The trouble with atheism

Originally posted by Alfheim
Im going to read the Communist manifesto and then think this over. Apparently the Communist manifesto does say religon is the opium of the masses.

Originally posted by Alfheim

You do know they have holy shit in India? So because you disagree with them shit isnt holy?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not denying that Religions can bring people to seek knowledge I am denying that Religion did that in an adequate amount. I feel the good Religion has done is far outweighed by the bad.

Thats fair enough.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Well, the communist Manifesto was written by Marx. But there is still a difference. Communism is a system that does anything because of atheism. It has different moral standards that cause it to do something. Islam is directly based on theism.

Basically the lack of God does not tell them to starve farmers in communism, while the belief in God tells them to kill non-believers.

I am being fair here, you on the other hand compare very different things.

Well ok.....I think I do see your point and basically im going to have a long think about it.

The problem is like you said Communist is atheistic by default, as you said its no atheism thats making them do anything. For example its not like theres this guy called Athiest who said that Commmunist should kill people thats just the Communists doing that. Ok I understand right.

Ok im not going to say what I think just now. Im just going to read through as much as I can and give it some thought.

Originally posted by ThePittman
If I remember my history correctly Stalin did believe in mystical concepts such as spirits and the like and by that wouldn’t make him an Atheist.

Just because you believe in the supernatural doesnt mean you belive in God. Lots of occultists are athiests.

Originally posted by ThePittman

I understand your point but it is the purpose of the item and the reason for its creation, just because a group of people consider a toothpick to be holy doesn’t change that it is because the creation of the toothpick was to pick food out of your teeth.

So what? Meaning can change the word n***er used to be an insult now its used as a complement.

Originally posted by ThePittman

An item such as the Bible or a church is designed to be a religions icon. You could have a group of people believe that the Sun is the Moon, does that mean the Sun is now the Moon?

That depends if you change the defintion of what a Sun is. Turkey isnt part of Europe if it becomes part of Europe in the future then it Turkey is part of Europe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not denying that Religions can bring people to seek knowledge I am denying that Religion did that in an adequate amount. I feel the good Religion has done is far outweighed by the bad.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Just because you believe in the supernatural doesnt mean you belive in God. Lots of occultists are athiests.

Originally posted by Alfheim
So what? Meaning can change the word n***er used to be an insult now its used as a complement.

Originally posted by Alfheim
That depends if you change the defintion of what a Sun is. Turkey isnt part of Europe if it becomes part of Europe in the future then it Turkey is part of Europe.

Originally posted by ThePittman
By the literal definition of the word you are correct, but more accurately it is the non-belief in deities which includes mythology, spirits and the like.

Isnt that a matter of opinion.....

Originally posted by ThePittman

But it is also still an insult it doesn’t change that it was meant as an insult, it doesn’t change the word it adds a new definition to the word.

So a toothpick can become a religous icon. So if add Ribena to water its not Ribena because it was originally water. Whats your point?

Originally posted by ThePittman

Your analogy doesn’t fit because countries boarders can change,

So the meaning of words cant change?

Originally posted by ThePittman

however it will always be remembered in history as Turkey before it became part of Europe so the original aspect of it still remains the same.

Yeah but now its part of Europe.....

Originally posted by ThePittman
I don’t fully agree with you there, in some ways I do but I think it is more of human nature that has done good than “religion”, there are many things that the Bible says that people don’t do because they know it is not “right”.

Well, going by that reasoning, what can do good except your own reasoning?

Alf:

sort of regarding the "is atheism a religion" question:

by its strict definition, no it isn't. What you have done is given the word "religion" a definition that is something like "having no religion is a religion".

The problem then is that the word religion carries no meaning. If everything is a religion, then there is no purpose in even having a word for it. The point you are making is a very fun word play, but outside of linguistics, there is no real merit behind that idea.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Isnt that a matter of opinion.....

So a toothpick can become a religous icon. So if add Ribena to water its not Ribena because it was originally water. Whats your point?

So the meaning of words cant change?

Yeah but now its part of Europe.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, going by that reasoning, what can do good except your own reasoning?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel the good Religion has done is far outweighed by the bad.

One point to consider is that most charities are not secular.

Originally posted by Ytse
One point to consider is that most charities are not secular.

Certainly.

Originally posted by ThePittman
My point is that Atheism is not a religion, it was never created to be a religion it is simply the lack of believing in god and will always mean that. Are people tying to make it a type of religion, yes but that doesn’t change what it is. The meaning of something will always remain the same, you can add new definitions to it but the root word will always remain the same.

Ok what about Buddhism? That existed before evangelical atheism. 😐

Furthermore there seems to be different ways of defining atheism. Some people see Agnostism as atheism and theres weak and strong atheism. With all these different defintions how can you decide what atheism was orginally meant to be?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok what about Buddhism? That existed before evangelical atheism. 😐

Originally posted by Alfheim
With all these different defintions how can you decide what atheism was orginally meant to be?

http://www.etymonline.com/

🙂

Originally posted by ThePittman
I'm not sure what you are tying to say.

I made some changes, I hope the additions help.

Furthermore there seems to be different ways of defining atheism. Some people see Agnostism as atheism and theres weak and strong atheism. With all these different defintions how can you decide what atheism was orginally meant to be?

Originally posted by Ytse
http://www.etymonline.com/

🙂

right, because people use the proper etymology of words when labeling things with linguistic symbols

like conservative, or incredible. The use of those hasn't changed one bit from their origins...

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because people use the proper etymology of words when labeling things with linguistic symbols

like conservative, or incredible. The use of those hasn't changed one bit from their origins...

You're getting ahead of yourself, man. Read what I was quoting.

😄

Originally posted by Ytse
You're getting ahead of yourself, man. Read what I was quoting.

😄

haha

I'd rather argue about the minutia of language than of atheism though!!!

Well ok your thingy says athiest means godless.

Wiki says its more complicated...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
[9]

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god"😉 meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs (ἀθεότη&#962😉, "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[10]

for example atheist was seen as an abstract term...also it seems pagans and Christians called each other athiests.

Originally posted by inimalist

like conservative, or incredible. The use of those hasn't changed one bit from their origins...

It seems to be hard to track down what it orignally meant. It seems one of its early defintions was pagan.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd rather argue about the minutia of language than of atheism though!!!

Well, I think we basically agree about the word "atheism" when it comes down to it. That ultimately the one word doesn't tell you very much about who someone is. And even in rigorous debate you have to very clearly define your terms so atheist could end up carrying all sorts of nuance depending upon the context.