Pastor in US burns Koran, Afghans kill 8 UN workers in protest

[blankall]

Originally Posted by evman150

I don't remember you from previous iterations of this thread topic, but you sure have made your mark in this one. Every one of your apologetic bull####tings reeks of ignorant special pleading and blatant false equivalence.

Really, I have a bachelor of science degree in biology. So I do know a thing or two about science...well at least what alcohol hasn't erased.

I'm sorry that as an atheist you think your own views are not "ideologies" and, therfore, somehow superior and incapable of resulting in irrational actions and/or violence, but you are wrong.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

1) there is no god

2) there is no heaven

3) there is no soul

4) god is not a fish

5) god is not a my dad's old hunting trophy

Are these not all beliefs you must have to be an atheist? A system of beliefs even....isn't there a word for that?

You didn't even get the first one right, atheism (like theism) is about belief, not knowledge.

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's either the lack of belief (for one kind of atheism), or a single belief (for another kind).

In the same way theism isn't a belief system, it's a single belief, that the proposition that a god exists is true.

Being a theist doesn't dictate one believes in heaven, in a soul, or what form a particular god may take. Those are parts of a larger belief system.

[Traditional_Ale]

I wonder if blankall is having some kind of faith crisis? I mean, his posts were overly zealous calling out athiests, even in the face of reasonable contrary points. I'm inclined to argue that he was coming from a position of personal reaffirmation of his own faith, although I'd also be willing to argue he left with even more questions.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's fun.

Haha, damn straight it is.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

If you knew enought about science, you would no that nothing can ever be 100% certain. Every principle in science is in some way based on belief. That belief may be based on extensive evidence, but it is belief nonetheless.

They're not called beliefs though, they're called provisions or assumptions, and really there are very few of them.

1) Stuff exists, solipsists don't get to play.

2) Stuff is consistent, i.e. there isn't someone behind the scenes pulling strings to change the rules on the fly.

That's all I can think of, got any other examples?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nice and big so you can read it.

I don't think I've ever said anything contrary to these graphs.

My claim is that atheism and religion are both ideologies. One is based on faith and the other on physical evidence, but both require belief.

The first figure through its basis of continual improvement acknowledges that nothing is ever truly known and all scientific concepts require some kind of belief. The differene between this form of belief and the belief in religion, is the kind in religion requires no physical evidence, and as figure two states religious beliefs can even involve purposely ignoring physical evidence and choosing faith instead.

[photon]

I'm struggling to understand how the lack of belief in something can result in "irrational actions and/or violence".

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I know I know...you hate cartoons.

Not me. I like cartoons. This one isn't true though. The whole reason we are talking about atheism in a thread about the murder of some UN workers is some of your group's baggage. You folks believe that religion is responsible for all of the earth's wars. You folks believe the world would be better off without religion. Some of you more rabid atheists believe that humans will evolve to a point where they will reject all religion. There is also the arrogant belief that people just needs to be educated and they will reject religion. This is very similar to the belief amonst communism regarding "re-education".

Your ample baggage causes you to start countless threads on the ills of religion and even high-jack threads such as this one.

You are bothersome but, I do repect and support your right to free religious expression.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by photon

They're not called beliefs though, they're called provisions or assumptions, and really there are very few of them.

1) Stuff exists, solipsists don't get to play.

2) Stuff is consistent, i.e. there isn't someone behind the scenes pulling strings to change the rules on the fly.

That's all I can think of, got any other examples?

Stuff is knowable, and we can know it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

The first figure through its basis of continual improvement acknowledges that nothing is ever truly known and all scientific concepts require some kind of belief. The differene between this form of belief and the belief in religion, is the kind in religion requires no physical evidence, and as figure two states religious beliefs can even involve purposely ignoring physical evidence and choosing faith instead.

So willful blindness + facism = faith?

I'll take my steak and a case of beer.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I wonder if blankall is having some kind of faith crisis? I mean, his posts were overly zealous calling out athiests, even in the face of reasonable contrary points. I'm inclined to argue that he was coming from a position of personal reaffirmation of his own faith, although I'd also be willing to argue he left with even more questions.

Reasonable contrary evidence?

So no crime has ever been committed in the name of atheism? Ever? It's just not possible? My main point is atheism is an ideology like all other ideologies it can be twisted to produce bad results.

Atheism creates a divide between people just as much as any other religious divide. These seperate groups will eventually run into conflict over resources and not nice things will folow. It's human nature. That's the way it is. The fact you hold yourself to some higher level of being incapable of wrongdoing since your ideology is the "right one" (in this case it is not an ideology at all and therfore immune from the evils of ideologies) just exemplifies how dangerous ideologies are.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm struggling to understand how the lack of belief in something can result in "irrational actions and/or violence".

When you start to believe that people who do believe in something are wrong or different....and if history shows us anything, eventually atheists will.

To put this in context. If Person A believed in 3 gods and Person B in 2 gods, would Person B be necessarily less likely to act irrationally or violently to person A than vice versa. Both people believe they are right, and who cares about the specifics of their beliefs. It has more to do with the human condition and the way we naturally deal with people with different beliefs.

[Ozy_Flame]

Guys, c'mon it's Friday . . . Leave the philosophy at the desk and come enjoy a pint at the Hop and Brew

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm struggling to understand how the lack of belief in something can result in "irrational actions and/or violence".

If you believe that religion is the cause of all the ills in society and are in a position of power you might try to outlaw religious expression while at the same time educating the next generation to despise religion. This is basically what happened in the USSR.

What your failing to understand is to the believer or in your case to the unbeliever violence can seem rational because of the long term good it will produce.

[photon]

From wikipedia:

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

Please explain how the lack of belief in a god is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations and actions? How is the lack of belief in a god a worldview.

blankall, is your lack of belief in Zeus a worldview that constitutes your goals, expectations and actions?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

Atheism creates a divide between people just as much as any other religious divide.

Really?

Must be all those special songs we sing, funny clothes we wear and foods we eat that makes us an identifiable subculture.

A simple statement of non-belief only becomes a defiant stance because RELIGION defines the division.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Really?

Must be all those special songs we sing, funny clothes we wear and foods we eat that makes us an identifiable subculture.

Do you honestly not see the slightest bit of cotempt for religious people in this statement. Maybe Buddhist monks find your clothes and food funny too?

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

A simple statement of non-belief only becomes a defiant stance because RELIGION defines the division.

Then you admit you have an ideology? Even if that ideology is only defined by the existence of a second ideology.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

From wikipedia:



Please explain how the lack of belief in a god is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations and actions? How is the lack of belief in a god a worldview.

I am assuming you also don't believe in judgment day, an afterlife, a soul, heaven, hell, the devil, etc etc etc...That's a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by photon

blankall, is your lack of belief in Zeus a worldview that constitutes your goals, expectations and actions?

If I lived in a time that belief in Zeus was a common belief it would most certainly result in a divide between me and others. Besides, how do you know I don't believe in Zeus? I have yet to say anything contrary.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

Then you admit you have an ideology? Even if that ideology is only defined by the existence of a second ideology.

FFS, blankall. Athiesm is only an ideology to the religious, or athiests who choose to (incorrectly) think of athiesm as an ideology. If the person in question doesn't regard it as an ideology then, simply, it isn't one.

Since athiests don't share the second ideology to define the first, it is a moot point. It's only those on the inside (religious) looking out that can arguably attach an ideological label to non-belief.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

If I lived in a time that belief in Zeus was a common belief it would most certainly result in a divide between me and others.

I live in a time where belief in God is common and it most certainly has not resulted in a divide between me and others.