Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you just said things like "That depends on how you look at it", "I just look at it from one point", "That's not the point"...You did not really address any of the arguments. Seemed funny to me.
How did I not adress the points? You might be correct because I dont really disagree with what anybody is saying for example I dont disagree that athiesm is just the belief in no god and is not a system in itself but part of a system. What im arguing against is ONLY defining atheism in that way.
Originally posted by AlfheimHow would you define "Atheism" if I may ask.
How did I not adress the points? You might be correct because I dont really disagree with what anybody is saying for example I dont disagree that athiesm is just the belief in no god and is not a system in itself but part of a system. What im arguing against is ONLY defining atheism in that way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is how it is defined though, isn't it?
True....but this is what im saying, why does it have to be defined that way? Odinism is not the belief in Odin its defined as heathenism. Mohammedism is not the belief in Mohammed its defined as a religon. Im pretty sure that Satanism is not defined as the belief in Satan but as a religon.
What this shows me is that when defining an "ism" it doesnt just have to be a specific belief it can be a system as shown by the examples above. If one could prove that beliefs could stem from not believing in god then atheism could described as a belief system the same way Odinsm is described a belief system and not just the belief in Odin.
Originally posted by AlfheimOh, I see what you mean, I can clear that up for you. Mohammedism is of course the belief in Mohammed and the Muslim God, etc. That's the fundamental definition of it, yet at the same time it also applies to the definition of Religion ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion ), that's why it is considered a Religionb. Atheism on the other hand does not fit that description, it is only a belief not a Religion, while "Odinism", "Mohammedism" , and such are also Religions.
True....but this is what im saying, why does it have to be defined that way? Odinism is not the belief in Odin its defined as heathenism. Mohammedism is not the belief in Mohammed its defined as a religon. Im pretty sure that Satanism is not defined as the belief in Satan but as a religon.What this shows me is that when defining an "ism" it doesnt just have to be a specific belief it can be a system as shown by the examples above. If one could prove that beliefs could stem from not believing in god then atheism could described as a belief system the same way Odinsm is described a belief system and not just the belief in Odin.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I see what you mean, I can clear that up for you. Mohammedism is of course the belief in Mohammed and the Muslim God, etc. That's the fundamental definition of it, yet at the same time it also applies to the definition of Religion ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion ), that's why it is considered a Religionb. Atheism on the other hand does not fit that description, it is only a belief not a Religion, while "Odinism", "Mohammedism" , and such are also Religions.
Ok thats true but im not arguing that atheism could be considered to be a religon what im saying is that athiesm could be considered to be a belief system IF you can prove that there are other beliefs that stem from it. From my understanding religons are belief systems but not all beliefs systems are religons.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok thats true but im not arguing that atheism could be considered to be a religon what im saying is that athiesm could be considered to be a belief system IF you can prove that there are other beliefs that stem from it. From my understanding religons are belief systems but not all beliefs systems are religons.
Well, some atheism is a belief system, that's not really deniable I think. What do you derive from that though?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, some atheism is a belief system, that's not really deniable I think.
Well yes but what im doing is looking at an alternative but legitimate way of defining athiesm. If we really twisted words and meaning around we could define the sun as a creature but you know and I know thats not what most people define a creature as. Lets take venom for example, venom is a poison but that doesnt mean that it cant be an antidote, what im trying to do is by looking how "isms" are defined look at another legitiamate way of defining atheism.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you derive from that though?
Well like ive been saying there are different ways of looking at things but I think what you are implying is that eventhough people may define it as belief system that doesnt stop it from being incorrect. IF thats is what you are implying I still think that my alternative defintion of athiesm is still correct due to the reasons given.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what I mean. I agree that it is a belief system for some.I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Oh ok. This is what im trying to say....the only reason why im making this point is for those people who say that religon causes people to do certain things. What I was trying to do is to suggest an alternative view of looking at atheism and look at the possible negative affects that it could have on society. I think its wrong to say that religon causes people to do certain things when it could be argued that its not religon causing it but other factors, this is why I brought up the argument of atheism being a belief system....I hope that clarifies everything.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Oh ok. This is what im trying to say....the only reason why im making this point is for those people who say that religon causes people to do certain things. What I was trying to do is to suggest an alternative view of looking at atheism and look at the possible negative affects that it could have on society. I think its wrong to say that religon causes people to do certain things when it could be argued that its not religon causing it but other factors, this is why I brought up the argument of atheism being a belief system....I hope that clarifies everything.
Okay, I understand now.
So, what possible negative effects do you think it might have and by what reasoning do you justify it?
And, do we agree that Religion provides a justification for "bad" deeds a lot (9/11, terrorism, civil wars, Crusades, Inquisition, authoritarianism, etc.) ?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I understand now.So, what possible negative effects do you think it might have and by what reasoning do you justify it?
Ok heres what could be argued.
"Well lets put it this way. Bob is a born again Christian lets ask him what he was like before he became born again.
Bob: Well I used to lie cheat and steal and I didnt care about anybody or anything, but since I found the Lord I have become a better person.
Brad: So what did you believe in before you became born again?
Bob: I didnt believe in God so the way I saw it I could just do what I like but since I became born again its given my life purpose.
It could be argued that his disbelief in God caused him to do bad things because he felt he had no purpose, so there is connection and cause.
I dont think this applies to all athiests but could apply."
Originally posted by Bardock42
And, do we agree that Religion provides a justification for "bad" deeds a lot (9/11, terrorism, civil wars, Crusades, Inquisition, authoritarianism, etc.) ?
Yes but did they do it because of religon or did they do it because they're assholes? Theres an aesop fable where a wolf decides to kill this sheep and the wolf makes up these excuses for killing the sheep. The sheep rebuts all of the wolfs accusations but the wolf still decided to kill the sheep in the end.
In saying that though I think belief systems are like guns not the true cause of the problem but it can make things worse.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok thats true but im not arguing that atheism could be considered to be a religon what im saying is that athiesm could be considered to be a belief system IF you can prove that there are other beliefs that stem from it. From my understanding religons are belief systems but not all beliefs systems are religons.
As I have asked before - could you state what other beliefs stem from Atheism other then the one that defines it and gives it its title - lack of belief in deities/religion?
True....but this is what im saying, why does it have to be defined that way? Odinism is not the belief in Odin its defined as heathenism. Mohammedism is not the belief in Mohammed its defined as a religon. Im pretty sure that Satanism is not defined as the belief in Satan but as a religon.
Aren't you simply arguing there that the title of these religions/faith systems/etc don't necessarily describe what goes on within them?
That depends on how you look at it.
No actually, it doesn't. The nature of politics, philosophy and religion often mean there is a view, aspirations, that can be used to motivate and justify action.
Atheism has no such thing, thus using it to motivate or justify something is rather difficult.
That depends on how you look at it. Then Odinism should just be the belief in Odin.
Ah - Atheism is what Atheism is. Odinism is what Odinism is. What you are doing there is like saying "buffalo wings? I didn't know Buffilo had wings".
Im not mistaking anything im just not looking at things from one angle.
Yes you are, you are trying to imply the actions of the brilliant yet notorious Sade are where somehow motivated by Atheism which is blatantly false. He was a libertine of the extreme variety. That is a philosophical stance that disregards conventional morality, concepts of law and Ethics for extreme forms of freedom. Aim, world view.
Throughout you have tried to imply there are beliefs stemming from Atheism that would make it functional in a way similar to religion or philosophy, despite failing to elaborate on these "principles" stemming from Atheism.
A person who becomes born again could argue because he didnt believe in god felt that he could do as he pleased.
A person "could", certainly, but you have failed to provide a single iota of evidence to support the proposition that any real number of people do believe as such due to a lack of God, thus failing to support the idea that it could be an Atheist principle.
Show some evidence that suggests "take what you can and don't get caught" is an Atheist principle, which will be difficult as all Atheism is... is the lack of belief in the divine.
Thats just one way of looking at it. Odinism is not just the belief in Odin therefore atheism doesnt just have to be the belief there is no god. Furthermore if somebody states that his disbleief ingod made him do things we can see that the belief in no god can cause you to do things.
Sorry, I really must say it, but that is so very silly. Atheism is lack of belief in the divine. Anything beyond that is not Atheism, but philosophy or ideology in addition to a persons Atheism. Trying to say "But Odinism doesn't mean faith in Odin", as that is merely the title of that particular belief system, and does not meant to define the parameters of the religion. The definition of Odinism does. The definition of Atheist does.
It took place in the UK. SOAS (School of Oriental and African Stuides). Your not supposed to take what I said bloody serioulsy its just food for thought. I dont think athiesm or religon makes people do anything. Im just suggesting another way of looking at things.
An unevidenced unsubstantiated way of looking at things. And when you try to bring it up to justify your claims, which you did, then what do your expect but for it to be taken seriously? It is pretty poor food for thought otherwise, as I said I know the study, and I know there as no link between Atheism and some sort of "take what you can and don't get caught" mentality.
I could say the samething about religon.
Accept, you know, the disparity of evidence.
Already discussed.
Not very well. Looking at your post once, twice..you haven't provided a single belief that stems from Atheism other, other then brining up the take what you can and don't get caught thing.
Yes but did they do it because of religon or did they do it because they're assholes? Theres an aesop fable where a wolf decides to kill this sheep and the wolf makes up these excuses for killing the sheep. The sheep rebuts all of the wolfs accusations but the wolf still decided to kill the sheep in the end.
You are looking only at justification, forgetting the motivational aspect, the influence aspect and the aspect that requests a participant be prepared to do things that go against the social/ethical norm for greater reward.
"Well lets put it this way. Bob is a born again Christian lets ask him what he was like before he became born again.Bob: Well I used to lie cheat and steal and I didnt care about anybody or anything, but since I found the Lord I have become a better person.
Brad: So what did you believe in before you became born again?
Bob: I didnt believe in God so the way I saw it I could just do what I like but since I became born again its given my life purpose."
We can all make puppets to mimic our stances, the question is can your Bob puppet provide some real evidence to support what he is saying?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As I have asked before - could you state what other beliefs stem from Atheism other then the one that defines it and gives it its title - lack of belief in deities/religion?
Al ready explained.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Aren't you simply arguing there that the title of these religions/faith systems/etc don't necessarily describe what goes on within them?
Nope not really.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No actually, it doesn't. The nature of politics, philosophy and religion often mean there is a view, aspirations, that can be used to motivate and justify action.Atheism has no such thing, thus using it to motivate or justify something is rather difficult.
Well I already explained how it could be.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ah - Atheism is what Atheism is. Odinism is what Odinism is. What you are doing there is like saying "buffalo wings? I didn't know Buffilo had wings".
Wow went completely over your head.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes you are, you are trying to imply the actions of the brilliant yet notorious Sade are where somehow motivated by Atheism which is blatantly false. He was a libertine of the extreme variety. That is a philosophical stance that disregards conventional morality, concepts of law and Ethics for extreme forms of freedom. Aim, world view.
Well I dont think thats why he did what he did actually.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Throughout you have tried to imply there are beliefs stemming from Atheism that would make it functional in a way similar to religion or philosophy, despite failing to elaborate on these "principles" stemming from Atheism.
Really?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A person "could", certainly, but you have failed to provide a single iota of evidence to support the proposition that any real number of people do believe as such due to a lack of God, thus failing to support the idea that it could be an Atheist principle.
What are you actually admitting that I could be right, if so thats all im arguing shall we call it a day? If somebody provied this as an excuse then we could assume that in his case thats what caused him to behave that way.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Show some evidence that suggests "take what you can and don't get caught" is an Atheist principle, which will be difficult as all Atheism is... is the lack of belief in the divine.
Well you just agreed that I could be right.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sorry, I really must say it, but that is so very silly. Atheism is lack of belief in the divine. Anything beyond that is not Atheism, but philosophy or ideology in addition to a persons Atheism. Trying to say "But Odinism doesn't mean faith in Odin", as that is merely the title of that particular belief system, and does not meant to define the parameters of the religion. The definition of Odinism does. The definition of Atheist does. [/B]
Went completely over your head. There was a logic an explanation to why I said what I said.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
An unevidenced unsubstantiated way of looking at things. And when you try to bring it up to justify your claims, which you did, then what do your expect but for it to be taken seriously? It is pretty poor food for thought otherwise, as I said I know the study, and I know there as no link between Atheism and some sort of "take what you can and don't get caught" mentality.
Well considering that I said your not supposed to take ti seriously and it was just some food for thought and your telling me now that it should be taken seriously....are you being an argumentative pain in the neck.
Why is it if somebody says god made me do it its religon but if somebody states that it his lack of belief in god that caused him to do it, it not religon.
Accept, you know, the disparity of evidence.
[/b]
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not very well. Looking at your post once, twice..you haven't provided a single belief that stems from Atheism other, other then brining up the take what you can and don't get caught thing.
I provided an explanation.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You are looking only at justification, forgetting the motivational aspect, the influence aspect and the aspect that requests a participant be prepared to do things that go against the social/ethical norm for greater reward.
Not really because I dont really think that athiesm causes anybody to do anything. Anyway you admitted I could be right, so I dont know what you're arguing about.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraWe can all make puppets to mimic our stances, the question is can your Bob puppet provide some real evidence to support what he is saying?
Already explained and you said I could be right.