If we go by how lives are lived, we see religion truly.
Atheism vs Theism reflects only taste in poetry.
I get it
Side Score: 8
|
 |
i object
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
Sure. Many people think that by just reading the scriptures of a particular religious sect that they can thereby fairly understand this group. I am arguing against this notion. I think we need to focus more on actually interacting with people before we form our opinions about them. As to the statement: Atheism VS Theism reflects only taste in poetry.... Coming from the position that between individuals and groups we have both commonality of beliefs/values and differences. I argue that there is very significant unity of beliefs and values that are hidden by semantic differences. Theology is just a way of taking about "ruling logic" that atheists find irritating. Hope that gives you something to challenge me on. Side: I get it
1
point
As far as your first point, I agree fully. Though I must admit I have occasionally veered into lumping all adherents of a specific religion together, I do actively try to avoid that and make note when I failed to. Many atheists were raised in a religious family and I was too. Unlike many of the atheists I know, however, my family had very moderate views, tended to believe in science and were definitely NOT homophobes. This extends beyond my parents pretty deeply into other branches of the family tree. Also, the church we went to was filled with other such people. So to me, the extreme fundamentalists, creationists, etc., they were more of a mythical stereotype, something that I assumed only existed in media and the deep south. It wasn't until I spent several years in the real world that I realized such people were more common than I had realized as a youth. All of this helped drive home that there is a huge spectrum within Christianity, and probably in any other religion as well. And as a member of the atheist community I see this over here as well. As far as the second point...I'm not sure if I get what you are saying, but let me explain one of my views and you can tell me if that is what you are talking about: I believe that even general religious or spiritual beliefs tend to engender or be caused by flaws in rational thinking. The exact flaws will vary from one person to the next. Anti-science, faith in things that can only be supported by limited circumstantial evidence, investigative failures caused by confirmation bias and so on. While I do realize that one does not have to be religious to have this flawed thinking, I do think it is virtually impossible to be sincerely religious without committing these flaws on some level. Is this in the ballpark of what you are referring to? Side: I get it
Re-defining a known word to fit your needs again? There’s a word for that in Debate, though it escapes me at the moment. The absurdity in this is that redefining “religion” to mean “life” or "living" in general reduces it down to such simplicity that it becomes redundant. What’s the point of saying someone is religious at that point? It fails to adequately address what people refer to what they use the word. Regarding your description: I don't believe atheism or theism denote religiosity (by the more recognized definition of the word). They are just two opposing positions of an issue. Side: i object
Re-defining a known word to fit your needs again? Only the more naive atheists will fail to understand what I meant by religion in the debate description. It is a VERY common use of the term. The absurdity in this is that redefining “religion” to mean “life” or "living" in general reduces it down to such simplicity that it becomes redundant. Strawman. I did not redefine “religion” to mean “life” or "living". In case you are unaware, religion defies a single sentence definition. You certainly do seem unaware that the VAST majority of people take the "belief/value system" view of religion. Why do you think most people view atheism as a religion? What’s the point of saying someone is religious at that point? It certainly can't be to denote that they "have a belief/value system". When I say someone is very religious, I mean they are "very seriously devoted" to living up to the highest ideals of their belief/value system. Failure to recognize this separate usage of the term can lead to equivocation. The most naive of the atheists I talk to have a problem with how I describe what religion is and what being more or less religious means. But NO ONE ELSE DOES. Theists (which is most people) have got no problem understanding that everyone practices religion in more OR less the same way and with more OR less conscientious devotion. Regarding your description: I don't believe atheism or theism denote religiosity (by the more recognized definition of the word). Oh you differ from most atheists on this! Most atheists do. You would really surprise me if you would agree that a religion need not be concerned with supernaturalism. Most atheists insist that it must (Which I find ironic) They are just two opposing positions of an issue. I think atheism is not the opposing position to theism. Anti-theism is. Side: I get it
Only the more naive atheists will fail to understand what I meant by religion in the debate description. It is a VERY common use of the term. I don’t know how a failure to understand what someone means by a given word is any measure of naivety. Ignorance or misunderstanding maybe. And I don’t believe your use of the word is as common as you suggest. Strawman. I did not redefine “religion” to mean “life” or "living". “If we go by how lives are lived, we see religion truly.” Perhaps you could clarify that phrase for me. At first glance it looks as if you are describing religion as “how lives are lived.” Which would be a very simplistic way of defining it. I'm sorry if it appears as if I'm attacking a straw man but in my defense there’s not very much else here but straw. In case you are unaware, religion defies a single sentence definition. Im quite aware, I’m not the one who keeps trying to sum it up in a few words. You certainly do seem unaware that the VAST majority of people take the "belief/value system" view of religion. Yes, I am unaware that it is a vast majority and not a fringe minority. Besides, I don’t deny that religion is a belief/value system, but that doesn’t mean that all belief/ value systems are religions. All oranges are fruits, but not all fruits are oranges. Why do you think most people view atheism as a religion? Loaded question. I don’t think that, nor do I believe that’s true of most people. Regardless, I assume if someone does consider atheism a religion it’s because they don’t understand what constitutes atheism and/or religion in the first place. When I say someone is very religious, I mean they are "very seriously devoted" to living up to the highest ideals of their belief/value system. Failure to recognize this separate usage of the term can lead to equivocation. Yes, that is one use of the word. i.e. “Betty studied for her finals with religious zeal.” Another would be “of or pertaining to a religion” i.e. “David is an active member of his church but his girlfriend is not religious,” ‘The ruling party primarily consisted of religious leaders,” “Some religious beliefs forbid the consumption of pork.” It can lead to confusion depending on which usage is used, especially where atheist/ theist elements are mentioned in a debate setting. Problems of equivocation usually occur in the deception of the presenter, not the failure of the audience to recognize the misuse of the word. If you want to use the word in that way, that’s your prerogative, but unless you decide to acknowledge the other uses of the word that people use I predict that you will find even yourself in a state of confusion in future debates. The most naive of the atheists I talk to have a problem with how I describe what religion is and what being more or less religious means. It would seem correct in this instance to point out that your use of the word is incongruent with how it is more commonly used, if most atheists you talk to share this sentiment, perhaps they could offer you some insight on some less controversial/ confusing diction. It is not likely that atheists will conform to your use of the word considering the nature of their position and because it has a more specific meaning then just belief system. Also, it’s not a measure of naivety for people to disagree with you. And it can be construed as arrogant for you to assume that they just haven’t reached your superior level of understanding in the matter. But NO ONE ELSE DOES. Theists (which is most people) have got no problem understanding that everyone practices religion in more OR less the same way and with more OR less conscientious devotion. This is a loaded statement. When you say “theists have no problem understanding…” you have yet to demonstrate that this is an “understanding” and not a “misunderstanding” which they have. Oh you differ from most atheists on this! Most atheists do. Most atheists believe that ‘atheism’ and ‘theism’ denote religiosity? Yes, this would be news to me. You would really surprise me if you would agree that a religion need not be concerned with supernaturalism. I’m unsure. Is it a predominant trait of religions? (I don’t think I have to point out that I don’t intend to mean all belief/value systems when I use the word, but just in case) Most atheists insist that it must Why is that? And don’t just say because they’re naive. Make a conscious effort to actually understand why. I think atheism is not the opposing position to theism. Anti-theism is. Well I think it would be apropos to determine how you define these words given your tendencies, but all I can give is my current understanding of the words. Atheism – nonbelief or rejection to the existence of god(s) Theism - belief in or acceptance of the existence of god(s) Anti-theism – against the belief in or acceptance of the existence of god(s) Anti-atheism – against the nonbelief or rejection to the existence of god(s) Side: I get it
Presuming I understand the premise correctly, it functions only under an assumption of a moral/value system. Religion fairly necessitates such a system, whereas atheism neither precludes nor demands one. If we go by how our lives are lived while assuming a moral/value framework (all religion and some atheism), then this statement is correct. However, if we go by how our lives are lived while assuming no moral/value framework (no religion and some atheism), then this statement is not correct. From my perspective (amoral atheist), one cannot distinguish between the religious and the non-religious on basis of deed because how we live our lives is not subject to moral/value judgement. Side: i object
|
