I'm not sure the point I was thinking about is suited for this thread on second thoughts. It's more philosophy.
What I would say is, bear in mind the nebulousness of language, as well as the validity of source, when using lingual meaning directly to aid a debate.
A good precedent (no pun intended) is in legislation.
Although I fear I have already drifted from the original topic, which thinking about it, I must confess I am not aware of.
What is the actual point of the thread?
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomThat Atheists are just as religious as Theists. I think that's what it's trying to say anyway.
I'm not sure the point I was thinking about is suited for this thread on second thoughts. It's more philosophy.What I would say is, bear in mind the nebulousness of language, as well as the validity of source, when using lingual meaning directly to aid a debate.
A good precedent (no pun intended) is in legislation.
Although I fear I have already drifted from the original topic, which thinking about it, I must confess I am not aware of.
What is the actual point of the thread?
Re: Atheists and Theists
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are many reasons why I love visiting this forum, but one of the main ones is that I love the phenomenon of interaction between Atheists and Theists, and how exactly the same they are.Not just people on this forum, but as a general rule.
Here is a simply summary why Atheists and Theists are behaving in the exactly the same manner.
Theists have this view that Atheists are, lacking in morals, and judgment and are so misguided that they cannot possibly make any moral or rational decisions because they do not believe in God.
Atheists have a similar view on Theists. Athiests view Theists sometimes as stupid and misslead, often immoral because they tend to rely on all answers from a simple book which was written by people who thought that earth was flat.
Many theists think that atheists are fools. Which is fair, because many atheists think that theists are fools as well.
Both, Athiests and Theists are convinced of two things -
1) that they are absolutely right and
2) that the other party is wrong, stupid and mislead.Here is a fundamental point which more than eviently pictures Atheists being like the Theists -
Atheism is not a religion - you will hear a lot of Atheists say.
But the atheist who prosetylizes and denegrates those who hold that there is a god or gods, [b]has put on the mantle of religion
.He/she is behaving in the same manner as fundamentalist preachers who rant against atheism. He/she has made his atheism his/her religion.
This this leads us to a conclusion, that both are, in theory behaving in the exactly the same manner.
Thoughts? [/B]
Ummm..religion in the loosest sense - is an idealized concept, consistently practiced and/or venerated by those who follow it. Atheism, like any other *theism* -- tis but another religion, however, it is one that is grounded in natural roots(not supernatural), and *God* now becomes the natural world around you, the government -- or for those who feel the need to be in complete control all of the time, they themselves become *God*.
Many Ancient Pagan cultures ascribed to belief systems similar to Atheists - believing that the origins of life could be determined by natural means. So this rapid influx of Atheism and Naturalism over the years is really nothing new under the sun.
Now a question for any who can answer it -- How is it possible, to completely remove all religious belief systems from a society, without turning the idealogy of removing all belief systems, into a religious belief system unto itself?
Re: Re: Atheists and Theists
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboReligion is not a concept, it's a system of beliefs which are taught as truths.
Ummm..religion in the loosest sense - is an idealized concept, consistently practiced and/or venerated by those who follow it.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboI'd like to see how Atheism is "a theism" and how Atheists see themselves as "gods". The whole idea of atheism is that there is no god, no supernaturality and nothing beyond reality except of cource our imagination. I'd also like to see how Atheists see the Government is God, or Nature is God, then again they have done more God-like things with undeniable fact to back it up, more than what I can say about your God.
Atheism, like any other *theism* -- tis but another religion, however, it is one that is grounded in natural roots(not supernatural), and *God* now becomes the natural world around you, the government -- or for those who feel the need to be in complete control all of the time, they themselves become *God*.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboAtheism is not a belief system, it's the default AKA the neutral ground between belief systems.
Many Ancient Pagan cultures ascribed to belief systems similar to Atheists - believing that the origins of life could be determined by natural means. So this rapid influx of Atheism and Naturalism over the years is really nothing new under the sun.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboI don't understand this question, maybe if better grammar was used, or if it made sense and wasn't a barrel of lies.
Now a question for any who can answer it -- How is it possible, to completely remove all religious belief systems from a society, without turning the idealogy of removing all belief systems, into a religious belief system unto itself?
Re: Re: Re: Atheists and Theists
Originally posted by lord xyz
Religion is not a concept, it's a system of beliefs which are taught as truths.
And these beliefs represent conceptualized ideals of the God that they worship. Some of these religions are based on truths, while others are based on lies.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I'd like to see how Atheism is "a theism" and how Atheists see themselves as "gods". The whole idea of atheism is that there is no god, no supernaturality and nothing beyond reality except of cource our imagination. I'd also like to see how Atheists see the Government is God, or Nature is God, then again they have done more God-like things with undeniable fact to back it up, more than what I can say about your God.
A *God* is loosely defined as something that is idealized or followed. When one strictly follows their own beliefs, and puts those beliefs on a pedestal above all others - they are venerating their own belief system, and they have made themselves into *God*.
The same rationale can be applied to those who believe in secularising society -- except in this scenario - the Government then becomes *God*, and it's laws become *God's* word.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Atheism is not a belief system, it's the default AKA the neutral ground between belief systems.
Atheism is clearly defined as a "doctrine" in most reference materials. You are grossly ignorant - or grossly in denial of this rather obvious truth. It is clearly a belief system - and those who ascribe to this *belief system* idealize and revere it as any other follower of a religion.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't understand this question, maybe if better grammar was used, or if it made sense and wasn't a barrel of lies.
You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.
Good day to you Urizen lord xyz. God bless.
Originally posted by crazylol
That is what came to my head as well.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboNo, none are based on truths, other-wise they wouldn't be religion.
And these beliefs represent conceptualized ideals of the God that they worship. Some of these religions are based on truths, while others are based on lies.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboIf you put it that way yes, but I don't see how that could sound anything but bad.
A *God* is loosely defined as something that is idealized or followed. When one strictly follows their own beliefs, and puts those beliefs on a pedestal above all others - they are venerating their own belief system, and they have made themselves into *God*.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboYour definition on the word God sounds like the definition of master, leader, monarch etc. That of cource is not what God means.
The same rationale can be applied to those who believe in secularising society -- except in this scenario - the Government then becomes *God*, and it's laws become *God's* word.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboSaying Atheism is a doctrine is about as wrong as saying a tomato is a vegetable. And I don't care if the dictionary says it's a doctrine, it's not, you can't teach someone something doesn't exist, fact. Atheism is clearly someone who doesn't believe in a god/gods. They're not people who go to a temple teaching people/learning how god doesn't exist, (they pretty much work this out for themselves anyway,) it's the default when it comes to religion. It's non-religious at best. Therefore it can't be a religion. I posted a thread about it a while back, in fact I think you posted in it.
Atheism is clearly defined as a "doctrine" in most reference materials. You are grossly ignorant - or grossly in denial of this rather obvious truth. It is clearly a belief system - and those who ascribe to this *belief system* idealize and revere it as any other follower of a religion.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboWTF are you talking about? You're making no sense.
You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboHa, I know you're just saying that to piss me off, but I know how to piss you off aswell.
Good day to youUrizenlord xyz. God bless.
Jesus was born Gay, that's why he never had a girlfriend.
Originally posted by Lord Urizenpetpet
That's what I've been trying to tell everybody ALL ALONG, and no one fkn beleives me !
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomYes I realise that, much like the time I said manners are unnecissary without doing my homework. But I was still determined to make my point was I not?
You're on very shaky ground there.
I think what some of the problem is, is that people are mixing up a few things.
First, There are two types of athiesm. Weak and strong. Weak athiesm is the belief in a lack of god, because of a lack of proof. Strong Athiesm is a belief in a lack of god, due to some sort of evidence that you see.
Atheism IS a belief system, but only in the way that you believe what you see is reality, that breathing will keep you alive and other basic beliefs that you must accept to not go crazy.
It is NOT the same belief system as religion, Religion bases belief off Faith. There is no faith in athiesm. Thats just simple hardcore fact.
Also, the idea that man becomes god or whatever is quite Freudian. But in a wierd distorted way. But sure, you can say that athiems makes everything around you into god, but we also then assume that god is man, and man is falliable, so god is falliable and therefore what you called god's word, is falliable, and the word god becomes meaningless.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
What is ACTUAL athiesm?
Weak and strong arn't judgements upon the sects, its just different philosophies, I am a weak athiest.
The two divisions of Atheism, weak or strong, cannot exist without the concept of God present.
ABC-XYZ tries to argue that a person is an Atheist if they NEVER heard of the idea of God. Since actual Atheism is the disbeleif in God's existance, this whole "virtual atheism" argument is mute and non factual.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The two divisions of Atheism, weak or strong, cannot exist without the concept of God present.ABC-XYZ tries to argue that a person is an Atheist if they NEVER heard of the idea of God. Since actual Atheism is the disbeleif in God's existance, this whole "virtual atheism" argument is mute and non factual.
But the concept of God exists regardless of the knowledge a person has of it. We have the concept. They fit the definition of Atheism. They are Atheist. Really, they are.
And just when I figured we were getting somewhere, here comes more fun with prefixes...
"a-" is a multi-tasking prefix whose meaning depends on context. On the one hand, it can mean "without," as in "amoral" (or "athesist: without God"😉. On the other hand, "a-" can also mean (among other things) "of," as in "akin" (in which case, atheist can mean "of God"😉.
Ain't that a kick in the bojangles.
I propose...
Non-theist: God just not in the picture, at all, period. A rock is nontheistic; and...
Anti-theist: God in the pic; just no belief He exists. An orthodox communist would be anti-theistic.
🤣
Originally posted by Mindship
And just when I figured we were getting somewhere, here comes more fun with prefixes..."a-" is a multi-tasking prefix whose meaning depends on context. On the one hand, it can mean "without," as in "amoral" (or "athesist: without God"😉. On the other hand, "a-" can also mean (among other things) "of," as in "akin" (in which case, atheist can mean "of God"😉.
Ain't that a kick in the bojangles.
I propose...
Non-theist: God just not in the picture, at all, period. A rock is nontheistic; and...
Anti-theist: God in the pic; just no belief He exists. An orthodox communist would be anti-theistic.🤣
Ahem - as much as I hate to go off - topic(relating to a post or thread topic) I felt it necessary to commend yourself(*yourself* meaning you Mr. Mindship) on the wonderful articulation of your argument - and overall debate style...
Me(usagi_yojimbo): I commend you.
Mindship: Thank you for commending me.
Me(usagi_yojimbo): Not a problem - I give credit where it is due.
Thank you once again sir..it has been a pleasure...he..he..he..😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen......
The two divisions of Atheism, weak or strong, cannot exist without the concept of God present.ABC-XYZ tries to argue that a person is an Atheist if they NEVER heard of the idea of God. Since actual Atheism is the disbeleif in God's existance, this whole "virtual atheism" argument is mute and non factual.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboIt's kind of ironic how fundamentalists are the worst at making jokes don't you think?
Ahem - as much as I hate to go off - topic(relating to a post or thread topic) I felt it necessary to commend yourself(*yourself* meaning you Mr. Mindship) on the wonderful articulation of your argument - and overall debate style...Me(usagi_yojimbo): I commend you.
Mindship: Thank you for commending me.
Me(usagi_yojimbo): Not a problem - I give credit where it is due.Thank you once again sir..it has been a pleasure...he..he..he..😉