The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

"here are no "teachings", there's no structure""

rushfan4 wrote: I once heard a comment from a radio DJ that hit its mark with me.  "Given that I am not religious, the whole issue in the Middle East between the Muslims and the Jews comes across as childish behaviour in the guise of my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend".

rushfan4 wrote: I once heard a comment from a radio DJ that hit its mark with me.  "Given that I am not religious, the whole issue in the Middle East between the Muslims and the Jews comes across as childish behaviour in the guise of my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend".

I once heard a comment from a radio DJ that hit its mark with me.  "Given that I am not religious, the whole issue in the Middle East between the Muslims and the Jews comes across as childish behaviour in the guise of my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend". 

^ and no teapot either ... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

In an article entitled "Is There a God?"^[1], commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 12 2009 at 14:14

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: I never said or implied that Atheism is a religion, I said:   1.- Atheism is an act of faith that God doesn't exist, being that there's no undeniable evidence, it's faith.

But I disagree it's an equal act of faith compared to religious faith. I'll agree that just for arguments related to God, not the religions built around it, but the fact that a God might exist, both sides are equally UNKNOWLEDGEABLE, meaning neither can or does know anything about the matter. I think the atheist stance is slightly better grounded in human philosophical arguments though (which I do not think constitute knowledge, but only persuasiveness and rationality). Talking about the religions built around a God figure now, I think it takes more faith to believe in them than atheism, because of the vast foreign claims they make about otherworldly acts of God. In short, as the unlikeliness of the events in religious texts increases, the more faith one needs to believe in them. This tips the balance in favor of atheism, which to begin with is on about the same level with belief in a God (just a creator God, minus any reigious hubris).

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 2.- Some Atheist groups have a priority for their evangelism, trying to convert poor ignorant believers into "intelligent" and rational atheists. 3.- Some Atheist groups have an almost religious organisation, some months ago I presented a group that talks about the Atheist Ten Commandments http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9671.htm (Incredibly bigot article BTW), other groups have strong asociations with dogmas and rules and they want to spread their word.

Ivan, please. We've done this before; those sites first of all, may or may not be satire. Secondly, they mean nothing to atheists at large--they're isolated groups. Atheists are NEVER EVER EVER required to associate with anything related to a belief structure/dogma outside of "God (probably) doesn't exist." THAT IS THE ONLY TENET.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 4.- Some Atheists take a fundamentalist position as strong and irrational as the one from the most radical Christian groups.   That's all.   Iván

Fundamentalist? I guess, but if their position is based on scientific backing, it's a lot less irrational than (most examples of) religious faith, and practically all religious fundamentalism.

stonebeard wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Not violent but "The world would be better off without religion. It is something we should try to grow out of. " is at least provocative.   Iván But if we would be better off without it, then that's just the reality of it all. If it hurts feelings, then that's unavoidable. It adds nothing to say that this possibility of the world being better without religion can cause violence because it's provocative. Such a sentiment is close of easing off blame from those who commit violence because someone hurt their feelings (religious reactionaries) because those words are indeed provocative. Natural response or not, it's still the reactionaries fault if they resort to violence. If the TRUTH is that we would be better off without (some, all) religion(s), then we need to confront that, regardless of hurt feelings. The thing is, religion cannot be eradicated, because human mysticism can't be eradicated.

BTW: I never said or implied that Atheism is a religion, I said:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 12 2009 at 13:45

^ I'm pretty sure that many churches would try to get rid of Atheism, if they saw a chance to do it.

^ maybe *you* haven't been saying that, but people like jampa or Iván are saying it - and the picture could seen by them as a confirmation.

But I don't agree with your opinion at all - you're saying that if we manage to abolish religion, something (anything) else will take its position, so we improve nothing. With that attitude, how could there ever be any improvement? It's like saying "let's not fight evil, it's futile anyway".