|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 14:30:36 GMT -5
He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing." Newdow disagrees; for him, hearing it is like "getting slapped in the face every time." He offers this burst of fatherly pride to his daughter: "Go to church with your mother. I love the idea of her being exposed to everything. But I want my religion to be taken into account." For a guy trying singlehandedly to dismantle an American institution, it sounds almost reasonable. www.slate.com/id/2097737/
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 5, 2007 15:39:17 GMT -5
'"Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReligionI guess if he wants to call it a religion.....
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 16:22:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 16:48:40 GMT -5
Newdow thinks it is. Religion usually have a cultural epic, a moral system, supernatural creatures, rituals, mythology and magic books, places and trinkets. Atheism has none of that stuff. In fact it fundamentally rejects it. In bold is not the usual but the exception. The Wicca religion is the only one that I can think of that has magic books, places or trikets. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion. So the real question is whether all Atheists subscribe to the religion of Secular Humanism. If there are Atheists that don't, what do they base their beliefs on? Is their only belief made up only of there is no God?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 5, 2007 16:59:21 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that atheism is a religion because it is, at its very core, a belief system.
Atheists believe that man himself is the ultimate 'power' and/or 'authority' in the universe. That would be tacit ackowledgement of a 'higher power', even if they believe man is that 'higher power'.
Even if you don't believe in a god, clearly that nonbelief is a belief system.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 5, 2007 17:17:32 GMT -5
Newdow thinks it is. Religion usually have a cultural epic, a moral system, supernatural creatures, rituals, mythology and magic books, places and trinkets. Atheism has none of that stuff. In fact it fundamentally rejects it. In bold is not the usual but the exception. The Wicca religion is the only one that I can think of that has magic books, places or trikets. Sure. The Bible could be considered a 'magic book' (as could the Koran). A crucifix or rosary could be considered a 'magic trinket'. And the Vatican or your local handy dandy Baptist church could be considered a 'magic place' (as could a synagogue or mosque).
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 17:21:33 GMT -5
Even if you define any belief system as a religion Atheism still doesn't qualify because it's a lack of belief. Atheists believe that man himself is the ultimate 'power' and/or 'authority' in the universe. That would be tacit ackowledgement of a 'higher power', even if they believe man is that 'higher power'. I've never meet an Atheist who believes that. www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1/
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 5, 2007 17:45:54 GMT -5
I contend that the absence of a belief system constitutes a belief system.
Even if you believe in >nothing<, that's expressing a tacit belief in >something<.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 17:51:47 GMT -5
womi, They get around that logic though..... Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive assertion that deities do not exist.[3][4][5] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups— define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[11][12][13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtheismThe problem I have with that though, is the fact that THEY have heard of gods and are not newborns anymore but do understand the concept. So, I don't buy into the "absence of belief " gambit.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:09:00 GMT -5
I contend that the absence of a belief system constitutes a belief system.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:20:52 GMT -5
Everybody's an Atheist concerning the thousands of gods they don't believe in. There's usually only one god in contention.
From my experience most Theists are unbelievably shallow in their belief systems.
Most religious systems are based on revealed truth. There is no way to objectively measure the various revealed truths against one another.
All serious philosophy for the past 200 years has presupposed Atheism.
Debates between Atheists and Theist usually involve the Atheist trying to explain things the Theist missed in second grade —like what science is.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Feb 5, 2007 21:25:07 GMT -5
Buddhism is mentioned as a religion, but it's really more of a philosophical outlook to apply to living life. Marxism is a secular religion because it has the trappings of religious faith.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 21:28:14 GMT -5
"There is no way to objectively measure the various revealed truths against one another."
The same could be said for atheism. You have no way to objectively prove it to be true.
Usually debates turn into non-debates when atheists start acting superior in their own minds. They usually start this by implying theists are stupid or can't understand things. So there must be an asshole gene they inherit.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:33:53 GMT -5
Buddhism is mentioned as a religion, but it's really more of a philosophical outlook to apply to living life. Marxism is a secular religion because it has the trappings of religious faith. A Buddhist Atheist is someone who doesn't believe Buddha achieved Nirvana. Marxism is not a religion as the word "religion" is used in the English language.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:36:46 GMT -5
"There is no way to objectively measure the various revealed truths against one another." The same could be said for atheism. You have no way to objectively prove it to be true. Usually debates turn into non-debates when atheists start acting superior in their own minds. They usually start this by implying theists are stupid or can't understand things. So there must be an asshole gene they inherit. A: Smart people know that you can't prove a negative. B: Theists aren't necessarily stupid, just stupid about religion.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 21:40:02 GMT -5
"There is no way to objectively measure the various revealed truths against one another." The same could be said for atheism. You have no way to objectively prove it to be true. Usually debates turn into non-debates when atheists start acting superior in their own minds. They usually start this by implying theists are stupid or can't understand things. So there must be an asshole gene they inherit. A: Smart people know that you can't prove a negative. B: Theists aren't necessarily stupid, just stupid about religion. A. Exactly, so why use that to bolster your debate against Religion. B. Stupid about religion....I thought that was the one thing they understood? It's science they have a problem understanding, right?
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Feb 5, 2007 21:42:41 GMT -5
Buddhism is mentioned as a religion, but it's really more of a philosophical outlook to apply to living life. Marxism is a secular religion because it has the trappings of religious faith. Marxism is not a religion as the word "religion" is used in the English language. I'd disagree about Marxism, at least dogmatic Marxism as expressed in the twentieth century. It was a secular faith that required a magic book ("Das Kapital"), holy figures (Lenin, Mao, etc.), an order of initiates (Communist Party members), and an absolute belief in an economic and political system that proved incompatible with human nature.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:48:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 21:54:55 GMT -5
blondie,
Unless you have an actual point to debate, pawning amazon.com books isn't very interesting.
The fact that most religious studies are taught by atheists in secular colleges is not a news break. That's like saying most seminaries or other religious training schools, assume there is a supernatural.
You can not be a Christian and not believe in god. Somebody is lying to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 21:55:10 GMT -5
I'd disagree about Marxism, at least dogmatic Marxism as expressed in the twentieth century. It was a secular faith that required a magic book ("Das Kapital"), holy figures (Lenin, Mao, etc.), an order of initiates (Communist Party members), and an absolute belief in an economic and political system that proved incompatible with human nature. There is no point in calling Marxism a religion unless you just want cloud communication. You can call anything anything you want. Lets leave the definition of words to the people that write the dictionaries. Oh wait, that's us: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 22:03:04 GMT -5
blondie, Unless you have an actual point to debate, pawning amazon.com books isn't very interesting. The fact that most religious studies are taught by atheists in secular colleges is not a news break. That's like saying most seminaries or other religious training schools, assume there is a supernatural. You can not be a Christian and not believe in god. You should read that book. It is interesting. Did you read it? It's a best seller. Here's a point. The stuff taught in secular colleges is history and science. The stuff taught is seminaries is BS, by any objective measure. Did you know that story about Jesus telling the people, "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" was a late addition to the Bible? It wasn't in any of the early copies? Do you think they teach this fact in seminary?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 22:06:36 GMT -5
blondie, Unless you have an actual point to debate, pawning amazon.com books isn't very interesting. The fact that most religious studies are taught by atheists in secular colleges is not a news break. That's like saying most seminaries or other religious training schools, assume there is a supernatural. You can not be a Christian and not believe in god. You should read that book. It is interesting. Did you read it? It's a best seller. Here's a point. The stuff taught in secular colleges is history and science. The stuff taught is seminaries is BS, by any objective measure. Did you know that story about Jesus telling the people, "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" was a late addition to the Bible? It wasn't in any of the early copies? Do you think they teach this fact in seminary? There are plenty of examples of the history in the Bible being shown as accurate by archeology. Do you deny that? Is that B.S.? Would you like to debate that portion of the Bible as being accurate? We can do that..you start first with your proof showing that it wasn't in there from the start.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 22:12:01 GMT -5
Would you like to debate that portion of the Bible as being accurate? We can do that..you start first with your proof showing that it wasn't in there from the start. There's nothing to debate. It's a universally accepted fact among scholars. Thought this is a good place to start if you want to see how dishonest, or just ignorant, the typical Evangelical understanding of the Bible is.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 22:26:03 GMT -5
Would you like to debate that portion of the Bible as being accurate? We can do that..you start first with your proof showing that it wasn't in there from the start. There's nothing to debate. It's a universally accepted fact among scholars. Thought this is a good place to start if you want to see how dishonest, or just ignorant, the typical Evangelical understanding of the Bible is. LOL. So, as long as you say something is universally accepted among "scholars"...then there is no need to back up what you say on forums. Cool, I'll use that for now on and hopefully nobody will call me on it. Oh and I like how you totally ignored my refutation of your B.S. comment. I guess that's another tactic to employ. You're trolling.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 22:31:57 GMT -5
I gave you an amazon link above. You can study up on this stuff too.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 22:35:57 GMT -5
There are plenty of examples of the history in the Bible being shown as accurate by archeology. Do you deny that? Is that B.S.? Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible. There really is a Jerusalem. So obviously all the magic stuff in the Bible must be true. Hallelujah.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 23:23:44 GMT -5
That's your comeback? I was expecting more from an intellectual. Why didn't you at least link me to another Amazon book.
|
|