Atheism: new religion?

[six45ive]

I agree. Muddying the waters and building strawmen are precisely the things that lead to the debate being worthless, whether perpetuated by believers or atheists (in my experience both are guilty of it).

 

I've yet to see evidence of this so called strawman from the atheist side. I'm still waiting for a response to the fact that polls taken in the US regularly state that about 60% of the population believe the bible is literally true. That Noah and his ark actually existed and that Adam and Eve are real and that about 40% of Americans believe the Earth to be only 6000 to 10000 years old.

I've yet to see you argue against the fact that islam is an ideology that can sentence you to death for writing a critical book, drawing controversial cartoons or simply drawing an image of muhammed. An ideology that calls for the death of apostates, homosexuals and fornicaters. An ideology that imposes genital mutilation on millions of children every year. An ideology where so called 'honour killings' are still rife. An ideology that imposes strict roles of conduct on muslims and that willingly casts them out if they don't tow the line. An ideology where women are still far away from reaching emancipation/equality with their non muslim sisters and an ideology where the koran, hadith and sharia law are the only thing that matters for millions of muslims leaving millions of children ignorant of the richness of knowledge that we have accumulated over many centuries leading to the technologically advanced society that we benefit from today.

Please point out why all this is a strawman to you.

[Mr Prime]

Just realised what was bugging me about that-

 

Think of stephen hawking- monster book sales far in excess of most of his peers, which is to be expected, because, as the public know, he is one of the greatest scientific geniuses of modern times.

 

And yet, amongst his peers, amongst scientists, astrophysisists etc, he's not actually rated that high.

 

Consistently, in polls conducted amongst those peers, he tends to come out relatively low, with many, to the public, obscure writers, coming out well ahead in terms of their actual scientific acheivements.

 

Yet Hawking consistently outsells them. Why? Because he's captured the public imagination. it's as much to do with his condition as with his scientific prowess- such is the nature of book sales.

 

Fair enough but to me it's like rating Rolls Royce's, Jaguars, Bentleys or Aston Martins. All of a high standard and the bottom of the quality league is still super high.

[six45ive]

No- I know him reasonably well. He's actually very well-adjusted, very confident. If he felt his views were foolish then he would reject them.

 

I'm afraid my BS detector has just upped a notch.

You didn't know him well enough to realise he was religious which is usually one of the most important things to a religious person.....hence, you obviously don't know him as well as you think you do.

[onewheeldave]

I've yet to see evidence of this so called strawman from the atheist side. I'm still waiting for a response to the fact that polls taken in the US regularly state that about 60% of the population believe the bible is literally true. That Noah and his ark actually existed and that Adam and Eve are real and that about 40% of Americans believe the Earth to be only 6000 to 10000 years old.

I've yet to see you argue against the fact that islam is an ideology that can sentence you to death for writing a critical book, drawing controversial cartoons or simply drawing an image of muhammed. An ideology that calls for the death of apostates, homosexuals and fornicaters. An ideology that imposes genital mutilation on millions of children every year. An ideology where so called 'honour killings' are still rife. An ideology that imposes strict roles of conduct on muslims and that willingly casts them out if they don't tow the line. An ideology where women are still far away from reaching emancipation/equality with their non muslim sisters and an ideology where the koran, hadith and sharia law are the only thing that matters for millions of muslims leaving millions of children ignorant of the richness of knowledge that we have accumulated over many centuries leading to the technologically advanced society that we benefit from today.

Please point out why all this is a strawman to you.

 

It depends on what point you're dealing with when you quote stuff like the above, doesn't it?

 

For example, if a believer was claiming that religious people were all good and never did any harm to others, then much of the above would be relevant and certainly not a strawman.

 

However, if a believer was claiming that their belief brought a great deal of peace into their own life and an atheist argued against that by quoting the above, then there's an element of strawman in that.

 

Because, in that scenario, the atheist is arguing against a point that the believer simply isn't making.

 

The quotes above are only relevant when arguing against someone who denies that religion is implicated in harming others.

 

However, many religious believers are totally aware of the of the harm that has been done, and still is being done, in the name of religion.

 

Another example of atheist strawman making occurs because many atheists are so preoccupied with the necessity of proof, as a basis for religious belief.

 

Whatever point the believer is trying to make, there's a tendency for some atheists to relentlessy be asking where their proof for God is.

 

However, to many believers, proof of Gods existence (in the scientific sense) is simply not that relevant to them.

 

In that case, it's appropriate for the atheist to focus on whichever point the believer is actually making, rather than arguing against a point which they're not making.

[onewheeldave]

I'm afraid my BS detector has just upped a notch.

You didn't know him well enough to realise he was religious which is usually one of the most important things to a religious person.....hence, you obviously don't know him as well as you think you do.

 

I think the key word in the above is usually

 

The point I was making was precisely the fact that this individual did not consider it particulalry important to proclaim to everyone he knew that he was a believer.

 

That's not to say his belief wasn't important to him, rather that he didn't feel the need to go on about it.

[quisquose]

If you're saying that those dictionaries define atheism as wickedness, then I share your horror.

 

Share my horror?

 

Possibly, but from your posts on this thread, and others, it seems more like you wish to convince that my a'theism is obnoxious. Nobody else on this forum has gone to further lengths to redefine a'theism to what they want it to mean than yourself. This is no different to those that edit their dictionaries to define a'theism as "wickedness".

[RootsBooster]

The more I talk to atheists the more convinced I'm that atheism is a new religion.

 

Some of them try to impose their non-religiosity just like some religious people try to impose their religiosity.

 

They have no doubts that their way is the right way, just like religious people. They both claim they have seen "the light".

 

Some of them are as stubborn, extremist and intolerant as some religious people.

 

Some atheists claim religion makes people stupid, but I have seen as much stupidity coming from them as from religious people.

 

Atheism is a form of belief. It is believing in no god. It therefore comes with the same "phenomenons" as the other religions.

 

LOL, whut?

 

I THINK I know what you trying to say,

 

Atheists are not a group or a belief system, they're just people with an absence of belief in religion. There's plenty of them good and plenty of them not so good. Some respect people's beliefs and some will rant about beliefs.

 

It's not a religion though.

[onewheeldave]

Share my horror?

 

Possibly, but from your posts on this thread, and others, it seems more like you wish to convince that my a'theism is obnoxious. Nobody else on this forum has gone to further lengths to redefine a'theism to what they want it to mean than yourself. This is no different to those that edit their dictionaries to define a'theism as "wickedness".

 

I have no wish to convince you or anyone else that your atheism is obnoxious. I find it bizarre that you feel that way. If you sift through my previous posts and find anything to justify that accusation, then you will certainly receive an apology.

 

I've made no attempt to redefine atheism- all I've done is point out that some current dictionaries contain the second definition.

 

Rest assured that, if I did want to redefine atheism, then I would do so, and do so openly- but, I haven't.

[six45ive]

It depends on what point you're dealing with when you quote stuff like the above, doesn't it?

 

For example, if a believer was claiming that religious people were all good and never did any harm to others, then much of the above would be relevant and certainly not a strawman.

 

However, if a believer was claiming that their belief brought a great deal of peace into their own life and an atheist argued against that by quoting the above, then there's an element of strawman in that.

 

Because, in that scenario, the atheist is arguing against a point that the believer simply isn't making.

 

The quotes above are only relevant when arguing against someone who denies that religion is implicated in harming others.

 

However, many religious believers are totally aware of the of the harm that has been done, and still is being done, in the name of religion.

 

Another example of atheist strawman making occurs because many atheists are so preoccupied with the necessity of proof, as a basis for religious belief.

 

Whatever point the believer is trying to make, there's a tendency for some atheists to relentlessy be asking where their proof for God is.

 

However, to many believers, proof of Gods existence (in the scientific sense) is simply not that relevant to them.

 

In that case, it's appropriate for the atheist to focus on whichever point the believer is actually making, rather than arguing against a point which they're not making.

 

As an atheist I'm always coming from the standpoint of a believer believing in a god and having a holy book which they believe to be the written word of god.

The reason most atheists ask for evidence of a deity comes from the understanding that 'beliefs inform actions' and if you are gullible/naive/ignorant to believe in 'belief without evidence' then you open yourself up to the vulnerable position of anything and everything being justifiable depending on your interpretation of your ambiguous holy book.

[six45ive]

Rest assured that, if I did want to redefine atheism, then I would do so, and do so openly- but, I haven't.

 

In which case you would be attempting to build a strawman of what atheism is.

 

 

PS. The Atheist Experience is on Ustream at 10.30.

Here's the link.

Online Video Delivery

 

 

...........