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

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The conversation here is on the source of what has been coined as "atheist baggage". Photon has suggested that the contempt shown towards religion on this site is isolated to these particular atheists. I rightly pointed out that their contempt is hardly isolated to this site and in fact mirrors what we find on the major web sites and in the popular books written by atheists.

What does any of this conversation have to do with the sources of my beliefs?

You are making a huge leap of logic here. You are taking a small cross section of vocal and maybe confrontational atheists on a hockey forum on the internet to be representative of a large portion of atheists in the world.

You are also equating certain notable personalities or longstanding arguments or movements or organizations to also be representative of a large portion of atheists in the world.

The same can be done for theists and would you not find an objection to that? For someone to lump you in with certain Christian groups which are very vocal and prominent, but perhaps hold beliefs that you might find too conservative or perhaps differs slightly from your personal denomination? I take it you are protestant (correct me when I am wrong) but a wide swath of the Muslim world makes no differentiation between a Catholic or a Protestant or even Mormon. They are all Christians to them. When the pope makes a statement, or the catholic church is caught up in some scandal or some American televangelist is caught defrauding his congregation don't you want people realize that while being prominent icons of a faith, they are not representative of you, or even the majority of people who hold that faith?

Your leap of conclusions based on a handful of posters on a regional internet forum is no different than someone seeing the Westboro Baptist Church and equating that with all Christians. Don't you see the mistake you are making?

Stop painting everybody with the same brush unless you expect the same treatment in kind.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I guess I'd ask then, what is the point of atheism other than nihilism? This is such a shallow void of a belief.

Is life so shallow that it becomes a void once the belief in a divine power is removed from it? Many atheists are humanists. The meaning of life is to embrace the human experience and use our limited sensory and reasoning powers to make sense of the natural universe around us and to use our imaginations to build a future, to advance civilization, etc. We are a temporal, corporeal species with finite lives. If you need the hope of some eternal destiny to give meaning to your existence, I have no problem with that. I know exactly how that feels. But many people do not and they are neither inferior nor superior for holding that belief.

Atheism is not the belief in nothing. It is the lack of believe in a deity. Everything else is fair game.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nice and big so you can read it.

How utterly ridiculous and ignorant. The majority of modern day science and mathematics comes from the earlier days of the Islamic Empire.

Yeah you guys are really not stubborn at all.

[Option84]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

How utterly ridiculous and ignorant. The majority of modern day science and mathematics comes from the earlier days of the Islamic Empire.

...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'm reasonably sure that in the USSR they felt that the division between classes was the cause of all the ills in society and religion was a tool that was used by the ruling class to maintain the division between classes.

It wasn't so much that they wanted to eradicate religion because it was inherently evil, but because it was invariably used for evil. So, you could think of the efforts of the communists to get rid of religion as akin to a very harsh form of gun control.

Not really. Communists saw religion as the enemy because the religion (Christianity) was resisting changes imposed by communists on the whole society. Christians were labelled as "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary", because they resisted the so-called "progress towards a bright future" ie resisted the uprooting of conservative values and replacing them with the marxist-leninist nonsense. In short, religion was the shield people were using to resist communist dogma that violently turned their world upside down.

[Bagor]

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. – Richard Dawkins

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Not really. Communists saw religion as the enemy because the religion (Christianity) was resisting changes imposed by communists on the whole society. Christians were labelled as "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary", because they resisted the so-called "progress towards a bright future" ie resisted the uprooting of conservative values and replacing them with the marxist-leninist nonsense. In short, religion was the shield people were using to resist communist dogma that violently turned their world upside down.

This is true. And in an even more basic sense, churches and religious functions were seen as potential gathering places to plot against the government. They were avenues for assembly by groups of people that did not believe in the inherent rightousness of the nation state. Communist dictatorships required the devotion that people who were religious would not give them.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm not pushing a theory here: It is observable fact. Those beliefs are common amongst Atheists on this site. It is the motivation for endless threads pointing out the ills of religion. It is also why this thread morphed from a discussion of the murder of some UN workers.

Sure you can be an Atheist without picking up any of the baggage but, many if not most seem to. The proof is posted on this site.

Apparently the majority of Muslims can cope with the existance of non-Muslims without resorting to violence; Others can't.





Theism if based on a holy book can and should counter an ideology that proposes that the ends justifies the means. Unfortunately history shows us that people are generally more apt to follow a dynamic personality than any belief system.

This is a discussion board and oddly enough some people like to discuss/debate/argue different topics. I must say that it would be quite the boring discussion board if people chose not to do so.

I strongly feel that the world would be better off with a common set of beliefs (atheism or some form of theism). However, people are people and new religions or beliefs would be inevitable. Not to mention the lucrative nature of being a head of one of these new religions - strong incentive.

If I had to choose a religion it would be Buddhism. Maybe not coincidentally it is a religion that does not advocate the existence of an almighty entity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

How utterly ridiculous and ignorant. The majority of modern day science and mathematics comes from the earlier days of the Islamic Empire.

Yeah you guys are really not stubborn at all.

so are you suggesting Islam follows the chart on the left? Not sure what your point is.

[RedJester]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

How utterly ridiculous and ignorant. The majority of modern day science and mathematics comes from the earlier days of the Islamic Empire.

Yeah you guys are really not stubborn at all.

You mean, during the so called "Golden Age of Islam," some 1000+ years ago?

Too bad the religion and it's practices have been stuck there ever since.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But the atheists on this site often resort to links of both cartoons and articles/web sites by leaders within the atheist movement.

So? You seem to have created a false dichotomy of either a) only atheists on this site behave like the atheists on this site or b) all atheists everywhere behave like atheists on this site. Both of which are of course beyond silly, to think that a few dozen people on a hockey website are representative of hundreds of millions of people.

Heck they're not even representative of all the atheists on this website! There have been times when people have said they don't believe in any gods but they don't agree with how some atheists present themselves.

So you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can't honestly believe these guys don't represent a large segment of atheistic opinion.

So now you've fallen back to them representing just a large segment of atheistic opinion instead of all. Define large segment.

What you see in the media is a skewed view. The media reports conflict, controversy etc. What gets reported about Christianity in the media? Pastors participating in gay sex, pedophiles, financial scandals, etc. Is that a valid opinion to form of all Christians? Of course not.

They represent a segment of atheists, just like the Christians who think that atheists are evil represent a segment of Christians.

How large it is, who knows. Have anything to support your idea of "large" segment other than it's convenient? The God Delusion sold what, 2 million copies? That represents something in the order of 10% of non-believers in the US, less than 1% of non-believers worldwide.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Again the source of these few dozen atheist's arguments are from popular modern atheist thought. They quote and link to guys like Dawkins with regularlity.

So? What's that got to do with saying all atheists believe that religion is the "cause of all the ills in society"?

If someone somewhere makes an point and I consider it and agree with it, you make it sound like it's a bad thing to reference that point. Is it better then to only agree with points that one thinks up one's self? Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also what you call information about religion often is just thinly disguised atheistic propaganda. Eliminate the typical comparative religious study course and a couple of faithless "spiritual" authors and you will only discover those negative opinions of religion on hard core atheist sites.

So that you'll find negative opinions on religion on sites that have a negative opinion of religion is somehow shocking? Or meaningful?

Non-believers who don't have a negative opinion of religion aren't going to be making websites about religion now are they.

If someone thinks religion is harmful and cares about it enough, they will be doing things to make their point. It's exactly the same as the Christian who thinks that not-believing is harmful and is out there trying to help people.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Besides arguing that a Theist can come to the same negative opinions about religion doesn't negate the observable fact that Atheists are drawn to such baggage. Moreover those commonly held atheistic views of religion affects the rest of their world view.

Except you haven't supported that atheists in general are drawn to a specific view. That you call it "baggage" is just inflammatory and indicative of what you probably really think; that if an atheist does see religion as a negative that's not from any reasoning or observation, it's because they're blinded and can't be correct about anything, because your view of God is right, by definition.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So you believe that the Koran itself was the motivation for these Muslim's to commit these murders? Is that what your saying or are you just talking hypothetically?

I'm just talking hypothetically. Religious books are large and complex and open to huge variations of interpretation (as evidenced by the huge variations of beliefs of those that identify themselves as followers of that book).

I'm sure that some Muslims would point to the Koran as justification for their actions, while other Muslims would say they've wrongly interpreted the scripture.

But yes hypothetically, the point wasn't about this incident, the point was that a book that proclaims the mere existence of God is not in itself an ideology.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Cheese

so are you suggesting Islam follows the chart on the left? Not sure what your point is.

I don't know about you but it's stupid to separate science and religion like they can never coexist or never have. Many people of faith are scientist and believe in the scientific method. Those charts are kind of a smug shot at religions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Photon has suggested that the contempt shown towards religion on this site is isolated to these particular atheists.

Of course that's not what I've said at all, reply to what I've said, not what helps you make a point.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I rightly pointed out that their contempt is hardly isolated to this site and in fact mirrors what we find on the major web sites and in the popular books written by atheists.

So?

You miss the point. Even if every single atheist agreed that religion is the "cause of all the ills in society" (which they don't, even on this forum), it STILL doesn't mean that that opinion is a result of the lack of belief in any god.

It's fallacious reasoning, so the conclusion is invalid.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

I don't know about you but it's stupid to separate science and religion like they can never coexist or never have. Many people of faith are scientist and believe in the scientific method. Those charts are kind of a smug shot at religions.

Thats not the point I was trying to make. Lets take it a step further.

Do you believe in flying horses?
Do you believe that angels talk to people and provide them with information to write a holy tome?

If your answer is yes to either then how do you support it using the chart on the left?

I can also use the following:

Do you believe that man was created from dirt and woman from the rib of man?
Do you believe in the story of Noahs Ark?
Do you believe that a holy man walked on water?

If yes to any of the above how do you support it using the chart on the left?

The fact that ancient Muslims figured out mathematic formulae isnt the point.
We also know that Islam used other sources to help them with their "advanced learning". Their prophet encouraged them to learn from ancient China and Greek scholars. Aristotle was likely the first to suggest that mathematics was the basis for all sciences, Islam used his theories to create Arabic numerals and further expand on its use just as the scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries expanded on and turned ancient science into modern science.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

But never in the name of some fantasy and using atheism as an excuse. Killing for power, greed, food, territory, etc. I can understand. Killing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster I can't.

Do you realize that almost all religious acts, violent or otherwise are at their root driven by these things? Name a religion and with some research you can point out to things within that religion that have warped over time for one ore more of those reasons.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

How utterly ridiculous and ignorant. The majority of modern day science and mathematics comes from the earlier days of the Islamic Empire.

Yeah you guys are really not stubborn at all.

Not really. The flowchart isn't stating that scientific process can't come from religious cultures or people. Rather, that decisions based on faith follow a very different path than decisions based on science. Of course most scientific discovery prior to the 20th century came from theistic societies, because there simply wasn't such a thing as an atheistic society. That said, the Islamic Empire during the Golden Age shared far more with the constitutional monarchies of Europe that emerged through the enlightenment than it did with modern Islamic republics. In particular, faith was seen as a particularly personal thing that could not be extended to the public realm and to the sciences. Which sort of backs up the point of the graphic.

The way that I think the flowchart is wrong is this: most issues of faith in a modern sense are those that are those in which it's impossible to apply contradictory evidence to. Contradictory evidence for belief in the existence of a god simply doesn't exist. Really, the only modern-day beliefs that the this chart apply to are people who still believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or that evolution is a hoax.

[VladtheImpaler]

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.

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

Lack of belief in a god = agnosticism
Belief that there is no god = atheism

Thor said that he is an atheist, and that he is 99% sure there is no god, but is open to the small possibility. I think that would sum up my view as well... Guess what, Thor? We are agnostics. Athiests are 100% sure.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

So? You seem to have created a false dichotomy of either a) only atheists on this site behave like the atheists on this site or b) all atheists everywhere behave like atheists on this site. Both of which are of course beyond silly, to think that a few dozen people on a hockey website are representative of hundreds of millions of people.

Heck they're not even representative of all the atheists on this website! There have been times when people have said they don't believe in any gods but they don't agree with how some atheists present themselves.

So you are wrong.

I find it ironic that you reject my generalizations as wrong on the grounds it doesn't fit all the time yet the whole reason why we are again talking about your silly religious position is because of generalizations made about religion at the start of this thread. Atheists are the kings of generalizations and hyperbole.

Originally Posted by photon

So now you've fallen back to them representing just a large segment of atheistic opinion instead of all. Define large segment.

The majority of atheists would hold a negative view(often hostile) towards religion. You can pretend that there is a silent majority somewhere who has never been effected by religious views and just embraced there atheism out of logic and reason but, you won't find evidence of that. People who leave a faith are generally the most hostile towards their former religion. Most atheist at the very least grew up within a nominal religious community. They at some point rejected that community in faviour of atheistic beliefs. We know this because the majority of the world is religious.

You can maintain that the atheists on this site aren't representative of atheists in general but, you aren't producing any evidence of the silent majority. What do you base your opinion on. Sure Cheese and Thor could just be wild wingnuts on the fringes of atheistic opinion but, where than is the mainstream? Show me.

Originally Posted by photon

What you see in the media is a skewed view. The media reports conflict, controversy etc. What gets reported about Christianity in the media? Pastors participating in gay sex, pedophiles, financial scandals, etc. Is that a valid opinion to form of all Christians? Of course not.

They represent a segment of atheists, just like the Christians who think that atheists are evil represent a segment of Christians.

I can show you directories of thousands of churches who havn't ever burned a Koran. Likewise we could find thousands of Mosques who didn't riot after last Friday's prayers. In fact I bet a google search would turn up many public denouncments of both behaviours by members of their respective communities. Where again is this peacable silent majority of atheists?

You who are quick to point out my generalizations, have you ever replied to a post of one of your atheist brothers to point out the limits of their generalizations. Maybe your silent majority should be more proactive in communicating their viewpoint instead of letting the wingnuts represent them.

Originally Posted by photon

How large it is, who knows. Have anything to support your idea of "large" segment other than it's convenient? The God Delusion sold what, 2 million copies? That represents something in the order of 10% of non-believers in the US, less than 1% of non-believers worldwide.

So which author has not attacked religion using the same generalizations as members of this site and how many books has he/she sold?

If all I can observe is atheists that are hostile towards religion how am I suppose to conclude there are any other than what I see? Sure there are a couple more moderate atheists on this site but, they appear to be the fringe rather than mainstream.

Originally Posted by photon

So that you'll find negative opinions on religion on sites that have a negative opinion of religion is somehow shocking? Or meaningful?

Non-believers who don't have a negative opinion of religion aren't going to be making websites about religion now are they.

Ok show me 5 atheist web sites that don't attack religion in general. Surely some of these positive atheists that live outside of CP must have the internet.

Originally Posted by photon

If someone thinks religion is harmful and cares about it enough, they will be doing things to make their point. It's exactly the same as the Christian who thinks that not-believing is harmful and is out there trying to help people.

Yah I can just feel the love whenever you atheist's highjack one of these threads to save us from our misguided paths.

Originally Posted by photon

Except you haven't supported that atheists in general are drawn to a specific view. That you call it "baggage" is just inflammatory and indicative of what you probably really think; that if an atheist does see religion as a negative that's not from any reasoning or observation, it's because they're blinded and can't be correct about anything, because your view of God is right, by definition.

I have supported that atheists are drawn to a hostile view of religion. This site and the major atheist authors carry that point of view. If they don't represent the majority of atheists out there than show me who does. Sure the folks here are a small sample size but, if they represent the only data offered and are supported by the best selling atheist authors it is the best conclusion one can make.

The term "baggage" was coined(I believe) by me to refer to an ideology or world view that tends to accompany the atheist's core belief: "there is no God". One of the atheists on this site was maintaining that atheists believe this core belief and there is no ideology{baggage} carried along with it. From what I have seen that position is false.

I have never said or thought that my christian faith is void of its own baggage. Having said that perhaps the term "baggage" could be a little imflammatory. Really though, you already know my low opinion of atheism. I've been nothing but, honest about that. Why fret about a word?

[photon]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Lack of belief in a god = agnosticism

No, because agnostic is about knowledge, from the greek gnosis. One can be a atheist agnostic, or a theist agnostic, because agnostic doesn't speak about one's beliefs, it speaks about one's position on knowledge about the existence of a god.

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Belief that there is no god = atheism

To the proposition: God Exists an atheist who is someone that does not say that that proposition is true. That includes both weak atheists who just say it isn't true, and strong atheists who say that it is false.

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Thor said that he is an atheist, and that he is 99% sure there is no god, but is open to the small possibility. I think that would sum up my view as well... Guess what, Thor? We are agnostics. Athiests are 100% sure.

Agnostic and atheist measure different things, they're not points along a scale, they're different scales.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by photon

No, because agnostic is about knowledge, from the greek gnosis. One can be a atheist agnostic, or a theist agnostic, because agnostic doesn't speak about one's beliefs, it speaks about one's position on knowledge about the existence of a god.



To the proposition: God Exists an atheist who is someone that does not say that that proposition is true. That includes both weak atheists who just say it isn't true, and strong atheists who say that it is false.



Agnostic and atheist measure different things, they're not points along a scale, they're different scales.

Sorry, I never took a philosophy course, and, frankly, found purely philosophical writing/discourse boring. I was under the impression "agnostic" was one who was willing to admit that he didn't know. I was also under the impression that an athiest was sure that there was no god. That is wrong? Therefore, I am a "weak athiest" as opposed to an "agnostic"? Not trying to be smarmy - just curious if I've been operating with incorrect assumptions/definitions.