Lets see. Theists or believers say that God exists but because they can not scientifically proof that, they have to believe in God’s existence.
On the other hand Atheists say that God does not exist but because they don’t have proof for that they also have to believe in God’s non-existence, the same as believers in his existence.
Isn’t then Atheism just another religion?.
I am asking this question because I noticed that majority of atheists want to present themselves as something special like scientists or something.

Yes. I have noticed that too. Atheists almost always try to paint their views as rational, and those of religious people as irrational. It can get quite funny sometimes.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1194410206

athos wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 9:50am:

Lets see. Theists or believers say that God exists but because they can not scientifically proof that, they have to believe in God’s existence. On the other hand Atheists say that God does not exist but because they don’t have proof for that they also have to believe in God’s non-existence, the same as believers in his existence. Isn’t then Atheism just another religion?. I am asking this question because I noticed that majority of atheists want to present themselves as something special like scientists or something.

Atheism is just another belief. Science doesn't really come into it, because even the concept of a 'no-frills' Deist God is outside the realms of the application of the scientific method. The scientific method applies only to those things that can be observed or predicted using perception or enhanced perception.

The word religion is normally associated with some kind of devotional activity. The activities of some atheists could be taken as devotional, but it doesn't apply to the general contemporary definition of atheist, which just means "one who doesn't believe in God".

It doesn't work by majority. Even if a few atheists don't actually have a strong commitment to their belief, it negates the concept.  By the way, I'd argue that the majority of atheists would rather not even talk about religion. All that you encounter online is probably a vocal (and somewhat embarrassing) minority - the 'eccentrics' who actually want to promote 'atheism'. To me, even the use of the word 'atheism' is a bit strange. I don't happen to believe in God, but I don't have any other baggage that you might term "Atheism". I actually support religions, though I stop short of belief in gods.

In fact if there is any ambiguity, I'd prefer to describe myself as non-religious rather than atheist.

"Atheism doesn't exist" (c) - AAtheist

Is AAtheism just another religion?

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 8:44am:

athos wrote on Nov 21st, 2008 at 9:50am: Lets see. Theists or believers say that God exists but because they can not scientifically proof that, they have to believe in God’s existence. On the other hand Atheists say that God does not exist but because they don’t have proof for that they also have to believe in God’s non-existence, the same as believers in his existence. Isn’t then Atheism just another religion?. I am asking this question because I noticed that majority of atheists want to present themselves as something special like scientists or something. Atheism is just another belief. Science doesn't really come into it, because even the concept of a 'no-frills' Deist God is outside the realms of the application of the scientific method. The scientific method applies only to those things that can be observed or predicted using perception or enhanced perception. The word religion is normally associated with some kind of devotional activity. The activities of some atheists could be taken as devotional, but it doesn't apply to the general contemporary definition of atheist, which just means "one who doesn't believe in God". It doesn't work by majority. Even if a few atheists don't actually have a strong commitment to their belief, it negates the concept.  By the way, I'd argue that the majority of atheists would rather not even talk about religion. All that you encounter online is probably a vocal (and somewhat embarrassing) minority - the 'eccentrics' who actually want to promote 'atheism'. To me, even the use of the word 'atheism' is a bit strange. I don't happen to believe in God, but I don't have any other baggage that you might term "Atheism". I actually support religions, though I stop short of belief in gods. In fact if there is any ambiguity, I'd prefer to describe myself as non-religious rather than atheist.

Muso
I am imprest with your intellectual honesty because many non believers say that their opinion about God is strictly separated from religion.

tallowood wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 8:51am:

"Atheism doesn't exist" (c) - AAtheist Is AAtheism just another religion?

LOL - you're incorrigible. I admire people who have a faith.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 8:44am:

The word religion is normally associated with some kind of devotional activity. The activities of some atheists could be taken as devotional, but it doesn't apply to the general contemporary definition of atheist, which just means "one who doesn't believe in God". It doesn't work by majority. Even if a few atheists don't actually have a strong commitment to their belief, it negates the concept.  By the way, I'd argue that the majority of atheists would rather not even talk about religion. All that you encounter online is probably a vocal (and somewhat embarrassing) minority - the 'eccentrics' who actually want to promote 'atheism'. To me, even the use of the word 'atheism' is a bit strange. I don't happen to believe in God, but I don't have any other baggage that you might term "Atheism". I actually support religions, though I stop short of belief in gods. In fact if there is any ambiguity, I'd prefer to describe myself as non-religious rather than atheist.

Well said Muso.

The group of "non religious" that you decribe is without doubt the biggest group of people the religious tend to denigrate as atheists.

Like you, I don't tend to label myself as anything and don't realy give it much thought other than being fairly shure I don't fit into any particular camp.
Those of us that are campless, are happily able to function without a need for a crutch or in the more extreme dogmas, a straight jacket to give life meaning and purpose.

I consider myself fortunate.

Cheers

northy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 5:08pm:

Well said Muso. The group of "non religious" that you decribe is without doubt the biggest group of people the religious tend to denigrate as atheists. Like you, I don't tend to label myself as anything and don't realy give it much thought other than being fairly shure I don't fit into any particular camp. Those of us that are campless, are happily able to function without a need for a crutch or in the more extreme dogmas, a straight jacket to give life meaning and purpose. I consider myself fortunate. Cheers

Good to see more people like me coming out of the woodwork. Some (but not all) religious people tend to denigrate us with their own definition of atheist using a long list of stereotypical attributes. I think I've heard them all.

I don't like the straitjacket or crutch analogy. We all have our crutches. Christians might say we all have our crosses to bear. We're all God's people (LOL) and we all have our own ways of making sense of reality.  I don't think I'm any different or better than anybody else in that respect.

Most Christians (and Muslims) on this forum are probably very decent people, although some get carried away on the self righteous indignation bit. I genuinely like religion (note - I did not use the cliché "I don't mind religion"), and I also get frustrated with arrogance and xenophobia.

There's little wonder that non-believers (for want of a better term) get annoyed with the categories that religious people try to place them in.

Lack of conscience, evil, faithless, unenlightened, in need of saving and doomed, are some of the terms I've heard. And quite frankly, I get sick of it.

As far as I'm concerned, I've looked at the concepts and I think they're based on a load of mumbo jumbo. I don't believe it, and that's all.

Religion is a club of which I'm not a member. This doesn't automatically grant me membership to another club called atheism.

I wonder if religious people believe that the easter bunny will come hippity hopping through their door at easter time, ..or if Santa will come ho ho hoeing down their chimney at Christmas? Does this make them non-believers if they don't believe this will happen?
Could they then be labelled Asantas and Abunnies?

But oh no.. the God concept is so different because the religious challenge the non-religious to prove otherwise when the burden of proof should be upon them if they want to speak to people about an instruction book authored by God.i

Amadd wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2008 at 3:22pm:

I wonder if religious people believe that the easter bunny will come hippity hopping through their door at easter time, ..or if Santa will come ho ho hoeing down their chimney at Christmas? Does this make them non-believers if they don't believe this will happen? Could they then be labelled Asantas and Abunnies? But oh no.. the God concept is so different because the religious challenge the non-religious to prove otherwise when the burden of proof should be upon them if they want to speak to people about an instruction book authored by God.

I can actually understand that point of view. God is a kind of special case, especially if you believe that he created the Universe in the Abrahamic sense. The evidence for God is often stated to be the Universe (look around).

God is actually quite an elegant solution to the fact that things work, we think therefore we are and all the other amazing things about the universe. In contrast, the concept that a universe that can have sentient observers must have all the ducks in a row in the first place certainly works, but it's kind of untidy having all these millions of other malfunctioning universes hanging around in other dimensional corners etc.

As I said, the God of the Deists is an elegant enough solution, but not one that I happen to believe in.

In point of fact, I don't know how the universe came to be as it is, and I doubt if I'll ever know. I can't speak for anybody else though  ;)

In my life there are some things within my control, some things outside my control and quite a few things which are within my sphere of influence.

Those things that are outside my control or sphere of influence are the things that I concern myself with least. After all, there are lots of other things that I can control, so I'll stick with what I know.

The human brain is very plastic. You can build a virtual world (we all have to in order to survive) and even a virtual God in there. Once you've done that, you can almost forget about deconstructing it. Why would you bother? It explains everything neatly.

So that in a nutshell explains my position on religion.

freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 9:54am:

Yes. I have noticed that too. Atheists almost always try to paint their views as rational, and those of religious people as irrational. It can get quite funny sometimes.

Religious beliefs are almost always irrational, but then again so are many non-religious beliefs.

Kytro wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 10:17am:

freediver wrote on Nov 21st, 2008 at 9:54am: Yes. I have noticed that too. Atheists almost always try to paint their views as rational, and those of religious people as irrational. It can get quite funny sometimes. Religious beliefs are almost always irrational, but then again so are many non-religious beliefs.

I prefer to say non-scientific. 'Irrational' has connotations of insanity. What - a large proportion of the world running around being irrational? I don't think so.

Why be inflammatory?  I don't think that the statement "religion is not science" would raise any eyebrows, but that's what we are really trying to say here.

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 10:26am:

I prefer to say non-scientific. 'Irrational' has connotations of insanity. What - a large proportion of the world running around being irrational? I don't think so.

Well I don't think that irrational people are insane, but I do think that a large proportion of people do run around being irrational.  

* They do not challenge the ideas they hold.  It is not reasonable to assume you have got everything right, but people often think they do.

* They have unsubstantiated beliefs supported by "faith" which by it's very nature is not reasonable or rational - it requires the abdication of thought.

* They tend to affected by cognitive bias' such as the confirmation effect.

* They often hold contradictory positions.

Everyone does these things to some point or another, but being able to recognise it, and attempt to compensate is not something everyone does.  Sometimes people celebrate ignorance as a strength.


muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 10:26am:

Why be inflammatory?  I don't think that the statement "religion is not science" would raise any eyebrows, but that's what we are really trying to say here.

That goes without saying.  The reason for being inflammatory is to at least attempt to get people to think about the beliefs they hold - and because it is a valid point.

Saying it is not science misses the point. History, maths etc are not science either. The irrationality of humans is well established in psychology. The fact that some people take offense is not a good reason to use an inappropriate, misleading term.

Newton and Einstein were not atheists. They were scientists.  :)

tallowood wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 12:02pm:

Newton and Einstein were not atheists. They were scientists.  :)

There is nothing about science that requires you hold any particular beliefs about any subject.  It merely requires that you follow the scientific method.

People are perfectly capable of good science on one hand, but can hold a totally irrational belief about something else.

rational http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational


Quote:

1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

Very subjective. What seems reasonable to one person may be total banana to somebody else.

Often things seem rational until you point out the fallacy they are based on. Then the people who thought it was rational concede that it isn't. That is objective enough for me.

tallowood wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

rational http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational Quote: 1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior> Very subjective. What seems reasonable to one person may be total banana to somebody else.

There is some subjectiveness involved, however I think the key phrase is agreeable to reason.  

From Wiki:

Quote:

Reason involves the ability to think, understand and draw conclusions in an abstract way, as in human thinking. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable". In action, reasoning involves a conscious attempt to discover what is true and what is best. Reasoning thought follows a chain of cause and effect, and the word "reason" can be a synonym for "cause". As one way of coming to conclusions, reason is often contrasted to emotion, tradition and faith—the "rationalist" argument being that reason is the more reliable way to arrive at that truth.

I think this sum up nicely what I am trying to say.  If one relies on faith they must, by definition not rely on reason - they do not try to discover the truth, they simply trust that it is.

Kytro wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:

... I think this sum up nicely what I am trying to say.  If one relies on faith they must, by definition not rely on reason - they do not try to discover the truth, they simply trust that it is.

The definition of  reason from wiki describes it as some sort of logical process. But belief is not process it is more like an an axiom or postulate so one can rely on a faith and use reason at the same time. That is exactly what we see in arguments of theists and atheists ... different inputs(believes) into the machine of logic and on another end we receive different but in both cases reasoned outputs of world vision. Both are rational in the way that both were reasoned.

That is why atheism is just another religious system.  :)

tallowood wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:

The definition of  reason from wiki describes it as some sort of logical process. But belief is not process it is more like an an axiom or postulate so one can rely on a faith and use reason at the same time. That is exactly what we see in arguments of theists and atheists ... different inputs(believes) into the machine of logic and on another end we receive different but in both cases reasoned outputs of world vision. Both are rational in the way that both were reasoned. That is why atheism is just another religious system.  :)

Belief can be reasoned, but it is not always reasoned well.  The issue I have with faith is almost all reasoning is done back the front.  The conclusion is known, and people then look for facts to support it, rather than drawing a conclusion from the available facts.

I do want to make the point that being an Atheist is no insurance of solid reasoning, nor is a guarantee that one is not religious (only that one does not believe in a god).

I do maintain though that most religious beliefs are not rational beliefs.  That is they are not born of cause of and effect.  Rational thought and logic are in my opinion inseparable.

Quote:

Belief can be reasoned, but it is not always reasoned well.  The issue I have with faith is almost all reasoning is done back the front.  The conclusion is known, and people then look for facts to support it, rather than drawing a conclusion from the available facts.

Thomas Kuhn makes a good argument that the same can be said about scientists, but that this is not a barrier to science.


Quote:

I do maintain though that most religious beliefs are not rational beliefs.  That is they are not born of cause of and effect.  Rational thought and logic are in my opinion inseparable.

Most religious people claim a basis in both faith and evidence for their belief and seem to apply the different standards appropriately. That is, they claim faith as the basis for their 'spiritual' beliefs and evidence as the basis for their 'more specific' beliefs.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 4:04pm:

Thomas Kuhn makes a good argument that the same can be said about scientists, but that this is not a barrier to science.

Certainly some scientists are capable looking for evidence to support the position they hold, more so when funding is on the line.  The good thing about the scientific method is that the work can be verified.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 4:04pm:

Most religious people claim a basis in both faith and evidence for their belief and seem to apply the different standards appropriately. That is, they claim faith as the basis for their 'spiritual' beliefs and evidence as the basis for their 'more specific' beliefs.

While this is may be the case that does not make the spiritual beliefs rational beliefs.  Since faith is inherently not rational - it does not concern itself with cause and effect, or the why and how, it concerns itself only with acceptance.

People are capable of rational beliefs and irrational beliefs - and everyone has some degree of both.

Is a spiritual belief irrational if you acknowledge its basis in faith? Isn't it only irrational if you claim it to be otherwise? That is, it is the claim of logic or empiricism that is irrational, but not the belief itself.

In my opinion atheism discourages people to follow basic logic and to try to understand the whole picture. If we are focused only on sensual and materialistic based values then we have to ask ourselves: Is it possible that our whole existence is meaningless?. For example have a look this: You are born then you struggle to succeed in the life by trying to get a good job, car, house, good standard of living, position in the society and so on.
And when you achieve all of this ( if you manage to achieve ) then everything what you achieved is cancelled by your death. Where is the reword for your effort and the most important what is then the meaning and purpose of that struggle for an individual from strictly materialistic point of view.
If there is no meaning in this material dimension then must be meaning in something else what we probably already achieved out of material world and what will remain immortal and permanent with us.

Kytro wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 3:58pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 25th, 2008 at 3:03pm: The definition of  reason from wiki describes it as some sort of logical process. But belief is not process it is more like an an axiom or postulate so one can rely on a faith and use reason at the same time. That is exactly what we see in arguments of theists and atheists ... different inputs(believes) into the machine of logic and on another end we receive different but in both cases reasoned outputs of world vision. Both are rational in the way that both were reasoned. That is why atheism is just another religious system.  :) Belief can be reasoned, but it is not always reasoned well.  The issue I have with faith is almost all reasoning is done back the front.  The conclusion is known, and people then look for facts to support it, rather than drawing a conclusion from the available facts. I do want to make the point that being an Atheist is no insurance of solid reasoning, nor is a guarantee that one is not religious (only that one does not believe in a god). I do maintain though that most religious beliefs are not rational beliefs.  That is they are not born of cause of and effect.  Rational thought and logic are in my opinion inseparable.

That is your not rational religious belief and you're entitled to have it too.  :)

tallowood wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:

That is why atheism is just another religious system.  :)

Ok. So according to your definition a religion is a simple belief devoid of common devotional activities and other baggage we associate with religions. So any simple belief or preference or personal judgement is a ....religion!  

Like 2sugarsinmycoffeeism and blueismyfavouritecolourism and Itsgettinghotinherism and illtakeoffallmyclothesism ?...

Ipreferdogstocatsism ...

Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

He stayed awake all night wondering if there was a dog.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 4:35pm:

Is a spiritual belief irrational if you acknowledge its basis in faith? Isn't it only irrational if you claim it to be otherwise? That is, it is the claim of logic or empiricism that is irrational, but not the belief itself.

I'd say that spiritual belief starts to become irrational when you acknowledge its basis in sure knowledge as opposed to faith.

What is the difference between 'sure knowledge' and faith?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 11:53am:

What is the difference between 'sure knowledge' and faith?

I know where you're going with that question, and I'd rather not go there.

Knowledge (factual intelligence) is a higher standard than belief, although some of the things we believe are also factual. For example you can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so".

An example of what I loosely referred to as 'sure knowledge' that you might apply to yourself is "I exist".  

It's related to fact. Fact can be tested and verified to the agreement of the vast majority of people . A belief in God cannot be tested and verified, therefore it is belief rather than knowledge.

I'm not talking about the way that 'know' is used sometimes in religion.  eg I know that my redeemer liveth.

That's more a faith based or motivational type of knowledge.

Quote:

I know where you're going with that question, and I'd rather not go there.

I don't know where I'm going. Can you fill me in?


Quote:

For example you can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so".

I don't get the distinction you are trying to make.


Quote:

It's related to fact. Fact can be tested and verified.

Did you mean 'or' verified? How can you 'test' historical facts?

Isn't what qualifies as fact merely dependent on what standard of evidence you are prepared to accept? Are you suggesting there is some universal standard?

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 11:32am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 25th, 2008 at 3:03pm: That is why atheism is just another religious system.  :) Ok. So according to your definition a religion is a simple belief devoid of common devotional activities and other baggage we associate with religions. So any simple belief or preference or personal judgement is a ....religion!   Like 2sugarsinmycoffeeism and blueismyfavouritecolourism and Itsgettinghotinherism and illtakeoffallmyclothesism ?... Ipreferdogstocatsism ... Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He stayed awake all night wondering if there was a dog.

Donating money for bus adverts to promote own belief is very common devotional activity.

Ever heard about atheist dog?
It died due to it's master's believe that dogs should not be fed.
:P

tallowood wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:08pm:

Donating money for bus adverts to promote own belief is very common devotional activity.

I agree. People who do that are probably very devoted to their religion, but I don't happen to share their religion. It's flawed logic. In fact it's a strawman. You're applying a characteristic that is not intrinsic to the whole. In this case it's just a tiny minority.

I don't promote atheism in any way. I disagree with the crticism of religion.  Does that mean I'm not an atheist?

That's a bit like saying that all theists are terrorists, or that theism promotes violence.

Some more examples:

All cows in Australia are brown.
All cats have tails
All seeds grow into plants.  
Snakes are venemous.

Disagreeing with criticism of religion does not mean you don't promote atheism. It just means you do it differently.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 12:18pm:

Did you mean 'or' verified? How can you 'test' historical facts? Isn't what qualifies as fact merely dependent on what standard of evidence you are prepared to accept? Are you suggesting there is some universal standard?

There are various ways we can test historical facts. Independant sources are useful. Some things are more factual than others. Napolean definitely existed, and that he was French / Corsican .

However to say that "worked hard to heal the wounds of over a decade of revolution" is probably true, but it's subjective. To say that he was a "power hungry megalamaniac" is equally subjective.

I don't know if all history is factual. Who was it that said that history is written by the Victors? (was it really?) Maybe some of it is. There was a bright supernova recorded by Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054. The evidence for this is the crab nebula.

There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual.

Quote:

Some things are more factual than others.

Quote:

There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? What is the universal standard?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 12:18pm:

Quote: I know where you're going with that question, and I'd rather not go there. I don't know where I'm going. Can you fill me in? [quote]For example you can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so".

I don't get the distinction you are trying to make.
[/quote]

Let's suppose that you buy lunch and you pay with a $50 note. The server gives you change for $20, believing that you gave him that. Would you say that oh well - he believed it was a $20 - maybe he was right?

If you gave him a $50, that's an absolute fact (you might believe that it was a $100 but that's irrelevant because in fact it was a $50) It's a  fact - nothing to do with belief. It doesn't matter how hard you believe, you can't turn your $50 into a $100.

In that case, you can say he believed it was a $20 but it was a $50 (with reference to reality - not to any belief), but you can't say that he knows it was a $20 but it wasn't so. Know implies fact.

In this case there are three options provided- It's a 20, a 50 or a 100.  Only one of these options is factual, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.  

Reality does not change according to belief. There is only one reality shared by everybody. Reality is a universal truth.

So you are saying that someone can believe something regardless of whether it is true, but they can only know something if it is true?

Not All cows in Australia are brown.
Not All cats have tails
Not All seeds grow into plants.  
Not All Snakes are venemous.
Not All theists devoted to their religion.
So atheism is just another religion.

In fact there is an opinion that Homo sapiens sapiens actualy is Homo sapiens religious. Have a look at the link I gave in the fridge about First organised religion ever.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:43pm:

So you are saying that someone can believe something regardless of whether it is true, but they can only know something if it is true?

Well yes. That's what know 'implies'. I know that you owe me money, but I believe the cheque is in the mail.

Doesn't that distinction fall apart as soon as the truth is unknown? That is why you only give examples where the truth is readily apparent.

tallowood wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:43pm:

Not All theists devoted to their religion. So atheism is just another religion. In fact there is an opinion that Homo sapiens sapiens actualy is Homo sapiens religious. Have a look at the link I gave in the fridge about First organised religion ever.

Again, you're using extremely flawed logic and a very inclusive and rubbery implied definition of the word religion that could include stamp collecting and fornication for that matter.

OK. Farting is a Religion. Is that a statement of fact or not?

I'm just trying to understand why you think the way you do.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

Doesn't that distinction fall apart as soon as the truth is unknown? That is why you only give examples where the truth is readily apparent.

It doesn't matter if the truth is unknown. The truth is out there :P It still exists whether we know what it is or not.  That's the basis of science.

If you lose a coin in the ocean, nobody might know where it is exactly, but the fact that it's somewhere in the ocean is true, and the fact that it occupies one unique location the size of a coin within the ocean is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

There is a unique unchangeable truth related to reality.  

Either a Christian God exists or it doesn't. The fact that both cannot be true is another example of truth.

But you cannot make the distinction if the truth is not readily apparent.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:58pm:

But you cannot make the distinction if the truth is not readily apparent.

Correct. I never said that you can. I'm just saying that some things are factual.

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:54pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 1:43pm: Not All theists devoted to their religion. So atheism is just another religion. In fact there is an opinion that Homo sapiens sapiens actualy is Homo sapiens religious. Have a look at the link I gave in the fridge about First organised religion ever. Again, you're using extremely flawed logic and a very inclusive and rubbery implied definition of the word religion that could include stamp collecting and fornication for that matter. OK. Farting is a Religion. Is that a statement of fact or not? I'm just trying to understand why you think the way you do.

Does farting involve a believe?

BTW, you question about my way of thinking implies that you have another way of thinking, which is different from mine. Fair enough we both think though differently.
The same is with theism and atheism - both are religion though each particular instance of religion is different. :)

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 12:18pm: Did you mean 'or' verified? How can you 'test' historical facts? Isn't what qualifies as fact merely dependent on what standard of evidence you are prepared to accept? Are you suggesting there is some universal standard? There are various ways we can test historical facts. Independant sources are useful. Some things are more factual than others. Napolean definitely existed, and that he was French / Corsican . However to say that "worked hard to heal the wounds of over a decade of revolution" is probably true, but it's subjective. To say that he was a "power hungry megalamaniac" is equally subjective. I don't know if all history is factual. Who was it that said that history is written by the Victors? (was it really?) Maybe some of it is. There was a bright supernova recorded by Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054. The evidence for this is the crab nebula. There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual.

actually there is only proof through literature and paintings that napoleon existed, there are no photographs, nor are there anyone whor emmebers his existance. His existance cannot be verified through scientific method and thus is cannot be fact in that sense. No more fact than Herodotus claiming that athena the goddess was involved in human affairs.

Quote:

I'm just saying that some things are factual.

Actually you went on to make claims about knowledge, absolute truth, universal standards, absolute facts, relative facts etc.

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:

muso wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 1:30pm: freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 12:18pm: Did you mean 'or' verified? How can you 'test' historical facts? Isn't what qualifies as fact merely dependent on what standard of evidence you are prepared to accept? Are you suggesting there is some universal standard? There are various ways we can test historical facts. Independant sources are useful. Some things are more factual than others. Napolean definitely existed, and that he was French / Corsican . However to say that "worked hard to heal the wounds of over a decade of revolution" is probably true, but it's subjective. To say that he was a "power hungry megalamaniac" is equally subjective. I don't know if all history is factual. Who was it that said that history is written by the Victors? (was it really?) Maybe some of it is. There was a bright supernova recorded by Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054. The evidence for this is the crab nebula. There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual. actually there is only proof through literature and paintings that napoleon existed, there are no photographs, nor are there anyone whor emmebers his existance. His existance cannot be verified through scientific method and thus is cannot be fact in that sense. No more fact than Herodotus claiming that athena the goddess was involved in human affairs.

There are bones

What do they prove?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 2:44pm:

Quote: I'm just saying that some things are factual. Actually you went on to make claims about knowledge, absolute truth, universal standards, absolute facts, relative facts etc.

Well yes, but it all boils down to the fact that there is only one version of reality, but there are many perceptions of reality.

To claim that perception is necessary for reality to exist is known as solepsism. Is that what you're saying?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

What do they prove?

As I said before, very few things in life can be proven (except if we use the word in the legal sense)

What about maths?

So what is the universal standard?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 3:28pm:

What about maths?

Mathematical equations can be 'proven' within the framework  of mathematics. Or can they - didn't somebody recently show that you can't prove anything?


Quote:

So what is the universal standard?

I call it reality. What do you call it?

Reality is useless as a standard if the truth you are trying to determine is clouded by perception.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:

Quote: Some things are more factual than others. [quote]There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? What is the universal standard?[/quote]

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:

muso wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 1:30pm: freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 12:18pm: Did you mean 'or' verified? How can you 'test' historical facts? Isn't what qualifies as fact merely dependent on what standard of evidence you are prepared to accept? Are you suggesting there is some universal standard? There are various ways we can test historical facts. Independant sources are useful. Some things are more factual than others. Napolean definitely existed, and that he was French / Corsican . However to say that "worked hard to heal the wounds of over a decade of revolution" is probably true, but it's subjective. To say that he was a "power hungry megalamaniac" is equally subjective. I don't know if all history is factual. Who was it that said that history is written by the Victors? (was it really?) Maybe some of it is. There was a bright supernova recorded by Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054. The evidence for this is the crab nebula. There is a kind of universal standard for what is absolutely factual. actually there is only proof through literature and paintings that napoleon existed, there are no photographs, nor are there anyone whor emmebers his existance. His existance cannot be verified through scientific method and thus is cannot be fact in that sense. No more fact than Herodotus claiming that athena the goddess was involved in human affairs.

Don't even have to go back that far.
Our own birthdays is pure hearsay. And the identity of our parents is hearsay until you have a genetic test. Even then, you never know whether the CIA and ASIO (or Mossad, god forbid) have had a hand in the forgery.

Yesterday is a rumour. There is nothing of it left today.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 7:03pm:

Our own birthdays is pure hearsay. And the identity of our parents is hearsay until you have a genetic test. Even then, you never know whether the CIA and ASIO (or Mossad, god forbid) have had a hand in the forgery. Yesterday is a rumour. There is nothing of it left today.

soren,

All the world is mad!
....except me, ....and thee.
....And even thou art a little strange.

:o

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 7:03pm: Our own birthdays is pure hearsay. And the identity of our parents is hearsay until you have a genetic test. Even then, you never know whether the CIA and ASIO (or Mossad, god forbid) have had a hand in the forgery. Yesterday is a rumour. There is nothing of it left today. soren, All the world is mad! ....except me, ....and thee. ....And even thou art a little strange. :o

Do the voices have French accents and swear a lot?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

Yadda wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 7:57pm: Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 7:03pm: Our own birthdays is pure hearsay. And the identity of our parents is hearsay until you have a genetic test. Even then, you never know whether the CIA and ASIO (or Mossad, god forbid) have had a hand in the forgery. Yesterday is a rumour. There is nothing of it left today. soren, All the world is mad! ....except me, ....and thee. ....And even thou art a little strange. :o Do the voices have French accents and swear a lot?

Of course!  


You don't frighten us, english pig dog! Go and boil your bottom!  

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3TaPg5-KSFY

;D ;D ;D ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

Yadda wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 7:57pm: Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 7:03pm: Our own birthdays is pure hearsay. And the identity of our parents is hearsay until you have a genetic test. Even then, you never know whether the CIA and ASIO (or Mossad, god forbid) have had a hand in the forgery. Yesterday is a rumour. There is nothing of it left today. soren, All the world is mad! ....except me, ....and thee. ....And even thou art a little strange. :o Do the voices have French accents and swear a lot?

LOL

If only I spoke French....

Them there gods give some things... just not all things.

---

Just say whatever you have to say - with an outrageous french accent.

Voila!  You are speaking french!  

It is all in the poise and delivery. And believing in yourself.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Just say whatever you have to say - with an outrageous french accent. Voila!  You are speaking french!   It is all in the poise and delivery. And believing in yourself.

And for zat extra flair de l'authentique ... make sure yoo are drinking your own p!ss and ave sh!t running down your right leg.

Et voila... Orr hor hor hor - French Surealism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

If only I spoke French.... Them there gods give some things... just not all things.

Hey!!!!!!!!!

Youv'e Photoshopped my sticky note!!!!!

Pirate!!!


:)

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 8:48pm: If only I spoke French.... Them there gods give some things... just not all things. Hey!!!!!!!!! Youv'e Photoshopped my sticky note!!!!! Pirate!!! :)

Mais non! I ave perfected your sticky note.

Just a little merci is all I ask.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

Yadda wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:12pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 8:48pm: If only I spoke French.... Them there gods give some things... just not all things. Hey!!!!!!!!! Youv'e Photoshopped my sticky note!!!!! Pirate!!! :) Mais non! I ave perfected your sticky note. Just a little merci is all I ask.

helian,

I'm afraid i didn't 'do' French at school,
.....so all of your excellent work is wasted upon me.

:-[


I'm an ig-orant Yadda im afraid.

[psssst,   ....please, don't tell Gaybriel, that i made that last confession!!]

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:26pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:14pm: Yadda wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:12pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 8:48pm: If only I spoke French.... Them there gods give some things... just not all things. Hey!!!!!!!!! Youv'e Photoshopped my sticky note!!!!! Pirate!!! :) Mais non! I ave perfected your sticky note. Just a little merci is all I ask. helian, I'm afraid i didn't 'do' French at school, .....so all of your excellent work is wasted upon me. :-[ I'm an ig-orant Yadda im afraid. [psssst,   ....please, don't tell Gaybriel, that i made that last confession!!]

That's OK. It's really only English with a crappy French accent.... Like a Gerard Depardieu film.

'ands off Gerard!! e's a god!

1 god

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

'ands off Gerard!! e's a god! 1 god

Monsieur... I wouldn't hold anything against Gerard... other than a plastic bag over his head.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 10:06pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:37pm: 'ands off Gerard!! e's a god! 1 god Monsieur... I wouldn't hold anything against Gerard... other than a plastic bag over his head.

C'est pas invraissemblable qui'il y a quelqu'un qui parle français par ici. Je vais controler.  ;)

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 7:33am:

C'est pas invraissemblable qui'il y a quelqu'un qui parle français par ici. Je vais controler.  ;)

muso,


You poser!!!

Show off!!






Its all 'chinese' to me!


:-?

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 7:33am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 10:06pm: Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:37pm: 'ands off Gerard!! e's a god! 1 god Monsieur... I wouldn't hold anything against Gerard... other than a plastic bag over his head. C'est pas invraissemblable qui'il y a quelqu'un qui parle français par ici. Je vais controler.  ;)

Oh waiter.... There's a frog in our pond.

Yadda wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 9:42am:

muso wrote on Nov 27th, 2008 at 7:33am: C'est pas invraissemblable qui'il y a quelqu'un qui parle français par ici. Je vais controler.  ;) muso, You poser!!! Show off!! Its all 'chinese' to me! :-?

Hanyu?
Dui, wo shuo hanyu yi dianr ;D

我的汉字 不好

也許我應該保持沉默

(My Chinese writing is not so good. Maybe I should just say nothing)

wo bu hao yi si  :-[ :-[

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 3:44pm:

Reality is useless as a standard if the truth you are trying to determine is clouded by perception.

Yet you know through experience that there is only one 'reality' that is independent of perception. Isn't that universal?

- Or do you deny that there is a reality that is independent of perception?

If that's the case, whoopee! I'll have that $500 you promised me earlier.

That kind of misses the point. The purpose of a standard is to judge what that reality is. Using the reality as the standard creates a circularity.

So what did you mean by some things being 'more factual' than others?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 11:49am:

That kind of misses the point. The purpose of a standard is to judge what that reality is. Using the reality as the standard creates a circularity.

Good. I'm glad you recognise that. Nevertheless the underlying reality exists. It's a necessary postulate for just about everything.

So would you apply the same precepts to morality as you do to reality?

Does not the concept of God also create a circularity in morality?

To answer your original question - I thought you were heading for a 'God explains/makes sense of all' precept.

Reality is to God as Morality is to ....let's call it muso kai.    ;D

No. Morality is a human construct. Reality isn't.

So what did you mean by some things being 'more factual' than others?

If reality is not a standard, what is your 'universal standard'?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:59am:

No. Morality is a human construct. Reality isn't.

Hmmm I misjudged you. So you don't believe in absolute morality?
- only muso kai?

I actually agree with you on ultimate reality, however the perception of reality is a different matter.


Quote:

So what did you mean by some things being 'more factual' than others?

Some things can be almost universally verified as being factual. The underlying principle that reality is independent of the observer (don't get side-tracked with Quantum mechanics here) is an example. Nobody, except maybe Crassulus would differ on that.

Quote:

If reality is not a standard, what is your 'universal standard'?

I think I answered that.

Are absolute morality and moality as a human construct mutually exclusive?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 11:14am:

Are absolute morality and moality as a human construct mutually exclusive?

LOL. Are you normally this elusive?  ;D

How long is a piece of string? It depends entirely on how you define absolute morality. I can see that the typical Christian paradigm would see a clash there because it would regard absolute morality as 'extrinsic'.

All I can say is that muso kai and absolute morality are mutually exclusive.

What do you mean by extrinsic?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 11:27am:

What do you mean by extrinsic?

An intrinsic characteristic that is derived externally. You know - created in the image of God etc.  

LOL maybe I'd better define muso kai too.  ;D ;D ;D

It's a Zen concept.

Muso kai is short for muso shenji kai, or formless precepts of the mindground. It implies that naturally pure behaviour arises from the enlightened mind rather than from an 'external' (or extrinsic) moral code.

I don't get why there would be a clash. If humans are created in the image of God, then a human construct can still ultimately come from God.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

I don't get why there would be a clash. If humans are created in the image of God, then a human construct can still ultimately come from God.

Cool. It was just the distinction that you drew initially that surprised me - The statement that morality is just a human construct.

Contrasting morality with reality is bordering on heresy isn't it?  ;)

Although one man's heretic is another man's true believer. I guess.

By the way, I can see a lot of merit in the concept of Muso kai, because it has been my experience that there is a broad correlation between education level and morality.

I see morality as a consequence or product of a well-functioning brain. That's probably controversial of course.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 12:12pm:

By the way, I can see a lot of merit in the concept of Muso kai, because it has been my experience that there is a broad correlation between education level and morality. I see morality as a consequence or product of a well-functioning brain. That's probably controversial of course.

muso,

We all seem believe that what we [ourselves] do is OK, morally.

Otherwise, we would behave in another way.

But, personally, i do not have much confidence in man's own determinations, of his own 'morality'.


In our world today,

BLACK is WHITE.
And WHITE is BLACK.
UP is DOWN.
And DOWN is UP.


UN Human Rights Commission members include...

China [Tiananmen Square, continuing human rights abuses, Tibet.] !!,
Zimbabwe [what need i say????] !!,
Saudi Arabia [persecution of Christians, and muslim apostates, Google, Saudi Arabia maid abuse ] !!,
Russia [repression of free speech, assassinations of journalists, and 'opposition' politicians],
Pakistan [persecution of Christians, and muslim apostates] !!,
Sudan [ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the Gillian Gibbons 'insulting ISLAM', teddy bear 'incident'] !!,
Egypt [persecution of Christians, and muslim apostates] !!


Some past members of UNHRC include...
Algeria, Vietnam, Syria and Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism





Q.
Why is our world in a mess?

A.
We hate the TRUTH.
.....especially as it relates to exposing our own conduct [our 'morality'].




Our [mankind's] 'solution'?

We 'redefine' the TRUTH.

ergo.....

BLACK is WHITE.
And WHITE is BLACK.
UP is DOWN.
And DOWN is UP.



But no-one can stop the sea tide, from coming in, in its time.

No-one can piss into the wind, and not become 'soiled'.

And in the same way, no-one can defy [ignore] TRUTH, and hope to avoid the consequences, for very long.

The chooks will come home to roost.

Yadda wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

muso wrote on Nov 28th, 2008 at 12:12pm: By the way, I can see a lot of merit in the concept of Muso kai, because it has been my experience that there is a broad correlation between education level and morality. I see morality as a consequence or product of a well-functioning brain. That's probably controversial of course. muso, We all seem believe that what we [ourselves] do is OK, morally. Otherwise, we would behave in another way. But, personally, i do not have much confidence in man's own determinations, of his own 'morality'.

Yadda,

I think there is always a distinction between what is believed to be right and what is actually done.

Take the recent case of child abuse in the Anglican church, where senior clergy hushed up reports and did everything to deny them.

Maybe there was a clash of morals there. Maybe they believed that it was in the interest of the church to keep it quiet? or maybe they thought that if they ignored it and put it in the too hard basket, there was a good chance that it would go away.

Where would your loyalties lie in such a case?

I think I have quoted this before. It's part of the catholic Catechism:

"Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters"

As far as religious influences are concerned, I've seen equally good and bad behaviour from people of many different religions throughout the world. As far as I can gauge, moral behaviour is largely independent of religion.

There are exceptions of course. The Southern States of the US are quite entrenched in fundamentalist Christianity, and they have the highest church attendances and outward signs of adherence to Christianity.

Yet the proof of the pudding is in the statistics in this case - these are also the states with the highest teenage abortion rates, divorce rates, venereal disease and violent crime per capita. There is apparently a positive correlation between fundamentalist religion and these markers of social dysfunction, and it's far from subtle.

- but of course correlation does not confirm causation

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:

Yadda wrote on Nov 28th, 2008 at 12:52pm: muso wrote on Nov 28th, 2008 at 12:12pm: By the way, I can see a lot of merit in the concept of Muso kai, because it has been my experience that there is a broad correlation between education level and morality. I see morality as a consequence or product of a well-functioning brain. That's probably controversial of course. muso, We all seem believe that what we [ourselves] do is OK, morally. Otherwise, we would behave in another way. But, personally, i do not have much confidence in man's own determinations, of his own 'morality'. Yadda, I think there is always a distinction between what is believed to be right and what is actually done. Take the recent case of child abuse in the Anglican church, where senior clergy hushed up reports and did everything to deny them. Maybe there was a clash of morals there. Maybe they believed that it was in the interest of the church to keep it quiet? or maybe they thought that if they ignored it and put it in the too hard basket, there was a good chance that it would go away. Where would your loyalties lie in such a case?

muso,

I hope that i would always be in favour of revealing the TRUTH.

Even though i know, sometimes doing so, can be painful [for ourselves, and others].

I firmly believe that, Peace comes through Justice.

Always.

And, there can be no Justice, without free and open TRUTH.

Its not rocket science.

But many ppl hate the TRUTH [in my opinion].iQuote:

I think I have quoted this before. It's part of the catholic Catechism: "Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" As far as religious influences are concerned, I've seen equally good and bad behaviour from people of many different religions. As far as I can guage, moral behaviour is largely independent of religion. There are exceptions of course. The Southern States of the US are quite entrenched in fundamentalist Christianity, and they are also the states with the highest teenage abortion rates, venereal disease and violent crime per capita. There is obviously a positive correlation between fundamentalist religion and these markers of social dysfunction. - but a correlation does not confirm causation.

muso,

I don't believe in 'religion'.
....i believe that the meaning of the word has been 'perverted'.

I know that some here would probably suggest that i am fundamentalist Christian?

Dictionary,
religion = = 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Ø a particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.


My definition of the word RELIGION, would go something like this....
.....Our religion, is the way we live, and conduct ourselves, in our lives.

And i would regard all ppl, including 'Atheists', in a like manner.

Our life, is an expression of our real 'religion'.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:

... As far as religious influences are concerned, I've seen equally good and bad behaviour from people of many different religions throughout the world. As far as I can gauge, moral behaviour is largely independent of religion. There are exceptions of course. The Southern States of the US are quite entrenched in fundamentalist Christianity, and they have the highest church attendances and outward signs of adherence to Christianity. Yet the proof of the pudding is in the statistics in this case - these are also the states with the highest teenage abortion rates, divorce rates, venereal disease and violent crime per capita. There is apparently a positive correlation between fundamentalist religion and these markers of social dysfunction, and it's far from subtle. - but of course correlation does not confirm causation

Interestingly enough the same statistical parameters measured in atheistic USSR showed even more disturbing picture. So there was apparently even more positive correlation between fundamentalist atheism and the markers of social dysfunction.

Of course I don't imply in any way that the faith in god's non-existence was the reason for that behavioural pattern.

PS: muso kai is another religion too. sounds noice, but there is no statistics for it yet.

tallowood wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 2:41pm:

Interestingly enough the same statistical parameters measured in atheistic USSR showed even more disturbing picture. So there was apparently even more positive correlation between fundamentalist atheism and the markers of social dysfunction. Of course I don't imply in any way that the faith in god's non-existence was the reason for that behavioural pattern. PS: muso kai is another religion too. sounds noice, but there is no statistics for it yet.

Tallow - re that last remark, I'm going to call you a dag. You can interpret that as a very mild personal attack if you like, but you're probably proud of it anyway, knowing you.  ;D

I already told you that muso kai is just a principle from Zen Buddhism, and I just said that I found it useful as a concept. You could no more say that muso kai is a religion than the practice of swinging the smoke censer in a church. It's just a precept from a religion. (you dag)

Now as for the USSR, I'll check my original source. You can check it too - it's a Christian source as far as I'm aware, so you can't accuse me of taking the data from a biased source (LOL):

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Russia doesn't seem to be in that study, but Sweden is, and Sweden is possibly (edit - definitely)more atheistic than Russia.

I know my source of information. Could I have yours please?
(Good try anyway)

Yadda,

Don't you think it's a problem that you could define just about anything by that second definition:

2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

So horse racing or stamp collecting are religions?

Why do you think that a simple lack of belief in deities could be construed as a religion? It's not a pursuit, it's not even an interest and it is rarely followed with devotion, save a few eccentrics like Richard Dawkins and other bus advertising fools - and it certainly doesn't define a lifestyle. From my part it's not something that I even take pride in, or regard as in any way special or important.

If anything, I appreciate the moral lessons from Christianity for the most part, but I believe that if Jesus Christ could come back to life today, he would be extremely disappointed in some of the things people say and believe in his name. That's all I'll say about that for now.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 8:24pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 28th, 2008 at 2:41pm: Interestingly enough the same statistical parameters measured in atheistic USSR showed even more disturbing picture. So there was apparently even more positive correlation between fundamentalist atheism and the markers of social dysfunction. Of course I don't imply in any way that the faith in god's non-existence was the reason for that behavioural pattern. PS: muso kai is another religion too. sounds noice, but there is no statistics for it yet. Tallow - re that last remark, I'm going to call you a dag. You can interpret that as a very mild personal attack if you like, but you're probably proud of it anyway, knowing you.  ;D I already told you that muso kai is just a principle from Zen Buddhism, and I just said that I found it useful as a concept. You could no more say that muso kai is a religion than the practice of swinging the smoke censer in a church. It's just a precept from a religion. (you dag) Now as for the USSR, I'll check my original source. You can check it too - it's a Christian source as far as I'm aware, so you can't accuse me of taking the data from a biased source (LOL): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Russia doesn't seem to be in that study, but Sweden is, and Sweden is possibly (edit - definitely)more atheistic than Russia. I know my source of information. Could I have yours please? (Good try anyway)

Russia to USSR is the same as muzo kai to Buddhism the difference however is that USSR does not exist therefore if Russia ==USSR as you imply then muzo kai is just another religion  :D
I have seen the statistics for USSR in the library of NSW in Sydney in the book "Soviet Political Society" but it was not in digital format so to check it for yourself you will need to go to the library when you are in Sydney next time.

tallowood wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:06pm:

Russia to USSR is the same as muzo kai to Buddhism the difference however is that USSR does not exist therefore if Russia ==USSR as you imply then muzo kai is just another religion  :D

I just had this sudden flash of inspiration - A thread with the dumbest things people have ever said on Australian Politics Forum. Do you think it might work?

Go for it!

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:54pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:06pm: Russia to USSR is the same as muzo kai to Buddhism the difference however is that USSR does not exist therefore if Russia ==USSR as you imply then muzo kai is just another religion  :D I just had this sudden flash of inspiration - A thread with the dumbest things people have ever said on Australian Politics Forum. Do you think it might work?

We already have Environment sub forum full of that but I will play the game.
Ready? here it is below:

Atheism is not a religion .

:D :D :D

How do you define Atheism?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:07am:

How do you define Atheism?

/dumb mod off

Another religion  :D

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:11am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:07am: How do you define Atheism? /dumb mod off Another religion  :D

Well according to that definition you are correct.

I hereby define black to mean white.

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:07am: How do you define Atheism? /dumb mod off Another religion  :D Well according to that definition you are correct. I hereby define black to mean white.

What is grey?

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 10:04am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:07am: How do you define Atheism? /dumb mod off Another religion  :D Well according to that definition you are correct. I hereby define black to mean white. What is grey?

Another colour

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:31am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 10:10am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 10:04am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:07am: How do you define Atheism? /dumb mod off Another religion  :D Well according to that definition you are correct. I hereby define black to mean white. What is grey? Another colour

it is #808080
Guess what are #000000 and #FFFFFF

HTML hex color codes

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 8:24pm:

Yadda, Don't you think it's a problem that you could define just about anything by that second definition [of 'religion']: 2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. So horse racing or stamp collecting are religions? Why do you think that a simple lack of belief in deities could be construed as a religion? It's not a pursuit, it's not even an interest and it is rarely followed with devotion....

muso,

Whether we recognise it or not, we are all seeking TRUTH, 'reality', the meaning of life, are we not?

[Well some of us imagine we are, anyway.]


The Bible / God / Jesus suggests that our [human] fault, is that man is so easily engrossed in, and with this world.

The suggestion is that we have all become [almost exclusively] carnal creatures, instead of [also?] meditative creatures.

We have 'killed' [the idea of] God, and have come to 'worship' the creation, and not the creator.

And without [or with very little] meditation on God, we learn to do that which is carnally pleasing, irrespective of whether or not it is 'moral'.

And that is the point.

We are on the wrong path, but so often, "....if it feels good", we don't care.



So, we are on the wrong path, but we don't care.

And we don't care, because we are on the wrong path.



Unless we [mankind] seek God, we cannot know him.

And if we do not know him, we cannot be led by him [by his spirit].

And instead, we will do that which is right in our own eyes.

And that is where we all are today.

God is 'dead' in our hearts, and look at this [God-less] world, which we are responsible for.


Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22  The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23  But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


Deuteronomy 4:28
And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
29  But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
30  When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
31  (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.


Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13  Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14  Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15  Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16  Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17  And the way of peace have they not known:
18  There is no fear of God before their eyes.



The Preacher speaks here, of the days of men's lives, here in this life...

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11  He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
12  I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. 29  But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. 30  When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31  (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deuteronomy is interesting. Do you also like these verses?

2:33  And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

2:34  And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Shades of Islam there.

3:3  So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.       (3:3-6)
3:4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.      
3:5 All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many.      
3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Pretty violent stuff, don't you think, but it comes with a few health benefits:

7:14  Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.          
7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Sounds pretty cool - nobody gets sick or infertile.

10:16  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

I've heard that this can happen to older people if a Viagra tablet gets stuck in their throat.

By the way, some interesting information on how to treat Muslims:

12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:      

12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Shades of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the Buddhas of Bamiyan and some high explosives.

12:27  And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.

It seems a bit gory. I didn't realise Christians still did this. Is that bit still relevant? I mean - is being a vegetarian consistent with Christianity? Put it this way, how do you tell if the passage you quoted from Deuteronomy was still relevant? Do you have some kind of Holy Document control page that says - stop with the sacrifices, don't stone the homos and don't sell your daughters into slavery for any price - these are no longer applicable - signed Jehov.

14:1  Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Hold on to that monobrow!

I would read some more, but as a pacifist and a vegetarian, I get a bit nauseated by all the tales of destruction in that book that are sanctioned by your God.

How long ago was that?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 2:34pm:

Quote: Deuteronomy 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. 29  But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. 30  When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31  (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. Deuteronomy is interesting. Do you also like these verses? 2:33  And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. etc, etc, etc.

muso,

Don't you know, that God is righteous, in all the things that he does?


Preceding your Deuteronomy 2:33 passage.....

Deuteronomy 2:26
And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying,
27  Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left.
28  Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet;
29  (As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God giveth us.
30  But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
31  And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
32  Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

33  And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.



The children of Israel were used by God, to destroy the people of the land, which they [The children of Israel] went in to possess.

Those people were destroyed, not because of their innocence, but because of their great wickedness.

And the children of Israel were a witness against those ppl, and their wickedness.

And the fate of those nations, was intended to be a warning, against the un-godly.



We are those same ppl.

In our earthen bodies, we 'possess' God's 'promised' land,
....and we defile it, by our wickedness.

Do you think we can resist, and defy, God?

Why of course we can!, because there is no God.

God is dead.
/sarc off

We do what is right, in our own eyes.



Isaiah 43:8
Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
9  Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
10  Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11  I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12  I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
13  Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?



Isaiah 44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
2  Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
3  For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
4  And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
5  One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
6  Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
7  And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.



Psalms 135:4
For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.



God is just.

And we [men] are fools.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 2:55pm:

How long ago was that?

It was back in my school days I think. Have they removed that part of the Bible since then?

So are you saying it doesn't really count because it was a long time ago - much like the pedophilia accusations leveled against Big Mo?

I guess it must be still relevant for people like Yadda (pbuh) to quote whole passages out of Deuteronomy. They obviously celebrate these massacres of men women and children so much that it's included in the sacred scripture.

Again he didn't answer the question. If the section of Deuteronomy was relevant in some way, how do we tell what's relevant and what's not? - or is it a question of we really ought to be stoning people for eating prawns and crayfish, conducting business on the Sabbath, for being homos and for women who approach the altar while they're having a period.

If the OT is irrelevant, why was Yadda preaching it to me and for that matter, why is it still part of your sacred scripture?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 4:18pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 2:55pm: How long ago was that? It was back in my school days I think. Have they removed that part of the Bible since then? So are you saying it doesn't really count because it was a long time ago - much like the pedophilia accusations leveled against Big Mo? I guess it must be still relevant for people like Yadda (pbuh) to quote whole passages out of Deuteronomy. They obviously celebrate these massacres of men women and children so much that it's included in the sacred scripture. Again he didn't answer the question. If the section of Deuteronomy was relevant in some way, how do we tell what's relevant and what's not? - or is it a question of we really ought to be stoning people for eating prawns and crayfish, conducting business on the Sabbath, for being homos and for women who approach the altar while they're having a period. If the OT is irrelevant, why was Yadda preaching it to me and for that matter, why is it still part of your sacred scripture?

The time scale matters because what is now looks like a genocide was acceptable modus operandi  in previous days.
For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries.

I hope I haven't caused offense. I really don't mind ordinary Christians who mind their own business.

Perhaps it's just a perfectly normal reaction to bring into focus the truly feral nature of the source material when being preached meaningless diatribes of sanctimonious self-indulgent twaddle by pusillanimous hypocrites who don't understand their own religion.

Now you'll probably go out and pray for me in some self deluded act of self gratification.  Enjoy! Such habituation may give you a short lived mental orgasm, but it can't prevent you from going blind or at least remaining blind in the long run.

So in summary, let's chill out.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

The time scale matters because what is now looks like a genocide was acceptable modus operandi  in previous days. For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries.

So given that genocide is anathema to 20th century mores, the question is - should we allow uncensored access to this kind of material by children?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:20pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:12pm: The time scale matters because what is now looks like a genocide was acceptable modus operandi  in previous days. For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries. So given that genocide is anathema to 20th century mores, the question is - should we allow uncensored access to this kind of material by children?

It doesn't really matters because Novelty Wave amplitude will reach Zero value approximately in 4 years and 22 days.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries.

I knew you'd see reason eventually. Mao Zedong was indeed an atheist.  I knew you'd come around to my definition of the word eventually. Freediver probably still thinks he was an Agnostic though.

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:12pm: For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries. I knew you'd see reason eventually. Mao Zedong was indeed an atheist.  I knew you'd come around to my definition of the word eventually. Freediver probably still thinks he was an Agnostic though.

I think Bob Hawk was an agnostic, at least he said so about himself. He was Fabianist as well and delivered set of lectures called something like "Resolution of conflict" in which he advocated team work I think.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:47pm:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:34pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:12pm: For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries. I knew you'd see reason eventually. Mao Zedong was indeed an atheist.  I knew you'd come around to my definition of the word eventually. Freediver probably still thinks he was an Agnostic though. I think Bob Hawk was an agnostic, at least he said so about himself. He was Fabianist as well and delivered set of lectures called something like "Resolution of conflict" in which he advocated team work I think.

I didn't think you'd appreciate the meaning. You see I've always said that an atheist doesn't believe in Gods. Some of you made the argument that an atheist denies the existence of God.

I maintained that a person on a remote island or a Buddhist who had never come in contact with Christian mythology and didn't believe in other deities could be defined as atheist, and in fact even a fish is atheist.

By your inclusion of Mao Zedong, you are accepting my generic definition of atheist, since in fact Mao Zedong was an example of a person brought up in a Buddhist tradition with no exposure to Christian Mythology. FD would probably still regard him as an Agnostic.  

So as I said before, I'm pleased that you eventually saw reason and abandoned the original unworkable definition.

So now that we are agreed that this inclusive definition of an atheist as a person who doesn't believe in gods, it is much simpler to realise that an atheist may actually have a religion, such as Buddhism, but that the mere fact of being atheist (adj) does not necessarily imply that he belongs to a religion of any description.  

When Mao was under influence of Buddhism he did  not kill. He went on murdering spree after he changed his religion to atheism.
Now what was in common between Mao, Stalin and Polpot when they began mass murdering? That's right by that time they all become atheists. And that wasn't thousands of years ago like in Bible but less then hundred, in living memory so to speak.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 7:45am:

When Mao was under influence of Buddhism he did  not kill. He went on murdering spree after he changed his religion to atheism. Now what was in common between Mao, Stalin and Polpot when they began mass murdering? That's right by that time they all become atheists. And that wasn't thousands of years ago like in Bible but less then hundred, in living memory so to speak.

Read my last post again until you understand my point. It obviously went over your head.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:25am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 7:45am: When Mao was under influence of Buddhism he did  not kill. He went on murdering spree after he changed his religion to atheism. Now what was in common between Mao, Stalin and Polpot when they began mass murdering? That's right by that time they all become atheists. And that wasn't thousands of years ago like in Bible but less then hundred, in living memory so to speak. Read my last post again until you understand my point. It obviously went over your head.

I've read it and it went under my feet.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:40am:

I didn't think you'd appreciate the meaning. You see I've always said that an atheist doesn't believe in Gods. Some of you made the argument that an atheist denies the existence of God. I maintained that a person on a remote island or a Buddhist who had never come in contact with Christian mythology and didn't believe in other deities could be defined as atheist, and in fact even a fish is atheist. By your inclusion of Mao Zedong, you are accepting my generic definition of atheist, since in fact Mao Zedong was an example of a person brought up in a Buddhist tradition with no exposure to Christian Mythology. FD would probably still regard him as an Agnostic.   So as I said before, I'm pleased that you eventually saw reason and abandoned the original unworkable definition. So now that we are agreed that this inclusive definition of an atheist as a person who doesn't believe in gods, it is much simpler to realise that an atheist may actually have a religion, such as Buddhism, but that the mere fact of being atheist (adj) does not necessarily imply that he belongs to a religion of any description.

Some Buddhist sects accept the existence of gods but not the concept of a singular all powerful deity who created the universe, through whom all things were made and to whom all things belong and will return. Buddhist gods in the Tibetan expression are simply higher beings who themselves are very unlikely to attain Nirvana because they are too attached to the comforts of their existence to seek Buddhism's ultimate reality.

That aside, it would be more accurate to refer to Buddhism as non-theistic, as opposed to atheistic, which has come to mean rejection of the existence of god(s) including the need for dogmatic religion to define a mystic super-reality.

Is there a distinction between non-theistic and atheistic? Both espouse a lack of belief in deities.

I've always maintained that most terms referring to religion and 'atheism' are indistinct and subject to various interpretations. The number of varied dictionary definitions that exist attest to that.  

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:11am:

Is there a distinction between non-theistic and atheistic? Both espouse a lack of belief in deities. I've always maintained that most terms referring to religion and 'atheism' are indistinct and subject to various interpretations. The number of varied dictionary definitions that exist attest to that.

I'm glad that you recognise that atheism is different form of religion. :)

So you don't recognise that non-religious atheists exist, and you infer that 'atheism' is a religious belief but never a 'non-religious belief'.

If that's your definition, I'll explain that (in common with most people who would consider that the term 'atheist' applies to them)  happen to be non-religious.  

Now if you reply to that, you're acknowledging my existence, and I'd hate to have you compromise your belief system.

(Of course if you didn't understand the Mao Zedong post, that might be a little too hard for you to understand)

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:11am:

Is there a distinction between non-theistic and atheistic? Both espouse a lack of belief in deities. I've always maintained that most terms referring to religion and 'atheism' are indistinct and subject to various interpretations. The number of varied dictionary definitions that exist attest to that.

I agree that they could be considered synonyms but atheism has come to mean more than just the rejection of the existence of a deity. In common usage it also includes the rejection of dogmatic religion whether or not that religion includes as its central tenet the existence of a god or gods.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

So you don't recognise that non-religious atheists exist, and you infer that 'atheism' is a religious belief but never a 'non-religious belief'. If that's your definition, I'll explain that (in common with most people who would consider that the term 'atheist' applies to them)  happen to be non-religious.   Now if you reply to that, you're acknowledging my existence, and I'd hate to have you compromise your belief system. (Of course if you didn't understand the Mao Zedong post, that might be a little too hard for you to understand)

Wouldn't "non religious" atheists by any chance deny existence of God?
Did Mao deny existence of god(s)?
Wasn't Mao atheist and mass murderer?

What do you not understand about my reply to "Mao post"?

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:14am:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:58am: So you don't recognise that non-religious atheists exist, and you infer that 'atheism' is a religious belief but never a 'non-religious belief'. If that's your definition, I'll explain that (in common with most people who would consider that the term 'atheist' applies to them)  happen to be non-religious.   Now if you reply to that, you're acknowledging my existence, and I'd hate to have you compromise your belief system. (Of course if you didn't understand the Mao Zedong post, that might be a little too hard for you to understand) Wouldn't "non religious" atheists by any chance deny existence of God? Did Mao deny existence of god(s)? Wasn't Mao atheist and mass murderer? What do you not understand about my reply to "Mao post"?

As Mao once said to the Dalai Lama, "Religion is poison".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:06am:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:11am: Is there a distinction between non-theistic and atheistic? Both espouse a lack of belief in deities. I've always maintained that most terms referring to religion and 'atheism' are indistinct and subject to various interpretations. The number of varied dictionary definitions that exist attest to that.   I agree that they could be considered synonyms but atheism has come to mean more than just the rejection of the existence of a deity. In common usage it also includes the rejection of dogmatic religion whether or not that religion includes as its central tenet the existence of a god or gods.

What central tenet?

It's just a definition - it just means a lack of belief in deities. It's just a simple 'Not' Gate with an output of 1. It doesn't even have peripheral tenets let alone a central tenet.

In the definition that most non religious people use, existence is an irrelevant complication. The Sun or the Moon obviously exist, but an Atheist wouldn't believe in them as gods, whereas some theists would.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:21am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 11:14am: muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:58am: So you don't recognise that non-religious atheists exist, and you infer that 'atheism' is a religious belief but never a 'non-religious belief'. If that's your definition, I'll explain that (in common with most people who would consider that the term 'atheist' applies to them)  happen to be non-religious.   Now if you reply to that, you're acknowledging my existence, and I'd hate to have you compromise your belief system. (Of course if you didn't understand the Mao Zedong post, that might be a little too hard for you to understand) Wouldn't "non religious" atheists by any chance deny existence of God? Did Mao deny existence of god(s)? Wasn't Mao atheist and mass murderer? What do you not understand about my reply to "Mao post"? As Mao once said to the Dalai Lama, "Religion is poison".

In that case he was obviously talking about Buddhism, which doesn't necessarily involve deities.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:14am:

Wouldn't "non religious" atheists by any chance deny existence of God? Did Mao deny existence of god(s)? Wasn't Mao atheist and mass murderer?

1. No. The word deny is at issue. Remember how silly the conversation became when we talked about you denying Ganesh?

2. Again no. Theism was never part of his culture.
3. Atheist - yes, but FD might strictly consider him an Agnostic, because the tradition that he rejected was Buddhism, not theism.
Mass murderer - that's my understanding.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 11:21am: tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 11:14am: muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:58am: So you don't recognise that non-religious atheists exist, and you infer that 'atheism' is a religious belief but never a 'non-religious belief'. If that's your definition, I'll explain that (in common with most people who would consider that the term 'atheist' applies to them)  happen to be non-religious.   Now if you reply to that, you're acknowledging my existence, and I'd hate to have you compromise your belief system. (Of course if you didn't understand the Mao Zedong post, that might be a little too hard for you to understand) Wouldn't "non religious" atheists by any chance deny existence of God? Did Mao deny existence of god(s)? Wasn't Mao atheist and mass murderer? What do you not understand about my reply to "Mao post"? As Mao once said to the Dalai Lama, "Religion is poison". In that case he was obviously talking about Buddhism, which doesn't necessarily involve deities.

He was. Mao was an atheist by the common usage of the term, which by that includes his rejection of all religion. In that context he was more than just non-theistic.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:14pm:

What central tenet? It's just a definition - it just means a lack of belief in deities. It's just a simple 'Not' Gate with an output of 1. It doesn't even have peripheral tenets let alone a central tenet. In the definition that most non religious people use, existence is an irrelevant complication. The Sun or the Moon obviously exist, but an Atheist wouldn't believe in them as gods, whereas some theists would.

The term atheism has come to mean more than simply a lack of belief in deities, it now also means a rejection of dogmatic religion. When someone declares themselves an atheist, it would not occur to anyone to ask if perhaps they were a Buddhist... In the common use of the term their non-religious status would also have been declared. In other words, I believe atheists would not consider themselves religious.

Existence (or non-existence) is precisely the point of atheism. Atheism is the denial of the existence of god(s) (and also rejection of the need for a dogmatic religion to define a super-reality).

Yes the sun and moon exist... as physical celestial bodies. An atheist would argue that while these entities exist, they are not manifestations of gods because gods do not exist.

Well put Helian, I could happily go along with your definition.
I dislike the wishy washy fence sitting versions where people are afraid to confront or offend.
If you can't offend religion, then what purpose does it serve?

As for tallo's ludicrous attempts to link atheism to despotism, well they are plain dumb.

If you are looking for tenuous links, then I think you will find that all the despots ate food, so obviously that means eating cause violence. ::)

mozzaok wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:25pm:

Well put Helian, I could happily go along with your definition. I dislike the wishy washy fence sitting versions where people are afraid to confront or offend. If you can't offend religion, then what purpose does it serve? As for tallo's ludicrous attempts to link atheism to despotism, well they are plain dumb. If you are looking for tenuous links, then I think you will find that all the despots ate food, so obviously that means eating cause violence. ::)

Did I offend your religion moz that you go on righteous tangent like this?

:) :) :)

It's important to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:24pm:

It's important to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing.

Jesus was convicted by Roman Law.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:39pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:24pm: It's important to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing. Jesus was convicted by Roman Law.

It's important to understand the meaning of homonym.

What is more important?

1 to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing

OR

2 to understand the meaning of homonym

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 5:49pm:

The term atheism has come to mean more than simply a lack of belief in deities, it now also means a rejection of dogmatic religion. When someone declares themselves an atheist, it would not occur to anyone to ask if perhaps they were a Buddhist... In the common use of the term their non-religious status would also have been declared. In other words, I believe atheists would not consider themselves religious. Existence (or non-existence) is precisely the point of atheism. Atheism is the denial of the existence of god(s) (and also rejection of the need for a dogmatic religion to define a super-reality). Yes the sun and moon exist... as physical celestial bodies. An atheist would argue that while these entities exist, they are not manifestations of gods because gods do not exist.

Everybody seems to define 'Atheist' differently. As far as I am concerned, it is the natural state to be atheist. Children are born atheist.

I have also argued before that it is a tiny minority of Atheists who would 'reject dogmatic religion'

I don't have any problem with your conviction, but I just don't think it's as widespread as you seem to think it is. You're attempting to narrow the definition of atheist, and for some reason align with the current fundamentalist Christian misconception of the term.

The prefix a- should be applied in the same way that other words with this prefix are treated. 'Amoral' simply means without morals. A-theist
means without God or gods. It boils down to a lack of belief in deities.

By all means stick with your own personal version of atheism, but please recognise that it is not necessary for the definition.

I simply do not believe in deities. If I do not 'reject dogmatic religion' does that make me any less of an 'atheist'? I don't think so.

I do happen to reject arrogance and meat, but that has nothing to do with the atheist bit.

tallowood wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:28am:

What is more important? 1 to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing OR 2 to understand the meaning of homonym

Tallow - you dag  :P

- and the majority of the vast unwashed non-religious would never "declare themselves to be an atheist' either. Now that has a kind of revivalist ring to it.

Ask the average Australian 'atheist' what their religion is and they'd think about it then state that they're not really religious - if you press them further, they'd agree that they don't believe in God.

Rejecting dogmatic religion is not exactly one of their prime interests, as the majority would find religion to be downright boring or irrelevant. The worst they'll do is say in a low tone "See that guy over there? He's a Bible thumper"

Now ask them about fishing, sport or drinking with the mates, and you might just elicit a more engaged response.

In the United States, it's a different matter. They have a real barrow to push, because most mainstream Christians over there are well more than a little bit scary  ;D

We have some of the handclappers here, but there are not enough of them to run you out of town or monopolise business or generally make your social life a misery. As a result, most Australians where I come from are pretty apathetic to religion.  

In the younger age-groups, as much as 45% are atheist, or non religious.  The non-religious are growing at a rate of 3% per Census year.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:33am:

Everybody seems to define 'Atheist' differently. As far as I am concerned, it is the natural state to be atheist. Children are born atheist. I have also argued before that it is a tiny minority of Atheists who would 'reject dogmatic religion' I don't have any problem with your conviction, but I just don't think it's as widespread as you seem to think it is. You're attempting to narrow the definition of atheist, and for some reason align with the current fundamentalist Christian misconception of the term. The prefix a- should be applied in the same way that other words with this prefix are treated. 'Amoral' simply means without morals. A-theist means without God or gods. It boils down to a lack of belief in deities. By all means stick with your own personal version of atheism, but please recognise that it is not necessary for the definition. I simply do not believe in deities. If I do not 'reject dogmatic religion' does that make me any less of an 'atheist'? I don't think so. I do happen to reject arrogance and meat, but that has nothing to do with the atheist bit.

It’s rather meaningless to assign the term atheist to an infant as much as it would be to define them as Keynesian economists or adherents of the membrane theory. Without developed reasoning faculties their capacity to discern whether or not they believe X is true is in the realm of what Rumsfeld would call an unknown unknown… they do not know that they do not know.

Which dogmatic religions would atheists (in general parlance) claim to believe?

Words have meaning dependent on how they are used and the term atheist has come to mean more than simply a disbelief in the existence of god(s) in the same way that the word ‘awful’ once exclusively meant ‘deserving of awe’ and now is closer in meaning to ‘dreadful’ – hence the use of the term ‘awesome’ to somewhat revive the old definition and avoid semantic confusion.

Given that nearly all extant religions posit a dogma of the existence of god(s), to reject the existence of such is by that fact to reject the central and crucial tenet of the religion without which adherence to the religion is meaningless. You cannot embrace Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or many of their various expressions without belief in a god or gods.

To reject arrogance and meat (making you a vegetarian with humility) does not appear to be the definition of a religious belief but an indication that you hold convictions that having humility and being a vegetarian (for whatever reason) are part of your preferred lifestyle.

Which dogmatic religion do you still embrace as a self-declared atheist?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:53am:

Ask the average Australian 'atheist' what their religion is and they'd think about it then state that they're not really religious - if you press them further, they'd agree that they don't believe in God. Rejecting dogmatic religion is not exactly one of their prime interests, as the majority would find religion to be downright boring or irrelevant. The worst they'll do is say in a low tone "See that guy over there? He's a Bible thumper"

I'm not surpised that they consider being non-religious and having no belief in god to be both bound into the definition of 'atheist', because that is what the term has come to mean.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 9:39am:

Which dogmatic religion do you still embrace as a self-declared atheist?

None. The key word is reject. I understand it to be a very  active term. I don't happen to hold any religious beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise, but I don't see the harm in most religion either.

So I don't reject any religions. I actually have been known to encourage them by donating to the Church fete or some such thing.

The way I feel, not all religions are dogmatic .

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 9:55am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:39am: Which dogmatic religion do you still embrace as a self-declared atheist? None. The key word is reject. I understand it to be a very  active term. I don't happen to hold any religious beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise, but I don't see the harm in most religion either. So I don't reject any religions. I actually have been known to encourage them by donating to the Church fete or some such thing. All religions are not dogmatic the way I feel.

I'm not surprised that you do not hold any religious beliefs... you have declared yourself an atheist, after all.

You may see no harm in religion but no doubt you reject the veracity of their tenets, particularly where those tenets refer to god(s).

Which religions have no dogma?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 9:39am:

It’s rather meaningless to assign the term atheist to an infant as much as it would be to define them as Keynesian economists or adherents of the membrane theory.

You're reading too much into it. Atheist in the contemporary definition means lack of belief in gods. The test is "I don't believe in gods". Now add something to that statement to define me as something other than an atheist.  "but I do believe in horoscopes" - still an atheist. "but I believe in magic martians" - still an atheist.

We're talking about the general definition here. Other definitions are specific definitions of different types of atheist. A Buddhist can certainly be atheistic. Many, if not most Taoists are also atheistic.  

When there is absolutely no evidence for something, even a young child will recognise that it's not there. It doesn't require sophisticated patterns of thought or debate or anything like that.

"Doggy here!"  - "Doggy gone"  

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:11am:

muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:55am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:39am: Which dogmatic religion do you still embrace as a self-declared atheist? None. The key word is reject. I understand it to be a very  active term. I don't happen to hold any religious beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise, but I don't see the harm in most religion either. So I don't reject any religions. I actually have been known to encourage them by donating to the Church fete or some such thing. All religions are not dogmatic the way I feel. I'm not surprised that you do not hold any religious beliefs... you have declared yourself an atheist, after all. You may see no harm in religion but no doubt you reject the veracity of their tenets, particularly where those tenets refer to god(s). Which religions have no dogma?

Aboriginal Dreaming? Deism? Zen? Hinduism? Neo- paganism? Javacrucianism? Taoism?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:38am:

tallowood wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 8:28am: What is more important? 1 to understand that religion and conviction are not necessarily the same thing OR 2 to understand the meaning of homonym Tallow - you dag  :P

And you are ..... religious atheist  :)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:11am:

you have declared yourself an atheist, after all.

Well I do declare! "declare' is a bit strong isn't it? I regard it more of a reluctant conclusion than a declaration. I lack belief in gods, so just like that colocasia over there in the garden, or that ..gecko running up the wall, I suppose I must be an atheist organism too.

- but it's hardly an iconoclastic conclusion.

So what do you consider yourself to be? Agnostic?

Here's a test:

Q: Do you happen to believe in any god or gods?

Yes - Theist of some description
No= Atheist of some description.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 10:11am: muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:55am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:39am: Which dogmatic religion do you still embrace as a self-declared atheist? None. The key word is reject. I understand it to be a very  active term. I don't happen to hold any religious beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise, but I don't see the harm in most religion either. So I don't reject any religions. I actually have been known to encourage them by donating to the Church fete or some such thing. All religions are not dogmatic the way I feel. I'm not surprised that you do not hold any religious beliefs... you have declared yourself an atheist, after all. You may see no harm in religion but no doubt you reject the veracity of their tenets, particularly where those tenets refer to god(s). Which religions have no dogma? Aboriginal Dreaming? Deism? Zen? Hinduism? Neo- paganism? Javacrucianism? Taoism?

You may add mild atheism to this list too.  :)

Ok,

Aboriginal Dreaming
Deism
Zen
Hinduism
Neo- paganism
Javacrucianism
Taoism
The subset of mild atheists who happen to be religious. (eg Taoists)

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:26am:

Aboriginal Dreaming? Deism? Zen? Hinduism? Neo- paganism? Javacrucianism? Taoism?

All religions have a code of tenets which devotees are expected to believe and adhere, they could not be religions otherwise.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:34am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 10:11am: you have declared yourself an atheist, after all. Well I do declare! "declare' is a bit strong isn't it? I regard it more of a reluctant conclusion than a declaration. I lack belief in gods, so just like that colocasia over there in the garden, or that ..gecko running up the wall, I suppose I must be an atheist organism too. - but it's hardly an iconoclastic conclusion. So what do you consider yourself to be? Agnostic? Here's a test: Q: Do you happen to believe in any god or gods? Yes - Theist of some description No= Atheist of some description.

To lack belief in god(s) is to declare yourself non-theist, you may, however, be a Theravadic Buddhist.

To declare yourself atheist (in the Australian vernacular) is to also declare yourself non-religious.

It comes down to your definition of dogmatic.

dogmatic - Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.

Dogma: A principle or belief or a group of them

So is the belief that gods don't exist a dogma, and therefore dogmatic?

Tallow - you're slacking - now I'm doing your job.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:59am:

To lack belief in god(s) is to declare yourself non-theist, you may, however, be a Theravadic Buddhist. To declare yourself atheist (in the Australian vernacular) is to also declare yourself non-religious.

Non-theist/ atheist. Do you really want to argue more about the distinction between two already rubbery terms?

Do you use declare in the sense of reveal ?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:40am:

Ok, Aboriginal Dreaming Deism Zen Hinduism Neo- paganism Javacrucianism Taoism The subset of mild atheists who happen to be religious. (eg Taoists)

All of them, that are religions, have dogmas.

With Buddhism, there are the doctrines of reincarnation, Nirvana, the four noble truths and the eightfold path to name four.
Zen includes the doctrine of emptiness.

The dreamtime is a doctrine of faith.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:03am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 10:59am: To lack belief in god(s) is to declare yourself non-theist, you may, however, be a Theravadic Buddhist. To declare yourself atheist (in the Australian vernacular) is to also declare yourself non-religious. Non-theist/ atheist. Do you really want to argue more about the distinction between two already rubbery terms? Do you use declare in the sense of reveal ?

If you want your reader or listener to be clear about what you mean, you must be aware of the general usage of the terms you use. Atheist has a more complex meaning than non-theist such that it has come to mean more than just a disbelief in the existence of god(s).

I use the term declare in the vernacular sense, to state or to claim or to consider oneself, but 'reveal' does not confuse the meaning.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:21am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 9:39am: It’s rather meaningless to assign the term atheist to an infant as much as it would be to define them as Keynesian economists or adherents of the membrane theory. You're reading too much into it. Atheist in the contemporary definition means lack of belief in gods. The test is "I don't believe in gods". Now add something to that statement to define me as something other than an atheist.  "but I do believe in horoscopes" - still an atheist. "but I believe in magic martians" - still an atheist. We're talking about the general definition here. Other definitions are specific definitions of different types of atheist. A Buddhist can certainly be atheistic. Many, if not most Taoists are also atheistic.   When there is absolutely no evidence for something, even a young child will recognise that it's not there. It doesn't require sophisticated patterns of thought or debate or anything like that. "Doggy here!"  - "Doggy gone"

Atheist in the contemporary vernacular means lack of belief in gods and non-adherence to a religion.

Note your use of the conjunction 'but' in the statement  - [I am] an atheist  "but I do believe in horoscopes". You tacitly accept that 'atheist' means more than just a non-belief in god(s).

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:21am:

When there is absolutely no evidence for something, even a young child will recognise that it's not there. It doesn't require sophisticated patterns of thought or debate or anything like that.

As they say, science is often counter-intuitive. A child would be forgiven for thinking by the evidence of his senses that the world is flat.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:43am:

muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 10:21am: When there is absolutely no evidence for something, even a young child will recognise that it's not there. It doesn't require sophisticated patterns of thought or debate or anything like that.   As they say, science is often counter-intuitive. A child would be forgiven for thinking by the evidence of his senses that the world is flat.

You're getting off the track. I'm not talking about whether a belief is or is not justified. I'm just talking about the personal belief itself.

If we don't see an invisible pink elephant, we have no reason even to consider belief in it. When asked the question - Is there a pink elephant in the room? - that answer is no. Did that belief exist before the question was posed? Of course it did.

Tell me - Have you always believed that there was no rainbow serpent in your intestine?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:52am:

If we don't see an invisible pink elephant, we have no reason even to consider belief in it. When asked the question - Is there a pink elephant in the room? - that answer is no. Did that belief exist before the question was posed? Of course it did.

I agree with the first part. The second (Did that belief exist before the question was posed?), I would take a Buddhist approach... The belief neither existed nor not existed.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:19am:

Atheist has a more complex meaning than non-theist such that it has come to mean more than just a disbelief in the existence of god(s).

It doesn't mean a disbelief. It means a lack of belief. There is a subtle difference.

Theism makes a positive belief claim in which existence of some sort of god or gods is asserted. An atheist is someone who does not accept or make this claim. Thus, atheism refers to the absence of theistic belief. That’s it. It doesn’t mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real.

'Atheism' is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Note that this is not the same thing as a positive claim that a god or gods do not or cannot exist. While some have described such a positive claim as “strong atheism,” it should not be taken as being synonymous with atheism.

Here is a better explanation that I can give:

http://www.atheistrev.com/2006/05/defining-atheism-advantage-of.html

Once you start using the word 'exist' for the indefinable 'supernatural', you get drawn into a quicksand of semantics.

- and by the way, I don't agree with everything on that site.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:58am:

I agree with the first part. The second (Did that belief exist before the question was posed?), I would take a Buddhist approach... The belief neither existed nor not existed.

Oh really? so you didn't really know if there was a pink elephant there or not?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 12:07pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 11:58am: I agree with the first part. The second (Did that belief exist before the question was posed?), I would take a Buddhist approach... The belief neither existed nor not existed. Oh really? so you didn't really know if there was a pink elephant there or not?

No, it's a meaningless question. I neither knew nor didn't know as I had never thought about it before, so I cannot say I had an opinion on it either way. Now that the proposition has been raised, I do not believe there is a pink elephant in the room and in principle I'm sure I would have also held that opinion anytime in the past.

Is grebalianism true?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 11:00am:

... Tallow - you're slacking - now I'm doing your job.

"Tallow in its regular course does nothing (for the sake of
doing it), and so there is nothing which it does not do." (c) - TallowTeChing

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 12:12pm:

muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 12:07pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 1st, 2008 at 11:58am: I agree with the first part. The second (Did that belief exist before the question was posed?), I would take a Buddhist approach... The belief neither existed nor not existed. Oh really? so you didn't really know if there was a pink elephant there or not? No, it's a meaningless question. I neither knew nor didn't know as I had never thought about it before, so I cannot say I had an opinion on it either way. Now that the proposition has been raised, I do not believe there is a pink elephant in the room and in principle I'm sure I would have also held that opinion anytime in the past.

Well I can only speak for myself. If I walk into an empty room,  I am aware that the room is empty. If at some later stage somebody asks me the question if I saw a pink elephant in the room, I would quick to  be able to reassure them that I did not. This innate ability is necessarily based on my latent belief that unless I see any aforesaid rose tinged members of the genus Elephantidae, then I am comfortable in the belief that they do not exist.  

I can only sympathise with your own condition in which you are continually confronted with the spectre of not knowing whether or not you were accompanied by a virtual rainbow like menagerie -  a myriad of fluorescent jungle dwellers gaudily stomping and thumping  around you and following your every move.

Perhaps by contrast, I lead a  dull monochrome existence. I always knew my life was lacking a certain je ne sais quoi.

- and here was I thinking it was God.  

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 3:12pm:

Well I can only speak for myself. If I walk into an empty room,  I am aware that the room is empty. If at some later stage somebody asks me the question if I saw a pink elephant in the room, I would quick to  be able to reassure them that I did not. This innate ability is necessarily based on my latent belief that unless I see any aforesaid rose tinged members of the genus Elephantidae, then I am comfortable in the belief that they do not exist.   I can only sympathise with your own condition in which you are continually confronted with the spectre of not knowing whether or not you were accompanied by a virtual rainbow like menagerie -  a myriad of fluorescent jungle dwellers gaudily stomping and thumping  around you and following your every move. Perhaps by contrast, I lead a  dull monochrome existence. I always knew my life was lacking a certain je ne sais quoi. - and here was I thinking it was God.

Whoosh...

No need to feel sympathetic. As I don't think about being dogged by an imperceptible irisian-hued menagerie of exotic fauna, I'm therefore not troubled by them.

Grebelianism doesn't worry me either.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 12:00pm:

Here is a better explanation that I can give: http://www.atheistrev.com/2006/05/defining-atheism-advantage-of.html

I think American atheists have a tougher time with the term than we in Australia do. Over there the term appears to include a rejection of religion (specifically Christianity) but in many parts of the US it appears also to be more complex in that it is synonymous with unpatriotic sentiments. To decouple 'atheist' from that kind of baggage would be hard going. I don't believe even the term non-theist would sweeten the American palette for what many would still see as a euphemism for rejection of core American values.

OK Guys. How big is the room and how small is the elephant? :D :D

No but really, I think you are both on the right track. I do agree with muso that there is a subtle difference between believing something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS.

I have for want of convenience and convention called myself an agnostic when I was still searching and an athiest once I have decided that there was nothing ie. God, out there. To me it seemed the natural step and label to apply.

The new label I will apply while I spend some more time thinking about it is "Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist", of course just because I find statements and values applied to God/s to be ultimately meaningless, does not mean that I don't find them fun.

As Wittgenstein said "Of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent". By silent I think he means not talking with authority. It's why the word pontification has such a strong negative connotation to me. I usually use it as an insult.

locutius wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:32am:

OK Guys. How big is the room and how small is the elephant? :D :D No but really, I think you are both on the right track. I do agree with muso that there is a subtle difference between believing something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS. I have for want of convenience and convention called myself an agnostic when I was still searching and an athiest once I have decided that there was nothing ie. God, out there. To me it seemed the natural step and label to apply. The new label I will apply while I spend some more time thinking about it is "Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist", of course just because I find statements and values applied to God/s to be ultimately meaningless, does not mean that I don't find them fun. As Wittgenstein said "Of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent". By silent I think he means not talking with authority. It's why the word pontification has such a strong negative connotation to me. I usually use it as an insult.

"Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist"... Let's hear you say that after half a bottle of Scotch! :D

It's true that there is a difference to actively believe something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS. My point unfortunately was subtler which was that a thought or idea cannot exist in reality outside a mind that is thinking it. If no mind is thinking it, then the idea cannot be said to exist or not exist. In retrospect all you can say is had I thought about X anytime in the past, in principle I would very likely have held Y opinion about it. I was responding to the proposition that I could hold a belief about X prior to my having ever thought about it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

It's true that there is a difference to actively believe something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS. My point unfortunately was subtler which was that a thought or idea cannot exist in reality outside a mind that is thinking it. If no mind is thinking it, then the idea cannot be said to exist or not exist. In retrospect all you can say is had I thought about X anytime in the past, in principle I would very likely have held Y opinion about it. I was responding to the proposition that I could hold a belief about X prior to my having ever thought about it.

helian,

There is some logic in your words.

Its like those pre-Columbus Europeans....

e.g.
Prior to Columbus discovering the Americas [well, central America anyway] the American continents did not exist, well not for Europeans.

They had no 'conception', of anything outside of their experience [or outside the experience of their fellow travellers, like Marco Polo, who confirmed that, "Yes! China is there!"].


And what is that saying?
....."I think, therefore i am!"

:P

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

"Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist"... Let's hear you say that after half a bottle of Scotch! :D

Why do you think I don't drink? ;D

locutius wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:32am:

I have for want of convenience and convention called myself an agnostic when I was still searching and an athiest once I have decided that there was nothing ie. God, out there. To me it seemed the natural step and label to apply.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves, our actual worldview is continuously changing. I don't really like to apply a label to myself, because we're talking about rubbery concepts anyway. If we apply a label, somebody is just going to hijack it and call us something that we're not.

As far as 'God' not being 'out there',  I can actually conceptualise a personality that talks to me and has done all my life. I don't put any religious slant on that.

(OK. A personal question - do you ever have conversations with yourself, or at least an internalised entity? Don't be ashamed about it if you do. It's perfectly natural. It's just when you get to the stage of  wandering around the streets aimlessly, brown bag covered bottle in hand, loudly talking to yourself that it starts to become an issue. At that stage, be ashamed - be very ashamed. )

OK. I'll be first. I talk to myself! (and I also think I'm sane)

I am totally at ease with that, because I think it's just a consequence of having a primitive brain and a somewhat more advanced cerebral cortex. The primitive brain gets a quick and dirty impression of the world, and the cerebral cortex gets the detailed picture a little bit later.  

That's my personal view and I consider the whole process to be totally awesome, but at the same time, I respect and empathise with the views of others.

I believe there's a hob goblin in that room.
No there isn't!
Well there is one way to check -  Let's have a look and see.
- Ha! just as I suspected - a hob goblin.
- That's not a hob goblin - It's a pug.
- This is what I call a hob goblin. It happens to correspond with my internalised concept of the term "hob goblin".  You can call it a pug if you like.

(mutters to self) - You're wrong though: It is a hob goblin.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

locutius wrote on Dec 8th, 2008 at 11:32am: OK Guys. How big is the room and how small is the elephant? :D :D No but really, I think you are both on the right track. I do agree with muso that there is a subtle difference between believing something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS. I have for want of convenience and convention called myself an agnostic when I was still searching and an athiest once I have decided that there was nothing ie. God, out there. To me it seemed the natural step and label to apply. The new label I will apply while I spend some more time thinking about it is "Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist", of course just because I find statements and values applied to God/s to be ultimately meaningless, does not mean that I don't find them fun. As Wittgenstein said "Of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent". By silent I think he means not talking with authority. It's why the word pontification has such a strong negative connotation to me. I usually use it as an insult. "Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist"... Let's hear you say that after half a bottle of Scotch! :D It's true that there is a difference to actively believe something is NOT as oppossed to not holding a belief that something IS. My point unfortunately was subtler which was that a thought or idea cannot exist in reality outside a mind that is thinking it. If no mind is thinking it, then the idea cannot be said to exist or not exist. In retrospect all you can say is had I thought about X anytime in the past, in principle I would very likely have held Y opinion about it. I was responding to the proposition that I could hold a belief about X prior to my having ever thought about it.

Of course it can't be said at all, because in the saying it the exists. I think Plato's form existed independent from subjective thought so they exist as ideas that may or may not be discovered or do they exist only at the moment of creation of the form's imperfect physical reflection. The physical reflection being actually less real than the form itself that is beyond corruption.

"Skeptical Theological Noncognitivist"  :)I can barely say this sober.

I do still drink but fairly infrequently. I do love my beer but have never really had a taste for spirits or wine. I think wine is just vinager that has gone bad. Oh love port, especially when camping in winter.

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

locutius wrote on Dec 8th, 2008 at 11:32am: I have for want of convenience and convention called myself an agnostic when I was still searching and an athiest once I have decided that there was nothing ie. God, out there. To me it seemed the natural step and label to apply. I think if we're all honest with ourselves, our actual worldview is continuously changing. I don't really like to apply a label to myself, because we're talking about rubbery concepts anyway. If we apply a label, somebody is just going to hijack it and call us something that we're not. As far as 'God' not being 'out there',  I can actually conceptualise a personality that talks to me and has done all my life. I don't put any religious slant on that. (OK. A personal question - do you ever have conversations with yourself, or at least an internalised entity? Don't be ashamed about it if you do. It's perfectly natural. It's just when you get to the stage of  wandering around the streets aimlessly, brown bag covered bottle in hand, loudly talking to yourself that it starts to become an issue. At that stage, be ashamed - be very ashamed. ) OK. I'll be first. I talk to myself! (and I also think I'm sane) I am totally at ease with that, because I think it's just a consequence of having a primitive brain and a somewhat more advanced cerebral cortex. The primitive brain gets a quick and dirty impression of the world, and the cerebral cortex gets the detailed picture a little bit later.   That's my personal view and I consider the whole process to be totally awesome, but at the same time, I respect and empathise with the views of others. I believe there's a hob goblin in that room. No there isn't! Well there is one way to check -  Let's have a look and see. - Ha! just as I suspected - a hob goblin. - That's not a hob goblin - It's a pug. - This is what I call a hob goblin. It happens to correspond with my internalised concept of the term "hob goblin".  You can call it a pug if you like. (mutters to self) - You're wrong though: It is a hob goblin.

I agree about labels muso, that's why I don't begin a conversation by labeling myself but I do use them not as a badge but as a honest way to possibly clarify were my position lies as part of a conversation with someone. This backfired with FD recently as he decided it was an invitation for a pissweak cheapshot that deliberately misrepresented the label I had applied to myself but probably had his desired effect that I couldn't be bothered continuing the conversation. I can't say leasson learned because I will continue to use labels as a tool for clarification if needed, I'll just use them with people that are sensible or gracess enough to appreciate it.

I can't possibly use one label to describe myself because I am a complicated creature and the label would need to be an amalgamation of decriptive labels that reflect my assortment of beliefs from religion, to economics, to justice, to law and order, to politics, to science etc etc. Everything I think about will have some type of thought pattern and judgement. it's why I find the negative connotation of the word discrimination hilarious. Discrimination is just another word for choice. I discriminate everyday. I just don't have arbitrary discriminations such as that person is black so they must be bad. I will however use the aquired knowledge to be prepared or have expectations. That person is Sudanese, they have well documented high levels of accepted violence and theft, so as a stranger I will be cautious. I also discriminate between jam or bonox on my crumpets etc etc.

Yes mate, I do talk to myself. Very often when I am assembling an item that the instructions have proven useless. But also while pondering something deep and meaningful or a new insight, or asking questions. So far it has always been me answering back, as far as I know. Well nothing I can identify as a Vincent Price type voice anyway. :) I do like your explaination about the conflict between base and higher mental activities and have often said to others that this is the fundamental conflict that separates us from becoming true human beings. The ones that do this successfully are so few that they shine though the ages and are given often supernatural status.

Have you ever read Richard Bach's "Illusions" the story of a reluctant Messiah. If you haven't I think you would enjoy it immensly. like Johnathan Livingstone Seagull you could read it in under an hour, but will keep you thinking much longer.

I think the word "Atheist", has been subjected to an attempted hijacking by Theists who are challenged by the idea that everyone cannot accept their accession of their personal god delusions.

I am quite happy with the term, as it is generally understood, to merely be a descriptive noun of those people who choose not to believe in gods, and the plural is appropriate, as their are literally thousands of different deities that people believe in.

The theists attempt to confuse the issue by exploiting the generally more open minded, and fair nature of most atheists, by introducing, quasi existential concepts of god, which they as theists would never entertain, having already fully accepted their own personal fictional sky daddys.

So to clarify the term on a personal level, I will tell these theists, that Atheist just means I don't believe in any god that they do.

Well said Mozz. You have made the term your own by forwarding the definition that applies to you and still fits the term.

Can I ask you, even though you do not believe do you consider it appropriate to say that you don't know.

I mean, I don't know for sure if there is a God or not, but I am sure that I do not believe in God/s. Oh and I have started reading The Master and Margarita, did you recommend this? Enjoying it anyway.

Quote:

Can I ask you, even though you do not believe do you consider it appropriate to say that you don't know.

Yes, that is absolutely my position, I do not know, and furthermore, I contend that, at this point of our evolution, no-one else does either.

I have read some very funny, and interesting musings, on possible creators, but all fall into the realm of meaningful, or meaningless conjecture.

Sometimes the mere fact of considering the sheer enormity of the question can be humbling, which of itself is not a bad thing.

No, it was not I who recommended that book, I cannot recall the last time I even read a book good enough to bother recommending, so if you have any suggestions.

I particularly like historical fiction, like the Aubrey-Maturin series (Master and Commander, etc.) by Patrick O'Brian.

I also liked the Flashman series when I was young, I found them terrifically funny, and the historical detail was a definite bonus.

If there is anything deep and philosophical in anything I read now, it is by coincidence, not design.

Ah, maybe it was Jordan that recommended it to me.


Quote:

If there is anything deep and philosophical in anything I read now, it is by coincidence, not design.

I'm a little bit that way with movies these days, not everything has to make me think, I just want 2+ hours of escapism. The last movie deep & meaningful I saw was "The Fountain" with Hugh Jackman. Complete shite. Although the 6th millenium space man stuff was pretty cool.

Funny and good philosophy questions can be had with Terry Pratchett. It is laugh out loud stuff. I still remember him describing the coward wizard Rincewind as coming to the aid of his friend "with all the speed of continental drift". I woke my wife up with the GUFFAW that followed that line.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 12:40pm:

I am quite happy with the term, as it is generally understood, to merely be a descriptive noun of those people who choose not to believe in gods, and the plural is appropriate, as their are literally thousands of different deities that people believe in.

There is probably an infinite continuum of gods actually, even within one branch of a religion. We're talking about a phenomenon that we believe to be an internalised concept after all - (I guess I can only  speak for myself).

If you haven't read them already, I can recommend the Neanderthal Parallex Trilogy by the Canadian author Robert J Sawyer. (Neanderthals, Humans and Hydrids) I first came upon it via ebooks, but have since ordered a number of books by this author from a certain online bookstore.  They represent a very interesting perspective on many issues. They represent a kind of social commentary on society attitudes to religion, sexuality, war, privacy, over population and violence from the perspective of an outside civilisation that is not perfect, but has overcome many of the problems that we have.

Moved to "A Question of Faith"

He seems to very much embrace the christian idea of original sin, Helian.

That extract seemed to have far greater parallels to christian philosophy than any buddhist philosophy I have read.

Many christians focus much more on the "wrathful" god, than the "loving" god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

And now a word from Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the world’s most pessimistic philosophers, who rejected the existence of a loving god. Who embraced with zeal the first of Buddhism’s first noble truth that all life is suffering.

Maybe he came to that conclusion after Christmas shopping with his wife. Life is not all suffering. Christmas will be over in less than a month.  ;)

muso wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 12:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 13th, 2008 at 10:10am: And now a word from Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the world’s most pessimistic philosophers, who rejected the existence of a loving god. Who embraced with zeal the first of Buddhism’s first noble truth that all life is suffering. Maybe he came to that conclusion after Christmas shopping with his wife. Life is not all suffering. Christmas will be over in less than a month.  ;)

Well then, if that was the case, I know how he felt :)

But I think that Schopenhauer was too ugly and miserable for marriage.

We are just monkeys in clothes and with cars and buildings. So our arrogance means that we have to say 'I couldnt possibly just be a carbon based biological lifeform that lives about 100 years and then dies. I must be something more important than that. So yeah there are great mystical afterlife afterdeath places where everything is magical.'

There is no life after death. There is just death.

And atheism isnt a religion. It's just the absence of belief in fairy tales and imaginary beings. Which has another name for it:

Sanity.

Calanen wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 6:42pm:

We are just monkeys in clothes and with cars and buildings. So our arrogance means that we have to say 'I couldnt possibly just be a carbon based biological lifeform that lives about 100 years and then dies. I must be something more important than that. So yeah there are great mystical afterlife afterdeath places where everything is magical.' There is no life after death. There is just death. And atheism isnt a religion. It's just the absence of belief in fairy tales and imaginary beings. Which has another name for it: Sanity.

You might call that arrogance, because, YOU DON'T KNOW.

easel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 7:01pm:

Calanen wrote on Dec 13th, 2008 at 6:42pm: We are just monkeys in clothes and with cars and buildings. So our arrogance means that we have to say 'I couldnt possibly just be a carbon based biological lifeform that lives about 100 years and then dies. I must be something more important than that. So yeah there are great mystical afterlife afterdeath places where everything is magical.' There is no life after death. There is just death. And atheism isnt a religion. It's just the absence of belief in fairy tales and imaginary beings. Which has another name for it: Sanity. You might call that arrogance, because, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Easel, Are you saying here that you know that he doesn't know?
Go on. That's arrogance, because you don't know.

Maybe he does know. Can you look inside his head? You don't know Calanen. Neither do I. Maybe it's a form of revealed atheism.

A lot of Muslims claim to know too. Do they have an exclusive angle on the truth? Substitute Christians, Jews, Buddhists .....

I prefer to give somebody the benefit of the doubt if they think they know. I tend to think it's the know by default in this case though.

muso wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 7:47pm:

easel wrote on Dec 13th, 2008 at 7:01pm: Calanen wrote on Dec 13th, 2008 at 6:42pm: We are just monkeys in clothes and with cars and buildings. So our arrogance means that we have to say 'I couldnt possibly just be a carbon based biological lifeform that lives about 100 years and then dies. I must be something more important than that. So yeah there are great mystical afterlife afterdeath places where everything is magical.' There is no life after death. There is just death. And atheism isnt a religion. It's just the absence of belief in fairy tales and imaginary beings. Which has another name for it: Sanity. You might call that arrogance, because, YOU DON'T KNOW. Easel, Are you saying here that you know that he doesn't know? Go on. That's arrogance, because you don't know. Maybe he does know. Can you look inside his head? You don't know Calanen. Neither do I. Maybe it's a form of revealed atheism. A lot of Muslims claim to know too. Do they have an exclusive angle on the truth? Substitute Christians, Jews, Buddhists ..... I prefer to give somebody the benefit of the doubt if they think they know. I tend to think it's the know by default in this case though.

No one knows. You either have faith/conviction that is is true/isn't true or you are agnostic.

No one knows.....................

How Dare you say that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Easel,

So tell me - What about all these Christians?

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=64580550

"This I know - that God is with me"

http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/GExists.html

He can't be lying. He's a Rev.

http://christianity.about.com/b/2008/04/04/saith-god-can-you-hear-me-now.htm

Are they all lying?

Quote:

You might call that arrogance, because, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Do you know what delusion is? A false belief. It's how psychiatrists determine whether you are sane or not.

You don't KNOW that the one true god is not Papa Smurf who lives on the Dark Side of Pluto. Because, you've never been to Pluto. Or the Dark Side.

It's still a safe bet though, that there is no Papa Smurf God on the Dark Side of Pluto. Even if you haven't been there to check.

And isn't it more arrogant to believe in something, when you don't know? I am only saying I believe in what I know. You are saying, that because we dont know we should believe in it. That's more arrogant in my view.

Whether god exists or not, the practise of compassion by one who accepts that the ubiquity and invincibility of doubt will always prevent any theistic belief, yet upholds the conviction that he owes compassion to others anyway, is all the greater for that than those who have faith and act with the expectation of divine reward.

He is greater than even the believer who performs acts of altruism while at the same time enduring a dark night of the soul.

So anyway, one time I did something without anticipating the consequences of my actions and it wrecked this other person. I had no regrets for what I did just that I felt bad about the end result.

I was crying daily for a good while.

I decided to pray, asking for forgiveness, whilst in tears, for what happened, thinking 'out loud' (how do you describe prayer?) that I didn't feel bad for what I did, only what happened.

I got this sensation, my body froze up and I couldn't move, and I had this feeling, about 10cm or so thick, in a bar, going up and down my body, quickly, probably 10-20 times in about 1 second, then I felt this 'ball', made of the same energy bouncing around inside my chest cavity.

Now I don't know what this was, but in my opinion, having experienced it, it was more than sheer coincidence.

Can you see jesus in this photo?

---

easel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:13pm:

So anyway, one time I did something without anticipating the consequences of my actions and it wrecked this other person. I had no regrets for what I did just that I felt bad about the end result. I was crying daily for a good while. I decided to pray, asking for forgiveness, whilst in tears, for what happened, thinking 'out loud' (how do you describe prayer?) that I didn't feel bad for what I did, only what happened. I got this sensation, my body froze up and I couldn't move, and I had this feeling, about 10cm or so thick, in a bar, going up and down my body, quickly, probably 10-20 times in about 1 second, then I felt this 'ball', made of the same energy bouncing around inside my chest cavity. Now I don't know what this was, but in my opinion, having experienced it, it was more than sheer coincidence.

Guilt reaction?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:20pm:

Can you see jesus in this photo?

Which one of the three is he? The guy in the suit, the Swede, or the one in drag?

easel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:13pm:

Now I don't know what this was, but in my opinion, having experienced it, it was more than sheer coincidence.

Easel,

From what I've seen from your posts, you're not perfect - nobody is, but you're basically a good compassionate person. I don't want to try to take away from you or devalue what you believe in. Everybody believes in something. Even though I might sound like a robot sometimes, I have love and compassion. I'm human just like you and I love my wife my family and friends above everything else. I also love people of all colours and religions.

You have your religion. It's part of your personal 'paradigm'. You have integrated that into the way that you think and live. I would no more try to take that away from you than steal your wallet.

All I'm trying to say here is that we have no idea what experiences other people have.  

Everybody believes something. We have to. It comes with the baggage of being human. We're not digital computers. The best thing we can do is respect each other.

Go in peace.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:20pm:

Can you see jesus in this photo?

I don't know about Jesus, but I think I see Graham Chapman in the centre there. Is that a double exposure?

It is a couple with the guy having their little girl on his knee.
She has on a bonnet type hat.
Jesus' hair is just background foliage.

It is just a matter of perception, some will look at the photo and just see the family, others will see jesus.

Was it just a family photo with a coincidental jesus effect?
Or was the hand of god at work here?

I can't even see the little girl.  "Jesus" is the dominant character in the photo.  The man looks like he has a little dog cuddled up near his face.

It looks like it was the hand of man that created the image of Jesus.

muso wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 6:36am:

easel wrote on Dec 13th, 2008 at 10:13pm: Now I don't know what this was, but in my opinion, having experienced it, it was more than sheer coincidence. Easel, From what I've seen from your posts, you're not perfect - nobody is, but you're basically a good compassionate person. I don't want to try to take away from you or devalue what you believe in. Everybody believes in something. Even though I might sound like a robot sometimes, I have love and compassion. I'm human just like you and I love my wife my family and friends above everything else. I also love people of all colours and religions. You have your religion. It's part of your personal 'paradigm'. You have integrated that into the way that you think and live. I would no more try to take that away from you than steal your wallet. All I'm trying to say here is that we have no idea what experiences other people have.   Everybody believes something. We have to. It comes with the baggage of being human. We're not digital computers. The best thing we can do is respect each other. Go in peace.

The perfect person does not exist. The all knowing person does not exist. A belief/disbelief in God is faith, because it cannot be proven either way. I think agnostics take the sanest route when it comes to a belief in a God of some description.


Quote:

Do you know what delusion is? A false belief. It's how psychiatrists determine whether you are sane or not.

Ever had a consultant psychiatrist in tears saying you are perfect emotionally just occasionally imbalanced, maybe due to extreme stress or biology (not yet determined)? Ever had a clinical psychologist tell you that he doesn't need to see you because he can't find anything wrong?

All whilst maintaining a belief in God, after telling them highly disturbing aspects of your life story that if you told someone in the street they might think you needed to be locked up?

I have.

I was going to reply, but I'll reply privately.

Muso (ex member) wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 7:55pm:

How Dare you say that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to OzPolitic Jehovah. Would you like to elaborate?

Jesus is such a media whore.

Sorry Jehovah, but spare the rod and spoil the child.

easel wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:

Ever had a consultant psychiatrist in tears saying you are perfect emotionally just occasionally imbalanced, maybe due to extreme stress or biology (not yet determined)? Ever had a clinical psychologist tell you that he doesn't need to see you because he can't find anything wrong? All whilst maintaining a belief in God, after telling them highly disturbing aspects of your life story that if you told someone in the street they might think you needed to be locked up? I have.

Are you trying to lead us to the conclusion that your pathology has a metaphysical origin? Are you saying that your physical symptoms are the manifestations of supernatural visitations?

Quote:

A German bishop has told his Easter congregation that mass murder and other crimes committed by the Nazis are evidence that atheism is inhumane. His comments have caused outraged among German atheist organizations. "Without God, everything is permitted." With this famous quote from Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the bishop of the southern Bavarian town of Augsburg wanted to warn his congregation of what he sees as the dangers of atheism.

Atheists killed more then 150 million people just last century.

tallowood wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 10:17pm:

Quote: A German bishop has told his Easter congregation that mass murder and other crimes committed by the Nazis are evidence that atheism is inhumane. His comments have caused outraged among German atheist organizations. "Without God, everything is permitted." With this famous quote from Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the bishop of the southern Bavarian town of Augsburg wanted to warn his congregation of what he sees as the dangers of atheism. Atheists killed more then 150 million people just last century.

So? Doesn't mean they had a religion.

The absence of belief is not a belief.

Is it your contention that Hitler, whose actual religious status is not confirmed, or others, who were known, avowed atheists, like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, would not have committed genocidal atrocities, if they were not atheists?

Do you contend that their lack of belief in a deity motivated their megalomanic behaviour?

We have seen holy wars, where people have used their religious beliefs as justification for embarking on a course of violence and bloodshed, in the name of their deity of choice.

These events can be fairly laid down as having a significant religious motivation.

We also have seen leaders, who were religious men, create, or join conflicts, and have duly claimed having god on their side, but I do not think we could fairly claim that the motivation for their involvement is because of their religious beliefs.

Now the issue of whether the despots I mentioned above, were actually motivated to perpetrate their genocidal atrocities because of their atheism, is something I have often heard claimed, but never seen expounded upon.

Before I can accept that their Atheism was the driving force behind their murderous acts, I would like to hear some evidence to support the contention, otherwise I would just categorise them as like the second group, of theist leaders I mentioned above, whose religious status, did not form the primary motivation for their actions.

Calanen wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 10:54pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 10:17pm: Quote: A German bishop has told his Easter congregation that mass murder and other crimes committed by the Nazis are evidence that atheism is inhumane. His comments have caused outraged among German atheist organizations. "Without God, everything is permitted." With this famous quote from Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the bishop of the southern Bavarian town of Augsburg wanted to warn his congregation of what he sees as the dangers of atheism. Atheists killed more then 150 million people just last century. So? Doesn't mean they had a religion. The absence of belief is not a belief.

But belief in non existence is a belief.

"Without God, everything is permitted."

Quote:

But belief in non existence is a belief.

-Tallo

I don't believe that. ;)

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 10:58pm:

Is it your contention that Hitler, whose actual religious status is not confirmed, or others, who were known, avowed atheists, like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, would not have committed genocidal atrocities, if they were not atheists?

Not only that... the Catholic Church in Germany chose to go along to get along... kept their heads down while the greatest atrocity known to man, Martin Luther's wet dream, played out at the steps of German Cathedrals.

And 'god' was silent.

tallowood wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 10:58pm:

But belief in non existence is a belief. "Without God, everything is permitted."

The burden of proof is on believers... non-believers need not pray for signs.

Buddhism is a non-theistic belief system... no god.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 11:02pm:

Quote: But belief in non existence is a belief. -Tallo I don't believe that. ;)

QED  ;D ;D ;D ;D

tallowood wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 11:06pm:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:02pm: Quote: But belief in non existence is a belief. -Tallo I don't believe that. ;) QED  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Undertand the nuances of the verb 'to believe' grasshopper and the secret of the word game will be revealed unto you.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 11:08pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:06pm: mozzaok wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:02pm: Quote: But belief in non existence is a belief. -Tallo I don't believe that. ;) QED  ;D ;D ;D ;D Undertand the nuances of the verb 'to believe' grasshopper and the secret of the word game will be revealed unto you.

dickie, how is irlish queen doing tonight? Does she have a shaver yet?

The religious zealotry of militant atheists is becoming apparent.

QED  ;D ;D ;D

tallowood wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 11:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:08pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:06pm: mozzaok wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 11:02pm: Quote: But belief in non existence is a belief. -Tallo I don't believe that. ;) QED  ;D ;D ;D ;D Undertand the nuances of the verb 'to believe' grasshopper and the secret of the word game will be revealed unto you. dickie, how is irlish queen doing tonight? Does she have a shaver yet?

Aw, what's up rady boy... sore butt tonight?