Why can't we tell religious types to fok off?

**danbo** · 22-05-2007, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

It would be futile to attempt to prove that the Almighty Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but who would reasonably asked me for any proof my disbelief is based on?

I don't think that many people claim that The Almighty Spaghetti monster offers an explanation for existence and consciousness. The argument between atheists and believers is not over whether God is a bloke with a long white beard, it's about whether there is a meaning to this life beyond the temporal.

**danbo** · 22-05-2007, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by danbo

We have different interpretations of what the thread is about stroll.

Never mind, I'd say we can argue on different levels about the same thing here?

My points are referring to DrBob's OP in which he asks whether religious types should be discounted as psychos and why they should be accorded any respect for their beliefs. My opinion is that if that religious belief is imposed on others through coercion, law, or emotional blackmail then it should be open to the same questioning as any other system of thought. However, I believe that it perfectly legitimate for somebody to have a belief in God, in Christianity, without them automatically being labelled insane. I believe that an attempted destruction of religion based on 'science' is shallow - I've used this analogy before, but having a recipe for a cake and knowing how long it takes to bake does not explain the sensation of taste that we experience when we eat it. And who's to say that the recipe and instructions were not left there for us to find.

**stroller** · 22-05-2007, 12:43 AM

The argument between atheists and believers is not over whether God is a bloke with a long white beard, it's about whether there is a meaning to this life beyond the temporal.

That's what we don't know, isn't it?

I'd rather have my children learn what we do know, and the religious types mind their own business. If and when myself or my kids will be interested, we'll look for meaning by ourselves as we see fit.

**danbo** · 22-05-2007, 12:45 AM

^I agree with you 100%

**stroller** · 22-05-2007, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by danbo

However, I believe that it perfectly legitimate for somebody to have a belief in God, in Christianity, without them automatically being labelled insane. I believe that an attempted destruction of religion based on 'science' is shallow

I agree, we seem to have been argueing missing each other in subject as well as crossposting.

**Sir Burr** · 22-05-2007, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Spot on Danbo - Whether a person is religious or an atheist, both are taking positions based on personal belief, or faith as neither position can be proved, or disproved.

Hang on there, atheism in it's most rudimentary form means nothing more than a non-belief, now that is not something that needs to be "proved", is it?

It would be futile to attempt to prove that the Almighty Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but who would reasonably asked me for any proof my disbelief is based on?

I just don't buy into it.
"Fok off!"

There is no "rudimentary form of atheism" it simply means someone who doesn't believe in a God or Gods, whatever that form may take. This belief cannot be proved or disproved. There is nothing to buy into. My statement is logical.

**Hootad Binky** · 22-05-2007, 03:25 AM

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods [1] or rejects theism.[2] In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.[3] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.[4][5]
Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other arguments for atheism are philosophical, social or historical. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[6] rationalism, and naturalism,[7] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[8]
The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used to describe oneself.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) means "unknowable," and is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

philosophical doctrine that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct: atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs" while agnosticism is usually defined as "an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)". An agnostic may identify as an atheist or a theist in certain circumstances (see Agnostic theism).
One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)

Individuals may identify as agnostic atheists based on their knowledge of the philosophical concepts of epistemology, theory of justification and Occam's razor.

**stroller** · 22-05-2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

There is no "rudimentary form of atheism" it simply means someone who doesn't believe in a God or Gods, whatever that form may take. This belief cannot be proved or disproved. There is nothing to buy into. My statement is logical.

Yet you move from "doesn't believe" to "this belief" within 2 sentences. A transition which needs further attention: The absense of belief can become a belief itself, in form of the more 'aggressive' present activist atheism, for example.

"Buying into" referred to religion, ie. I simply don't believe in god, that doesn't mean I negate its existence, it just means that I don't accept something which cannot be proven as "the truth".

Equivocating belief and absense of belief is not valid in this instance.

**benbaaa** · 22-05-2007, 08:12 AM

Someone somewhere once observed that if one person asserts that he's seen a ghost and the ghost joined him for a milkshake and told him he was the creator of everything, that person would clearly be delusional and someone not to sit next to on the tube.

But if a million people all say the same thing, then suddenly we're expected to say "Oooooh, that's different, then. Here's 10% of all my dosh and if I ever say anything nasty about you, you can lock me up as a blasphemer."

bb

PS

Originally Posted by stroller

the Almighty Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist

I've been called that before.

**kerux** · 23-05-2007, 05:16 AM

As supported by Charles Murray in his Human Accomplishment, people with a 'life purpose' are more likely to achieve substantial and far reaching accomplishments, than those w/o. Christianity has given many important or significant people throughout history that sense of purpose. Although there are those who, without the purpose in life that Christianity provides, have accomplished great achievements, it is more difficult to do so w/o the sense that God is behind one's efforts.

Page 407-408.

Some of history's greatest accomplishments were achieved by Christians or in an atmosphere of Christian influence.

**Hootad Binky** · 27-05-2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

The absense of belief can become a belief itself, in form of the more 'aggressive' present activist atheism, for example.

OK.

Originally Posted by stroller

Equivocating belief and absense of belief is not valid in this instance.

That's the problem with atheism; it tries to be both.

Originally Posted by wiki quote

atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs"

Does the degree atheism can't have meaning without "God" make atheism a belief system (that there are no Gods)?

Originally Posted by stroller

ie. I simply don't believe in god, that doesn't mean I negate its existence, it just means that I don't accept something which cannot be proven as "the truth".

That would make you an agnostic

Originally Posted by wiki quote

agnosticism is usually defined as "an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)"

I'm an optimistic agnostic

**stroller** · 27-05-2007, 05:27 PM

No, it's more than an "absence of knowledge", I am not agnostic - without knowledge, I am atheistic - without gods.

I do not define myself as an atheist, I do not derive meaning from "god" in either way, this is not one of my "belief systems", but I do not believe in nor worship any gods. I am a spiritual person with a leaning towards Buddhist philosophy, which happens to fall within the definition of atheism.

**Hootad Binky** · 27-05-2007, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

I am atheistic - without gods.

Ok.

Originally Posted by stroller

I do not define myself as an atheist

Huh?

Originally Posted by stroller

I do not believe in nor worship any gods.

Neither do agnostics.

Originally Posted by stroller

I am a spiritual person with a leaning towards Buddhist philosophy, which happens to fall within the definition of atheism.

With a lot of (imho) mindless ritual and superstition thrown in for good measure (typical of all religions).

**danbo** · 27-05-2007, 05:41 PM

Stroll, I sincerely hopes that this never happens, but if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself in a plummeting aeroplane do you think that you would start believing in, or at least hoping for, a God? <- This is not asked antagonistically btw, just interested whether you think that your non-faith would hold firm.

And it also gives me an opportunity to post this Homer Simpson quote:

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there,....please save me Superman!"

**stroller** · 27-05-2007, 05:49 PM

^^
I said "leaning towards Buddhist philosophy".

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Huh?

I was responding to this:

Does the degree atheism can't have meaning without "God" make atheism a belief system (that there are no Gods)?

I don't believe in Mother goose or the tooth fairy, either, so does that mean I follow some 'disbelief' belief system there as well?

Ok, I don't want to argue about definitions, so maybe I am "agnostic" - that's not how I'd decribe myself though. IMO, the definition of the term "atheism" is so wide out of necessity, precisely because it is not a "belief system".

**stroller** · 27-05-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by danbo

Stroll, I sincerely hopes that this never happens, but if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself in a plummeting aeroplane do you think that you would start believing in, or at least hoping for, a God? <- This is not asked antagonistically btw, just interested whether you think that your non-faith would hold firm.

I am not without faith or belief, but my spirituality does not focus on any gods. "Theism=Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."
What we are 'argueing' about may be a misunderstanding of terms or principles, I suspect.

And I was already in a plummenting car, luckily it landed in a tree - no joke!
No, I didn't suddenly start hoping or believing, I was curious and then disappointed that I didn't have any profound insights.

**Hootad Binky** · 28-05-2007, 04:21 AM

People baptise their children for the same reason they allow them to have vaccinations - just in case

**stroller** · 28-05-2007, 11:14 AM

As for vaccinations, a small dosis of the virus is used to build resistance against it.
Seems to me very few people, if any, develop resistance against Christianity through Baptism.

**Lily** · 28-05-2007, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

Seems to me very few people, if any, develop resistance against Christianity through Baptism.

Not through Baptism, but I know more ex Catholic atheists than any other religion.

**Hootad Binky** · 29-05-2007, 02:17 AM

It's a bit like being Colonel Sanders dying and finding out that God is a chicken; preparation is everything.

**Boon Mee** · 12-06-2007, 04:25 AM

"US President George W Bush drew gasps at the Vatican on Saturday by referring to Pope Benedict XVI as "sir" instead of the expected "His Holiness", pool reporters said."

So when do we get the follow-up articles that start out like this,

"Today, tens of thousands of outraged Catholics took to the streets across the world carrying signs that said, "Behead those that insult the pope!" The riots surged out of control in Italy out of control in Italy after a local politician suggested that Catholics might react in a violent fashion to the slur against the Pope. 18 people were killed in the rioting.

Meanwhile, a Catholic suicide bomber blew himself up on a Texas schoolbus, killing 31 small children to protest the insult to the Pope. In reaction to the bombing, the Catholic League issued a statement warning people not to blame Catholics for violence while simultaneously calling for new laws to prevent people from calling the Pope "sir."
Oh wait, wrong religion...

Source

**Little Chuchok** · 12-06-2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

People baptise their children for the same reason they allow them to have vaccinations - just in case

We now have "Naming Ceremonies" back home....thank Christ!

**stroller** · 13-06-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So when do we get the follow-up articles that start out like this,

"Today, tens of thousands of outraged Catholics took to the streets across the world carrying signs that said, "Behead those that insult the pope!"

Oh, did Bush call the pope, or maybe Jesus a kiddie-fiddler, rapist or something like this?

Apply a little dose of common sense here, Booner.

Btw, anyone surprised about Bush's latest blunder? Maybe he didn't know how to pronounce "His Holiness".

**Boon Mee** · 13-06-2007, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So when do we get the follow-up articles that start out like this,

"Today, tens of thousands of outraged Catholics took to the streets across the world carrying signs that said, "Behead those that insult the pope!"

Oh, did Bush call the pope, or maybe Jesus a kiddie-fiddler, rapist or something like this?

Apply a little dose of common sense here, Booner.

Btw, anyone surprised about Bush's latest blunder? Maybe he didn't know how to pronounce "His Holiness".

I'm more surprised at his continued crusade on the Alien Immigration Bill - or 'Shamnisty' as it's being called. He's split the Republican Party asunder with his ineptitude...

**DrB0b** · 14-06-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

He's split the Republican Party asunder with his ineptitude...

At least he's done one good thing in his time as president

Thread: Why can't we tell religious types to fok off?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions