controversial!

Post Reply New Topic

As I said, definition 5 is a stretch, and does not fall within the connotation of religion.

I agree with the fact that aetheism is not a religion. Period.

Actually this analogy serves my argument and puts yours to rest.

If someone is against homosexuality, that doesn't make your belief 'gay', it makes your belief sexual. Only in your construct would such a belief be considered 'gay'.



LOL

What irony.



And I used your definition to make my case that atheism is a religious belief. It pertains to the existence of god, therefore it is, even given that narrow definition, religious.

QED



You're the one who thought I should apologize to you. My suggestion was only to point out how utterly ridiculous you were to demand one in the first place.

LOL!

I'm especially amused how you say atheists tend to be more educated. Tis true! It is also a damning condemnation of atheism once you understand what education is.

Education is rote. It is teaching what has already been considered and current (and usually mainstream) methodologies. It has no relation to intelligence or insight or being able to think for oneself.

As for a link between religion and poverty and despair, double LOL

Just because religion provides comfort for those in despair, doesn't mean it causes it. As for poverty, the west became prosperous due in large part to religion and faith in god's gift to man: reason. Capital accumulation was practiced and promoted by the priesthood.

Let's not forget how prosperous people are in regimes which ban religion. If anything the evidence is to the contrary of your position.

I never said any such thing. I said it was a religious belief. In other words it's a belief pertaining to religion.

For example believing in the trinity isn't a religion either. It is, however, a religious belief. So is not believing in the trinity (like gnostics).

Your once again mixing things up my friend but i have never sought to ban religion and realise there are religious people much more intelligent than I but in times of need people turn to god and you tend to find atheists are on average people who have thought about things more as most people get indoctrined into a religion when young and thought about things rationally and came to the conclusion that god doesnt exist.

Our christian past might have been a factor in allowing us to become rich (with some types of people and classes doing a lot better than others) but they are not true christians then. It should also be noted that as we have become more "free" and "enlightened" then atheism is being seen to rise. Surely you dont advocate we go back to the days of a church controlled state? For hundreds of years christian churches ruled europe and elsewhere and it's only since the demise of the church and rise in some freedoms (including religious ones) that we have seen real social progress. People should be free to worship (or not) but to have a church controlled state is proven to not work.


As for the rest of what you say about religion and atheism. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I was not refering to you, I was refering to eamonn.

Also, with the rise of the enlightenment, more people came to pay less attention to specific religion, rather the philosophical existence of any specific of any god. Thus came the rise of deism.

I fail to see how those who save and invest are not true Christians.



Taking your last point first, the secular state has only existed in the west for the last couple hundred years while the church-controlled state has been proven to work for far longer.

It was the secular state which created a world ripe for two world wars. This is working?

Finally, atheism as a phenomenon is a symptom of the applied (classical) liberal doctrine, not the cause of it. You even admit this. Why then harp on atheism as if it has solved ANYTHING?

And the religious state did not cause wars itself *cough* the Crusades *cough*.

I have an even better one:

We could bang on about two world wars but far more people have died due to religious wars than any other kind. I dont think atheism has solved anything but rather better conditions have allowed atheism to rise.

I just find it hard to understand how a lot of people are so scared of the truth in day to day life and this makes me think that maybe a belief in god maybe has something to do with a fear of no god and another way of humans trying to protect themselves from the cutting truth.

I dont harp on about atheism, it was brought up first and then i have been defending my position. Anyway that is what this forum is for, having political or philisophical ideas to debate. Comprehende? Savvy? Understood?

Si. Da. Yes.

Some humans have an apparant need to believe in a "higher power." Some have transcended this "need."

There is no proof that any specific higher being exists. Religious texts are inaccurite. People who have visions are delusional. I (like many others) remain agnostic.

Yes, sounds like the sort of thing the kings of past and japanese emporers would have their minions say to the ignorant. How can you question him for is he not our loving and great emporer.

The nutcase cults always use techniques like that, as well. You know not of the pain i feel when i act in an unrational way for the betterment of my sheep, have faith, only the true followers will see light at the end of the rainbow, yada yada etc etc.

Oh pray art out our father when will the people use the intelligence they were born with and stop using an old( regularly boring and proven many times to be flawed) book to do their thinking and positions for them?

Amen.

When confronted by realities one cannot overcome, what use is your reasoning?

You haven't transcended any limitation of man or religion. Religion merely frames our limitations in a way which is easier to manage.



1) Nobody claimed such things can be proved. People left in wanting of such proof avoid the whole purpose of religion to begin with.

2) Religious texts like the Bible are indeed accurate. Take Genesis for example, what is that story really trying to say? It frames the concept of our creation and how we became who we are in allegory, but it's still accurate. Can we go back to the garden of eden? I suppose if you thought the garden of eden was a physical location and you had a jet you could use calculus to figure out how much fuel you would need to get there, but you're avoiding the whole POINT to the story!

I have as much respect for people who reject religion on the grounds that it isn't science as I have for creationists who try to take the Bible literally (which nobody can do anyway).

3) Agnostics are only atheists fooling themselves.

And I see the point of this verse (and my posting it) just flew right over your head.

You don't even sound like you've read the quote I posted, just as Bertrand Russel didn't sound like he'd even read the gospels. But oh well, I suppose you've just proven it's the height of autonomous intelligence to quote the words of those skeptical of religion to do your thinking for you, just not to read the gospels and actually find something that directly adresses them, because, you know, they're boring and have frequently been proven to be inaccurate and all that stuff skeptics like to say. And that anyone who finds anything of interest or value in the Bible must be a brainwashed sheep. Truly, you are overflowing with original thought.

Agnostics are non-commital on the matter and atheists believe that there isnt and are skeptical. What are you trying to say anarkhos. You could say everyone was fooling themselves but that in itself means nothing, you need to explain why if you expect to be taken seriously.