Rollin' fer Jeezus

Also WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL HERE?! The question was answered on Page 2, and then it became atheists vs. Christians Take Who Gives a Fuck at this point? I'm hitting my head at how this goes in circles. Repeatedly.

I'm at an Atos affiliate, and this is some great ML style advertising for the team.

Maybe Andre can put out a CONTROVERSIAL 76 minute YouTube interview where he clears up misconceptions about Christianity, and that thread can go for 80 pages.
 
I think that what is or is not written down in official papers means less than how people actually practice something.
I'm just playing the devil's advocate in that men have been deified historically, and it's not like it all gets neatly catalogued and filed like a patent office.
Even if they are Officially Atheist in North Korea, they sure are nutty about the dear Leaderbean. And by nutty I mean forced to worship them at gunpoint.
I can see the argument for the North Korean leadership paralleling old dynasties and monarchies which ruled by divine right. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. I mean, Sung was made the Eternal President ffs.

http://www.davidrhawk.com/ThankYouFatherKimIlSung.pdf
It would seem that it is a common theme amongst the interviews of escaped North Koreans that Kim Il-Sung is worshipped as god and that Juche is the religion.
Not officially, just perceived to be by the countries own people.

Besides, having a government dictate that there is officially no religion is purely as bad as having a government enforce a specific religion.
Getting back to the problem that someone brought up of why "athiests" tend to shit on religion every chance they get, part of it would certainly be along the lines of "In God We Trust" (or "D.G. Regina" for us Canucks) written all over the official currency of the country, or having politicians saying that God told them to wage war on Terrorism.

I am A-OK with people having religion. I become uncomfortable when some of the most powerful men in the world make major political decisions based on faith, or have to claim they have a religion that they may not actually have just to get elected. Not that that is a fault of the man, but of the electorate that would choose their representatives based largely on one characteristic which I think should have no place in public office. It irks me. It is irksome.

Major tangent, but just trying to address that point a bit. My girlfriend's family is devoutly religious, though she is not. I have to watch what I say or what I watch on TV at her parents place because of it. She hissed at me to change the channel from Jon Stewart because her mother was in the room and he was doing a bit on Christianity. Even away from there I can't get into any decent religious debate with her because she takes offence for them. :rolleyes:
I honestly find that in much of every day life I need to tip toe around the fact that I have no religious beliefs. Many people just assume you do; "Oh what church do you go to?" I have been told I am going to hell, and I have been told I would be prayed for. I don't like that, but being a polite Canadian I don't make a fuss about it in person.
I am assuming that there are many others like me, especially in more devoutly religious areas of the world. When the anonymity of the internet offers the chance to speak up about it, ask questions regarding the need for religion (as this thread was. It didn't seem to be bashing it, strictly speaking.) or just generally get it out there that you don't believe, it can be cathartic.

Honestly I don't think I've been accosted by any atheists on corners telling me that there is no life after death, but I've certainly been screamed at by raving homeless loonies about the coming apocalypse and that God is judging me etc. It can make a walk downtown Toronto unexpectedly jarring when the random person beside you waiting to cross the lights literally spits in your ear with religious fervour.

It can get all pent up, so on there internet it's nice to be able to say, hey man, I don't believe in that jazz.

I'm just really thankful that it never comes up on the mats.
 
I was just pointing out that even atheism suffers from the bad people abusing it for power problem. I think ultimately that stuff happens no matter what the religion (or lack of religion) is.

I don't really agree that atheism by itself can be abused the way a religion can. Unlike a religion, there is no inherent authority in atheism. Now, horrific political ideologies can subscribe to atheism, but they would be just as horrific without the atheistic component, as they don't exactly derive their mandate from a non-existing deity. You can't appeal to 'non-God' to make people do something.
 
This thread reminds me of the old Graciefighter website. We talked about religion, politics, and philosophy all the time.

Do they have these discussions on the stand up forum???

My $ .02...I like the diversity that jiu jitsu brings together. Also, as opposed to the War Room; where I will lurk from time to time, most grapplers stay respectful during discussions while not losing passion in their convictions.
 
I don't really agree that atheism by itself can be abused the way a religion can. Unlike a religion, there is no inherent authority in atheism. Now, horrific political ideologies can subscribe to atheism, but they would be just as horrific without the atheistic component, as they don't exactly derive their mandate from a non-existing deity. You can't appeal to 'non-God' to make people do something.

I agree that it's not really the atheism causing the evil, but the same could be said about most religions. Even if they claim an evil mandate, they are twisting it to meet their evil ideology.

It was just brought up that the reason people react negatively to Christianity is killing and torture that took place in the past. I understand that, but I don't see atheists apologizing for Joseph Stalin's atheist Soviet Union that killed as many as 30 million people far more recently.

It's a weird double standard where bad things committed by Christians are a flaw of Christianity, but bad things committed by atheists are not a flaw of atheism.
 
Vitamin C,

I understand how you feel. I just wanted to clear up some of the factual inaccuracies.

Trust me, those are not book technicalities. Christians and Muslims believe Allah is the same god. I have never found a Buddhist who worships the Buddha as a god. He's more like Socrates or something -- a wise man that is looked to for advice. Buddhism is actually pretty silent on the idea of god in general. It doesn't say anything definite.

If people really want to know what the founders of Atos (and religious people in general) believe, they first need to at least get the facts straight.

One thing that is somewhat uneven in these debates is that atheism is far easier to understand than almost any other world religion. Although the implications of the belief can get more complex, the basic belief of atheism is simply stated -- there is no such thing as god.

Contrast that with Christianity, where even the stripped down most basic belief statement takes up an entire page. And that still doesn't cover all of the beliefs, let alone the implications of those beliefs and how they address certain questions like why is there evil in the world, etc.

What that adds up to is a lot of misunderstanding about what Christianity is and what it actually professes. Crazy bums on the street ranting about religion aren't known for their accuracy. So if you want insight into what the founders of Atos believe, you have to do a little research because it can't be quickly stated in one line the way atheism can be.
 
I agree that it's not really the atheism causing the evil, but the same could be said about most religions. Even if they claim an evil mandate, they are twisting it to meet their evil ideology.

It was just brought up that the reason people react negatively to Christianity is killing and torture that took place in the past. I understand that, but I don't see atheists apologizing for Joseph Stalin's atheist Soviet Union that killed as many as 30 million people far more recently.

It's a weird double standard where bad things committed by Christians are a flaw of Christianity, but bad things committed by atheists are not a flaw of atheism.

Nobody has to apologize for anything, but the difference is that religious texts like the Bible, Qur'an etc. are rife with passages that seem to justify atrocious acts in the name of God. Yes, you can cherry-pick by over-analyzing the parts that don't agree with your own sense of morality, but the fact remains that a lot of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity or Islam do find some support in the respective religions' scripture, and I'm sure a lot of the people who carried these atrocities out would never have done so, had they not truly believed it to be God's will. Atheism doesn't have scripture, and its non-God doesn't require you to do anything.

I'm throwing in my towel in this discussion. Thread should be closed anyway.
 
Vitamin C,

I understand how you feel. I just wanted to clear up some of the factual inaccuracies.

Trust me, those are not book technicalities. Christians and Muslims believe Allah is the same god. I have never found a Buddhist who worships the Buddha as a god. He's more like Socrates or something -- a wise man that is looked to for advice. Buddhism is actually pretty silent on the idea of god in general. It doesn't say anything definite.

If people really want to know what the founders of Atos (and religious people in general) believe, they first need to at least get the facts straight.

One thing that is somewhat uneven in these debates is that atheism is far easier to understand than almost any other world religion. Although the implications of the belief can get more complex, the basic belief of atheism is simply stated -- there is no such thing as god.

Contrast that with Christianity, where even the stripped down most basic belief statement takes up an entire page. And that still doesn't cover all of the beliefs, let alone the implications of those beliefs and how they address certain questions like why is there evil in the world, etc.

What that adds up to is a lot of misunderstanding about what Christianity is and what it actually professes. Crazy bums on the street ranting about religion aren't known for their accuracy. So if you want insight into what the founders of Atos believe, you have to do a little research because it can't be quickly stated in one line the way atheism can be.

I get where you're coming from, and by no means do I want to be associated with the retarded atheists who vandalize church signs etc.

I do know that Buddha is not viewed as god, but semantics aside, people do bow and chant in front of statues of his likeness. I just feel as though you can take the teachings of the man and apply them to life without the idolatry. Just as you can take the good moral lessons from the Big Three without attending a church, synagogue or mosque. I personally identify as atheist, but I often find myself reading about taoism, buddhism, and other spiritual or religious tenets both whacky and reasonable. You can find a lot of good stuff in there.

Regarding atheism. I don't think that it is as simple as that, or there wouldn't be such a massive following for people like Hitchens and Dawkins (I will grant that much of what they go on about boils down to just bashing religion, but they do tend to profess a great deal of ideas and viewpoints shared by many atheists. I follow Dawkins on twitter, and he does seem to provide a place for atheists to feel like they are not alone. We don't have places locally to meet and socialize weekly, after all.) Essentially, atheists are people from a wide variety of backgrounds, ranging from just being raised that way, in which perhaps "I just don't believe in God" could be an accurate portrayal of their views, but atheism can also be a liberation from years of indoctrination and abuse. Or embody a person's personal quest for identity apart from what their family and social circles have dictated for them as a child. Saying all atheists can be summed up as "just don't believe in God" to me is the same as lumping all Christians in the same pot.

An atheist can be a thoughtless, selfish nihilist, sure, but he can also be completely in love with nature, deeply aware and respectful of all life on Earth, completely in awe of the beautiful, complex, and often bizarre makings of evolution. I personally am often stunned by the thought of space, and thinking about the known science and the unknown science regarding it gives me (possibly) the same satisfaction that a religious person gets from pondering the complexities of their religious tenets. I am just guessing at that, but I do get a great deal of satisfaction from listening to scientists explain their work and marvelling at the amazing things we know and still need to figure out. I think that in a way, when a person really seeks to understand the science behind evolution and the physics that make the universe go round, they can achieve just as great a respect for life as we know it as any religion is capable of.

So yes, people very often misunderstand Christianity, there is much to it, but there is a lot more to atheism than simply disbelief. We want to figure out why there is evil in the world too. We just look to cognitive and behavioural neuroscience, or sociology, anthropology or political science instead.

That idea, that we are simple because we mark "None" on the religion question on a demographics questionnaire, is another reason we tend to speak up on the internet I would think.
There are doubtless innumerable Christians, Jews, or whatever else that don't spend any time thinking about their religiosity, and when they (if they) go to church are thinking of nothing else but getting out to watch the big game on TV. These people can just as easily be summed up as "they believe in God" as an atheist can be summed up with the opposite.
 
I get that it is more complex than just belief or disbelief in personal practice. I was just referring to the term itself because that is all it means by itself.

The reason why Christian has so much more baggage is because it's not the opposite of atheist. The opposite of atheist would be theist, which can also be summed up in a single line -- belief in at least one god.

Christian is by definition theist, but it's also a particular subset with a lot of other meanings attached. So comparing Christianity to general atheism is comparing something rather specific to something rather broad.

When you drill down into the different flavors of atheism like you are talking about, you get something more analogous in complexity. But usually when these things are discussed people don't drill down, and it's just general atheism presented versus other religions.
 
There are doubtless innumerable Christians, Jews, or whatever else that don't spend any time thinking about their religiosity, and when they (if they) go to church are thinking of nothing else but getting out to watch the big game on TV. These people can just as easily be summed up as "they believe in God" as an atheist can be summed up with the opposite.

Sadly this is very true, and I think those people contribute to a bad perception of religion. That's one reason I speak up on here -- to be a counterexample.
 
I get that it is more complex than just belief or disbelief in personal practice. I was just referring to the term itself because that is all it means by itself.

The reason why Christian has so much more baggage is because it's not the opposite of atheist. The opposite of atheist would be theist, which can also be summed up in a single line -- belief in at least one god.

Christian is by definition theist, but it's also a particular subset with a lot of other meanings attached. So comparing Christianity to general atheism is comparing something rather specific to something rather broad.

When you drill down into the different flavors of atheism like you are talking about, you get something more analogous in complexity. But usually when these things are discussed people don't drill down, and it's just general atheism presented versus other religions.

I get that. The problem is the wide variety of atheists cannot be accurately or meaningfully placed into one cohesive group.

I think the point still stands though, in regards to what you're saying, it would be the atheists and the theists.

The fact that when these things are discussed, that religions are treated as something complex and meaningful, while atheism is simply a dichotomous demographic yes or no, IS problematic. It's still just the same as saying one specific religion doesn't matter, or isn't complex, etc.

People need to drill more I guess. There, back onto grappling. People do need to drill more.

Sadly this is very true, and I think those people contribute to a bad perception of religion. That's one reason I speak up on here -- to be a counterexample.

And yes, luckily for the religions though, the extremist fundamentalists are more easily recognized as an outgroup. One thing that Christians and Muslims have in common is they can't stand the WBC.
Only when someone spouts off on the internet about all religions being stupid and sheep and all that ridiculous nonsense and touts the virtues of atheism, everyone rolls their eyes and goes, "great, the atheists are at it again." We get grouped together when its negative easy enough.
 
What are the different levels of atheism? I honestly thought that as an atheist, I don't give a fuck where we come from and figure that I will just stop existing when I die.

I do believe that religion provides a lot of framework that people need in their lives to create a sense of community and morality. As we grow more amalgamated I think you'll see religion becoming less needed. I think you see this now, with catholicism slowly losing all their religious vocations
 
Besides, we all know what the terms mean in common parlance: religious people believe in God, agnostic people don't but they don't feel strongly about it, atheists don't and they feel very strongly about it.

Just to pick a nit, this definition basically says that agnostics are just pussy versions of atheists. I reject that notion entirely.

As an agnostic, I am unwilling to say that God does not exist. Flipside to that is I am also unwilling to say he does exist. Not only is it unknowable, but in many ways the question is irrelevant. We are here. Whether that is because God created the universe, or because some single celled organisms on a fragment of rock from the big bang evolved into monkeys which later became advanced and built the internet...not only do both require a leap of faith on some level, but both are pretty unimportant to paying my mortgage and learning open guard.

Does God exist? I really can't say. That doesn't mean no. I can tell you that I haven't felt God in any religion I've looked into, but that could just as well mean that I'm a hard hearted cynic. It's also entirely possible that God exists but all of the religion have it wrong. There's nothing but an infinite array of possibilities, and I am unwilling to definitively say that any one of them are correct to the exclusion of all others. And if someone else feels they have found God, who am I to tell them they are wrong? Contrary to your statement, this is something I feel quite strongly about.

If someone has a belief that God doesn't exist (but doesn't feel strongly about it), they're simply an atheist that lacks conviction. And that's fine, as that's actually my favorite kind of atheist. Just like the Christian or Jew or Muslim that has their beliefs but doesn't get in everyone's faces about it. What I don't care for are the militant folks on all sides that tell me what I should believe or not believe, and try to make me feel that I'm an idiot or a bad person if I don't agree with them above all others.

I'm an agnostic. That's a lot more than having a lukewarm disbelief about God.
 
Just to pick a nit, this definition basically says that agnostics are just pussy versions of atheists. I reject that notion entirely.

As an agnostic, I am unwilling to say that God does not exist. Flipside to that is I am also unwilling to say he does exist. Not only is it unknowable, but in many ways the question is irrelevant. We are here. Whether that is because God created the universe, or because some single celled organisms on a fragment of rock from the big bang evolved into monkeys which later became advanced and built the internet...not only do both require a leap of faith on some level, but both are pretty unimportant to paying my mortgage and learning open guard.

Does God exist? I really can't say. That doesn't mean no. I can tell you that I haven't felt God in any religion I've looked into, but that could just as well mean that I'm a hard hearted cynic. It's also entirely possible that God exists but all of the religion have it wrong. There's nothing but an infinite array of possibilities, and I am unwilling to definitively say that any one of them are correct to the exclusion of all others. And if someone else feels they have found God, who am I to tell them they are wrong? Contrary to your statement, this is something I feel quite strongly about.

If someone has a belief that God doesn't exist (but doesn't feel strongly about it), they're simply an atheist that lacks conviction. And that's fine, as that's actually my favorite kind of atheist. Just like the Christian or Jew or Muslim that has their beliefs but doesn't get in everyone's faces about it. What I don't care for are the militant folks on all sides that tell me what I should believe or not believe, and try to make me feel that I'm an idiot or a bad person if I don't agree with them above all others.

I'm an agnostic. That's a lot more than having a lukewarm disbelief about God.

Did you read the first part of my post? Essentially, I argue that formal atheism is illogical since you cannot disprove the existence of anything, God or otherwise. But in common linguistic usage an atheist is someone who feels strongly that God doesn't exist, even though if pressed most would probably acknowledge that they can't really know that God doesn't exist, but the term connotes a degree of belief. I would formally consider myself an agnostic (in Greek, literally 'non-knowing', or 'without knowledge') because I don't know God doesn't exist, I just really strongly suspect it. I imagine most would consider me an atheist though formally that's not really the case.
 
As an agnostic, I am unwilling to say that God does not exist.

I know I said I was leaving this discussion, but let me just ask the following: Do you call yourself an 'agnostic' with regard to any other thing for which there is no real evidence, but which cannot be completely disproven? Pretty much everything in life is impossible to know with complete certainty, but we base our beliefs on experience, aka. evidence, which gives us reason to believe certain things. Why is it only the idea of God that gets this special treatment with regard to the burden of proof?

I don't say "God doesn't exist", I say "there is no reason to believe that God exists, therefore I don't". This is the only rational form of atheism, and it is also the only rational form of agnosticism. They are the same.
 
Did you read the first part of my post? Essentially, I argue that formal atheism is illogical since you cannot disprove the existence of anything, God or otherwise. But in common linguistic usage an atheist is someone who feels strongly that God doesn't exist, even though if pressed most would probably acknowledge that they can't really know that God doesn't exist, but the term connotes a degree of belief. I would formally consider myself an agnostic (in Greek, literally 'non-knowing', or 'without knowledge') because I don't know God doesn't exist, I just really strongly suspect it. I imagine most would consider me an atheist though formally that's not really the case.

Semantics. Your "formal" designation just means you recognize the logical problem of saying that you know anything that is impossible to prove or disprove. Playing that game, a Catholic could argue that he's merely an agnostic that "strongly suspects" God exists in a manner totally consistent with Catholicism.

So let's cut the crap. What do you feel? Because that's where you'll find the only answer to this question that really matters.
 
Is anyone else going through this thread just scrolling down the walls of text to find one liner jokes?
 
Semantics. Your "formal" designation just means you recognize the logical problem of saying that you know anything that is impossible to prove or disprove. Playing that game, a Catholic could argue that he's merely an agnostic that "strongly suspects" God exists in a manner totally consistent with Catholicism.

So let's cut the crap. What do you feel? Because that's where you'll find the only answer to this question that really matters.

It is semantics. That's my point. For all practical purposes I'm an atheist. And very few truly religious people would admit that they don't really know God exists. That's one of the things I don't like about them.
 
I know I said I was leaving this discussion, but let me just ask the following: Do you call yourself an 'agnostic' with regard to any other thing for which there is no real evidence, but which cannot be completely disproven? Pretty much everything in life is impossible to know with complete certainty, but we base our beliefs on experience, aka. evidence, which gives us reason to believe certain things. Why is it only the idea of God that gets this special treatment with regard to the burden of proof?

There are actually a lot of things that people are "agnostic" about: Aliens. Ghosts. Bigfoot. The Bermuda Triangle. Atlantis. Elvis sightings. Unicorns.

I don't say "God doesn't exist", I say "there is no reason to believe that God exists, therefore I don't". This is the only rational form of atheism, and it is also the only rational form of agnosticism. They are the same.

I say "God's existence and non-existence are both entirely possible, and I cannot draw a conclusion". The difference is that you're still arriving at a conclusion, while I am suspending judgment.

Within atheism there are the distinctions between those that positively assert that God doesn't exist and those that do not believe in God but acknowledge they cannot know for sure. They're still both atheists.
 
Back
Top