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

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



Message

kalikshama -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 11:37:23 AM)

Naw, she may disagree with me, but I rarely feel attacked.

I just don't respond people who irritate me. I'd miss too much context if I hid everyone I found irritating.



tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 11:38:21 AM)

I didnt see pam attacking anyone... but thats just my opinion.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 11:39:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
Naw, she may disagree with me, but I rarely feel attacked.
I just don't respond people who irritate me. I'd miss too much context if I hid everyone I found irritating.

Maybe, but I save to read a lot of irritating useless stuff. Anyway - you have your style, I have mine :) .



EternalHoH -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 11:53:29 AM)

"A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods" 

is NOT the same thing as

"A person who believes in the non-existence of god or gods"



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 12:03:38 PM)

FR

The philosophical discussions of atheism always fail because different types of belief are used interchangeably (usually intentionally by the "atheism is a belief" or "atheism requires faith"). One type of belief exists despite lack of evidence, religion requires that type of belief. Atheism does not require that type of belief (in fact strong atheism is just the opposite, it is based on an overwhelming lack of evidence), ergo atheism cannot be included in the set [religions].

As a legal/Consitutional matter I think atheism has exactly the same protections as a religion (no less and perhaps more imporantly no more) and therefore can be considered a religion faiap.



gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 12:08:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

 gungadin09:

I do not understand the attack.

That was not an attack. (If you were referring to the "semantic freaks" comment, it was a joke). If you don't mind my saying so, i think you're too eager to imagine yourself attacked.

This thread has developed for many pages as a discussion exactly about the difference of strong and weak Atheism.

As far as i know, the only person who used those specific terms was you. i have been speaking English my whole life, and i have never heard of any such terms as "weak atheism" or "strong atheism". i have already explained that, at least for me, the term "atheism" means the belief that god does not exist. That is how i understand the term, and how i use it.

The OP was about whether a certain prisoner's right to practice atheism was protected under the First Amendment. It was about whether atheism could be considered a religion, whether it could be considered a religious belief, whether it could be considered a belief at all. By my definition, it is a belief. It is the belief that god does not exist. On the contrary, agnosticism, or having no opinion whether god exists, is NOT a belief, religious or otherwise. However, the OP was never about agnosticism. It was about atheism, or, to use your terminology, "strong atheism". Denying the existence of a god. Since anything having to do with god is religious, any belief about god constitutes a religious belief, including the belief that he doesn't exist. THAT was my point. This "is believing there is no god the same as not believing in god" thing was a tangent.

That was the point... and that was YOUR question I was answering to.

i concede that believing there is no god is not the exactly the same as NOT believing that there is one. i doubt it makes any difference as far as the OP's point is concerned, but you're right. Those two things are not identical. Now that i have conceded that point, perhaps you would like to go over my posts and respond to any of my various rebuttals of YOUR arguments.

If now you have to attack to give a point, that's a pity for you.

i'm sorry if i gave you that impression. It was not my intent. Nothing i've said here was meant to offend.


pam



kalikshama -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 12:09:42 PM)

I'm trying to model myself after AneNoz:

quote:

Further, upon reflection, on her words, that the way I react is on me, I came to see that this was so. The words have no power from my not granting them power. Again with new insight comes realization. No words have power not of my granting. It is my choice to find insult in such words with no meaning. And so it is as well with the anger and insults also. They become the less; they have little meaning when spread so freely upon the ground. As a seed, only they do sprout if I nurture them, I must allow them to grow. Great release is in this lesson, for I am freed from insults, I am freed of my slavery to the opinion of others. From this comes further insight, this lesson applies to all. If I am angered, it is but as I allow. If I am saddened, it is but as I allow. It is upon me to choose the emotions which occur, no longer must I be the slave, but they to me.

Full post here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3877021/mpage_10/key_/tm.htm#3879777



BitaTruble -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 1:28:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
Theology is an aspect of religion.


For theology to be an aspect of religion, religion would have to come first. My children would not exist without me. I exist whether I have children or not. The myth of gods put them as either eternal or immortal. If eternal, then god has always been. If immortal then god cannot die but in both cases, god came first, then came the study of the divine and then religion was born. If you don't believe then religion is rendered irrelevant except, apparently, to the 7th Circuit in WI.

The idea of god and the study of gods and the divine has been around much longer than the idea of establishing religion in the name of god. Theology (as a term) was used in the time of Plato but the term coined 'religion' was about 1500 years later.

That's my argument against your statement. I'm curious to hear your argument supporting it.

A sidenote to SpanishMatMaster - El paradigma se presentó (el ateísmo débil y fuerte) era un trabajo de copia de evilbible.com. Que tuvo la audacia de pedir a otros que apreciamos sus esfuerzos más allá de mi comprensión. Lo que se presentó fue el esfuerzo de otros, no el suyo propio y, como tal, no tengo ningún aprecio por su la falta de esfuerzo y el intento de exponer el trabajo de otros como si fuera el suyo propio. Usted no está haciendo ningún favor al foro cuando se roban el trabajo de alguien más. Por lo menos debería haber citado la fuente, pero supongo que habría sido difícil hacerlo ya que reclamó como propio. Te has portado como un mentiroso y un ladrón, y puede ser que también me esconden ahora porque "nunca" tendrá respeto por el tipo de carácter que han mostrado por sus acciones.






HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:03:58 PM)

quote:

Yep!
Good, because otherwise all the rest would be inapplicable and I'd have to start all over. [:D]
quote:

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).
True, I meant to put something to that effect in, but forgot to. Sorry.

quote:

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?
No, one expresses uncertainty and the other certainty, so they are in fact very different.

quote:

Firstly, how is it a false dichotomy?
Because you are both assuming only two effective answers, dismissing the uncertainty answer by lumping it in with the negative certainty answer, therefore falsely giving only two possible answers when several exist.

quote:

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
There is a slight difference, but the argument is a fallacious for the following reasons <keep in mind that you are using a trick question to force agnostics/irreligious to give a misleading answer>.

1. Fallacy of composition - assuming that because some of those who can answer "I don't believe god exists" are atheists, the same must be true of all those who could answer that way.

2. Fallacy of necessity - because your first premise <all atheists can answer "I don't believe god exists">, and your second <a given person, let's say myself, answered that way> does not automatically lead to the conclusion you have drawn <that all those who answer that way are atheists> because you have forced them into that answer with the "wife beating" question.

3. An appeal to probability - You are postulating that because some people who answer the question with the first answer are atheists, all of them must be. This might be the case if the question were formed so as to allow for the other options as an answer.

4. An association fallacy - the assumption that because both atheists and agnostics could answer the question the same way, they must be the same. Again, this fallacy would be negated by asking the question in a manner to allow the agnostics and irreligious to answer more precisely.

5. A faulty generalization in several ways - accident <ignoring the exception to your assumption>, cherry picking <suppressing certain facts, such as that due to the rigged question, agnostics/irreligious are forced to give an imprecise and misleading answer>, a false analogy <because agnostics/irreligious give the same answer as atheists they must be atheists>, a hasty generalization <basing your conclusion on insufficient evidence, generated by the question preventing the proper evidence from being generated>, and finally a package deal fallacy <assuming that because agnostics/irreligious are often grouped with atheists as non-theists, they must always be grouped together in all circumstances>
and finally, this all makes the entire argument

6. A red herring - because the argument presented to challenge my assertion is fallacious in so many ways because of the rigged question, it doesn't address my point as it is drawing an irrelevant conclusion, namely, that because some of the people you are fallaciously classifying as atheists have no belief one way or another in god's existence, all atheists can be said to share that lack of a belief, which is patently not so.

How's that? I really want to thank you for this exchange, it was very interesting and a lot of fun, we must do it again some time soon.

<Yes, I did have to look up the official names of the various fallacies involved.>

BTW, I aced my exam. It was almost all to do with the periodic table and I know that forwards and backwards and inside out - GO ME!! [sm=cheering.gif][sm=cheering.gif]



mnottertail -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:09:22 PM)

Au!!!!! (196.96655)



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:16:52 PM)

quote:

you're calling religious belief and a belief about religion the same thing
Alright, I can see where my choice of wording has caused the problem. If you prefer the wording "a belief about religion" <or to be more precise I would propose "a belief about a religious question or issue">, then that is fine by me, it does not change my proposal nor my conclusion, namely that the court was correct in ruling that for the purposes of 1st amendment protections, atheism is equivalent to any other religion, because it is a belief about a religious matter.

Remember, if it is not, then atheism is not protected, and the states are free, depending on the wording of their individual constitutions, to pass laws that restrict, penalize, or discriminate against atheists and atheism. I am surprised that atheists are not cheering this decision.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:20:14 PM)

quote:

All you just presented are religious beliefs.
I think that was the point. You presented a series of non-religious beliefs, and Hanners presented religious ones in exactly the same formulation to show that they were all equally beliefs.



tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:24:56 PM)

And this is exactly my point...

Religion is certainly a type of belief system, but not all belief systems are religion.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:48:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather



Remember, if it is not, then atheism is not protected, and the states are free, depending on the wording of their individual constitutions, to pass laws that restrict, penalize, or discriminate against atheists and atheism. I am surprised that atheists are not cheering this decision.[/color]


I, for one, am. As I said before there is a distinct difference between religion in the eyes of the law and a philosophical debate about the existence of god.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 2:59:05 PM)

quote:

The idea of god and the study of gods and the divine has been around much longer than the idea of establishing religion in the name of god. Theology (as a term) was used in the time of Plato but the term coined 'religion' was about 1500 years later.
That's my argument against your statement. I'm curious to hear your argument supporting it.
Common sense and the meanings of the words. The fact that the word now in use was coined at a later date does not mean that the thing so described was invented at that time, it could, and in this case did, preexist the coining of the word, assuming your assertions along those lines is correct, I'm sorry, but I just don't care enough to look it up at this point.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 3:04:35 PM)

quote:

Au!!!!! (196.96655)
[:D][:D] Thanks.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 3:07:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Got it?


i got it. i don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever for the discussion we are having, and i wonder that you brought it up.

pam


It doesn't make any diff. He's trying to go for that "A, not-A, anti-A thing", which is a form of ternary (non-Aristotelian) logic,
"The logics discussed above are all "bivalent" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into true and false propositions. Non-classical logics are those systems which reject bivalence.

Hegel developed his own dialectic logic that extended Kant's transcendental logic but also brought it back to ground by assuring us that "neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either–or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself".[31]

In 1910 Nicolai A. Vasiliev rejected the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction and proposed the law of excluded fourth and logic tolerant to contradiction.[citation needed] In the early 20th century Jan Łukasiewicz investigated the extension of the traditional true/false values to include a third value, "possible", so inventing ternary logic, the first multi-valued logic." from good ol' Wiki. (Count Alfred Korsybski considered bi-variate, "subject-predicate" Aristotelian logic to be a special form (subset, if you will, of a multivariate logic system (his "General Semantics"))(sort of)

That "third value" (from the preceeding) would be the agnostic stance, seems to me.

None of which adresses the "aTheism is a belief system" thingy. Tweakabelle already used the "not collecting stamps" analogy, but that doesn't seem to have been understood very well. That's because the concept lies outside of the binary proposition
which has been expressed as:
A: Scott believes there is no god; and
B: Scott does not believe there is a god.
I would argue that these two statements are semantically equivalent. I suppose one could argue that these two statements, taken together, are an example of the "False Dilemna" Fallacy.

There is the third possibility: there is no god. There are no pink unicorns, there is no giant turtle carrying the Earth around the Sun, and there is no god.

Oh, that "calculation" of the number of jelly beans? One poster committed the fallacy of Specificity. The whole notion that the number of jelly beans can be calculated by knowing the volume of the jar, and the volume of a jelly bean, is false; it rests on false assumptions (BTW, a jelly bean is typically an oblate spheroid, not a cylinder. Can't use pi x r^2 x height.). First, it assumes that all the jelly beans are the same size. They may not be (is a falf a jelly bean still a jelly bean?). Secondly, it assumes that the beans are packed as tightly as possible (ever pour rice into a storage jar, then tap the jar? The rice settles, doesn't it?). Thirdly, it assumes all the space in the jar is avaolable for jelly beans (the filler could have put a hollow tube in the center, and poured the beans around the tube). Probably a couple more assumptions, too

So, how about that word "belief" anyway? Is "belief" in a god the same as the "belief" that the keys are on the table, or that the sun will come up tomorrow?





HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 3:10:28 PM)

quote:

Religion is certainly a type of belief system, but not all belief systems are religion.
I don't see how that is relevant, but I'm not going to argue Hanners' point, I really don't care about it. Like Bita's point, it really has nothing to do with the topic of the OP or my point. Sorry, I'm tired , I didn't sleep last night or today, I was up all night and morning discussing with crazyml and then had an exam to write this aft.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 3:14:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

The philosophical discussions of atheism always fail because different types of belief are used interchangeably (usually intentionally by the "atheism is a belief" or "atheism requires faith"). One type of belief exists despite lack of evidence, religion requires that type of belief. Atheism does not require that type of belief (in fact strong atheism is just the opposite, it is based on an overwhelming lack of evidence), ergo atheism cannot be included in the set [religions].

As a legal/Consitutional matter I think atheism has exactly the same protections as a religion (no less and perhaps more imporantly no more) and therefore can be considered a religion faiap.
I concur.



Lucylastic -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 3:15:25 PM)

Funny that a belief there is no god, is only a religion in the USA
YAAAY



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875