How true this is. Religion doesn't have to be based upon God, it can be based upon a god. Albert Einstein once was asked what his religion was and his answer is as follows; "My work is my religion, I work religiously." Whatever is the center of your life is your religion. One's god can be almost anything. For some that god is alcohol, gambling, drugs, work, sex, computer games, etc. If you worship it, it is your god.
88 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
I like how you decide to put only negative examples as what can take the place of God. Why not friends, family, love, empathy, or generosity? Do these require a belief in god? Are atheists incapable of these things? I can tell you that, as an atheist, I don't "worship" anything. There are certain qualities which I hold in high esteem, and those people which I care about, and even activities that I enjoy doing. None of these things I worship yet they are still a part of my life. I'm sorry but your simplistic view of people fails to take into account the complexity of life.
87 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
I never said any of those things are negative, you did. It doesn't surprise me to have someone deem work as a negative, this is the going trend. As far you not worshiping anything, I don't believe that. The truth is in front of you, try accepting it. ""We must accept the truth, even if it changes our point of view." –Unknown" I took it straight off your profile. Hypocrite.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
I actually meant aside from the work thing, but thanks for taking what I said out of context. How can you possibly know if I worship anything if you've never even met me? How can you speak so confidently about everyone on earth? Perhaps you need something to worship, but trust me when I say that there are plenty of people out there who don't need to idealize something to give their life meaning. You should try it sometime.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
So please, if you become compelled answer plainly. Why do you disagree with the opening statement?
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
Whatever is the center of your life is your religion. being someone opposed to worship, I don't regard anything as being "the center of my life" This does not preclude me however from practicing and reaping the benefits of deep devotion. The efforts that evidence my devotions is how I express religion. though I may not identify wholeheartedly with any particular religious sect I identify with many of them in some ways. I think atheists (a group I embarrassingly belong to) ought to shut up with the anti-religious rhetoric because it amounts to saying: Our system of belief has lead us to believe that some systems of beliefs are objectionable. Well no shit? How about a little more devotion to describing why non-theism is a good philosophical base for religious practice?
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
Why do I have to have a god. I reject the theory of god and because I play computer games and gamble those are my gods.
88 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
They are your gods if they are the center of your life. Tell me how they are not your gods. This ought to be good. American Heritage defines Religion as; #4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
87 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
People who claim to have no religion are liars or don't understand what religion is. While I see in one of your replies you decided to take one of the definitions of religious and define that one point: #4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I think you know (at least I hope you do) that words can come to mean multiple things that are loosely related, or not related at all. Since atheists seem to be the subject you are discussing, the proper definition of religion for this debate is: Noun (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality" (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" I think it could easily be said that one is both an atheist, and at the same time may or may not do something "religiously". I religiously brush my death twice a day. I don't believe that my toothbrush is my creator. Hence, me atheist, me do things "religiously" in spite of this. I assure you the vast vast majority of atheists understand what it means to be atheist very well. I mean, you say you are an atheist. Let me ask you, do you at least try your hardest to breathe when you need oxygen no matter what? Well, that would mean you breathe "religiously" Hence by your own definition you are not an atheist at all. ... well hopefully you see your error.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
I think you know (at least I hope you do) that words can come to mean multiple things that are loosely related, or not related at all. being atheist I obviously prefer definitions of the word that are also atheistic. ... well hopefully you see your error. I do not see my error. I would like to.. by respectful debate have it (them) clearly exposed. I don't think you have clearly expressed why you disagree.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
blah, this was actually a reply to on of the statements above, and I got the maker of the debate (you right?) confused with the person I was replying to, and kind of jumbled them into one chimera. So it may not make tons of sense... tried to change it, but a couple votes were cast mid-correction so I couldn't and kinda gave up. I don't like thewayitis' (who the reply was to) general attitude in the debates of his I've run into (plus I find his name kinda presumptious) so I'm always harsh with him. I'll get back to you with a more political arguement when I have a chance.
85 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
It is so easy to rattle your cage. I like how you always try to change the premise of something to get it to fit neatly into your world. If one definition is wrong then another is just as wrong. All definitions of religion should be taken into consideration. Arguments should be directed to both meanings of the word, your meaning is no better than the definition that I put forth. It is only equal to it.
44 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
Rattle my cage thewayitis? I didn't' realize you had a hidden camera in my home and could tell my emotions... perhaps create debate should have emoticons so you will not be confused as to my emotions, they look something like this ._. - as in "is this guy for real?" As for changing the premise, I did not. It's quite evident in fact if you read my argument that I am indeed replying accidentally to two different people at once, then you will see on the other side I addressed the question in a more focused manner. Anyway, you seem to think you know a lot of stuff. You have the answers, you know "the way it is" already, but when one bothers to explore the logic of your statements they will find them baseless. You make wide claims that sound nice. Case in point: "all definitions of religion should be taken into consideration. Arguments should be directed to both meanings of the word, your meaning is no better than the definition that I put forth. It is only equal to it." Okay, it sounds inclusive and sensible. But just a little thought and one finds it's pure silliness. Everyone does things in such a way that we would call it "religiously" you take the next step and call that religious, when in fact "religiously" in this context simply means often or regularly. In spite of the similarities of the two words, they are very very different. But you go on to describe how then everyone must be "religious" because they do things "religiously." I mean, it's basically 3rd grade thinking you dress-up in a 10th writing level... okay 12th grade, maybe that's what annoys me further. I would dislike you less if you just said it like this: "Like but... if like you do stuff um religiously, then like that's like you're religion and um, you should think about that because it's deep... and stuff" Now, I actually began reading and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I believed you must be making some deeper point, for instance, even if you don't believe in any diety, something in your life will take it's place, whether work, family, or some negative thing. To which I would still argue you are incorrect, and that religion is just a decoration, but it became apparent at least to me that indeed unfortunately you were trying to make this "religiously v religious" argument. So I called you out on it. I assure you if I had a cage, it would not have rattled a bit.
11 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
|
Atheists, self-proclaimed, choose the term of atheist to disassociate themselves from religion. However, most atheists are over-looking the fact that they are, more rightfully and rationally, heretics. And in my personal opinion modern day Christianity is the mother of Atheism, while God and truth are the progenitors of heretic-ism. I'll explain more if warranted.
89 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
Please do. (explain) Do you mean that Atheism is some sort of post-christianity? - with the morals but discarding the fantasy?? If I understand you correctly, I would rather say that the scientific method is the mother of atheism.
88 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
Do you mean that Atheism is some sort of post-christianity? - with the morals but discarding the fantasy?? Without being too critical of both Atheists and Christians, both terms indicate conclusions of the mind predicated upon supposed facts. The facts, as it were, lead to contradictory conclusions; however, the conclusions are not necessarily valid inferences of what is to be thought of as fact. Or, explained another way: There may be in fact a logical validation of the existence of an Alpha Creator, if you will; but, the position of the Atheist, in contradiction of the Christian, contradicts only the Christian definition of God. Example: God = Alpha Christian definition of God=Beta Atheist’s position, God= not Beta As long as Christians draw invalid inferences, via deductive reasoning, or specifically the lack thereof, the Atheist view point only contradicts the invalid inference of the Christian. And consequently both camps are disputing a falsity. The atheist contradicts, validly I might add, the Christian definition of God. But atheism is not a valid contradiction of a valid definition of God. Now, having slightly elaborated my viewpoint I submit the following proposition: The validity of the Atheist position concerning God is no more true or false than the Christian definition of God. So, in conclusion the Atheistic viewpoint only contradicts the Christian definition of God. In answer to your first question I will simply say that some Atheists are more moral than some of their Christian counterparts, and that, without so much mysticism. If I understand you correctly, I would rather say that the scientific method is the mother of atheism. That is fine, but I will submit unto you that I think you would disagree with that statement after some additional facts. #1 The scientific method is an instrument for knowledge by the rationality of a sound mind. #2 The current Atheistic viewpoint is the consequent contradiction of the Christian definition of God. And finally, Atheism (as defined) exists only by reason of a contradiction of the notion of God; for without the notion of God no Atheist can contradict a viewpoint that does not exist. If the thoughts of God and religion were none existent then so to shall be the viewpoint of an Atheist. The scientific method does not create an Atheist, it produces sound knowledge apart from unreasonable reason (oxymoron). I can discuss that matter in even greater detail if so be you would care to.
87 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
I think you're using a very selective definition of atheism. Atheism can refer anyone in any cultural context that doesn't believe in a god(monotheism) or gods(polytheism), of any kind. I understand we are seeped in this "western" context of christianity, but does that really mean a "self proclaimed atheist" in some other religious region is standing in direct opposition to Christianity? I don't think so. Atheist aren't making a counter claim regardless of the dichotomy of the labels. Atheism/theism concerns belief, as opposed to gnosticism/agnosticism which is an epistemological term concerning knowledge. To me, everyone is agnostic because I think no one living knows for certain if there is a god. Christians believe they are gnostic because they see the bible as evidence. Atheists have no belief in god/s due to their perceived lack of evidence. This is the default position since no claim is being made. Theism, no matter the form, makes the claim for god/s or the supernatural. Without evidence there is no reason to believe this claim, but note I did not say that it was warranted to believe that god/s cannot exist. Atheism is not a belief structure. If the thoughts of God and religion were none existent then so to shall be the viewpoint of an Atheist. This is the basis for atheist blowback. There isn't a word for the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Atheists are a much derided minority, especially in the south where I live. There are still states that do not allow us to serve in government openly. Minorities when threatened band together. Modern atheism is a reaction, nothing more. If theism disappears, the illusion of an atheist collective will disappear. Then we finally realize we were all Pantheists anyway as our ideas of god merges with our ideas of the universe. I think some of the upcoming breakthroughs in quantum mechanics will pretty much assure this.
63 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
Atheists, self-proclaimed, choose the term of atheist to disassociate themselves from religion. That's not necessarily true. I choose the term to disassociate myself from theism, which is not synonymous with religion.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
You do not have to have a religion first. second Atheism follows no book of storytales just scientific facts (proven) third no practices or rituals that atheist partake in a regular basis i.e. meetings, sacrificing virgins, stonings , getting pushed into a dunk take forcefully(baptisms )
88 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
I'm an atheist, and I am somewhat spiritual; however, I know many atheists who are pretty much entirely rational. Atheists and agnostics can go either way, I think. A lot of it depends upon your definition of religious, which is rightly different for different people. It's personal, and my "religious" probably isn't the same as your.
88 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
How you interpret the word religion is inexorably tied to theism then? I see.
86 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
I label myself as an atheist, but I'm not a true atheist. I'm still looking for a religion, but I have yet to find my spiritual niche. I disassociate myself from mainstream religions that I find corrupt and far less spiritual than I'd like and also from the idea of a 'higher, divine power,' which doesn't sit well with me. I'm still looking for a religion. But I'm young. There's no rush.
88 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
People who claim to have no religion are liars or don't understand what religion is. I am atheist and find that I differ with most other atheists on this subject. I would like to read some thoughtful arguments about it. Well, the first paragraph makes the assumption they know the minds of every person who claims to be atheist and at the same time fails to define religion. ex. If one, like one the other side of this debate does, defines religion as anything done religiously Then sure, everyone has something or many things they do religiously, and in that sense, okay they're religious. But that is not the definition of religion that an atheist is going by when they claim to not be religious. Now, I don't know the percentage of people who claim to be atheist, but are really just agnostic, but that lack of understanding in whatever percent in no way negates the first paragraph's misrepresentation of both what religion is, and their lack of understanding the inter-workings of other people's minds. Take me for example, since I am the only one I can speak for. I'm an atheist. I think the idea of a god is silly. I think biological life is a result of circumstance and evolution over billions of years. I believe life is inevitable in any environment given time and the necessary ingredients. I believe intelligent life is inevitable and in no way depends on a creator. I believe when I die, I'm dead, and I will have no feeling, knowledge, or concept of being dead, I simply will no longer be. I think that's what most atheists believe. But I don't presume to know what other people are thinking. I'm open to only what science says as far as life and death. I don't believe religions, prophets, or magic, I think those things are superstition, nothing more, like breaking a mirror or a black cat. As far as morals, I prescribe to philosophy, not any religious text. I think that religious morality is based again, on superstition, and like superstition, some is good, some is bad, and it is rarely based on thought. Philosophy on the other hand is all thought, and unlike religion, philosophy can change its mind based on evidence. Again, I don't know what is in the minds of other atheists, but I imagine it is very similar to this. Now, does that not sound like an atheist? Where is the god I worship? What miracles do I believe? What "answers" am I appealing to a higher power for? None. Yet, according to the author of the first paragraph, I'm a liar or don't understand religion. I would submit that perhaps it's not my misunderstanding of what religion is, or that I'm some sort of liar, but that perhaps the author of that quote is them self a bit confused by the entire thing. Maybe they are still struggling with some indoctrination, maybe they're one of those undercover theists trying to "just get atheists to ask the question." Whatever the the situation, it is clear they have spent little time considering the concept that other people do not necessarily think of things in the same light as they do. I find the assumption that I, an atheist, have not already asked these questions thoroughly of myself before deciding on my own personal philosophy, a bit insulting. Atheists make up around 18% of the world population. Even less of the US population. Very few atheists grew up in homes that did not prescribe to one religion or another. Holidays suck if you are really an atheist, they are annoying. Why on earth would one pretend to be an atheist? I mean, even if I didn't believe in a god, wouldn't it be easier to just play the game? Well, I think religion is harmful over all, so I put up with stuff like "People who claim to have no religion are liars or don't understand what religion is." and continue to attempt to try to explain clearly my own point of view.
84 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
Thank you. I don't mean to come across as insulting, just provocative. If one, like one the other side of this debate does, defines religion as anything done religiously Then sure, everyone has something or many things they do religiously, and in that sense, okay they're religious. I argue that someone who is atheist ought to subscribe to a definition of religion that is also atheistic. Strangely most atheists prefer the definition of religion rife with theological connotations. I think atheists should engage in religious debate with influential theism promoting individuals but cannot do so in as meaningful of a way without first coming to terms on what "practicing religion" means. I think us atheists ought to stop denying that we practice religion. We are subject to the same sort of folly that anyone else is including theists. We may misplace trust as well. But that is not the definition of religion that an atheist is going by when they claim to not be religious. Agreed. Shouldn't atheists favor an atheistic definition of religion? Now, I don't know the percentage of people who claim to be atheist, but are really just agnostic As if people cannot be both but that lack of understanding in whatever percent in no way negates the first paragraph's misrepresentation of both what religion is, and their lack of understanding the inter-workings of other people's minds. nonsense alert I think the idea of a god is silly. Then theists won't take you seriously in discussions...which is fine if you don't aim to be influential But I don't presume to know what other people are thinking. my you do seem offended!! I'm open to only what science says as far as life and death. I don't believe religions, prophets, or magic, I think those things are superstition, nothing more, like breaking a mirror or a black cat. And theists, (much like you) are open to only the authorities they deem worthy. Being opposed to superstition I get and support. What I try to do is find what is honorable from various traditions (I don't absolutely exclude any) and honor it/them. It is also important for me to be critical of aspects of traditions that stand out to me as objectionable. As far as morals, I prescribe to philosophy, not any religious text. So if you understood religion the same way I do. Philosophical considerations including texts (valued by you) would strongly influence your morals. I think that religious morality is based again, on superstition, and like superstition, some is good you should replace "religious" in the above snipplet with "theistic" (just my opinion take it easy) What superstition is good? , some is bad, and it is rarely based on thought. Philosophy on the other hand is all thought, and unlike religion, philosophy can change its mind based on evidence. I identify theism as making religion less adaptable. Now, does that not sound like an atheist? Sure but not necessarily someone opposed to all forms of theism Where is the god I worship? I detect an integral element of theistic worship in the following: I'm open to only what science says and your concept of sound science is infallible? You have more in common with "religious" people than you think - methinks What "answers" am I appealing to a higher power for? If you believe that two heads are better than one then you have access to a "higher power" that has nothing to do with theism. Yet, according to the author of the first paragraph, I'm a liar or don't understand religion. I am convinced it is the latter the author of that quote is them self a bit confused by the entire thing. not as confused as y....LOL Maybe they are still struggling with some indoctrination who isn't? maybe they're one of those undercover theists trying to "just get atheists to ask the question." could you please explain that? Whatever the the situation, it is clear they have spent little time considering the concept that other people do not necessarily think of things in the same light as they do. As evidenced by the first sentence after the debate hook line "I am atheist and find that I differ with most other atheists on this subject" I find the assumption that I, an atheist, have not already asked these questions thoroughly of myself before deciding on my own personal philosophy, a bit insulting. Is your personal philosophy decided? Have you made up your mind like worshipers do or are you open to change your mind based on evidence? Boo hoo. I am just having fun contrasting my opinion with yours. don't take it too personal. I was trying to be provocative enough for a thoughtful response. I think I got it. If you felt insulted you could always try to insult me back...lol Why on earth would one pretend to be an atheist? I would rather ask who might claim atheism but still be quite theistic without even recognizing it? Most atheists (just my opinion) This is too fun.
82 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
No offense taken, or intended, I'm not here to find people I agree on everything with :) I want to go through each point, I'll number the points highlighted in your reply in order: 1. Okay, so then I'm still not sure which definition of religion you are referring to. It seems you mean that a person who may put trust in another, in this case science, is not much different than a religious person's trust in say a Rabbi. Like perhaps I put faith in Hawkings' ideas. I don't want to make that assumption yet. I would say of that, that I only have as much faith as scientific method has proved, and am flexible more so than a religious person would be, when shown different proof. But I'm curious what you mean by this, could you define what you mean by "practicing religions" and how that mirrors an atheist? 2. This may be the same as 1. but what then would an atheistic definition of religion be? 3. An agnostic believes proof of a deity is impossible, or does not exist, either way they are not committed to the idea that there simply is not a god. An atheist is committed to the idea that there are no deities, so one cannot be both. If an atheist says "I don't think there is a god, but there could be" then they're actually agnostic. 4. I don't think this is nonsense at all. First of all, in spite of this debate, I still have no idea what you really think. In the same sense, no one can know what anyone else thinks. It may very well be that you do not differ as much from other atheists as you think. That is the point. No one can know what anyone believes really. 5. Point taken 6. Same as 4 7. But the difference is proof. Science has theories, and then the theories are either proved or not. There is no attempt to prove anything in religion. I think that would make the belief systems very dissimilar. With science, if a theory is proved wrong, then people walk away from that theory. That theory was leading people in the wrong direction. How is a religious person ever to know if their theory is leading them in the wrong direction? The difference is, a theist doesn't ask. When they do, they usually end up agnostic or atheist. 8 and 9. Okay. 10. I'm curious how you separate theism from religion. Are you saying one can be religious without being a theist? It seems to be coming back to this point but from different directions, I think this may be the center of our debate. Okay, I'm going to have to abandon the number system here: ""Now, does that not sound like an atheist? Sure but not necessarily someone opposed to all forms of theism Where is the god I worship? I detect an integral element of theistic worship in the following: I'm open to only what science says and your concept of sound science is infallible? You have more in common with "religious" people than you think - methinks What "answers" am I appealing to a higher power for? If you believe that two heads are better than one then you have access to a "higher power" that has nothing to do with theism. Yet, according to the author of the first paragraph, I'm a liar or don't understand religion. I am convinced it is the latter the author of that quote is them self a bit confused by the entire thing. not as confused as y....LOL Maybe they are still struggling with some indoctrination who isn't?"" Basically this entire exchange stems from a misunderstanding of each other's positions, and serves little to further this debate, so let me paraphrase what is in my mind during this and hopefully it can be pointed toward a more beneficial direction: It's my belief whether correct or not, that a theist puts their faith in something that has no proof. This may be compared to some degree to a scientific theory in that proof is still missing. The difference I think though is in the pursuit of that proof. You are correct that I am willing to put my faith in a theory that seems to make sense, and in the same way, a god could make sense to another. But if a theory is put forth tomorrow that there was no big bang, but a new mathematic proof supports a constant state that simply expands and detracts the Universe in some way over time; okay then perhaps my "faith" will change. I would not continue to believe in a Big Bang in spite of mounting scientific proof. A theist has no tool to pursue the truth in any manner like this though. A theist isn't looking for proof, I believe they are looking for a nice story. Maybe that is harsh. But while I can see how at face value belief in a theory can look a lot like a belief in a religion, the underlying method for coming about this I think makes them very different. ""maybe they're one of those undercover theists trying to "just get atheists to ask the question." could you please explain that?"" It is one of the New Born text book tactics. They have a bunch of them, not too important for this debate though. ""Whatever the the situation, it is clear they have spent little time considering the concept that other people do not necessarily think of things in the same light as they do. As evidenced by the first sentence after the debate hook line "I am atheist and find that I differ with most other atheists on this subject""" Point taken. The reply isn't directly related to my point, as the point wasn't for the subject in general, but the lack of evidence of what others really believe. But it's a dead end anyway, so there's no point in pursuing it. ""I find the assumption that I, an atheist, have not already asked these questions thoroughly of myself before deciding on my own personal philosophy, a bit insulting. Is your personal philosophy decided? Have you made up your mind like worshipers do or are you open to change your mind based on evidence?"" I am more than open to changing my mind based on evidence. I do not believe a theist is, this is where the problem lies I believe. This should not be taken that I am open to theism, as the proof is in on that subject I believe, which would separate myself from an agnostic. I think that is the proper definition of atheist, and I think that is the majority view of atheists. I'm not 100% sure how you believe an atheist should approach the entire thing other than this, and still call them self an atheist.
81 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
It seems you mean that a person who may put trust in another, in this case science, is not much different than a religious person's trust in say a Rabbi. What I am talking about is "excessive trust" or worship if you will. There is no telling how catastrophic the consequences may become. I am inclined to believe that the tendency to worship (the behavior I associate with theism) is the main problem. Holding any "entity" or "group" "literary collection" in too high a regard is basically the same thing IMO as being theist. I would say of that, that I only have as much faith as scientific method has proved Most atheists I have met wouldn't touch the word "faith" with a ten foot pole. You recognize (I think) faith as a practice which is not intrinsically bad but one that demands caution, curiosity and critical thinking. This may be the same as 1. but what then would an atheistic definition of religion be? Religion is our ideological and traditional heritage. We identify ourselves religiously by our affinity for or rejection of specific expressions of it. Religion to me represents a person's or group's peculiar brand of intolerance, what we pay attention to, promote, struggle against, what we ignore, and alliances we form related to our personal (consciously chosen or passively accepted) value system. An agnostic believes proof of a deity is impossible, or does not exist, either way they are not committed to the idea that there simply is not a god. An atheist is committed to the idea that there are no deities, so one cannot be both. If an atheist says "I don't think there is a god, but there could be" then they're actually agnostic. Though I consider myself both, I like to make a distinction between atheists and anti-theists. Someone who is without a belief is not necessarily rejecting said belief. I think it is possible and logically consistent (since that's how I see myself) to be atheist anti-theist and agnostic. Being agnostic I recognize the futility of arguing for or against the existence of deities (people define and imagine them in such diverse ways). As an anti-theist I work to make the practice of worship lose popularity. "An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican But the difference is proof. Science has theories, and then the theories are either proved or not. There is no attempt to prove anything in religion. I think that would make the belief systems very dissimilar. With science, if a theory is proved wrong, then people walk away from that theory. When we discuss proof, we are talking about what is sufficient to convince. Religious and scientific beliefs rely on repetition as the primary means to do that convincing. What is the difference between a belief and a theory? Both are subject to change based on new information. Red flags go up for me when people start talking in terms of certainty. It smacks of theism That theory was leading people in the wrong direction. How is a religious person ever to know if their theory is leading them in the wrong direction? It's is our religiously developed values that define what a good direction and a bad direction is. It is our religion that determines what questions we deem most important to ask. The scientific method is just that, a method. The method cannot provide us with a reason to study test and produce records. 'm curious how you separate theism from religion. Are you saying one can be religious without being a theist? Yes I am. I hope I have successfully shared my perspective. If I have failed to address a point you brought up please make me aware and I will make effort to do so respectfully.
72 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
If Christian, Jewish, Mormon, etc. are classified as religion, then why is agnostic or atheist not a religion? After all it is something that one practices.
44 days ago | Tagged As: Right, heres why
More often than not, atheist do not say that "there is no god" it's far more likely for them to say that they "do not believe in god." Atheism, by itself, isn't a religion b/c it rejects religious dogmas. It does not attmpt to explain the world, it does not attempt to indoctrinate others (usually) atheism is simply the skeptical viewpoint of whether or not there is a diety. They usually say "I don't believe in a god becuase no evidence of a god has been presented." If there was evidence for a diety, then there would a lot less atheist. there are Atheistic religions, though, but they often involve some supernatural aspect. There are very few,if any Anti-theistic religions, I believe. Many atheist and anti-religious people understand exactly what a religion is, it is often the theist and the religious who do not. Personally I find religion in general to be unnecessary and a belief in a god or gods as a delusion. (P.S. Theism isn't a religion either.)
11 days ago | Tagged As: Wrong, here's why
|
