RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:18:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve An example of a scientific experiment is the process of coming up with a temperature scale: we know water is has physical existence, we know heat is an empirical physical phenomena, and depending the variable of heat, water which we typically think of as a fluid, can become either a solid or a gas. So you apply heat to water, call the point it boils into steam. Take heat away form water, and call the point it turns into a solid, the freezing point. It's all physics, you don't need god to perform a miracle in order to predict the exact same thing will happen every damn time you perform this experiment - unless it doesn't and you discover that altitude is a variable as well, i.e., the temperature range between Freezing and boiling is also affected by atmospheric pressure, and a number of other factors, salinity, etc., which variables are also controllable, one at a time. Science is a belief system in which you ask question and have faith that there is an answer, and go about finding it in a systematic fashion, religion you just believe, make up reasons to justify those beliefs, and kill anybody who argues with them. Not the same thing, polar opposites really. The only thing they have in common is that there are unknown phenomena, like what happens after you die, that nobody has the answers for - religion typically offers a made up explanation, science can only admit ignorance and test hypothesis, which clearly, many people find less than reassuring, hence the dispute. Uh, I'm not sure we are on the same page. It sounds as if you think I am disagreeing with those views when I was actually disagreeing with the previous poster's definition of religion.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:28:17 AM)
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that science is not atheism or a religion either, as is often charged, science simply ignores hypothetical phenomena whose existence is unprovable, and hence not subject to controlled experimentation. It is a human institution, done by humans, and prone to all the flaw of human institutions including religion, which is also a human institution, but science itself is not the institution, bus the process, the scientific method itself. In that sense you could say religion is also a process, but whether or not you're concerned with empirical data is a definitive distinction, which cannot be simply fobbed off because humans behave similarly under similar circumstances. i.e., scientists argue about stuff the same way theologians do, but in science the argument is always ultimately settled by the data, whereas in religion, the argument is ultimately only ever settled - and temporarily at best - by the sword. Again, a definitive distinction.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:30:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Uh, I'm not sure we are on the same page. It sounds as if you think I am disagreeing with those views when I was actually disagreeing with the previous poster's definition of religion. I probably just hit the "post reply" button at the bottom, which automatically cites the last poster.

rulemylife -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:32:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Uh, I'm not sure we are on the same page. It sounds as if you think I am disagreeing with those views when I was actually disagreeing with the previous poster's definition of religion. I probably just hit the "post reply" button at the bottom, which automatically cites the last poster. No problem.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:53:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the belief in the nonexistence of god. A lack of belief in this context would be irreligion. I, for example am irreligious, I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I don't believe god exists, nor do I believe god doesn't exist, I simply have no beliefs one way or another. The issue simply doesn't exist for me other than as a mildly entertaining metal exercise. Then that would make you agnostic. Which by your definition would also qualify as a belief system, in that you believe there may or may not be a God. And again, by your definition, that would qualify as a religion. Yes, it's bit too loose a definition, like I say, a belief in the rules of football, and unsupportable faith that this year they'll take state, would then qualify as a religion - which it is in some places, like Texas. But to avoid confusion, simply believing something does not automatically make it a religion - both religion and atheism are philosophies, but they are separate and distinct forms of philosophical inquiry, one based on examination of the evidence, the other based on pure abstract conjecture. Constitutionally, it strikes me as a more of a freedom of assembly question, which the court probably avoided rather than open a whole new can of worms, i.e., if it had decided atheism was not a religion then it would appear to be special treatment of religion over other competing philosophies, and categorical establishment by extension - so it opened this one instead, but I'm not at all sure they didn't open the other one anyway.

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:15:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather OK, neither #1 or #2 is applicable, so by the Oxford dictionary's definition you would be an atheist. Yet you aren't comfortable with that appellation. I wonder why? If you don't mind, could you explain briefly why you think it doesn't apply in your case, despite it's seeming to? If you don't want to that's cool, or if you'd rather take this to the other side so as not to take the thread way off topic, that would be cool as well. I'm very curious. To me, atheism is a lack of belief in anything bigger than yourself. What I believe is that man was created to take care of the earth, placed here with the knowledge of that role. The closest I could relate it to a "religion" would be Pantheism.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:18:04 AM)
quote: "I don't believe that god exists" and "I believe that god does not exist." I think your point is that the first could include agnostics as well as atheists and the second could only include atheists. This is splitting a very fine semantic hair and the distinction only works if you ask "Do you believe god exists?" The distinction vanishes if you ask "Do you believe God exists or not?". Here the agnostic would not answer "I don't believe god exists", he would have to answer either "I don't know", or "neither". It is a bit of a "Have you stopped beating your wife" trap. Furthermore, using this as the basis of SMM's whole premise that the term atheist has a broader meaning is fallacious in several ways. First it is a false dichotomy, as shown by SMM's explanation a little further along, it also is a fallacy of composition, necessity, probability, and association. So, it is in fact a red herring as well.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:26:45 AM)
OK, he isn't going to see this because he hid me, but I'll respond anyway, here goes. Maybe if somebody quotes me he'll see it. Theists <Believe god exists> Deista is a theist, she believes god exists. Adeo is not a theist, he does not believe god exists Agnos is not a theist, he does not believe god exists Atheist <Believe god does not exist> Deista is not an atheist, she believes god exists Adeo is an atheist, he believes God does not exist. Agnos is not an atheist. He does NOT believe god does not exist. Agnostic <Don't know or believe it cannot be known> Deista is not an agnostic, she believes god exists. Adeo is not an agnostic, he believes god does not exist Agnos IS a form of agnostic, because he professes not to know. Atheist <Believe god does not exist> ≠ Agnostic <Does not or cannot know>. You can refer to post # 187 for why the argument is fallacious. And neither includes those, like myself who are simply without an opinion, which you falsly call an agnostic. Got it?

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:37:07 AM)
quote: You said "religious belief", I'm not confusing anything, just repeating what you said. No you are not repeating what i said, and yes, I'm afraid you are confusing the two. If not, then why have you spent over 500 words explaining what religion is when that isn't relevant to my point. I never said atheism is a religion. I did say that it is a religious belief, and it is in as much as it is a belief regarding a religious question, and that since all religious beliefs are considered equal under the 1st amendment, atheism is protected along with all the others. And as an addendum, keep in mind that atheism is not a lack of religion, there are atheistic religions.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:46:12 AM)
quote: Then that would make you agnostic. No it wouldn't, an agnostic holds that there is either no answer to the question or that the answer is not knowable. I don't profess to know or not, I don't care what the answer is or if it knowable or not, or even if there is an answer. I don't even ask the question. quote: Which by your definition would also qualify as a belief system, in that you believe there may or may not be a God. No, I specifically said I don't believe anything one way or the other. I don't believe there may be a god, nor do I not believe there may be a god, I have no beliefs regarding god. quote: And again, by your definition, that would qualify as a religion. And again no, if I did hold any of the beliefs you falsly attribute to me, then they would not constitute a religion, but they would constitute a religious belief, and be protected under the 1st amendment.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:52:02 AM)
quote: It sounds as if you think I am disagreeing with those views when I was actually disagreeing with the previous poster's definition of religion. No you weren't because the previous poster you were replying to didn't define religion, so you couldn't be disagreeing with her definition because there was none. You are also confusing "religion" and "a religious belief". The two are connected, they are related concepts, but they are not the same thing.

crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:52:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: "I don't believe that god exists" and "I believe that god does not exist." I think your point is that the first could include agnostics as well as atheists and the second could only include atheists. Yep! quote: This is splitting a very fine semantic hair Yep, and in fairness to me I think I mentioned that this was a point of semantics (and that It's angels dancing on pinheads stuff). quote: and the distinction only works if you ask "Do you believe god exists?" The distinction vanishes if you ask "Do you believe God exists or not?". Here the agnostic would not answer "I don't believe god exists", he would have to answer either "I don't know", or "neither". It is a bit of a "Have you stopped beating your wife" trap. An answer of "I don't know", or "neither" to the question "Do you believe God exists or not?" is equivalent to the statement "I do not believe god exists". Don't you think? quote: Furthermore, using this as the basis of SMM's whole premise that the term atheist has a broader meaning is fallacious in several ways. First it is a false dichotomy, as shown by SMM's explanation a little further along, it also is a fallacy of composition, necessity, probability, and association. So, it is in fact a red herring as well. I have to confess that I've lost you here. Firstly, how is it a false dichotomy? Nextly, how is it a fallacy - since, logically, not believing that something exists and believing that something doesn't exist really, really are two different things - whether the difference is important or not is moot I'll grant you - but the difference is there.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:58:01 AM)
quote: To me, atheism is a lack of belief in anything bigger than yourself. OK, so you're redefining the word to suit your purposes, so there's really no point in continuing the discussion until we can agree on the terms to be used, and I already did that once on this thread and I am not going to go through that again just to explore your particular belief system, as that really is beyond the scope of the thread's topic. If you'd like to continue through cmail, I would be interested.

mnottertail -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:01:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Yep, and in fairness to me I think I mentioned that this was a point of semantics (and that It's angels dancing on pinheads stuff). Yeah, but craze, some of us are going to have some trouble with the shit that's dancing on the head of a pin as you've described it...could you change it to pigs with their guts cut out horrifyingly screaming satans names backwards dancing on the head of a pin to define semantics here? Just for old times sake.....

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:02:39 AM)
Damn you!! You came back! [:D] I have to go write a chemistry exam, I'll pick this up when I get done, OK?

kalikshama -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:17:30 AM)
[image]http://api.ning.com/files/7neU72O1j2BLosz4o-PcDRNxZ8HuL9lTqZ6I0EPB9fU16fK55w8kc5cjG5WuZTHefuWVy4ULlBkrzI6vK876hU4KUp8D7h/eaccat.jpg[/image]

kalikshama -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:20:31 AM)
quote: Well, I simply believe in one less "god" than you do. [image]http://images8.cpcache.com/product_zoom/66815958v7_480x480_Front_Color-Black_padToSquare-true.jpg[/image]

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: You said "religious belief", I'm not confusing anything, just repeating what you said. No you are not repeating what i said, and yes, I'm afraid you are confusing the two. If not, then why have you spent over 500 words explaining what religion is when that isn't relevant to my point. I never said atheism is a religion. I did say that it is a religious belief, and it is in as much as it is a belief regarding a religious question, and that since all religious beliefs are considered equal under the 1st amendment, atheism is protected along with all the others. And as an addendum, keep in mind that atheism is not a lack of religion, there are atheistic religions. Lol, you said it again, "religious belief" - it's a belief about the premise of some of the worlds major religions, you're calling religious belief and a belief about religion the same thing, they're not, and your original assertion was that indeed, "atheism is a religion", the first time I quoted you. Not. It can resemble a religion, no question, as I say it's a question that in terms of science, simply has no answer, so science, as a method or an institution, is technically agnostic, but in order to be a religion, atheism would have to provide some alternative "explanation of everything" - they don't have one, the best you can do is default to science, by process of elimination. Or, you can just not give a shit, but either way that's a philosophy, not a religion. Otherwise, what you're arguing is that if a racist, for example, offers an opinion about Mexicans, that makes them a Mexican, because they happen to have an opinion on the subject.

MadAxeman -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:47:22 AM)
Does a Pastafarian have spaghetti instead of dreadlocks?

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:52:04 AM)
It really boils down to whether it's a universal truth or not, truth in the empirical sense of he word: anybody can boil water, under the same conditions, regardless of race, religion, or philosophy, it's true for everybody, all the time. You apply enough heat to water, it boils, that's science. The diff is that if you put water in a pan and pray for it to boil, it's religion.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875