Even if one were to possess an ultimately fast spaceship and sufficient amount of time and lifespan; and went forth and found a character in the universe which matched the deity described in holy writ, this begs the question, is that a god?
Science has no definition for the term god, so no matter what entity you coaxed into traveling back with you on the spaceship, they would more than likely not be a god. Atheism as a choice, takes no position on research. It does not seek to block science, change definitions, manipulate academics and the media, or change the nature and ethic of the scientific method in order to protect itself from potential falsification. Atheism is a simple choice of ethic. One does not believe in deities.
Even though to the ignostic, this seems like a bit of a cheat, nonetheless he will still sympathize with the atheist.
Finally, atheism is a free choice. It may object when children are forced to accede to Abrahamism, but it generally does not seek to intimidate legislatures or children into becoming atheists, and it is not mandatory before one can be deemed acceptable in any particular club, elite society or circle. One can even join an atheist organization, and not even be an atheist. Atheism is a personal choice, to not believe in deities. That is it. As you can see in the graphic above, atheism, the ethical rejection of the idea of a deity, in no way bears the traits and elements of a religion.
Atheism however, only deliberates the issue of whether or not to venerate or believe in the existence of deities. Now again, set aside the issue that science holds no definition of the terms deity or god, and focus now on the realistic application of atheism. Nihilism is the religion of choice of those who would seek to enact specific social, belief, and egalitarian goals in the name of science. Goals which tender their group mandatory power, through the unification of science as government, and is characterized by the planned lack of your participation therein.
Atheism is therefore, the Lie of Allegiance of the Nihilist; the attractive cover philosophy which draws the unsuspecting in, before forcing them into the deeper, angrier and more control oriented aspect of the religious doctrine set, in order to obtain acceptability. Now lets place Nihilism into that same crucible by which we just now condemned Abrahamism and exonerated atheism, in terms of their status as potential religions. Regarding Nihilism:. Nihilism can be tested for falsification.
Only one confirmed extant alternative intelligent life form or medium of information transfer is required. Just one. This reality terrifies Nihilists. Nihilists vehemently seek to block subjects in falsification group 1. This is their number one priority, as demonstrated through deed, media, intimidation, propaganda and very infrequent but highly visible and controlled predictive studies.
Want to get a Nihilist angry? Tell them that falsification evidence exists. They are in an extreme state of defensive denial on this. Nihilsm is forced on children, the media and post graduate candidates. It is mandatory as a belief before one can be published, accepted into academia, or regarded as a media science reporter or peer review expert.
It is enforced by angry acolytes and intimidating celebrities with a media hammer. In many cases, atheists meet as a reaction against religious intolerance, the infiltration of religious dogma into schools and legislation, or the entanglement of church and state. They meet to get organized in an attempt to combat these religious excesses. They have no clergy, no schools, and no sacred buildings. The only thing all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods. Not one single course.
I wanted to, believe me, but I figured that all I needed to be an atheist was twenty years of paid membership in the Catholic Church and the shredded foreskin to prove it. If so, where does it stop? Most people, he proposes, would not put themselves in either of these camps.
I would like to continue this conversation, there is much to be gleaned, but I would appreciate it if we can keep it respectful.
Rob, The argument of complexity is not a good one. We have evidence of life on earth, in the form of algal stromatalites so far the earliest known fossils dating back well over 3.
That is a lot of time for evolution to do a lot of things. It appears that it took a long time for more complex forms of life to develop, but when it did around the end of the PreCambrian, it still leaves us with around million years to develop all the complexity we see. Even eyes. Evolution is just about the opposite of chance. Evolution is the gradual accretion of incremental changes over a vast period of time.
Sure, the fossil record has some holes in it, but there is more than enough there to see the basic shape of evolution in all creatures. To paraphrase Dawkins again twice in one day!
Creationists propose that somehow the complex structures at the top were created right there at the top, all of a suddern, whereas evolutionists propose that they evolved a small step at a time, climbing the mountain gradually up the shallow side. Actually , evolution is a religion. Go to jasmine Ever got the flu? Ever wonder why a different flu strain appears every few years?
Yep, evolution. How humanist! Now gimme dat oil. Go ahead and read my last post again. Your post is only a worsening of the same non-answer and a furthering of the point. There is no reconciliation with that.
Not doing so and being evasive is as much confession there is with our race. And… based on prior comments, both are subject to my Ace in the hole.
Jesse, You might have missed my reply above , but I would like you to address it. Jesse, sorry, off having a life. Your arrogance is actually becoming painful to read. I am comfortable with my assumption. I can accept that other people believe, and I can understand the myriad reasons why.
I do not accept a characterization of atheism as a worldview that equates it with a religion, as a result of the refusal to accept precepts on faith, and, I might add, the lack of the characteristic ritualized component common to most religions.
My point was only that in my opinion, the labelling of atheism as a religion is incorrect because of a lack of certai shared characteristics that make it sufficiently distinct, and therefore different. Using the knowledge I have, interpreting it through the lenses I have been given through experience and education, this is the conclusion I have reached through a process of reasoning, careful consideration, discussion with peers, and so on.
I claim to speak for noone but myself. I stand by what I wrote. And if my last post seems different in tone between the beginning and the end, it is. I stepped away to feed my dog and took a bit of a breather. The typical dictionary definition is:. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. It seems to me that Flash just combined a and b into a single sentence definition.
And without the aid of sky fairies, I might add. My supposed lack of a prepared response to your arguments in the form that you demanded resulted from my disdain for an outmoded dinosaur of a philosophy that rejects the individual in favor of a pessimistic, hegemonic, overgeneralized theoretical construct.
So, not responding to my implied inquiry re: your credentials? Does that indicate that you have not, in fact, studied philosophy and are hunched over a computer with tabs open to this blog and Wikipedia? Were you interested in civilized dialogue, as would befit any truly educated individual, you would be able to elevate your discourse above the level of ad hominem attacks on my character, credentials, and so on.
I take from this that you are insecure in your position, if not your proposed identity, and are therefore seeking to enhance your ego at the expense of mine and of others.
To characterize my ideas as lies simply because you do not fully understand them is unworthy of an academic, or even of someone with a hint of a social conscience. Until you learn that insult is not debate, that condescension is not a badge of superiority, and that arrogance is the antithesis of respect, I will regard this conversation as closed, and my opinion and worldview unchanged.
Well, it is quite arguable that there are no reductive i. To say that there is a pure, logical definition religion is the straw man, and bears with it a mythical telos that is as dangerous, if not more so, than even the most rabid forms of Christian Rationalism. And save the snarky, trite Atheist analogies—the assumption has already been made that I am a theist, when I am neither Atheist or Theist.
Your arguments are attempting to define religion in terms of the religious. Were you not paying attention? Flash — if he actually had credentials, he would have given them by now — Nihil Dicit. You keep leveling this claim of personal attack against me: can you quote me as such? I questioned your credentials and you only made my point.
There is no burden on me to do the same, for reducing this to an internet argument of credentials is a pleasant distraction from the fact that you have still not answered my questions a few posts prior. If you can answer the post prior, then do so. Anti-theistic, an Atheist who is angry with religious attitudes and dogma, actively seeking a reformation of the church and renouncement of all things theistic.
Turning my own arguments against me? Flash lied; anyone who reads the comments knows this, and ought to understand the intention for doing so, as they reflect the false position of prominence upon which Atheism itself stands.
Guys, calm down, this is getting noone anywhere. All of you. Would you mind explaining the following statement, which I cribbed from one of your previous messages? How does defining religion create a dangerous straw man?
If this is true, then are the definitions of anything inherently dangerous, or is this relevent only to discussions of myth? Can you answer to what I said above :. First of all, you are imparting motives to me that I do not have or claim to have. Again, if you read the text carefully, I speak for myself only. Second, where did I lie? If you are judging my position to be a lie then you have made a claim to truth — do you have knowledge that contradicts anything I have said?
If you feel I misrepresented my credentials, read the thread again — I said I had a specialty in epistemology without revealing the degree itself — an omission, but one corrected when questioned. I have re-read each of your posts, and am unable to derive questions from it — you provided a short list of statements?
Make the questions clearer and I will answer them to the best of my ability. To characterize me as a liar, unable to answer, uneducated, a coward, etc. You have invalidated nothing, only asserted a different view. I sincerely apologize for stirring the coals; but ya gotta do it sometimes to keep the fire going. Either currently or in their past, China , North Korea , Vietnam , Cambodia , and Cuba are or were officially atheist.
In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. Paganism : The pentacle is a five-pointed star, or pentagram, contained within a circle. The five points of the star represent the four classical elements, along with a fifth element, which is typically either Spirit or Self, depending on your tradition.
Sikhism: The symbol or emblem of Sikhism is known as the Khanda. Atheism and theism.
0コメント