i was watching dogma and it hit me. its like i have to be a critic of movies and media and shit that have or say "god" in them! im going insane i think....

Well, it does have some very militant believers, easily on par with any religion.

Athiests only have on thing in common, and thats that they do not believe in a God. It is not a religion its a belief.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Well, it does have some very militant believers, easily on par with any religion.

Im sure lots of atheists have legs too, much like many people of any religion, that doesn't make it one.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Im sure lots of atheists have legs too, much like many people of any religion, that doesn't make it one.

Did I say it was?

You implied it, or at least it seemed to me as if that was what you where trying to say.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Well, it does have some very militant believers, easily on par with any religion.

i've never seen a war fought to promote secularism.

edit: typo

[This message has been edited by chen (edited 02-27-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by chen:

i've never seen a war fought to promote secularism.

I've seen plenty of wars fought to promote athiesm.

I'm a big fan of secular gov'ts, though. Theocracy is not my bag.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I've seen plenty of wars fought to promote athiesm.

I'm a big fan of secular gov'ts, though. Theocracy is not my bag.



Um... name one. And communism doesn't count. Atheism was a side-effect of communism, not a focal point of the belief. Those wars were fought against capitalist pigs, not theists.

And to the poster: a belief becomes a religion when it attempts to supply an theory about the afterlife. Atheism does not. Individual atheists might have ideas, but those are not part of being an atheist, and seperate from the quality that distinguishes atheism, namely, disbelief in a deity.

Actually, there would have to be something more to the defintion of an atheist, now that I think of it. Buddhism is anti-deitic, but it's followers aren't atheists. Ammend my previous post to say that the distinguishing quality of atheism is a lack of belief in any religion.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Um... name one.

Okay, this isn't a "war" so much as a "political maneuver", but recently in the U.S. there was a movement to take the mention of God out of the Pledge of Alliegance.

It failed, of course, but it was interesting...

well since america calls itself a secular nation why should it's pledge of allegiance have any mention of god?

the reason why the word was not removed is because america is in fact a very religious society.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Um... name one. And communism doesn't count. Atheism was a side-effect of communism, not a focal point of the belief. Those wars were fought against capitalist pigs, not theists.

No, I think Communism counts.

Abolition of religion was a basic and integral tenet to Communism, so I can name plenty of wars started in the name of athiesm.

The pursuit of wealth is a central tenet of capitalism, does this mean the war on Iraq was started in the name of the pursuit of wealth?

Yes.

The right of the Iraqis to pursue wealth in a democratic state.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

No, I think Communism counts.

Abolition of religion was a basic and integral tenet to Communism, so I can name plenty of wars started in the name of athiesm.



Eh... that seems a bit sketchy. I'm not trying to just be all jack-ass "I'm right no matter what", but it always seemed like the atheism was just kind of a side point, and that communism was the main focus. I'll give you wars of communist nation vs. theocracy, though.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

The right of the Iraqis to pursue wealth in a democratic state.

Equivocation. Somebody else's right to pursue wealth (or atheism) is different from you pursuing wealth (or promoting atheism) by invasion.

Weren't the Huns athiest?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Actually, there would have to be something more to the defintion of an atheist, now that I think of it. Buddhism is anti-deitic, but it's followers aren't atheists. Ammend my previous post to say that the distinguishing quality of atheism is a lack of belief in any religion.



I don't believe in religion but I do believe in a creator does that make me athiest? I don't care either way but I'd like to know.

The whole communism atheism wars is kinda iffy, atheism was a part of communism, but so was abolishing capitalism, it was just seen as another institution that separated people. The wars communists fought were never solely about religion, but ending the systems that separated people, which happened to include religion. Atheism isn't about converting people, and there is no atheist church or idealogy. I think a religious war would have to be about changing people's beliefs, or destroying those who did not believe, like the crusades.

[This message has been edited by praisejahmoreherb (edited 02-28-2004).]

Saying wars for Communism are wars for Atheism is probably a slap in the face to any Communist [whether you care or not]. They're fighting for an economic system, not atheism. It just so happens that most communists are atheists. Thats euqal to saying Vietnam was a war for Christianity because most Americans are Christian. It just doesn't work that way.

And as for what makes soemthign a religion, its simply a set of beliefs. There doesn't have to be a deity, it just happens that most religions believe in one. Budhism is an example of a religion without a deity. They have a certain set of beliefs, but do not believe in any God. Atheism has no set of beliefs, it is one single belief that there is no God. If you want to consider a single belief a religion thats your business but that would make just about any belief a religion.

[This message has been edited by SEN D-F (edited 02-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

It just so happens that most communists are atheists.

Religion in the CCCP was forbidden.

It's no coincidence, athiesm is forced upon the people in Communism. They have no choice, just like Communism itself is forced upon the people.

quote: Thats euqal to saying Vietnam was a war for Christianity because most Americans are Christian. It just doesn't work that way.

Neither does my argument. It doesn't work that way.

Your rebuttal is false because the American governmental system is secular in design. There is no religion or lack of religion. No one religion is mandated by the state, and no lack of religion is mandated by the state. It just isn't part of the equation.

In Communist societies(and don't give me the tired 'But.. BUT... RUSSIA WAS A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP!' argument. Yeah, no shit. So was every other Communist country, so what does that tell you?), athiesm is a state doctrine. Religion is viewed a tool to 'oppress' the people, and is not allowed. Hence, in any war where a Communist country is trying to take over another country, athiesm, along with every other Communist mandate, is forced upon the conquered country.

Rabbi, by your own admission in your last post, atheism was merely a natural outgrowth of communism. (People should not be oppressed -> religion oppresses -> no religion). They weren't saying "We're going to conquer you to make you atheist." They said "We're going to conquer you to make you communist. After we conquer you you have to... , become atheist, ... and more things as well". It was just one part of being communist, among many others.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Athiests only have on thing in common, and thats that they do not believe in a God. It is not a religion its a belief.

Its actually not a belief, but a lack thereof.

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:



I don't believe in religion but I do believe in a creator does that make me athiest? I don't care either way but I'd like to know.

Then, no you're not an atheist.

As for the whole communism/atheism thing. Atheism was around way before communism, and any form of government for that matter. Atheism was also around way before any religion.

quote:Originally posted by NewDude:

Its actually not a belief, but a lack thereof.

You think so?

Prove that your 'lack of belief' is right.

It's a belief, no matter how much athiests try to sidestep around that fact.

If you have faith in nothing, you have no faith.

If you have belief in no god, you have no belief in god.

You may believe a god doesn't exist, but you still lack the belief in god. You may not believe either one; most call that agnostic, but it's still atheism (without god[s]).

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

You think so?

Prove that your 'lack of belief' is right.

It's a belief, no matter how much athiests try to sidestep around that fact.

Can we say universal negative? Prove there's not an invisible elephant in your house.

I'm going to borrow aka steal a quote from Clark Adams.

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease"

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

If you have faith in nothing, you have no faith.

If you have belief in no god, you have no belief in god.

You may believe a god doesn't exist, but you still lack the belief in god. You may not believe either one; most call that agnostic, but it's still atheism (without god[s]).

You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who describes himself as one who, "Believes there is no god." Belief is based on faith.

Saying, "I dont believe in god," is very different from saying "I beleve there is no god."

I'll rob another quote. This one from Carl Jung. "The word 'belief' is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. If I know a thing, then I know it -- I don't need to believe it."

is atheism a religion?

is bald a hair colour?

quote:Originally posted by NewDude:

Saying, "I dont believe in god," is very different from saying "I beleve there is no god."

Semantics such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Athiest folks can't handle the fact that they can't prove themselves right. Thiests came to terms with this a while ago, as it goes with the territory.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, and I can't prove that God does. Just to appease you, I'll also state that I can't prove there are pink unicorns on Rigel 7, and you can't prove that there aren't any pink unicorns on Rigel 7.

No matter what position you take, be it the position that God does exist, or that he doesn't exist, you're still talking belief. You're still having faith, your belief that your viewpoint is fact.

The only case where that doesn't apply is agnosticism.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Semantics such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Athiest folks can't handle the fact that they can't prove themselves right. Thiests came to terms with this a while ago, as it goes with the territory.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, and I can't prove that God does. Just to appease you, I'll also state that I can't prove there are pink unicorns on Rigel 7, and you can't prove that there aren't any pink unicorns on Rigel 7.

No matter what position you take, be it the position that God does exist, or that he doesn't exist, you're still talking belief. You're still having faith, your belief that your viewpoint is fact.

The only case where that doesn't apply is agnosticism.





The point is that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

If you come to me and say, "I just saw a pink unicorn fly across the sky."

I say, "Prove you did."

You say, "Prove I didnt."

By definition I cannot prove a universal negative. So does this mean your claim has some merit to it? No. Does the fact that I cannot prove a universal negative mean that there really was a unicorn flying across the sky? No.

Since the burden of proof is on you, then until you can provide some proof its safe for me to say that your unicorn doesnt exist.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

The only case where that doesn't apply is agnosticism.

When you say "agnostic" you mean the same thing that I (and most other atheists) do when I say I'm an atheist.

I am without theism. I lack belief in God.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

When you say "agnostic" you mean the same thing that I (and most other atheists) do when I say I'm an atheist. I am without theism. I lack belief in God.

I very much doubt that. If you think that's my definition of agnostic, you're mistaken.

Agnostic means, without literally looking at the root, that you can't make a decision either way, because of lack of evidence on either side. If you say you're an athiest, AGAIN, without literally looking at the root of the word, and instead considering the common definition, you are certain in the lack of a God, despite any proof.

You are about as agnostic as I am.

quote:If you say you're an athiest, AGAIN, without literally looking at the root of the word, and instead considering the common definition

I don't use the common definition, I use the one that comes from the root of the word.

Why do I do this?

1. My meaning can be inferred from the word itself (a-theist, "not theist")

2. "Weak atheist", "strong atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are far more descriptive than "agnostic" and "atheist"

3. Agnostic seems to me like a rather wishy-washy term

4. There is so much confusion about the meaning of the terms anyways that whichever definition you choose half the people you talk to won't understand what you mean

I am not certain there are no gods, I simply have no reason to think there are.

Belief-n :

1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.



Rabbi: what you're saying agree's with the second definition, but not the first, and not really the third. My arguement was that I'd always though of a belief along the lines of the first. Something you trusted was right. A belief requires faith. I don't have faith that there is no God. That question has withstood the test of reason, and I've proactively come to the conclusion. I don't trust some source telling me that it's right. You could argue that I have faith in my reason, but thats really pushing the envolope in this discussion. You are semantically right though.