0


Steven Anderson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIW27p4BI_g&feature=fvsr


Yeah. You can't be surprise when you see this type of shit

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Are you really surprised?

Some americans are completly batshit insane in christianism.

How can it be different, when you give this dudes your spiritual education?...


...Yeah. You can't be surprise when you see this type of shit

Freedom of speech.

...and I thought my spelling and grammar was bad. laughing out loud

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Freedom of speech.

...and I thought my spelling and grammar was bad. laughing out loud

Yep, my grammar is indeed terrible, but I try to do my best: After all, I usually speak french wink


And even if their words are protected by the law, we can, using the freedom of speech too, say that this is completly insane.

Robtard
Ignore his remarks, he's just an angry Buddhist.

Wild Shadow
if he is angry he isnt a Buddhist aka an enlighten one.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if he is angry he isnt a Buddhist aka an enlighten one.

I think he's said in the past that everyone is enlightened.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he's said in the past that everyone is enlightened. some are more enlighten then others.. one who is angry is less likely.

the bhuddist title is just a way of saying enlighten one.


its the same as sayin we are all filled with the holy spirit so we must all be saints, holy...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Yep, my grammar is indeed terrible, but I try to do my best: After all, I usually speak french wink


And even if their words are protected by the law, we can, using the freedom of speech too, say that this is completly insane.

thumb up

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some are more enlighten then others.. one who is angry is less likely.

the bhuddist title is just a way of saying enlighten one.


its the same as sayin we are all filled with the holy spirit so we must all be saints, holy...

I'm sorry to differ, but anger is one of the ten worlds, and within that world (like all of the ten) there is the world of Buddhahood. However, I just joke around by calling myself an angry Buddhist. wink

Red Nemesis
No it is not.

you are a belief

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Robtard
You're so going to hell, dude. Says the man who wishes his penis was a bar of soap.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No it is not.

you are a belief

I can't believe that.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I've never washed my penis with soap. sad

Ha.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Robtard
Me neither. Ahaha.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Poopoo weenie dingle wings.

ZOMG! Look at how SILLY Robbie is!

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't believe that.

Which?

The part where Atheism is not a belief? To recycle an overused argument, it is a belief in the way that bald is a hair color.

The part where he is a belief? It is either very inane or very insightful. Take your pick.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Which?

The part where Atheism is not a belief? To recycle an overused argument, it is a belief in the way that bald is a hair color.

The part where he is a belief? It is either very inane or very insightful. Take your pick.

The first one, but I like the second one better now. wink

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
ZOMG! Look at how SILLY Robbie is!

If you're going to childrenify (yes, I just made that word up) part of my screen handle, at least use the "y" at the end, I am male.

Moscow
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to childrenify (yes, I just made that word up) part of my screen handle, at least use the "y" at the end, I am male.

So you think

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No it is not.

you are a belief not believing in another's spiritual belief structure does not mean one is an atheist without their own unique belief system whether it is humanism, naturalism or simply the study of various philosophical systems .. etc etc..

some ppl get offended and bothered when they are called atheist by certain religious groups and even claim they are not they just believe in something completely different.

Red Nemesis
I am really beginning to think that you are just trolling the hell out of this board. It boggles the mind that someone could be so incredibly incompetent.

The post that started our exchange:


Now your position is that:
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
not believing in another's spiritual belief structure does not mean one is an atheist without their own unique belief system whether it is humanism, naturalism or simply the study of various philosophical systems .. etc etc..
You've moved from 'Atheism is a belief' to 'Atheism might mean that someone has a belief in something else.

Do you see how that works? I could say that being American is a political affiliation, but then adjust my position towards the idea that being American gives one the capacity to have a political affiliation and I wouldn't be moving the goalpoasts as much as you. To put it simply, your post is garbage and your ideas are garbage. Learn to think and then get back to me.


Are you really this dense? As I said, that isn't possible. Thus, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are leading us on.

You've answered your own criticism. The "rebuttal" that you've provided is actually the fastest and most effective way to demolish your (own) argument that I can imagine.

You: Atheism is a belief
You: Atheism leads to other ideas
You: Those other ideas are beliefs
You: Thus, because someone has some belief in something, they are not an atheist.

See the problem here? Hint: Atheism's co-ideas are not the same as atheism.

facepalm

Wild Shadow
if you dont want to agree with someone its fine we can discuss it without insulting and name calling ppl b/c they dont agree with you or accept ur concept of whatever it is u believe in.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. These factors are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text.

Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point.

Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.

Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.

Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not. fine.

all i am trying to say is that not believing in a god or gods is a belief in itself. look at the definition of the word its in there.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by dadudemon
ZOMG! Look at how SILLY Robbie is! Aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha Pewpy ballz!!!

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is incorrect. In the past most people were part of a religion. It is only recently that Atheism has come into popularity. We are yet to see the destructive power of this belief. I will tell you that the only commonality in the violence of the past are people.

No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.

Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.

Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.

It is an anti-god belief. If you are an Atheist, then you believe there is no god or gods. That is a belief in the simplest form. Eventually Atheism will look no different then any other religion.

Is it the hammer that drives a nail into a board? Or is it the person using the hammer? Without people, Christianity, and all religions would not exist. Religion is something we humans made up, just like all the wars and death, that we humans caused. If you wish to blame the hammer for the nail in the board, then be happy in your delusion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I am really beginning to think that you are just trolling the hell out of this board. It boggles the mind that someone could be so incredibly incompetent.

The post that started our exchange:


Now your position is that:

You've moved from 'Atheism is a belief' to 'Atheism might mean that someone has a belief in something else.

Do you see how that works? I could say that being American is a political affiliation, but then adjust my position towards the idea that being American gives one the capacity to have a political affiliation and I wouldn't be moving the goalpoasts as much as you. To put it simply, your post is garbage and your ideas are garbage. Learn to think and then get back to me.


Are you really this dense? As I said, that isn't possible. Thus, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are leading us on.

You've answered your own criticism. The "rebuttal" that you've provided is actually the fastest and most effective way to demolish your (own) argument that I can imagine.

You: Atheism is a belief
You: Atheism leads to other ideas
You: Those other ideas are beliefs
You: Thus, because someone has some belief in something, they are not an atheist.

See the problem here? Hint: Atheism's co-ideas are not the same as atheism.

facepalm

laughing


Wow.

That's some ownage, right there.

Edit - But he does come backpedal and own you right back.

Originally posted by Ultraviolence
No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.

Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.


I agree with what you're getting at, but atheism is a belief.







More on topic, I was told about this militia stuff, communism, socialism, etc. And how it's all on a sliding scale of progressivness and anarachy. I'll explain in a bit.

inimalist
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
fine.

all i am trying to say is that not believing in a god or gods is a belief in itself. look at the definition of the word its in there.

however a dictionary chooses to explain the usage of a term is a subjective thing based on the dictionary editors, not a statement of phisophical absolution nor of the truth behind what it means, psychologically, to believe in something.

a) yes, there are atheists who can be said to "believe in" atheism.
b) this is not true of all atheists
c) the main reason for this is that the term 'atheist' is not a clear doctrine in itself, but rather a description of disbelief

so, I would certainly agree with you that there are people who have simply used atheist literature to replace the things in their belief system which religion used to maintain. They normally have very similar beliefs and probably love Richard Dawkins after writing the god delusion].

but, this is not true of all people. For many 'atheists', the idea that some ideological principal unites them is ridiculous. Though I do not believe in God, I don't identify as an atheist because the term seems useless to me, like identifying as an anti-racist or anti-sexist. Because of this, though both Dawkins and I are, taxinomically, atheists, there is little about us that can be ascertained through the usage of that term. In fact, with regard to religion, Dawkins and I disagree on most things there are to disagree with, whether God exists being the few places of agreement.

This might appear to be true of other faiths, but it is not. If two Christians engage in a debate, regardless of interpretation, there is a theoretical way the problem could be solved. They just must discover the proper way to interpret the scripture. Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system. There is a process through which all debates can be settled. For Dawkins and I, there is no such comparison. Theoretically, we could never settle our disagreement, because neither of us need to appeal to the same authority on matters of, well, anything. There is no such closed loop to 'atheism'.

This goes further though. Surely, there must be a difference between believing in something and not believing in that same thing, or else there is no real purpose for the word "believe". To have any use as a symbol, a word has to define something. Belief, as in religious belief, cannot be the same as no religious belief, by definition. If it is, then saying you believe in something is not actually saying anything, because believing could also be non-belief.

While that may not be clear, it is more apparent if put like this: There is a difference between 'belief' defined as in a fact that you believe about the universe versus 'belief' as in a statement you would answer yes or no to. So, today the weather here is awesome, for March in Canada. So, I do believe that the weather is great. However, someone from further south, who is indifferent about the weather, may not think so. If you asked them "do you believe the weather is nice today?", they would say "no". However, that doesn't mean they have a systematic belief that the weahter is not good that is similar to my belief that the weather is good. It means they have an opinion on a question that was asked, not that they have a belief system based on that opinon.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.

Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not.

Hj9oB4zpHww

thought you might like this smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
however a dictionary chooses to explain the usage of a term is a subjective thing based on the dictionary editors, not a statement of phisophical absolution nor of the truth behind what it means, psychologically, to believe in something.

a) yes, there are atheists who can be said to "believe in" atheism.
b) this is not true of all atheists
c) the main reason for this is that the term 'atheist' is not a clear doctrine in itself, but rather a description of disbelief

so, I would certainly agree with you that there are people who have simply used atheist literature to replace the things in their belief system which religion used to maintain. They normally have very similar beliefs and probably love Richard Dawkins after writing the god delusion].

but, this is not true of all people. For many 'atheists', the idea that some ideological principal unites them is ridiculous. Though I do not believe in God, I don't identify as an atheist because the term seems useless to me, like identifying as an anti-racist or anti-sexist. Because of this, though both Dawkins and I are, taxinomically, atheists, there is little about us that can be ascertained through the usage of that term. In fact, with regard to religion, Dawkins and I disagree on most things there are to disagree with, whether God exists being the few places of agreement.

This might appear to be true of other faiths, but it is not. If two Christians engage in a debate, regardless of interpretation, there is a theoretical way the problem could be solved. They just must discover the proper way to interpret the scripture. Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system. There is a process through which all debates can be settled. For Dawkins and I, there is no such comparison. Theoretically, we could never settle our disagreement, because neither of us need to appeal to the same authority on matters of, well, anything. There is no such closed loop to 'atheism'.

This goes further though. Surely, there must be a difference between believing in something and not believing in that same thing, or else there is no real purpose for the word "believe". To have any use as a symbol, a word has to define something. Belief, as in religious belief, cannot be the same as no religious belief, by definition. If it is, then saying you believe in something is not actually saying anything, because believing could also be non-belief.

While that may not be clear, it is more apparent if put like this: There is a difference between 'belief' defined as in a fact that you believe about the universe versus 'belief' as in a statement you would answer yes or no to. So, today the weather here is awesome, for March in Canada. So, I do believe that the weather is great. However, someone from further south, who is indifferent about the weather, may not think so. If you asked them "do you believe the weather is nice today?", they would say "no". However, that doesn't mean they have a systematic belief that the weahter is not good that is similar to my belief that the weather is good. It means they have an opinion on a question that was asked, not that they have a belief system based on that opinon.

I agree with what you are saying, and when I say that Atheism is a belief, I am only talking about those people who go around saying "I'm an Atheist". To me that is just like saying "I'm a Christian". There are a lot of people who are atheists, who don't go any further. Those people have an opinion on the topic, but not really a Belief.

However, I disagree with "Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system.". I could argue all day with a Zen Buddhist, and we would never be able to come to an agreement. Buddhism is not a closed system.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with what you are saying, and when I say that Atheism is a belief, I am only talking about those people who go around saying "I'm an Atheist". To me that is just like saying "I'm a Christian". There are a lot of people who are atheists, who don't go any further. Those people have an opinion on the topic, but not really a Belief.

indeed. its actually weird talking with them sometimes. One of the profs I talk with a lot totally is, and its weird... like, he is totally a genius and all that, just weird sort of like identity stuff and the generalizations he makes of religious people. Its totally like the "I am a Christian" stuff in that way

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I disagree with "Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system.". I could argue all day with a Zen Buddhist, and we would never be able to come to an agreement. Buddhism is not a closed system.

ha, I actually predicted you saying this when I was writing it. Yes, its really complex, but I think my point is still valid even if Zen Buddhism is weird to define. Like, I totally agree and think it is worth mentioning, I was just trying not to ramble all over the place about stuff that, at least to me, is sort of difficult.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
...

ha, I actually predicted you saying this when I was writing it. Yes, its really complex, but I think my point is still valid even if Zen Buddhism is weird to define. Like, I totally agree and think it is worth mentioning, I was just trying not to ramble all over the place about stuff that, at least to me, is sort of difficult.

eek! Have I become predictable? laughing out loud

King Kandy
I don't think being athiest is a belief. If it is, then there would be no such thing as not having a belief, which makes the term belief itself of no value to discussion.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eek! Have I become predictable? laughing out loud

no, its just a good point, and I figured a proper analysis of Buddhist doctrine might be more salient to you rather than Sym or dadude

EDIT: i am also a robot from the future

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by inimalist
however a dictionary chooses to explain the usage of a term is a subjective thing based on the dictionary editors, not a statement of phisophical absolution nor of the truth behind what it means, psychologically, to believe in something.

a) yes, there are atheists who can be said to "believe in" atheism.
b) this is not true of all atheists
c) the main reason for this is that the term 'atheist' is not a clear doctrine in itself, but rather a description of disbelief

so, I would certainly agree with you that there are people who have simply used atheist literature to replace the things in their belief system which religion used to maintain. They normally have very similar beliefs and probably love Richard Dawkins after writing the god delusion].

but, this is not true of all people. For many 'atheists', the idea that some ideological principal unites them is ridiculous. Though I do not believe in God, I don't identify as an atheist because the term seems useless to me, like identifying as an anti-racist or anti-sexist. Because of this, though both Dawkins and I are, taxinomically, atheists, there is little about us that can be ascertained through the usage of that term. In fact, with regard to religion, Dawkins and I disagree on most things there are to disagree with, whether God exists being the few places of agreement.

This might appear to be true of other faiths, but it is not. If two Christians engage in a debate, regardless of interpretation, there is a theoretical way the problem could be solved. They just must discover the proper way to interpret the scripture. Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system. There is a process through which all debates can be settled. For Dawkins and I, there is no such comparison. Theoretically, we could never settle our disagreement, because neither of us need to appeal to the same authority on matters of, well, anything. There is no such closed loop to 'atheism'.

This goes further though. Surely, there must be a difference between believing in something and not believing in that same thing, or else there is no real purpose for the word "believe". To have any use as a symbol, a word has to define something. Belief, as in religious belief, cannot be the same as no religious belief, by definition. If it is, then saying you believe in something is not actually saying anything, because believing could also be non-belief.

While that may not be clear, it is more apparent if put like this: There is a difference between 'belief' defined as in a fact that you believe about the universe versus 'belief' as in a statement you would answer yes or no to. So, today the weather here is awesome, for March in Canada. So, I do believe that the weather is great. However, someone from further south, who is indifferent about the weather, may not think so. If you asked them "do you believe the weather is nice today?", they would say "no". However, that doesn't mean they have a systematic belief that the whether is not good that is similar to my belief that the weather is good. It means they have an opinion on a question that was asked, not that they have a belief system based on that opinion.

i already said fine. no expression

that is my way of acknowledging ur argument/opinion without having a retort... reading

inimalist
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i already said fine. no expression

that is my way of acknowledging ur argument/opinion without having a retort... reading

but, this is a much more powerful retort than most arguments would have been...

you sneaky bastard

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think being athiest is a belief. If it is, then there would be no such thing as not having a belief, which makes the term belief itself of no value to discussion.

But would you agree that there are people who use the word Atheist as a label which describes their belief? I would agree that there are people who do not believe in god or gods, and the word that would be used to describe these people would be atheist.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by inimalist
but, this is a much more powerful retort than most arguments would have been...

you sneaky bastard but it so long to read and i have such a short attention span i had to reread it 4 times b/c i kept jumping from paragraph speed reading to finish it faster.. till i finally manage to focus and read it all in its proper context.

inimalist
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but it so long to read and i have such a short attention span i had to reread it 4 times b/c i kept jumping from paragraph speed reading to finish it faster.. till i finally manage to focus and read it all in its proper context.

no worries, i ramble incoherently, i get it

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But would you agree that there are people who use the word Atheist as a label which describes their belief? I would agree that there are people who do not believe in god or gods, and the word that would be used to describe these people would be atheist.
If so, they're using the term incorrectly and what they're actually describing is something like humanism. I say that i'm an athiest, and I subscribe to most of the beliefs media athiests do. However, that's a label used for simplicities sake. If I was pressed by someone who actually understood these sort of things, i'd identify as a humanist/socialist and also an athiest.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by inimalist
no worries, i ramble incoherently, i get it its cool i do it all the time.. i understand your point.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
If so, they're using the term incorrectly and what they're actually describing is something like humanism. I say that i'm an athiest, and I subscribe to most of the beliefs media athiests do. However, that's a label used for simplicities sake. If I was pressed by someone who actually understood these sort of things, i'd identify as a humanist/socialist and also an athiest.

we get those people all the time on the religion forums though, don't you think?

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
we get those people all the time on the religion forums though, don't you think?
People who identify athiest? All athiest means is not believing in god. Other beliefs aren't under the athiest label, though they may use it as a starting point.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
People who identify athiest? All athiest means is not believing in god. Other beliefs aren't under the athiest label, though they may use it as a starting point.

people who think identifying as atheist is an encompassing system of beliefs with ideas about science that are akin to moses' tablets?

I can't remember any recently, but you don't know what I'm saying? People who like religify evolution...

hold on, this guy:

Originally posted by Saskaswan
People who believe in some fictional character who created every single thing in this universe and determines the outcome of our lives is obviously very stupid, also some of you believe the world is around 6000 - 8000 years old when there is scientific evidence that it is 4.5 billion years old. Although the mention is science must be fake to you. The Tooth Fairy is more realistic than God.
If you really just sat there and thought about what you believe in you would think like i do.

knowwhatimsayin?

WickedDynamite
I avoid Extremist Christians just like I avoide Militant Atheists.

Wild Shadow
anyone ever heard of an extremist Buddhist?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
anyone ever heard of an extremist Buddhist?

Yes. big grin I know one.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. big grin I know one. what about a militant Buddhist?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
what about a militant Buddhist?

No, other then the Buddhists in Tibet, but they are just trying to protect themselves from the Chinese.

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
people who think identifying as atheist is an encompassing system of beliefs with ideas about science that are akin to moses' tablets?

I can't remember any recently, but you don't know what I'm saying? People who like religify evolution...

hold on, this guy:



knowwhatimsayin?
I understand what you're saying, but that's not a true to word use of athiesm. And BTW, I would agree with that guy.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I understand what you're saying, but that's not a true to word use of athiesm. And BTW, I would agree with that guy.

So you would try to convert people to Atheism?

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, other then the Buddhists in Tibet, but they are just trying to protect themselves from the Chinese.

i luv to see some militant Buddhist compound here in the states.. i would laugh my @$$ when the ATF and FBI try to use propaganda against them to justify an attack with a warrant for wpn confiscation as an excuse.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So you would try to convert people to Atheism?
I'll argue with them in the religion forum, if that's what you mean. But you also do that.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I'll argue with them in the religion forum, if that's what you mean. But you also do that.

But I'm trying to convert people. wink After all, I'm a member of a religion. laughing out loud

King Kandy
I've never seen you try and convert anyone to Buddhism, but I certainly have seen you make some strong arguments for atheism.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. big grin I know one.

who?


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, other then the Buddhists in Tibet, but they are just trying to protect themselves from the Chinese.




i have this question about a spiritual person regardless of their religion. if they adhere and believing in their faith why would one fight and protect oneself from physical harm to the body which in itself is just a shell and holds no spiritual value?


just my two cents on the subject.... i am not talking about ur average church goers and weekend Christians and Buddhist but actual practitioners of the faith like monks, priest, cardinals and popes.. who by the way can be decadent in their appearance at times.

i have my own opinion on the subject but would like to hear others.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
who?

No one you know, and no one on this forum.


Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i have this question about a spiritual person regardless of their religion. if they adhere and believing in their faith why would one fight and protect oneself from physical harm to the body which in itself is just a shell and holds no spiritual value?


just my two cents on the subject.... i am not talking about ur average church goers and weekend Christians and Buddhist but actual practitioners of the faith like monks, priest, cardinals and popes.. who by the way can be decadent in their appearance at times.

i have my own opinion on the subject but would like to hear others.

You should start a thread.

Wild Shadow
you should answer it.. miffed

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you should answer it.. miffed

What? The name of the person, or your off topic wanderings?

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by inimalist
people who think identifying as atheist is an encompassing system of beliefs with ideas about science that are akin to moses' tablets?

I can't remember any recently, but you don't know what I'm saying? People who like religify evolution...

hold on, this guy:



knowwhatimsayin?
yes I believe I know what you are saying.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is an anti-god belief. If you are an Atheist, then you believe there is no god or gods. That is a belief in the simplest form. Eventually Atheism will look no different then any other religion.

No, you're outrageously wrong. If you are an atheism, you lack belief in God(s). I'm also sorry to tell you but your "eventual" transformation of atheism turning into a religion is sure taking thousands and thousands of years.





Wait, we "made up" all of the wars and death?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
I'm also sorry to tell you but your "eventual" transformation of atheism turning into a religion is sure taking thousands and thousands of years.

I doubt that. The moment it becomes popular people will start redefining it. We could have "real true atheists" within a hundred years.

Red Nemesis
And talking otters fighting with laser guns not a hundred years after that.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I doubt that. The moment it becomes popular people will start redefining it. We could have "real true atheists" within a hundred years.

We could also have Dolphins with boob jobs.

Ushgarak
Countering the idea that atheism is a belief system is simple- look at its opposite. Is Theism- belief in a God or Gods- a belief system?

Of course not- there are many, many outlooks on life, or belief systems, with theistic characteristics, from Christianity to worshipping gnomes. Likewise, there are many outlooks that have atheistic characteristics.

It's far too broad to be called a belief system.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
No, you're outrageously wrong. If you are an atheism, you lack belief in God(s). I'm also sorry to tell you but your "eventual" transformation of atheism turning into a religion is sure taking thousands and thousands of years.

There are people who go around using the word Atheist as a way to describe their belief. There are even people who will go out of there way to defend Atheism. They will agree over what Atheism is and is not. Do you still wish to argue with me about this?

Originally posted by Ultraviolence
Wait, we "made up" all of the wars and death?

Humans are the root cause of all wars.

Shakyamunison
Ultraviolence, I think what you are trying to say is that Atheism is not an organized religion. On that point I agree, however, there are a lot of religions in the world that are not organized. For example, many new age religions are not organized, and are so broad in belief that there is no way to organize them.

To me, Atheism is an infant religion. Only time will tell if it dies or becomes organized.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, Atheism is an infant religion. Only time will tell if it dies or becomes organized.

atheism is older than christianity.......

like, as an actual doctrine of disbelief in Gods and an appeal to a naturalistic universe

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
atheism is older than christianity.......

like, as an actual doctrine of disbelief in Gods and an appeal to a naturalistic universe

In that way of thinking, many new age religions are even older.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In that way of thinking, many new age religions are even older.

sure, depending on the specific belief

there are legitimate new agers who are looking up ancient spirituality and using it to find answers, so ya, I'd buy that in some cases. There are other, more frequent, examples of people ascribing 70s era spiritualism (based on the human potential movement of the early 20th century) to ancient cultures who would have never believed anything close to that.

The concept as "new age" as a uniting principal between these ideas, however, is an entirely modern concept, and in fact, older belief practices are being co-opted (along with conspiracy theory and pseudo-psychology) by the modern interpretations of what "new age" is.

This isn't the same as atheism. Whether we call it a belief system or not, there were people (Greek atomist philosophers, Socrates/Plato/Aristotle etc) who ascribed to the same principals as atheists in modern time do. There is this strange mythology that "atheism" was a product of the Enlightenment, which, imho, is not the case.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, depending on the specific belief

there are legitimate new agers who are looking up ancient spirituality and using it to find answers, so ya, I'd buy that in some cases. There are other, more frequent, examples of people ascribing 70s era spiritualism (based on the human potential movement of the early 20th century) to ancient cultures who would have never believed anything close to that.

The concept as "new age" as a uniting principal between these ideas, however, is an entirely modern concept, and in fact, older belief practices are being co-opted (along with conspiracy theory and pseudo-psychology) by the modern interpretations of what "new age" is.

This isn't the same as atheism. Whether we call it a belief system or not, there were people (Greek atomist philosophers, Socrates/Plato/Aristotle etc) who ascribed to the same principals as atheists in modern time do. There is this strange mythology that "atheism" was a product of the Enlightenment, which, imho, is not the case.

You are correct about the concept its self, but I see something new. A while back, and this gets into the extremist militia type people, I had an unfortunate encounter with an extremist Atheist. Now I've had my run ins with Christians, and I have been shocked by how nasty some of them can get, but they can't hold a candle to the vileness of that woman. She did not like the fact that I was a Buddhist, and insinuated that all religious people should be done away with. I had images of a holocaust in my head even though no such reference was in our "conversation" (which consisted of her yelling at me, and I trying, but failing, to get a word in sideways). This woman was a fundamentalist Atheist.

I realize that some Christians use the idea that Atheism is a religion as a way to legitimize their point of view. I'm not doing that. I think that there is something going on. People who have a natural inclination toward extremism are discovering Atheism, and in no way are they enlightened.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are people who go around using the word Atheist as a way to describe their belief. There are even people who will go out of there way to defend Atheism. They will agree over what Atheism is and is not. Do you still wish to argue with me about this?

I hope you don't think you're winning here. You think that because atheists defend their positions and describe their views that it is a belief? That's horrible logic. Atheism is a lack of belief. Whether you want to compare it to religion or even be remotely akin to religion is your own initiative but that won't suddenly turn it into a belief. I've met a lot of religious folk who'd like atheism to be an organization or belief like theirs so they could take some pressure off of the crimes that religion has performed and the past and, depending on the religion, still performs today.





Then you may have worded your previous statement incorrectly. You made it sound as if someone had falsely "made up" all of the wars and death of the past.



No, Shakyamunison. It's not a religion at all.



You can hold that position all that you'd like but it's not a religious organization at all. Even if all of the atheists get together and call it "SUPER DESTRUCTO ATHEISM," start donning black robes and killing people with swords, it still wouldn't be a sodding religion. The whole belief system of religious belief usually relies on creationism or the presence of supernatural entities and we all know that atheists are strongly against that. A religion also has to contain a rule system and atheism doesn't. I might add that we are also missing eschatology from our "religion."

To wrap this up, another large part of religion is providing you with a lifestyle or providing you with a philosophy to live by. Atheism, again, lacks that. Being an atheism does not mean that you will live a certain way to avoid sin or that jazz. Atheists have a broad variety of lifestyles, morals and ethics.

I'm sorry but I am afraid we lack far too many key ingredients of religion to be even remotely considered one.

Wild Shadow
facepalm2

Athiesm is a belief in no gods or supernatural beings,realms or after life...

^ belief..

it doesnt have to me complicated with ceremonies and traditions in order to be considered a personal belief. it is a very basic none structured belief at its simplest lvl.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
facepalm2

Athiesm is a belief in no gods or supernatural beings,realms or after life...

^ belief..

it doesnt have to me complicated with ceremonies and traditions in order to be considered a personal belief. it is a very basic none structured belief at its simplest lvl.

No, it isn't a belief. I'm sorry but pointing an arrow up at your sentence and then saying "belief' after it doesn't change much.

Atheism is not a belief in no God, it is no belief in a God.

Shakyamunison

King Kandy
Atheism is not a belief at all... like I said earlier, defining lack of belief as a belief itself makes everything conceivable a belief, removing the value of even having the word in the first place.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Atheism is not a belief at all... like I said earlier, defining lack of belief as a belief itself makes everything conceivable a belief, removing the value of even having the word in the first place.

If to not make a choice is still a choice, then to not believe in something is still a belief.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If to not make a choice is still a choice, then to not believe in something is still a belief. dont you go all zen or common sense on him otherwise he wont understand... eek! laughing rolling on floor laughing arabia

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If to not make a choice is still a choice, then to not believe in something is still a belief.
If not believing is a belief, then it isn't not believing at all. There are loads of atheists with no belief at all.

Terri Shiavo was an atheist, she did not believe in god, and since she didn't have brain functioning she didn't believe anything at all, actually.

Ultraviolence
Could you be any more naive? Is there a certain way a Christian is supposed to sound?




No, it really isn't a belief and saying it is so, again, doesn't make it so. It's like saying that having a basket that has no apples in it still means that there's apples in it. It makes no sense. Atheism is the disbelief of God(s). Here is the definition of disbelief:

"Refusal or reluctance to believe."

I cannot really make it any more simple without bringing out large, colorful blocks and books with pictures, Shakyamunison.




How can you be so crass when you failed to correctly word your sentences? You cannot expect me to have a serious discussion with you when you're being so daft.

Read your post:


What part of "you worded your previous statement incorrectly" aren't you understanding?




How wise and clever you are, Shakyamunison! You managed to try and compare atheism to a New Age religion with a basic belief system. Too bad atheism doesn't have a belief system. Are you purposefully classifying atheism incorrectly to degrade it somehow?

What new age religion is this exactly?




I find it so cute that you're trying to familiarize Atheism as a religion but slowly trying to eek away Buddhism from being a religion. I'm going to be amused at your next post where you try to say that you're not trying to disassociate Buddhism with religion.

Buddhism definition:

"Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices."

Atheism has no traditions, practices or beliefs. This makes it the opposite of religion.


Here:

http://www.huonvalley.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/baby.jpg

That baby has a lack of belief in a God. Are you going to try and say that his lack of belief is "still a belief?" Think about what you're saying.



Really? I said that a large part of religion is giving the believer a philosophy to live by and you say I've had limited experience with religion? Is that some sort of ridiculous joke?



No, Shakyamunison. Atheism is not religion period. Whether it is organized or unorganized, it isn't a religion. I have to remind you that "group" does not equal "religion." You need to get your facts straight before providing a retort, my friend.



You really do not know what you're getting yourself into, Shakyamunison.

Also, I might suggest replying to me via PMing because this is getting a little too off-topic and it's against the rules.

Ushgarak
Ok, back on topic folks. Bring this to the religion forum if you want to carry it on. Just to note though, as far as we are concerned on that forum- atheism is not a religion or a belief system. It is a characteristic of certain philosophies or belief systems. It is NOT a system in of itself.

Now- topic.

Shakyamunison

Ultraviolence
Shakyamunison, I told you that if you wanted to continue this, you'd have to PM me. It's grossly off-topic.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, back on topic folks. Bring this to the religion forum if you want to carry it on. Just to note though, as far as we are concerned on that forum- atheism is not a religion or a belief system. It is a characteristic of certain philosophies or belief systems. It is NOT a system in of itself.

Now- topic.

Yes, sir.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.