Losing my Religion

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to convey and how it applies to the only definition of Atheism.

it was regarding the idea that a single atheist who is misbehaving, can be used as ammunition against all atheists. heck, if 99.99999% of the planet was atheist and they were all acting badly, it would still not define the fraction of atheists who weren't acting badly. because each person is only responsible for their own actions. this is not hard for modern day people to understand but apparently some folks have a sudden bout of selective amnesia regarding it. sounds very suspicious to me. innocent until proven guilty is for everyone and not just people we happen to agree with. just because some people behave a certain way, doesn't mean all people will behave a certain way.. .well, that is, within the parameters of world views. there are some biological functions we share in common, but even that is contingent on the person having all their body parts, and in working order.

a reply to: undo

When did we diverge in to behavioural issues within a population? I thought we were discussing the definition of atheism?

Nevertheless, since atheism is not a belief system (as we were talking about), it has no view on moral rights and wrongs. You might as well be saying the same thing about people with a specific hair color. Sure, you can group a population of people together whom have the same hair color, but that is their only commonality. Hair color is as much a belief system as Atheism is.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

When did we diverge in to behavioural issues within a population? I thought we were discussing the definition of atheism?

you said:

I'm saying that your claims that Atheism is somehow the cause of destruction if coupled with other things is incorrect.

and i was agreeing that just because one atheist does something bad, doesn't mean it defines all atheists. and even if the whole planet was full of atheists doing bad things, it still wouldn't be applicable to the few atheists that weren't doing badly because each person is responsible for what they have personally done. therefore, it is not my fault that there was an inquistion, that mary jo jimjohn says she doesn't like gays, that carlfrankenstern stein owned a slave, that some people do not understand that the old testament is dangerous in the wrong hands just as the anarchists cookbook is dangerous in the wrong hands or mein kampf, etc. in other words, the same holds true for christians. this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

a reply to: undo

I see.

The issue is that Atheism isn't a world view. Atheism doesn't suggest to do anything. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism teaches nothing about anything. There is no such thing as "atheism in the wrong hands" because it doesn't have any opinions on anything.

Except for one thing. The ONLY thing Atheism is about is the lack of belief in a god. That is it.

However, when there IS a belief system that does spread misinformation, dogmatic views, hate, racism, so on and so forth, it isn't a matter of being in "the wrong hands", it simply gets to the point where good people actually are doing bad things or believe in immoral things because of that belief system. Furthermore, if that same system is so massive, and so influential, that again is a huge problem. When Children are being told misinformation simply because their parents believe in it that effects millions of lives, if not billions.

So once again, we are back to the definition of Atheism. Could we please focus on that since every matter of issue we are having is solely due to your lack of understanding in that?

a reply to: Ghost147

well that's the problem. since atheism makes the statement that there's no evidence for god(s), and i disagree with that, the only remaining position i can take is that atheism is an incorrect BELIEF. you say no, i am not allowed to view it that way because that's not what it means, and i say, it can't mean anything else TO ME, given the parameters.

a reply to: Ghost147

I agree. Atheism isn't a dogma. Speaking as an atheist I don't have a big book of atheist sayings or legends, I don't go to an atheist church (I don't think that the pub counts does it?) and I don't go to meetings with fellow atheists. There is no groupthink on this matter, there is no consensus other than the simple fact that I don't believe that gods exist. I have my own reasons for thinking this and whilst I am willing to discuss those reasons on a rational basis I'm never going to stand outside railway stations and give out atheist leaflets, or stand around with a megaphone and placard and exhort people to disbelieve.

Why do some people regard atheists with such fear? Why is it that politicians in the UK can openly admit to being atheist without fear of backlash, but ones in the USA have to hide it? Why is atheism punished in parts of the Middle East? Does the person who lays aside dogma and looks beyond religion pose that much of a threat to some people?

originally posted by: undo
well that's the problem. since atheism makes the statement that there's no evidence for god(s), and i disagree with that, the only remaining position i can take is that atheism is an incorrect BELIEF. you say no, i am not allowed to view it that way because that's not what it means, and i say, it can't mean anything else TO ME, given the parameters.

Do you not realize that you don't have to agree with a concept to understand its definition?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: undo
well that's the problem. since atheism makes the statement that there's no evidence for god(s), and i disagree with that, the only remaining position i can take is that atheism is an incorrect BELIEF. you say no, i am not allowed to view it that way because that's not what it means, and i say, it can't mean anything else TO ME, given the parameters.

Do you not realize that you don't have to agree with a concept to understand it's definition?

i think the definition is inaccurate, so how can i accept the definition? we get right back to the concept that if it sounds like a belief to me, and it sounds like a fact to you, the big problem is not that i won't acknowledge that it's a fact, but that we disagree on whether or not it's accurately defined.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: undo
well that's the problem. since atheism makes the statement that there's no evidence for god(s), and i disagree with that, the only remaining position i can take is that atheism is an incorrect BELIEF. you say no, i am not allowed to view it that way because that's not what it means, and i say, it can't mean anything else TO ME, given the parameters.

Do you not realize that you don't have to agree with a concept to understand it's definition?

i think the definition is inaccurate, so how can i accept the definition? we get right back to the concept that if it sounds like a belief to me, and it sounds like a fact to you, the big problem is not that i won't acknowledge that it's a fact, but that we disagree on whether or not it's accurately defined.

I'm sorry but I really don't see what the problem is. As an atheist I do not believe in the existence of any god. Isn't that a simple enough definition?

a reply to: undo

So what you're saying is, you in fact don't understand that understanding the definition of a word in no way reflects your opinion of whatever it is that word resembles?

Glad we cleared that up. Perhaps some elaboration will assist your misunderstandings.

Let's look at the meaning of the word "Definition" in the way we are using it:

Definition - The formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word.

So when I say "the definition of the word 'Atheist' is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings", I'm not suggesting you should become an Atheist. I'm not suggesting you should agree with atheists that there is no god. I am merely telling you the meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

Is this information getting through at all?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

well a few others here say the word "believe" should not be in that sentence:
"As an atheist I do not believe in the existence of any god."
because it has nothing to do with beliefs but the lack thereof. so if i say i think it's a belief in no evidence of gods, they say nope, that's not it, cause the word "believe" is not appropriate, as it is a fact to you that you lack beliefs in the existence of a god. it's a semantical argument.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

well a few others here say the word "believe" should not be in that sentence:
"As an atheist I do not believe in the existence of any god."
because it has nothing to do with beliefs but the lack thereof. so if i say i think it's a belief in no evidence of gods, they say nope, that's not it, cause the word "believe" is not appropriate, as it is a fact to you that you lack beliefs in the existence of a god. it's a semantical argument.

Very well then. I can therefore redefine my position as follows: I do not think that any god exists, or has ever existed, I follow no religion and I have no dogma. There is no 'belief' in my position, just thought.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

same here. i think god exists. i don't belong to a church. there's no religion just thought. i will however, define myself as a christian, cause i think the guy was who he said he was.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

same here. i think god exists. i don't belong to a church. there's no religion just thought. i will however, define myself as a christian, cause i think the guy was who he said he was.

No, I'm sorry, you've confused me. A belief in god is an inherently religious concept. You can't have god without religion, because religion gave birth to god. And you can't call yourself a Christian without believing in Jesus, who started the sect in the first place. Saying that you believe in god whilst denying that you follow a religion (Is your god cruel? Kind? Vegetarian? Human? Alien? Giant ball of pasta? Creator of the universe? Person just in charge of the bit we're in?) doesn't make any sense.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

well i think jesus was the sumerian enki, who created humans, shows up in the old testament a few times, but is mostly overshadowed in the old testament by the guy who owns the planet like a piece of real estate. when he came to the earth as a human, i think he was the last pharaoh of egypt (cleopatra's son). do want me to go on?

hehe

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

same here. i think god exists. i don't belong to a church. there's no religion just thought. i will however, define myself as a christian, cause i think the guy was who he said he was.

No, I'm sorry, you've confused me. A belief in god is an inherently religious concept. You can't have god without religion, because religion gave birth to god. And you can't call yourself a Christian without believing in Jesus, who started the sect in the first place. Saying that you believe in god whilst denying that you follow a religion (Is your god cruel? Kind? Vegetarian? Human? Alien? Giant ball of pasta? Creator of the universe? Person just in charge of the bit we're in?) doesn't make any sense.

Actually, this is a possibility. You can believe in a creator without the attachment of religious texts. It's more of a "It just makes more sense that there's a god(s)", kind of thing for most people (that I've talked to). Lot's of people believe in 'personal gods' as in they themselves, and everyone else is a god.

Mother nature, to some people, is considered a deity. There's just no religious attachment to it.

Nevertheless, I'm with you on the atheism.

watch that.

a reply to: Ghost147

A personal deity is just fine. However, surely it depends on what that person depicts as their personal deity. Again - cruel? Kind? Murderous? Benevolent? Giver of pasta? Hater of flies? Surely it depends on an underlying earlier religious background, which was used to form that belief in a personal deity?

a reply to: undo

I'm sorry. I hung on in there as long as I could, but once your video claimed that Caesarion was the 'rightful heir to the Roman Empire' (no, he wasn't, that post didn't exist at that time and the position of Dictator wasn't hereditary) I had to bale out because I was laughing too hard. Utter round objects.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Nope. It's much more generalized and simplistic than that. Usually the concept of god comes first, then the rules and details of the religion follow suit. The concepts of a god are mainly just "he/she/it/they created this" for most people (who are not religious)