Religions

[bob]

I used to be an athiest.

 

Up until tonight actually.

 

I was taking out the rubbish, and lo, what did i see beneath a bag of slop and crud, but a visage on an old piece of cardboard.

 

Tis He! Come to save us again!

 

 

[MoogleViper]

 

Our Lord has returned!!!

 

[Iun]

Our Lord has returned!!!

 

 

Oh mighty Silhouette Cat, who died for our tins (of Whiskas) and who gaveth of his life that we might live(r and chicken flavoured treats)!

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree: having arrogant members who superciliously claim to have "got it" and treating people who "haven't got it" as children is a valid comparison.

 

While there is no comparison between the belief and non-belief system, there's a comparison to be made between the people within it.

 

Then we're not actually disagreeing. My problem lies with judging the belief system by its members. One must be careful to separate an ideology itself from the people following it, easy as it may be to fall into the trap of equating them.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Dannyboy-the-Dane

[Iun]

Then we're not actually disagreeing. My problem lies with judging the belief system by its members. One must be careful to separate an ideology itself from the people following it, easy as it may be to fall into the trap of equating them.

 

Fair enough, as long as we agree that religious nutjobs and self-satisfied atheists can be equally annoying.

[Diageo]

I think to an extent atheists have a right to feel superior over others in the topic of religion. If you know more about chemistry than other people you would feel superior to people at that. People may say everyone know's to the same extent regarding life and the creation of the universe, but I consider creating baseless assumptions to be a regression that warrants it. Some atheists repeat physics facts that they don't totally understand but there's a reason. Physics is difficult. It requires years of education to understand it in a meaningful way and you can't expect only quantum physicists to be allowed to express their opinion on religion. I applaud them for at least trying to learn about the universe from an empirical standpoint.

 

I don't see the problem with people being preachy about atheism. Religion is wrong and detrimental to society. It should be eradicated and those that believe it have no right to be offended when ridiculed. However, one must consider the relationship they want to have with the other person. Just like one would be careful when criticising a homophobic friend if they wish to remain friends with that person.

 

[Iun]

I think to an extent atheists have a right to feel superior over others in the topic of religion. If you know more about chemistry than other people you would feel superior to people at that. People may say everyone know's to the same extent regarding life and the creation of the universe, but I consider creating baseless assumptions to be a regression that warrants it. Some atheists repeat physics facts that they don't totally understand but there's a reason. Physics is difficult. It requires years of education to understand it in a meaningful way and you can't expect only quantum physicists to be allowed to express their opinion on religion. I applaud them for at least trying to learn about the universe from an empirical standpoint.

 

I don't see the problem with people being preachy about atheism. Religion is wrong and detrimental to society. It should be eradicated and those that believe it have no right to be offended when ridiculed. However, one must consider the relationship they want to have with the other person. Just like one would be careful when criticising a homophobic friend if they wish to remain friends with that person.

 

 

 

Speaking of which...

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Unpopular and arrogant as people may find that opinion, I do agree with Diageo. Therein lies the fundamental difference between religion and atheism: Atheists investigate the world and try to figure it out, relying on logic, evidence and rigorous testing; religions make completely unfounded claims based on ancient mythology. So to be brutally honest, I think atheists are more justified in feeling superior when it comes to knowledge about how the world works.

[Diageo]

Unpopular and arrogant as people may find that opinion, I do agree with Diageo. Therein lies the fundamental difference between religion and atheism: Atheists investigate the world and try to figure it out, relying on logic, evidence and rigorous testing; religions make completely unfounded claims based on ancient mythology. So to be brutally honest, I think atheists are more justified in feeling superior when it comes to knowledge about how the world works.

I wasn't going to say anything because I didn't want to be antagonistic, but I'm glad I did.

[Rummy]

I don't like this idea that atheism is the active belief that God doesn't exist. Atheism is a word made up from theism (belief in deities) and a (lack of, I believe Greek in origin). So it is someone without a theism, or religion. One that is not a theist. I also think agnosticism is a weird concept.

 

Actually it seems according to my totally unchecked sources(aka the internet) it comes from the greek atheos which means 'without god' itself.

 

Black is not colourless.

 

I'm just tired of people lumping together two as diametric concepts as religion and atheism just because both sides happen to have arrogant members. You simply cannot equate atheism and religion in any way; to do so is missing the point entirely, and it rather annoys me.

 

Then what is colourless? And what is white, and what is black?

 

Unpopular and arrogant as people may find that opinion, I do agree with Diageo. Therein lies the fundamental difference between religion and atheism: Atheists investigate the world and try to figure it out, relying on logic, evidence and rigorous testing; religions make completely unfounded claims based on ancient mythology. So to be brutally honest, I think atheists are more justified in feeling superior when it comes to knowledge about how the world works.

 

You seem to lump all the 'athiests' together, I'm sure they're not all like that. Essentially I think that, at the end of the day, there's lots of silly people within all sides of the 'religion' debate.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Rummy
Automerged Doublepost

[Diageo]

Actually it seems according to my totally unchecked sources(aka the internet) it comes from the greek atheos which means 'without god' itself.

 

θεος (theos) means god, which is where we get the word theist (which means someone who believes in a god), αθεος (atheos) means without god (in the absence of god), because a + a greek origin word means without, so while it can come from αθεος as well, it still means without the belief of god.

 

Then what is colourless? And what is white, and what is black?

Something is colourless if they do not reflect light at all or of no visible wavelength. Something is white if they reflect all visible light wavelengths and something is black if it reflects no visible light wavelengths. Why are you asking?

You seem to lump all the 'athiests' together, I'm sure they're not all like that. Essentially I think that, at the end of the day, there's lots of silly people within all sides of the 'religion' debate.

He said they have the right, he didn't say they all are. There may be people who are atheist and silly, but that doesn't make atheists silly about atheism.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I wasn't going to say anything because I didn't want to be antagonistic, but I'm glad I did.

 

I was also hesitant at first, but I felt inspired by your post. : peace:

 

Actually it seems according to my totally unchecked sources(aka the internet) it comes from the greek atheos which means 'without god' itself.

 

θεος (theos) means god, which is where we get the word theist (which means someone who believes in a god), αθεος (atheos) means without god (in the absence of god), because a + a greek origin word means without, so while it can come from αθεος as well, it still means without the belief of god.

 

Diageo is correct.

 

Then what is colourless? And what is white, and what is black?

 

Something is colourless if they do not reflect light at all or of no visible wavelength. Something is white if they reflect all visible light wavelengths and something is black if it reflects no visible light wavelengths. Why are you asking?

 

The best example to imagine is a clear bottle; the glass is typically colourless, which is easily distinguishable from black- or white-tinted glass. But really, that's beside the point I was making, which is that equating atheism with religion is equating something with its antithesis.

 

You seem to lump all the 'athiests' together, I'm sure they're not all like that. Essentially I think that, at the end of the day, there's lots of silly people within all sides of the 'religion' debate.

 

Fair point, considering I've just pointed out the importance of separating a belief from its members; I should have said atheism instead of atheists, just as I said religion instead of religious people. Atheism rests on logic, evidence and rigorous testing. I am confident that if a god is ever proven to exist, most current atheists will accept that as fact and thus by definition become theists. They may not worship the god or hold it in any special regard, but they'll accept its existence if the evidence is there. If they were to continue being atheists in the face of convincing evidence, they should be considered just as ignorant as those ignoring current scientific evidence.

[heroicjanitor]

Religious people only get upset about atheists and call them assholes because they have no logical standpoint from which to argue If they did they would give out about the idea of atheism rather than the atheists themselves, as atheists give out about the idea of religion. No one should take the pointing out of flaws in religion personally. They wouldn't take it personally if you pointed out they were wrong in any other regard.

 

Also the amount of religious people with microphones in town is ever-increasing now The last time I went in they were almost shouting over each other.

[MoogleViper]

Unpopular and arrogant as people may find that opinion, I do agree with Diageo. Therein lies the fundamental difference between religion and atheism: Atheists investigate the world and try to figure it out, relying on logic, evidence and rigorous testing; religions make completely unfounded claims based on ancient mythology. So to be brutally honest, I think atheists are more justified in feeling superior when it comes to knowledge about how the world works.

 

So all of these atheists have gone out and tested all of these hypotheses themselves?

 

What? They haven't? You mean to say they're basing their arrogant opinion on something somebody else has told them, of which they have no evidence for? Surely not?

[heroicjanitor]

So all of these atheists have gone out and tested all of these hypotheses themselves?

 

What? They haven't? You mean to say they're basing their arrogant opinion on something somebody else has told them, of which they have no evidence for? Surely not?

 

Basing it on the fact that computers work and every other instance of science they have ever observed working and science making logical sense you mean? It's not like a shot in the dark. Let's abandon science because people want to make shit up and divert attention from it by pretending everything is like that.

 

Pretending something is the norm is the easiest way to get away with it. If you ever watch fox news, and hear someone republican being accused of something, their response is to say a democrat did the same thing (by twisting if necessary) so it's even and doesn't matter.

 

Also which arrogant opinion? Is testing things and calling it fact when they are proven to work arrogant?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

So all of these atheists have gone out and tested all of these hypotheses themselves?

 

What? They haven't? You mean to say they're basing their arrogant opinion on something somebody else has told them, of which they have no evidence for? Surely not?

 

Don't play stupid. It doesn't take a PhD in physics to see that science adds up while religious myth doesn't.

[MoogleViper]

And people say religious fanatics have no sense of humour.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Try with some puns next time.

[Rummy]

Diageo is correct.

 

Come now, you can't just say he's correct and leave it at that. If atheos means without god and is the root of athiesm then it makes sense, you've just applied the different bits in the wrong order. Look at it as God-ism and NoGod-ism, rather than Godism and No-Godism. The a doesn't apply to the theism aspect, but to the god aspect.

 

Etymology

From Ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, "godless, without God").

Wiktionary, so ok not the most credible/reliable source.

 

atheist

noun /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ [C]

 

Definition

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

Compare: agnostic

atheism noun /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/

atheist adjective (also atheistic)

(Definition of atheist noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/atheist?q=atheism

 

That's a dictionary definition at least.

 

The best example to imagine is a clear bottle; the glass is typically colourless, which is easily distinguishable from black- or white-tinted glass. But really, that's beside the point I was making, which is that equating atheism with religion is equating something with its antithesis.

 

Of course, I hoped you'd answer the question; but I did get your point. I just think I disagree(though it's all open to interpretation). For me, colourless covers the agnosticism; not atheism(in the sense of believing there is no god).

 

Atheism rests on logic, evidence and rigorous testing. I am confident that if a god is ever proven to exist, most current atheists will accept that as fact and thus by definition become theists. They may not worship the god or hold it in any special regard, but they'll accept its existence if the evidence is there. If they were to continue being atheists in the face of convincing evidence, they should be considered just as ignorant as those ignoring current scientific evidence.

 

But does it? Who said or says that it does? If it's a belief there's no god, then why not just...believe there's no god without any of that. It seems you're focusing on a more specific aspect that I think the general term shouldn't/doesn't apply to. Alternatively if you wanna stick with it being a lack of belief in god, the point is still valid.

 

 

I get Moogle's point above, and I think it's valid too.

 

 

Basing it on the fact that computers work and every other instance of science they have ever observed working and science making logical sense you mean? It's not like a shot in the dark. Let's abandon science because people want to make shit up and divert attention from it by pretending everything is like that.

 

Pretending something is the norm is the easiest way to get away with it. If you ever watch fox news, and hear someone republican being accused of something, their response is to say a democrat did the same thing (by twisting if necessary) so it's even and doesn't matter.

 

Also which arrogant opinion? Is testing things and calling it fact when they are proven to work arrogant?

 

GOD MAKES IT WORK!!!!

 

 

 

Also, it's not directly relevant; but hopefully somewhat illustrates my standpoint: aren't things like taoism and buddhism religions, yet atheist? Atheist religions, hmm.

 

θεος (theos) means god, which is where we get the word theist (which means someone who believes in a god), αθεος (atheos) means without god (in the absence of god), because a + a greek origin word means without, so while it can come from αθεος as well, it still means without the belief of god.

 

 

Something is colourless if they do not reflect light at all or of no visible wavelength. Something is white if they reflect all visible light wavelengths and something is black if it reflects no visible light wavelengths. Why are you asking?

 

He said they have the right, he didn't say they all are. There may be people who are atheist and silly, but that doesn't make atheists silly about atheism.

 

As above, what if the 'a'(without) prefix is applied to the theos(god) before the suffix of -ism(uh...belief?)

 

Also, you've said colourless does not reflect light at all or of no visible wavelength. You've defined black as if it reflects no visible wavelengths. Are you saying they are the same, or one is a subset of the other?

[Iun]

So, going by the empirical evidence thing, I guess all atheists must therefore be completely accepting of homosexuality? After all, there's a slew of evidence that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and therefore the logical thing to say is that it's simply a part of the species.

 

Additionally, when someone says "I love you" do you respond "thank you, but you're simply vocalising a number of chemical changes in your brain and choosing to call it love."?

 

I'd like to point out here that I was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for openly questioning their dogma in Sunday School.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think you've lost me now, @Rummy. What exactly are you objecting to in regards to the definition of atheism? I think you may be focussing too much on the words themselves, but I'm curious to find out.

 

Regarding the analogy, it doesn't work with agnosticism; agnosticism would be to religion/atheism akin to what "darkness" is to colour/colourlessness, i.e. we don't know if whatever we're looking at has a colour and, if so, which.

 

Regarding Buddhism and other godless religions, they still include supernatural phenomena and so I don't consider them atheistic. Again I think you may be focussing too much on the original, literal meaning of the words instead of their current, adapted meaning, but I'm still curious to find out if that's the case.

 

Regarding atheism not necessarily resting on evidence, I see what you're getting at, but my point is that it has to work that way because atheism is not strictly speaking a belief in itself, it's the absence thereof - hence the whole colour/colourless analogy. We only view it as a belief because the opposite (i.e. belief in a god) is the norm.

 

So, going by the empirical evidence thing, I guess all atheists must therefore be completely accepting of homosexuality? After all, there's a slew of evidence that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and therefore the logical thing to say is that it's simply a part of the species.

 

Atheism is about belief in gods, nothing more. Again, we cannot equate atheism with atheists; one would indeed assume that atheists are scientifically minded and thus not prejudiced towards homosexuals, but it's by no means a guarantee.

 

Additionally, when someone says "I love you" do you respond "thank you, but you're simply vocalising a number of chemical changes in your brain and choosing to call it love."?

 

Of course not, why would I?

Edited February 27, 2013 by Dannyboy-the-Dane
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

So all of these atheists have gone out and tested all of these hypotheses themselves?

 

What? They haven't? You mean to say they're basing their arrogant opinion on something somebody else has told them, of which they have no evidence for? Surely not?

 

That's the purpose of peer review. :p

 

So, going by the empirical evidence thing, I guess all atheists must therefore be completely accepting of homosexuality? After all, there's a slew of evidence that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and therefore the logical thing to say is that it's simply a part of the species.

 

Additionally, when someone says "I love you" do you respond "thank you, but you're simply vocalising a number of chemical changes in your brain and choosing to call it love."?

 

I'd like to point out here that I was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for openly questioning their dogma in Sunday School.

 

There's a difference between understanding why something happens and relinquishing all human emotions and prior comprehension of the world the second you study it in detail.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Sheikah

[MoogleViper]

That's the purpose of peer review. :p

 

The Pope's peers reviewed his work as well.

[Iun]

 

Atheism is about belief in gods, nothing more. Again, we cannot equate atheism with atheists; one would indeed assume that atheists are scientifically minded and thus not prejudiced towards homosexuals, but it's by no means a guarantee.

 

 

 

I don't think you can equivocate on this point: If atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or supreme beings based on science, then they can't reconcile the belief in the Little Blue Pixie Who Cleans The Toilet simply because they don't recognise him as a supreme being.

 

 

 

There's a difference between understanding why something happens and relinquishing all human emotions and prior comprehension of the world the second you study it in detail.

 

You mean human chemical reactions? Again, logically speaking, if you are capable of scientifically and empirically proving against the belief that there is something bigger than us that we cannot see...

 

...then two blokes having a shag shouldn't prove an obstacle. And if it does, there should be some internal struggle within the mind of the atheist saying "My prejudice is irrational, therefore I should temper it".

[Sheikah]

That's like saying because you can understand how alcohol works you are no longer subject to its effects.

 

Homophobes might well understand the potential scientific aspect of homosexuality but that doesn't mean their ignorant minds won't automatically generate feelings of disgust.