The JREF is not an atheist organization

[ImaginalDisc]

no it doesn't, it means disbelieving in gods not religion.

That is an equally valid definition, but by no means the only one.

and drumstick means "leg" yes?

Way to poison the well. You ought to be ashamed.

yes it does.

And a person who grows up isolated from religion, and who has no religious beliefs is, what? Atheist. Without religion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

no it doesn't it means having a non theistic belief. That is a belief in an interventionist god.
nope, based on a meaningful definition of atheist.

Based on your personal definition, into which reality dares not tread, I'd say.

Thats my point, Buddhists aren't without religion, but they are without god- religion and belief in god are not the same things at all.

Which Buddhists? You're still being as vauge as you possibly can.

 

[brodski]

That is an equally valid definition, but by now means the only one.

I'm glad you agree.

Way to poison the well. You ought to be ashamed.

It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

And a person who grows up isolated from religion, and who has no religious beliefs is, what? Atheist. Without religion.

You are still harping on about religion, I'm talking about gods, and it's clear to me that people are able to invent the concept of god on their own, without external social pressure. How do you think the idea got started in the first place?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

It is well poisoning and by doing it you as much as admit you are incapable of debating this subject without resorting to cheap rhetorical tricks.

You are still harping on about religion, I'm talking about gods, and it's clear to me that people are able to invent the concept of god on their own, without external social pressure. How do you think the idea got started in the first place?

Your question is not germaine to the discussion.

 

[brodski]

Based on your personal definition, into which reality dares not tread, I'd say.

say what you like. You are the one who started talkign about atheism in reference to religion rather than gods. A position which you have not yet shown any support for.

Which Buddhists? You're still being as vauge as you possibly can.

tell you what, you come up with a major Buddhist sect which invokes god as part of the Buddhist teachings, not a sect which is compatible[ with theistic belief, a sect whcih is intrinsically theistic. It seems to be your claim that Buddhists are not atheists, support it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

say what you like. You are the one who started talkign about atheism in reference to religion rather than gods. A position which you have not yet shown any support for.



tell you what, you come up with a major Buddhist sect which invokes god as part of the Buddhist teachings, not a sect which is compatible[ with theistic belief, a sect whcih is intrinsically theistic. It seems to be your claim that Buddhists are not atheists, support it.

It's entirely possible for a religion to be without a god, and thus "atheist," I grant you.

ETA:

I'm just unclear what that has to do with your point. The JREF is also without god.

 

[CFLarsen]

I responded to your assumption that anyone who says atheists are immoral also necessarily says atheists are a danger to society.

I debunked that assumption of yours, and you STILL cannot bring yourself to admit that. You can make all the points you want, BUT if you make these points INSTEAD of admitting you were wrong, it becomes painfully obvious that you are trying to avoid admitting your were wrong.

I think you are somewhat confused as to what "debunking" means. It doesn't mean categorically stating that the other party is wrong, and then get angry because the other party comes up with a valid counterargument.

It cannot be merely social stigma that keeps atheists out of jail. Social stigma also applies to religious people, and there is no reason to think religious people consider social stigma a less important factor.

And, if atheists are immoral - which was Corpse Crunchers claim - why would they care about social stigma anyway? Being immoral means that you don't give a hoot about good or bad, or what is right or wrong. Such people are inherently a danger to society - which I sure hope you agree with.

So, no, you haven't "debunked" my point.

 

[CFLarsen]

It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

Since when does inability to master a language completely (especially for those who English isn't their native language) give you the right to mock people?

Perhaps you should take a look at what "sinister" means, before you point your finger accusingly at non-native English speakers.

Yes, I checked. You should, too.

 

[athon]

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.

The JREF is also not a football organisation, a food organisation, or a political body. Yet these are not advertised in any way either. Technically, you could indeed call the JREF 'atheist' as it has no theistic approach. However, I feel the discussion here is reaching deeper than a surface description of the JREF's philosophy.

To officially describe it as 'atheist' and include this statement in its mission would mean it would be offering atheism as a conclusion the public should adopt. This, IMO, is not skepticism at all, no more than if the JREF asked the public to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster or alien visitation. Skepticism is distinct from the conclusion it produces, even though it can be assumed that if applied rigorously the same conclusions should be met.

Athon

 

[Jeff Corey]

Since when does inability to master a language completely (especially for those who English isn't their native language) give you the right to mock people?

Perhaps you should take a look at what "sinister" means, before you point your finger accusingly at non-native English speakers.

Yes, I checked. You should, too.

CF, you are quite adroit and dextrous when it comes to languages. And that's not a left-handed compliment. That would be gauche and sinister.
It seems that your left brain knows what your other hand is doing.

 

[Caius Textor]

Religions are about dogmas that cannot be discussed. There is no doubting in religion. If there is questioning and doubting, it´s something else.
Religions will tolerate questions and doubts up until when they threaten its very core. Then it will react violently. In our days it´s good publicity to pretend your religion is "open-minded." They show their true faces eventually, though.

Being skeptical towards religion is anti-religious in itself.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Religions are about dogmas that cannot be discussed. There is no doubting in religion. If there is questioning and doubting, it´s something else.
Religions will tolerate questions and doubts up until when they threaten its very core. Then it will react violently. In our days it´s good publicity to pretend your religion is "open-minded." They show their true faces eventually, though.

Being skeptical towards religion is anti-religious in itself.

In the US we have a plethora(infestation) of different religions that preach different doctrines and doubt each other all the time. Consider the clear differences between the Anglicans, Congregationalists, Methodists,Baptists and Roman Catholics.
And as we we got lost one time in North Carolina, every mile or so there were two "First True Baptist Church" or "The Real True First Babtist(sic) Church".

 

[Caius Textor]

I´m clearly talking about the position of each particular religion and how they deal with themselves, not the abstract general concept of "religion".

 

[ImaginalDisc]

To officially describe it as 'atheist' and include this statement in its mission would mean it would be offering atheism as a conclusion the public should adopt. This, IMO, is not skepticism at all, no more than if the JREF asked the public to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster or alien visitation. Skepticism is distinct from the conclusion it produces, even though it can be assumed that if applied rigorously the same conclusions should be met.

Athon

I agree, but I'm not suggesting the JREF announce itself as an atheist organization. Rather, I'm objecting to the announcement that is "is not an atheist organization." That strongly implies that it is religious in some way, which it clearly is not.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I´m clearly talking about the position of each particular religion and how they deal with themselves, not the abstract general concept of "religion".

But they all quibble with eachother, don't they? The +iants have been known for killing in the name of The Prince of Peace.

 

[Mercutio]

Religions are about dogmas that cannot be discussed. There is no doubting in religion. If there is questioning and doubting, it´s something else.
Religions will tolerate questions and doubts up until when they threaten its very core. Then it will react violently. In our days it´s good publicity to pretend your religion is "open-minded." They show their true faces eventually, though.

Being skeptical towards religion is anti-religious in itself.

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian, our pastor quite actively encouraged us to question and doubt. He was utterly convinced that questioning would lead us to the same place it led him--to an absolute faith in the bible.

I did question, and did doubt, and did ask. Initially, the questioning and doubting were answered in the ways common to that community, and the good and honest people of that community did their best to answer. I was encouraged always to question. Untested belief is weak.

I continued to question. My church continued to tell me to question.

In my case, after many years, my questioning led to atheism. In my sister's case, her questioning led to belief.

No one in my church ever threatened me for questioning. No one ever "reacted violently". These were honest, good people. I disagree with them now, but that does not make them any less honest and good.

I suggest that it is not good skepticism to paint "Religions" as if they were some monolithic entity; it is worse still to then impose our stereotypes on them and react to those stereotypes rather than the real people who make up these religions.

 

[Caius Textor]

But they all quibble with eachother, don't they? The +iants have been known for killing in the name of The Prince of Peace.

Yes, of course, exactly because they don´t question their principles/guides/whatever. They take them dogmatically and, in their most vicious forms, "preach" with sword blades and cannon balls. Believe my book or else!

Particular religions can´t stop fighting with each other because they all try to occupy the same economical/political niche.

 

[Caius Textor]

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian [...]

Why do you offer anedoctal evidence?

In any case, I´m not talking about the particular religious person. The particular religious institutions promote and support basic, fundamental, central and indebatable DOGMAS. If you want to question the veracity of such dogmas, hell, you don´t have faith in them! FAITH is not the path, it´s the end-point. It doesn´t matter how you got there. The fact is that faith is believing without questioning. As an example, The Catholic Church wants you to say that there is only one true god and that his son died for us. They don´t want you to learn The Five Ways and get to that conclusion. They uphold a dogmatic belief in a metaphysical entity, not a rational view towards reality.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian, our pastor quite actively encouraged us to question and doubt. He was utterly convinced that questioning would lead us to the same place it led him--to an absolute faith in the bible.

Then he obviously wasn't questioning his assumptions.

There is no chain of reasoning which leads to god which does not start with god as a presumption.

 

[Mercutio]

Why do you offer anedoctal evidence?

Because you made a global claim. One counter-example is enough to falsify it.