From the Dionysus Forums thread, What is religion and how did it exist ...
So, to insist that somebody else's beliefs are incorrect, suggests that you in fact do know better (or believe) which, has nothing to do with the "lack of belief."
So basically by implying a "lack of belief" in something suggests you have no opinion on the matter. Am I correct? If so, then why do so many "Atheists" tend to mock and ridicule those who partake of religion if, in fact it wasn't some sort of counter-belief? Surely, if you have nothing to say on the matter, then why all the noise? Why the need to defend yourselves against that which has no implications or, doesn't mean anything? ... Because all religious folks are nuts? Which, of course is merely a stipulation of your belief, because as an Atheist you do not know who holds a valid belief and who doesn't.goozleberry said:
So, to insist that somebody else's beliefs are incorrect, suggests that you in fact do know better (or believe) which, has nothing to do with the "lack of belief."Excuse me? Who mocks and ridicules whom? Our own President thinks atheists are unfit for office; his father thought them unfit to be citizens. The pledge in schools, the money we carry, even something so trivial as a sneeze, reminds us that atheists are an oppressed minority.Iacchus said:
You, Iacchus, may see the atheists here and extrapolate our behavior to all atheists; this is patently not the case. Atheists are far more often mocked and ridiculed themselves; what you see here is a reaction to that.
Why defend ourselves? I don't know, Iacchus, maybe it is that pesky desire to be treated as an equal, as a human being.
You know, I grew up with Atheistic beliefs as a kid, and never felt the least bit oppressed.Mercutio said:
So long as I wasn't expected to go to church that is.That's good enough for me, otherwise I wouldn't be here!
Tell it to all the crazy fundamentalists and whacky woo woos that you keep referring to on this forum. By the way, I don't know if anybody's ever told this, but America has become very secular and materialistic nowadays, the likes of which has very little to do with religion. So don't count yourselves in as a minority (unless of course you're a homosexual, and even that may not be considered a minority anymore?) if you think that'll prove anything.
You grew up with "atheistic beliefs"? And yet, when asked, you will not list them? Whatever...Iacchus said:You know, I grew up with Atheistic beliefs as a kid, and never felt the least bit oppressed.
Tell that to the White House. Have you followed the "faith-based initiatives" program? The move to take money from public schools and give it to religious schools? The pledge contraversy?
I admit I could hold a biased view on this. I notice the attacks on non-religious persons every bit as much as you notice the "mock[ing] and ridicule" of the religious. So...do you have any evidence, a poll, say, to support your view?
I was not a vocal atheist, which isn't to say my friends were not, and yes, we maintained the belief that those who went to church were gullible. While I also got in trouble once for throwing rocks at a church when it was holding service. So if this is not a matter of belief, then I don't what is?Mercutio said:
Was President Clinton an Atheist? If he wasn't, you sure could have fooled me.
No, just first-hand experience. Basically all I can say is that I remember growing up and being exposed to all sorts of behavior (thanks in part to the immorality of the sixties and seventies, not to mention the benefit of my public education), very little of which had to do with religion.
Iacchus, listen once more: I have never said that individual atheists are devoid of beliefs. I have said that there is no set of beliefs that defines atheists. There is a world of difference. If you think you know a set of beliefs that fits this bill, I invite you for the, what, fifth time? to share it.Iacchus said:
Where on earth did you get the idea I said this? He is, by all accounts, a devout christian. That was part of my complaint--that an atheist, in all likelihood, could not get elected to public office in the US. (I would love to find out, if any here knows, how many atheists do hold public office in the country, out of how many public office-holders total).
Was President Clinton an Atheist? If he wasn't, you sure could have fooled me.
So no firm data either way. But you sounded so certain...
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Where on earth did you get the idea I said this? He is, by all accounts, a devout christian. [/QUOTE]Mercutio said:
Not to mention the fact that the White House has been occupied by G.W. Bush for the last four years. Try to keep up, Iacchus, buddy.
Well certainly the public educational system, which stressed Science and the theory of Evolution had a tremendous impact, to say the least ... which, was none other than a form of indoctrination. I should also mention I was a beneficiary of this Socialistic institution called welfare, which again, had nothing to do with religion.Mercutio said:
Like I said, you could have fooled me. President Clinton didn't seem the least repressed by any religious upbringing.
What, aside from the fact that the whole world was going to hell? In fact many people still maintain that belief today don't they?
I'm sorry--what does any of this have to do with atheism?Iacchus said:
And don't worry--if is was indoctrination, it didn't take; your view of science shows that.
Again, I am really trying to see the relevance here. He was not an atheist...my earlier post spoke of the repression of atheists by believers...so, I gotta say, I have no clue as to what your point here is. Are you trying to imply that Clinton really was an atheist?
I dunno, maybe you had better explain it...but we have had no luck before asking this of you.
Ok, so you are, in fact, certain, despite your admission that you have no evidence other than your own experience. Fair enough. Shall we assume now that, unless you tell us otherwise, everything you say is independent of any support in the real world?
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
Amazing, did they also indoctrinate you with algebra? long division? The magna carta? What about proper sentance structure? YOU ARE THERE TO BE PRESENTED WITH KNOWLEDGE.
Please tell me then how teaching someone proper sentance structure is education, but teaching them science and evolution is indoctrination?
Do you actually believe that marital fedility and christianity actually go hand in hand? You are half right, because they do, but inversely to what you are thinking.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Morality/CrimeAndDivorce.shtml
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Nice try Again, Iaachus. I never said there was no such thing as wrong. Just that it was meaningless to say that you can't have good without evil. Do you always employ preverication and misdirection in your arguments? Again you show yourself to be an unethical debater. Try honesty for a change.
But wrong does not necessarily suggest or imply evil. Wrong simply means "incorrect". Evil has a different conentation to it. And what is evil is relative.
I'm just going by what it says in the bible.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
So... You were not a vocal atheist, Yet you threw rocks at a church that was holding a service. Hmmmm.. perhaps you were a violent atheist?
This just shows that you had a "belief" that those who go to church were gullible. This says more about your character than it does about atheisim.
Do you plan to throw rocks at a school where their teaching evolution?
Oh yeah, well we forgot about the form of indoctrination the Communist and Socialist variety of Atheism affords us now didn't we?Mercutio said:
Do I hold a Ph.D. in Science? No.
Well let's just say he gave very little indication that he was a believer by his actions. Like I said, if he was the least bit repressed about the whole thing (instead of so causual) then I would say yes. By the way, I myself don't buy into the (typically) repressed form of Christianity.
Well you can either relate to what I'm saying or you can't. Apparently you can't.
Also, in the same regard. If I have to wait for Science to discover that God exists, chances are I'll be in for a long wait before I can even begin to believe.
So why do they expect you to memorize all these things and continue to test you to see how well you've been indoctrinated?RussDill said:
Yes, the force-feeding of knowledge (learning by rote) is most definitely a form of indoctrination.
No. But there are different ways in which it manifests itself, and this is all I was saying.
We forgot? Um, Iacchus...their atheism was a part of the definition of their other views...Communism or Socialism are not part of the definition of atheism. Your inductive logic is faulty.Iacchus said:
Nor does Yahweh, but he understands it. You do not. Does that stop you from criticising it? Of course not.
The vast majority of adulterers are religious, Iacchus--probably because the vast majority of people are religious. And please, sometime, take a look at some of Clinton's other actions, instead of defining him by his infidelity. You will find that his actions very strongly show him a man of faith. (Mind you, this whole discussion tells us very little about Clinton, but quite a bit about you.)
All I did was point out, accurately, that you were very confident in decisions you made in the absence of any evidence. How this is an inability to relate to what you are saying...I do not know.
I will limit my comment here to simply stating that you once again demonstrate your ignorance of science.
Nope, variations of the same thing, just like we have different denominations of Christianity. Remember?Mercutio said:
Yahweh may have a passion for Science. I don't. That does not make me ignorant however.
I'm suggesting that because he didn't show the least bit of guilt over what he did which, is part of the ingrained Christian mindset, that he was not a believer.
And just what the heck is it that you think you know besides what you believe you know? Is there some absolute sense of knowing that backs up what you think you're trying to say? If everything is merely relative, relative to what then? That which is more absolute? Or, that which is less absolute?
Would you suggest that Science entails the quest for absolutes?
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
Again, you keep using the word "indoctrinate" but you have not set the process apart from teaching. When you learned spelling, didn't they test you?
Again, explain how when science was taught, it was force fed, but when current events was taught, it wasn't.
From your other posts, I get what you are saying. Anyone who does bad isn't a christian because they are lying about beliving in god. Right, that makes sense.
Excuse me, I think I misunderstand you. Are you really saying here that Atheism, Communism and Socialism are "variations of the same thing"? Please, for once in your life, just a yes or no will do here.Iacchus said:
It is not the passion I speak of, but the knowledge. And your lack of understanding of science does make you ignorant. Not stupid, but yes, certainly, ignorant. You could read and understand to overcome this, but your self-professed lack of passion for the subject, while not directly causing your ignorance, does now maintain your ignorance.
I do not use the word ignorance lightly, nor do I use it as an insult. There are many topics about which I am ignorant--none of us can know everything any more. I just try my best not to speak beyond my knowledge on those topics.
You do not think he showed guilt? I would strongly disagree. I could ask, though, on what evidence to you base your conclusion that he showed no guilt? How do you know you did not simply miss it? Your previous posts on this thread do not lead me to believe you paid close attention to Clinton's life.
You are being evasive here. By your own description, you came to a conclusion which you held very strongly, but which (again by your own description) you came to in the absence of evidence. Here you go on about knowing, belief, absolutes...but you cannot get around the fact that you are holding a strong belief for which you have no evidence. I could see holding a weak belief, a tentative belief, a belief you are willing to question, in the absence of evidence...but such a strong belief, resistant to change (as evidenced in this thread), without evidence?
Ok, now I see why you are being evasive.
No, I would not.