Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I wouldn't support anything that would do such. But religion is the perpetrator now, so that's the target.
Not true. You can use a hammer to build a house or kill someone, but if someone is killed by a hammer it is not the hammer that will stand before the judge. Religion is simply a tool.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYou take it literally.
Not true. You can use a hammer to build a house or kill someone, but if someone is killed by a hammer it is not the hammer that will stand before the judge. Religion is simply a tool.
I hold the people's flaws in contention, not their ability to have a religion. If people could hold on to their beliefs free of stubbornness, irrationality, and zealotry, I'd have no bone to pick with them. A Christian who can admit that their belief in Christ is a belief, not a truth, I respect. But as soon as I start hearing these people---people who can be otherwise polite, respectful, law-abiding, and yet still behave like that---I have a chip. Then you get the fanatics from Jesus Camp, or the people who would condone the Crusades. And that's just Christianity. Our species seems incapable of building a faith without someone (or some millions) converting it in to extremism. Hence my earlier spiel.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You take it literally.I hold the people's flaws in contention, not their ability to have a religion. If people could hold on to their beliefs free of stubbornness, irrationality, and zealotry, I'd have no bone to pick with them. A Christian who can admit that their belief in Christ is a belief, not a truth, I respect. But as soon as I start hearing these people---people who can be otherwise polite, respectful, law-abiding, and yet still behave like that---I have a chip. Then you get the fanatics from Jesus Camp, or the people who would condone the Crusades. And that's just Christianity. Our species seems incapable of building a faith without someone (or some millions) converting it in to extremism. Hence my earlier spiel.
I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a religion. Last I checked, Buddhism was not telling people they will go to hell or strapping on bomb belts.
I think you should be more to the point. Some religions like Christianity, and others, use extremism to their advantage, and that is wrong. However, this is not true with all religions. Even though all religions can suffer from extremism, religions like mine consider that to be more of a disease then a strategic advantage.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI like Buddhism, I'll give you that. From what I know of Taoism, it sounds okay too. Those Asians got it right by not stressing an all-powerful father-figure with a short temper and conservative resolve who demands ye be burnt at the stake for thy transgressions. Savvy?
I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a religion. Last I checked, Buddhism was not telling people they will go to hell or strapping on bomb belts.I think you should be more to the point. Some religions like Christianity, and others, use extremism to their advantage, and that is wrong. However, this is not true with all religions. Even though all religions can suffer from extremism, religions like mine consider that to be more of a disease then a strategic advantage.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I like Buddhism, I'll give you that. From what I know of Taoism, it sounds okay too. Those Asians got it right by not stressing an all-powerful father-figure with a short temper and conservative resolve who demands ye be burnt at the stake for thy transgressions. Savvy?
We are on the same page. I didn't point this out to you because I was offended or anything; I really don't care. However, this over generalization on your part weakens your point, and makes you sound like an extremist of your own type.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonMy teachers always said I was good at summaries, but if I would just flesh out my paragraphs more, I'd be able to finish a 10-page essay.
We are on the same page. I didn't point this out to you because I was offended or anything; I really don't care. However, this over generalization on your part weakens your point, and makes you sound like an extremist of your own type.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My teachers always said I was good at summaries, but if I would just flesh out my paragraphs more, I'd be able to finish a 10-page essay.
I have somehow become convinced that you were being ironic here.
?
I have a policy of backing off from people that challenge my atheism and then admit that their worldview is only faith, but I often wonder if this is just as damaging (to my standards of rationality) as pressing the matter would be to my reputation. Of course, reputation for not being a jerk >>> being a jerk and losing friendships.
Originally posted by Red NemesisI have somehow become convinced that if it wasn't for lower tariffs, Canadian-grown bananas would be a staple in our diet.
I have somehow become convinced that you were being ironic here.?
I have a policy of backing off from people that challenge my atheism and then admit that their worldview is only faith, but I often wonder if this is just as damaging (to my standards of rationality) as pressing the matter would be to my reputation. Of course, reputation for not being a jerk >>> being a jerk and losing friendships.
!
I find it's best not to attack faith; you tend to look like an ass. Of course Atheism is also a faith, so one should feel free to defend it.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I have somehow become convinced that if it wasn't for lower tariffs, Canadian-grown bananas would be a staple in our diet.!
I find it's best not to attack faith; you tend to look like an ass. Of course Atheism is also a faith, so one should feel free to defend it.
.
And, of course it makes you look like an ass. The question is how much of one you are willing to be. It is really a question of resistance-- the more resistance/outrage that I get, the more willing I am to call someone a deluded idiot.
I would disagree that atheism is a faith; it is a non-position. People can define themselves as "Christian" or "Buddhist." In my experience, it is considerably harder to define yourself as "atheist," in that it is essentially saying "non-Christianity is the most important part of my life."
There are exceptions like Dawkins, but there is a reason that atheists are a non-factor in political life despite their relatively large numbers (greater than Jews). That reason is that atheism lacks a core ideology, or even a common goal.
Originally posted by Red NemesisAtheist in what sense? I've heard people it apply it to not believing in any God, prime mover, creator, divine entity etc., and I've heard it applied to not believing in a Christian God.
I see..
And, of course it makes you look like an ass. The question is how much of one you are willing to be. It is really a question of resistance-- the more resistance/outrage that I get, the more willing I am to call someone a deluded idiot.
I would disagree that atheism is a faith; it is a non-position. People can define themselves as "Christian" or "Buddhist." In my experience, it is considerably harder to define yourself as "atheist," in that it is essentially saying "non-Christianity is the most important part of my life."
There are exceptions like Dawkins, but there is a reason that atheists are a non-factor in political life despite their relatively large numbers (greater than Jews). That reason is that atheism lacks a core ideology, or even a common goal.
To the first I'd say it's a faith. It's a belief (very firm belief for some) that there is no God. That's just the same as people who say there is one. To the second I say it's unspecified---it's just refusing to believe in a type of God.
Totally spaced this thread off. Sorry.
Your first stanza ignores the distinction between "does not believe" and "believes there is no." I use atheist in the sense of "does not espouse a belief in a god." Active disbelief is a different thing entirely, to the point that I think it deserves a distinct name. (Anti-theism, perhaps.)
To the second, I would suspect that you may be hard pressed to find many people that actively deny the existence I don't have enough exposure to atheist thought offline to make a distinction, but to me that position seems silly.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
In my experience, it is considerably harder to define yourself as "atheist," in that it is essentially saying "non-Christianity is the most important part of my life."
I don't think it says that at all. People identify with a lot of beliefs that aren't the most important things in their life. Atheism being, as you say, a non-position bumps it down a few notches on the ladder of things that are important to my self identity but I still think of myself as atheist.
Fact, I don't believe in any G/god or G/gods. Thus I am an atheist. That isn't the be all and end all of who I am, just like a person who is Christian cannot be sufficiently described simply as Christian.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Your first stanza ignores the distinction between "does not believe" and "believes there is no." I use atheist in the sense of "does not espouse a belief in a god." Active disbelief is a different thing entirely, to the point that I think it deserves a distinct name. (Anti-theism, perhaps.)
Anti-theism usually describes people who hate theists. The term your looking for is probably "strong atheism" (I know there is not a god) as opposed to "weak atheism" (there is no reason to think there is a god).
I like Taoism too Lucien. Though I don't see it as a religion, because it doesn't require a belief in anything paranormal. Even Buddhism can't quite say that, though they both at least adhere to causality. I see Taoism as a good philosophy, though, with a few needless elements of mysticism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anti-theism usually describes people who hate theists. The term your looking for is probably "strong atheism" (I know there is not a god) as opposed to "weak atheism" (there is no reason to think there is a god).
I've never met a strong atheist. In fact, I'm not sure I know of any. Though I've met quite a few people who think 'atheism' means what we would consider 'strong atheism.'
Nor have I met too many strong theists, using the same definition....though I can't say "none" to that one, since there have been a few.
But the problem with religious belief is that taking it to its logical conclusion leads to extremism. If you truly believe in God and all that comes with it, your entire existence should be centered around Him. Not in a mealy middle-road of moderate religiosity. I think that's why you see more strong theists than strong atheists, even though both sides can be equally loud from a cultural perspective. A famous philosopher (whose name, of course, escapes me) once said that he only respected the extremes of religion. If he wasn't a militant atheist, he would have been a militant theist. Everyone else was just hedging their bets, and their largely secular lives reflected their lack of true belief in anything.
Originally posted by Red NemesisWeak and strong atheism.
Totally spaced this thread off. Sorry.Your first stanza ignores the distinction between "does not believe" and "believes there is no." I use atheist in the sense of "does not espouse a belief in a god." Active disbelief is a different thing entirely, to the point that I think it deserves a distinct name. (Anti-theism, perhaps.)
To the second, I would suspect that
you may be hard pressed to find many people that actively deny the existenceI don't have enough exposure to atheist thought offline to make a distinction, but to me that position seems silly.
I personally prefer apathetic agnosticism.