Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, if you all want to define atheism or atheist, lets start with breaking it up shall we?A: Without
The: Belief of God
God: Creator and ruler of the universe
Ist: PersonAtheist : without belief of creator and ruler of the universe person or in other words: Someone who doesn't believe in a creator/ruler of the universe.
Does that sound religious to you?
Why the rainbow? 😕
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah that maybe the case but at any rate Satanism is still an example of atheism. As far as I know Anton de Lavey was the first to establish it as an official religon.The issue here is not wether the meaning of Satanism has changed but wether Satanism in modern times is an athiestic religon.
theres no such thing as an ATHEISTIC RELEGION, satanism does not STEM from ATHEISM, it isnt the same as christianity stemming from THEISM. that kind of analogy would work a LITTLE better with{although still not convincingly} ANTI RELEGIOUS SENTIMENT/ANTITHEIST SENTIMENT stemming from ATHEISM. yet still atheism is only a necessary factor for both. it isnt a CAUSITIVE factor like theism. theres a qualitative difference in how THESIM and ATHEISM are{or atlest shud be, linguistically/logically} used in language. they dont occupy the same place and are subject to different laws of logic and linguistic.
ill give an example, if you were to say "I BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, THEREFORE I AM A SPAGETHIST." {and assuming people who dont believe in the spaghetti monster are Aspagethists} would that immedietly imply that all people who DONT believe in the spaghetti monster have to create, act upon , or think of a BELIEF which states THERE IS NO SPAGHETTI MONSTER??????????? NOT TRUE!!!!!! people whove never HEARD of the spaghetti monster much less imagined it are ALSO Aspagethists!!!!!! yet how can they have a BELIEF of denying sumthing that they dont even have knowledge of existance??????????
it is NOT a BELIEF, it is a LACK OF BELIEF/ ABSENCE OF BELIEF, which does not NECESSARILY require , ANOTHER BELIEF which substantiates , "I DO NOT BELIEVE" as it can well be a passive definition having only meaning in the eyes of the person who has CREATED the definition of a SPAGHETIST. the reason is that people who dont have any such beliefs declaring that they "DONT BELIEVE IN THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER" can STILL be characterised as Aspegethists due to their LACK of faith and due to them having no KNOWLEDGE of the flying spagheti monster in the first place.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, and all of that "something" would not be important if we didn't have a concept for nothing.Think of it this way, good is only relative to your previous experience with bad. You cannot have the concept of one without the other. If you suddenly say that there are bad things that are good, then both terms are useless because they are a direct reference to previous experience with their opposite
Yeah you could say that but good and bad are examples of morality. Some people think that homosexuality is wrong some people think its right. Your just using your defintion of atheism and saying its incorrect the same way a person could say homosexuality is not good because I dont think so.
The problem is I think your assuming that athiesm is just disbelief in god and thats it. I dont think it is, not believing in god usually means that you dont believe in other things such as no afterlife no supernatural etc. Considering that one of the root meaning of religon is being conscientiousness it implies you can be religously athiestic.
Originally posted by inimalist
I respectfully disagree with that dictionary's interpretation. Atheism is the REJECTION of the concept of God.
OK so what do you want me to do about that? Ok so you disagree with the dictionary therefore you are right?
Originally posted by inimalist
Its only the thousands of years old world view of "God" as a credible concept for the universe that makes us define its rejection as a belief in itself, almost as if to comfort the theists in saying "They have the same faith that I do, of course I can't be wrong". It is a definition spawned of cognitive dissonance.
I dont quite get you.
Originally posted by Alliance
Please tell me you haven't resorted to common dictionaries to support your argument. 😬
Give me a definition form a scholarly Dictionary of Religion and THEN we can discuss this crap.And athism is NOT about science. Quit associating the two.
Give me an example of a scholarly dictionary? I think you missed the point in why I was talking about science. Im still waiting for you to respond to my posts in private...furthermore.
"The problem is I think your assuming that athiesm is just disbelief in god and thats it. I dont think it is, not believing in god usually means that you dont believe in other things such as no afterlife no supernatural etc. Considering that one of the root meaning of religon is being conscientiousness it implies you can be religously athiestic."
Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, if you all want to define atheism or atheist, lets start with breaking it up shall we?A: Without
The: Belief of God
God: Creator and ruler of the universe
Ist: PersonAtheist : without belief of creator and ruler of the universe person or in other words: Someone who doesn't believe in a creator/ruler of the universe.
Does that sound religious to you?
It could be. Considering one of the root meaning of the word religion is being conscientiousness why cant you be religously athiestic?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres no such thing as an ATHEISTIC RELEGION, satanism does not STEM from ATHEISM, it isnt the same as christianity stemming from THEISM. that kind of analogy would work a LITTLE better with{although still not convincingly} ANTI RELEGIOUS SENTIMENT/ANTITHEIST SENTIMENT stemming from ATHEISM. yet still atheism is only a necessary factor for both. it isnt a CAUSITIVE factor like theism. theres a qualitative difference in how THESIM and ATHEISM are{or atlest shud be, linguistically/logically} used in language. they dont occupy the same place and are subject to different laws of logic and linguistic.
Maybe, but lets look at your example below.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
ill give an example, if you were to say "I BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, THEREFORE I AM A SPAGETHIST." {and assuming people who dont believe in the spaghetti monster are Aspagethists} would that immedietly imply that all people who DONT believe in the spaghetti monster have to create, act upon , or think of a BELIEF which states THERE IS NO SPAGHETTI MONSTER??????????? NOT TRUE!!!!!! people whove never HEARD of the spaghetti monster much less imagined it are ALSO Aspagethists!!!!!! yet how can they have a BELIEF of denying sumthing that they dont even have knowledge of existance??????????
1. First of all your making the assumption that if nobodys heard of God they will be athiests. Correct?
2. Your talking about implicit atheism ie a baby is an athiest. Even if that were true why cant athiesm be a belief?
"The problem is I think your assuming that athiesm is just disbelief in god and thats it. I dont think it is, not believing in god usually means that you dont believe in other things such as no afterlife no supernatural etc. Considering that one of the root meaning of religon is being conscientiousness it implies you can be religously athiestic."
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is NOT a BELIEF, it is a LACK OF BELIEF/ ABSENCE OF BELIEF, which does not NECESSARILY require , ANOTHER BELIEF which substantiates , "I DO NOT BELIEVE" as it can well be a passive definition having only meaning in the eyes of the person who has CREATED the definition of a SPAGHETIST. the reason is that people who dont have any such beliefs declaring that they "DONT BELIEVE IN THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER" can STILL be characterised as Aspegethists due to their LACK of faith and due to them having no KNOWLEDGE of the flying spagheti monster in the first place.
Again I think your assuming that if nobodies heard of God that will make them athiest.
Originally posted by ThePittman
He is talking about using Wiki, this is not a creditable source.
Is he? I used dictionary.com, I think my URL says that as well.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=atheism
I was under the impression that was a credible source eventhough im sure its not infallible.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Is he? I used dictionary.com, I think my URL says that as well.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=atheism
I was under the impression that was a credible source eventhough im sure its not infallible.
I think factually, wiki is sort of credible. Its those things which can and are being argued which can be a bit shady on.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think factually, wiki is sort of credible. Its those things which can and are being argued which can be a bit shady on.
I agree also this seems to imply that meaning of the word religion does not have to be about God or gods.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Alf:
1) Do you know the difference between Nihilism and Materialism?
2) Clearly you don't believe in asinine things like unicorns or fairies. Do you need a special word for this? Is the fact that you don't believe in unicorns the same as the belief of people who do and also devote their life to these creatures?
If you really want to argue about language, I'd be glad to. I suggest you look over the part of my previous post, in the part you didn't understand I am trying to point out the theistic bias in the definition you chose of atheism.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Give me an example of a scholarly dictionary?
I'm not referring to Wikipedia at all.
A scholarly dictionary is a dictionary written about a specific subject by experts in the field. A Scholarly Religious dictionary would be written by scholars of religion that have the knowledge and subtlety to ACCURATELY portray religious defenitions.
Dictionary.com and other two-bit popularized dictionaries have no place in actual arguments. They are written by etymologists and not with people with actual knowledge on the subject. They may be fine for 3rd graders, but they have no place here.
Originally posted by Alfheim
I think you missed the point in why I was talking about science. Im still waiting for you to respond to my posts in private...furthermore.
Originally posted by AlfheimDon't correlate things that don't havethe rationale to be correlated? Why is a disbelief in god magically a disbelief in all supernatural beings? Most religions believe in one set of supernatural beings, and dismiss all others...conversely to atheism, must they accept all if they accept one?
"The problem is I think your assuming that athiesm is just disbelief in god and thats it. I dont think it is, not believing in god usually means that you dont believe in other things such as no afterlife no supernatural etc. Considering that one of the root meaning of religon is being conscientiousness it implies you can be religously athiestic.".
And I don't buy this "root meaning" argument. What are you saying?
Originally posted by Alfheim
1. First of all your making the assumption that if nobodys heard of God they will be athiests. Correct?
2. Your talking about implicit atheism ie a baby is an athiest. Even if that were true why cant athiesm be a belief?
1. duh
2. a-DUH
you cannot have a belief in something you have not experienced
Originally posted by inimalist
Alf:1) Do you know the difference between Nihilism and Materialism?
Dont see what that has got to do with anything.
Originally posted by inimalist
2) Clearly you don't believe in asinine things like unicorns or fairies.
Er im a heathen do the math. My nick is even alfheim meaning home of the elves.
Originally posted by inimalist
Do you need a special word for this? Is the fact that you don't believe in unicorns the same as the belief of people who do and also devote their life to these creatures?
No its not.
Originally posted by inimalistIf you really want to argue about language, I'd be glad to. I suggest you look over the part of my previous post, in the part you didn't understand I am trying to point out the theistic bias in the definition you chose of atheism.
I think I just dont agree with you.
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not referring to Wikipedia at all.A scholarly dictionary is a dictionary written about a specific subject by experts in the field. A Scholarly Religious dictionary would be written by scholars of religion that have the knowledge and subtlety to ACCURATELY portray religious defenitions.
Dictionary.com and other two-bit popularized dictionaries have no place in actual arguments. They are written by etymologists and not with people with actual knowledge on the subject. They may be fine for 3rd graders, but they have no place here.
So the fact they are eytmologists doesnt count? So we will just forget about it because you dont agree with you? Ok maybe. Give me some examples then of some dictionaries online that I can access.
Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry, I must have lost you.
Yeah....also my post in private I want you to respond to it or im going to keep hassling you.
Originally posted by Alliance
Don't correlate things that don't havethe rationale to be correlated? Why is a disbelief in god magically a disbelief in all supernatural beings?
I never said it was. I used the word "usually".
Originally posted by Alliance
Most religions believe in one set of supernatural beings, and dismiss all others...conversely to atheism, must they accept all if they accept one?
What that got to with anything?
Originally posted by Alliance
And I don't buy this "root meaning" argument. What are you saying?
One of the root meaning of the word religon is to be conscientiousness. Therefore if an athiest is conscientiousness about being an athiest cant that be considered being religous eg Satanists.
Originally posted by inimalist
1. duh2. a-DUH
you cannot have a belief in something you have not experienced
Well first of all were did the concept of God come from? Somebody must have come up with the idea at some point, in other woirds some people if they are not aware of the concept of God may invent it because its natural for them to believe in God.
Furthermore why cant somebody be religous about being an atheist. I really hope your going to respond to this point.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Dont see what that has got to do with anything.
Well, both of those are radically different views of the world that have "atheism" (neither would describe it as such) as a fundamental pillar of their philosophy (Nihilism to a lesser extent). I could have used one of many such philosophies that hold a similar ideal toward the divine or supernatural. Atheistic Communism and Satanism could also be used here if you really wanted.
The fact is, atheism is no more a belief system than theism. It is a description of the feelings of an individual toward a certain concept. If atheism were a belief system, there would be fundamental similarities between all types of belief that are "atheistic". There are not. Unless you are the only person on the planet that can tie rationalism and post modernism together in a unifying theory.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Er im a heathen do the math. My nick is even alfheim meaning home of the elves.
Excuse my ignorance. I'll assume that there are such creatures that exist in mythology that you don't believe in.
Originally posted by Alfheim
No its not.
exactly. So, to the atheist, there is no belief in their disbelief, it is just not something that is remotely relevant to their life.
Originally posted by Alfheim
I think I just dont agree with you.
on what point?
Let me give you another example. antisemitism is a product of its time. The word, in an intellectual sense, is a paradox, since it refers to the persecution of Jews by singling them out against all other types of persecution. However, post WW2, it was really important to have a word like that
the same goes for atheism. The primary reason I don't identify myself as an atheist (other than at times when it is just more expedient) is that the term supposes that God is a theory that is even requiring of my time. Only in the context of a planet ruled by religion for thousands of years, would the rejection of a theory be considered a theory, and thus, in a socio-cultural sense, theists are lead to believe that atheism is a belief system in its self.
I think Cognitive Dissonance does a good job of explaining the rest
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well first of all were did the concept of God come from? Somebody must have come up with the idea at some point.
religious experiences can be mapped on the brain using fMRI technology. further, mystifying experiences in nature evoke the same response. Further, social facilitation and expectation can elicit the same response in people when they think they should be experiencing god.
Oh, and hallucinogenic drugs
pretty self explanatory from there. Our brains are pattern making machines, yet horribly uncreative. How else do we get mommy and daddy figures in the sky looking over us.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Furthermore why cant somebody be religous about being an atheist. I really hope your going to respond to this point.
you are going to have to elaborate more. There are just recently groups of individuals that are forming secular humanist organizations for furthering atheism and rationality in the public sphere, but that is not in any way religious.
I think you are playing a word game, which is fine, but intellectually devoid of any meaning.
Originally posted by inimalist
Well, both of those are radically different views of the world that have "atheism" (neither would describe it as such) as a fundamental pillar of their philosophy (Nihilism to a lesser extent).
Yes but they are still beliefs.
Originally posted by inimalist
could have used one of many such philosophies that hold a similar ideal toward the divine or supernatural. Atheistic Communism and Satanism could also be used here if you really wanted.
Well I dont think atheism is important enough in Communism to be considered athiestic it is in Satanism. If you believe in god or gods you are not a Satanist so its pretty important.
Originally posted by inimalist
The fact is, atheism is no more a belief system than theism.
Isnt that what I said 😕
Originally posted by inimalist
It is a description of the feelings of an individual toward a certain concept. If atheism were a belief system, there would be fundamental similarities between all types of belief that are "atheistic". There are not.
Thats because there are not alot of them around thats why. Atheism is a belief system to some people and you saying its not doesnt change anything.
Originally posted by inimalist
Unless you are the only person on the planet that can tie rationalism and post modernism together in a unifying theory.
Were not going to go off on a tangent.
Originally posted by inimalist
Excuse my ignorance. I'll assume that there are such creatures that exist in mythology that you don't believe in.
Actually I belive in everything. Theres a shamanistic saying "Reality is what you think it is." ....this is what I believe to an extent.
Originally posted by inimalist
exactly. So, to the atheist, there is no belief in their disbelief, it is just not something that is remotely relevant to their life.
Exactly nothing thats what atheism is to you.
Originally posted by inimalist
on what point?Let me give you another example. antisemitism is a product of its time. The word, in an intellectual sense, is a paradox, since it refers to the persecution of Jews by singling them out against all other types of persecution. However, post WW2, it was really important to have a word like that
the same goes for atheism. The primary reason I don't identify myself as an atheist (other than at times when it is just more expedient) is that the term supposes that God is a theory that is even requiring of my time. Only in the context of a planet ruled by religion for thousands of years, would the rejection of a theory be considered a theory, and thus, in a socio-cultural sense, theists are lead to believe that atheism is a belief system in its self.
I think Cognitive Dissonance does a good job of explaining the rest
Implicit atheism. That is just YOUR opinion. It could be argued that its natural for some people to believe in god thats why the concept of god came about. Again you are using your defintion of atheism to speak for everbody.
Stop telling me about cognitive dissonance I just dont agree with you, ok?
Originally posted by inimalist
religious experiences can be mapped on the brain using fMRI technology. further, mystifying experiences in nature evoke the same response. Further, social facilitation and expectation can elicit the same response in people when they think they should be experiencing god.Oh, and hallucinogenic drugs
pretty self explanatory from there. Our brains are pattern making machines, yet horribly uncreative. How else do we get mommy and daddy figures in the sky looking over us.
Rubbish. This just what im talking about how atheists are facist. First of all not everybody who has a religous experinece believes that they are relgious. Not everbody who takes drugs think they are having relgious experiences.
Furthermore its a matter of opinion just because relgious experiences can be mapped in the brain doesnt mean its not real. I have experiences where more than one person has halluicinated the samething.
Further furthermore thats not even the point. The point is not wether theism is correct the point is that you cant prove that atheism is the natural state. Its like saying if nobody tells somebody about homosexuality nobody will become gay. Logic dictates that some people will be gay because its natural for them to do so. Actually your strawmaning.
Originally posted by inimalist
you are going to have to elaborate more. There are just recently groups of individuals that are forming secular humanist organizations for furthering atheism and rationality in the public sphere, but that is not in any way religious.
Bro one of the meaning of the word religon is to be conscientiousness. Lets apply a little commonsense here. This means that if you take an concept atheism or theism and you are conscientiousness about it, this means that it can be considered to be a religion. Therefore Communism can be considered to be a religion.
Again im going to post this point...which you overlooked and was a complete waste of time.
"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are playing a word game, which is fine, but intellectually devoid of any meaning.
Hey dont accuse me of playing games. Maybe your getting me mixed up with yourself. You know the number of times ive been in debates with you and you keep ignoring my point. Dont get it twisted.