No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

by Perry 32 Replies latest jw friends

Adonai438

Hi Perry,
I too have found your thesis to be true for the most part.
Like stated before:
God's existance cannot be disproven by any evidences or logic.
Since there is no evidence against the existance of a deity to conclude that one does not exist is based on personal belief not on factual evidence. Therefore to state that God unequivically does not exist is, in fact, a religious choice-- a religious statement. One can state they don't see any evidence for Gods existance but they cannot cite any evidence against his existance.
I personally do know of much evidence for the existence of a deity and more specifically, the God of the Bible. Do not assume, however, that because I do believe in God means I am biased to evidence. Arriving at the conclusion of God's existance is not taken blindly or ignorantly. Belief in God is not independant of truth and evidence but based upon it.
Perry

Very long trip....stayed over an extra day. I'm exhausted.
Abaddon, In my original post which you took issue with to an unprecented degree and initialy chose a condecending approach to; my thesis was since there has never been a society with out a religion in the history of man, how different are current ideologies in terms of function, even though they choose to call it something else.
Even before you chose to present an argument you poisoned the well by attacking me for being biased and for Christians. What difference could that possibly make to my material ?
Honestly, I can't see where that charge has any merit since I never said I was promoting Christianity....only fairness.
On the other hand,you showed a clear bias by presenting your affinity for Humanism and using it to support position. This was thoroughly destroyed. Since Humanism is clearly religious even by its own admissions in its literature, you appeared very foolish and directly contricted yourself.
You have not put forth any evidence to show what the distinction is. It appears that you got rather upset and resorted to personal attacks and attempted to bog the conversation down in semantics as in the example below.
Look at this;
"against all forms of unethical ideological influences"
Okay, maybe being obtuse is your thang, but ignoring your rather dense prose (as in heavy, not stupid, but ARE you realted to ANita Loomba?), I ask you; define 'unethical' (as in specific actions which would be unethical) without an underlying ideology. Go on. Don't bother. Can't be done. Cooking utensils exchanging comments on each other degree of carbonisation? The above quoted phrase is so close to meaningless as to pass as meaningless, unless adequately qualified, which it is not.
If you don't know what ethics is, how can you claim an affinity to Secular Humanism since that is a major part of that philosophy? In any case; wouldn't a simple dictionary definition do?
Any way we could go on for days splitting definition hairs and chasing your red herrings or yoiu could simply present an argument instead of attacking me.
I'll ask you again to please not to denegrate yourself and this thread and
PLEASE POINT OUT TO US WHAT THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN POPULAR IDEOLOGIES AND HISTORICAL RELIGIONS.
In other words please point out the effect that an ideology has on a person/society and then tell us how those effects are essentially different from a religious one.
Abaddon

Hi Perry - I hope your trip went well.
You say;
Abaddon, In my original post which you took issue with to an unprecented degree and initialy chose a condecending approach to;
Read my first respose Perry; no condecending approach there; indeed, your original reply to me was;
"Excellent reply. It is this kind of honest inquiry that makes post JW life so wonderful."
Now, which is your true opinion? And why did you change it? Have you changed your mind or are you seeking to portray my initial reply to you in a different way than the way you initially took it, for whatever reasons.
Why the change? A bit disingenuous, isn't it? And why do you say I took issue to "an unprecented degree". Unprecedented to WHAT? Aren't you used to people disagreing with you? Am I not as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
I'm afraid I will have to just ignore the first part of your latest response, as quoted above, as it is of no substance and is in fact, just posturing on your part - make it look like I was unreasonable before attempting to rebutt my points, when the facts do not bear this out. Of course, you might have a different explaination...
You continue;
... my thesis was since there has never been a society with out a religion in the history of man, how different are current ideologies in terms of function, even though they choose to call it something else.
And I have consistantly stated I think you are failing to take several things into consideration, and are thus making a meaning generalisation. Here's the bullet points Perry;
1/ So what if there has never been a society without religion? What does this prove regarding any assertion that there is no difference in "current ideologies in terms of function".
You've really not answered this to my satisfaction; be nice to me, just reply in one paragraph as to why this is in any way relevant to your assertion.
2/ The ideologies are different in terms of function because;
a/ Theistic ideologies have to be differentiated as they function differently from each other.
You say it's not fair to say theistic people are mad, yet have not answered my point that, clearly, some theistic people believe in things that result in actions that any reasonable person would think of as mad, so that any assertion that it is unfair to say theistic people are mad is a meaningless generalisation, as some obviously are, purely as a function of their theistic beliefs.
b/ Despite the similarities between non-theistic and theistic beliefs and the functioning of these beliefs, a simplistic claim that atheism is a religion is verifiably false, as least as far as evolutionary atheists go (which I made clear was my viewpoint). There is clear differentiation in the way that an evolutionary atheist and a theist validate their beliefs. Evolutionary atheists and theists use completely different paradigms, and the evolutionary atheists paradigm is often characterised by verifiability and attempts at objective determination of facts, whereas the theist's paradigm is NOT verifiable and concentrates on subjective validation of belief.
And you have not made one cogent arguement regarding differentiation of either differently beliefed theists, or of differentiation between the paradigms of belief of a theist or a non-theist.
You assert;
Even before you chose to present an argument you poisoned the well by attacking me for being biased and for Christians. What difference could that possibly make to my material ?
Honestly, I can't see where that charge has any merit since I never said I was promoting Christianity....only fairness.
Perry, if someone was giving a lecture on fire-safety whilst their head was on fire, it would be appropriate to draw that to the speaker's attention. I merely drew to your attention that careful close reading of your arguement made certain allegations regarding your fairness quite reasonable, especially since fairness was part of your theme. You can disagree with me on that...
You claim;
On the other hand,you showed a clear bias by presenting your affinity for Humanism and using it to support position. This was thoroughly destroyed. Since Humanism is clearly religious even by its own admissions in its literature, you appeared very foolish and directly contricted yourself.
Did you go for a business trip in a parrallel Universe? Or don't you approve of sarcasm in discussions (unless you use it yourself). WHERE did you 'thoroughly destroy' ANYTHING? You've failed to really address ONE of my rebutalls of your arguement. I've given you bullet points above; maybe I'm stupid, so, just 'destroy' theose points in a similar fashion, with bullet points, so I can 'correct my viewpoint'. I stated my affinity for the dictionary definiton of humanism I gave; you quoted some geezer I didn't agree with because, and I quote "'cause he seems to have learnt NOTHING from religion". I wholey reject any association with pseudo-religious forms of humanism, have never asserted any association with them, and worry again about the disengenuous nature of you asserting something about me you know not to be true.
You say I have;
... not put forth any evidence to show what the distinction is.
Oh pur-leeeease. I say in previous posts that you can't compare all religions with each other as there is clear differentiation in terms of function and outcome of ideologies, with examples, and you don't address the point at all. See the bullet points above; address the points instead of SAYING you have, and stop lying about what I have or have not done.
Having made several completely unfounded claims about me you say;
It appears that you got rather upset and resorted to personal attacks and attempted to bog the conversation down in semantics as in the example below.
You then quote me taking exception to your phrase "against all forms of unethical ideological influences", wherein I ask you to define 'unethical' without an underlying ideology, and carry on to say;
Any way we could go on for days splitting definition hairs and chasing your red herrings or yoiu could simply present an argument instead of attacking me.
Oh, please! You make big talk of being "against all forms of unethical ideological influences", yet when called on the fact, that this is meaningless unless one realises what passes as 'unethical' depends upon the underlying ideology of the person doing the defining, you don't even attempt to address my point, but merely spread some smoke about.
You close with a flourish;
I'll ask you again to please not to denegrate yourself and this thread and
PLEASE POINT OUT TO US WHAT THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN POPULAR IDEOLOGIES AND HISTORICAL RELIGIONS.
In other words please point out the effect that an ideology has on a person/society and then tell us how those effects are essentially different from a religious one.
I've already done this. I've given you nice clear bullet points above to answer in a similar fashion, i.e. with bullet points, so everyone can see your crushing arguementation and see me put in my place, nice and easily. But, you want "WHAT THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN POPULAR IDEOLOGIES AND HISTORICAL RELIGIONS"?
Again, with emphasis... their paradigms of belief; when was the last time you saw an atheistic evolutionist ask someone to give up their life for their belief in punctuated equilibrium? When was the last time you saw a fossil? When was the last time you saw god? Answer the bullet points above man, this is silly..., oh, and the fact that even within one of the two groups you assert that are functionally the same, there are clear functional differences, which you have completely failed to address.
Essentially Perry, you are making a very dramatic and showy arguement that, when examined closely, says nothing, not due to the fact there is no merit in it, but because it is made in such a generalised and obviously falsifiable fashion as to lose the merit it has. Rather than defending the indefensable, maybe it's a better idea to adjust your argument so that it takes into account the problems that have been pointed out to it. I look forward to your reply.
Perry

Again, another stunning display of fluff and ideocratic reasoning.
However, since you obviously attempted to shorten the whipped cream, I'll make an honest effort to ignore the verbose portions and illustrate how you have not addressed anything of substance at all.
You said:
1/ So what if there has never been a society without religion? What does this prove regarding any assertion that there is no difference in "current ideologies in terms of function".
This is like saying, "so what if every whale ever studied lives in water, what does that have to do with determining why this whale is dying on the beach. He breathes air like other mammals doesn't he?"
I'll again put this very clear. My thesis is that a society and people in general,(I concede to exceptions in cases of derelicts, mentally ill, and the mentally challenged)cannot function without a dominate ideology guiding them.
You've really not answered this to my satisfaction; be nice to me, just reply in one paragraph as to why this is in any way relevant to your assertion.
I would say that since a whale has never been observed to function out of water, it is an indicator of its limitations. Anyone who claims differently should demonstrate how they could. They have the burden of proof.
Your attempt to switch the burden of proof to the side presenting the perponderance of evidence to the contrary, is one of the most logical blunders that I have ever encountered in a discussion.
This level of absurdity would be immediately laughed out of any academic discusion.
You said:
ideologies are different in terms of function because;
a/ Theistic ideologies have to be differentiated as they function differently from each other.
Another red herring. Just because theistic ideologies may have different customs, in no way indicates that they function differently. Likewise, atheistic ideologies differ in terms of customs. Communism and Secular Humanism are very different in terms of what is and what is not accepted. However the basic function of all of the preceeding is to create a template of understanding, a way of differiating the acceptable from the unacceptable, and a foundation for the possibility of stasis in society.
In short they all serve the function on an individual to make sense of an attempt to control the environment; and on the societal scale to crreate stasis as opposed to chaos.
Your previous statement is schocking in its level of avoidance.
You said:
You say its not fair to say theistic people are mad, yet have not answered my point that, clearly, some theistic people believe in things that result in actions that any reasonable person would think of as mad, so that any assertion that it is unfair to say theistic people are mad is a meaningless generalisation, as some obviously are, purely as a function of their theistic beliefs[/i].
If I was to follow your reasoning here, I would need to conclude that just because any sane person would agree that atheistic communism has resulted in the harm and destruction of peoples' lives on an unprecedented scale, all atheists are just as mad.
Surely you would agree that that would be an unfair and meaningless generalisation wouldn't you? Your illogical attempts to justify your extreme bias is truly breath-taking in its sheer scope.
despite the similarities between non-theistic and theistic beliefs and the functioning of these beliefs, a simplistic claim that atheism is a religion is verifiably false,
For the millionth time, I have never even remotely indicated that atheism is a religion. Why do you insist on trying to compare the two. (out of breath) A comparison of theism to atheism is possible; likewise a comparison of atheistic ideologies and religion is possible. But to constantly attribute to me something I have never said in a childish attempt to sidetrack the discussion is simply mind numbing rhetoric and unacceptable.
At least one other poster has made a similar observation on the repetiveness and ineptnes of your replies:
Abaddon.
Im finished with you bud.
Ive answered ya fifty times and you just keep putting up new posts asking why I dont answer the accusations Ive already answered....50 times.
Get lost.
How can you continue with this moronic style and expect to be taken seriously? I'm really worried about your future credibility on this board.
there is a clear differentiation in the way that an evolutionary atheist and a theist validate their beliefs. Evolutionary atheists and theists use completely different paradigms, and the evolutionary atheists paradigm is often characterised by verifiability and attempts at objective determination of facts, whereas the theist's paradigm is NOT verifiable and concentrates on subjective validation of belief.
Please illustrate to us how the atheist can validate a something from nothing belief; or an infinite digression of cause and effect events to explain the origin of the cosmos. If you cannot,then your entire house of cards fall because your verifiability claims are totally discredited.
and you have not made one cogent arguement regarding differentiation of either differently beliefed theists, or of differentiation between the paradigms of belief of a theist or a non-theist[/i].
Again my friend the burden of proof is on you since you are suggesting a postulate that has never been observed in the history of mankind.
All of your vain attempts to slay your opponent with an avalanche of rhetoric and repetitive chants has simply made you look fooolish.
Please read up on what more educated atheists have argued and get back to me with some substance. I am eagerly awaiting for you to explain the functional societal difference between current atheistic ideologies and historical religions. So far, you insist on discussing methodology. My specific challenge to you is to : PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTION AND DIFFERENCE.
If there is no functional difference you will be forced to compare the usefulness and benefits of atheistic ideologies with that of religion. That is an entirely different subject and one I wholehartedly look forward to discussing with you.
Abaddon

Perry;
My thesis is that a society and people in general,(I concede to exceptions in cases of derelicts, mentally ill, and the mentally challenged)cannot function without a dominate ideology guiding them.
Oh, I agree with that, and I haven;t argued against that, have I? But you're seemingly ignoring what you actually said in your first statement "... the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional", basing this statement on the fact that "... EVERY culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka. spirituality,"
As I have said, the fact that every society has religion is uncontested.
Your contention that "popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional" is simply NOT proved, as demonstrated before and repeated below because for some reason I have huge amounts of patience with your blather.
And this sort of shit;
Your attempt to switch the burden of proof to the side presenting the perponderance of evidence to the contrary, is one of the most logical blunders that I have ever encountered in a discussion.
This level of absurdity would be immediately laughed out of any academic discusion.
Are you banging the ground, or your chest, or running around screaming waving bits of bushes about? Because that is all that is, chimp level posturing. I know. I do it to. Better. OoooOOOahahaha! See? The triple backflip holding a hardy perenial? Beat that.
Anyway, I'll ignore the inacurate "Your attempt to switch the burden of proof to the side presenting the perponderance of evidence to the contrary", as I haven't done that, Perry. Be honest now.
And the run-on assertation is pure WTBTShit "is one of the most logical blunders that I have ever encountered in a discussion... This level of absurdity would be immediately laughed out of any academic discusion". Mmm. Yes. I love this. State something you havenm't proved and continue to state assumptions based on that which you have not proved. My girlfriend tells me I argue like a Witness sometimes. And I can see it most clearly when I encounter people who are worse(better?) at it. Oh, now we're even on the ad homs, so I can get on with this...
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ideologies are different in terms of function because;
a/ Theistic ideologies have to be differentiated as they function differently from each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You reply;
Another red herring. Just because theistic ideologies may have different customs, in no way indicates that they function differently.
Your level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding (that's me ahead on the ad homs, but I've read ahead and know you're going to do more).
You said earlier;
It seems to me, that to critize the deist for formulating and participating in standards, policies, and community as being "mental illness" as promoted in an earlier thread, while at the same time accepting the athiests' standards, policies, and community to be ideology/religious free, is ignorance at best and hypocritical at worst.
You have STILL failed to answer the observation by me that you cannot just lump all 'deists' together. I gave the examples of Quakers and Jim Jones and Universal Unitarians and another cult; let's say that Japanese one with Sarin gas, I can't remember, but they'll do.
These are extreme examples - no doubt your above statement about mental illness is intended to cover your rear, dear, but, whilst the prophets were mad, the adherants were as sane as you or I (worrying, eh?). But they show that theistic ideologies DO have different functions, and consequences (which you mentioned in your first post), which shows your assertion to the contrary is false.
Now, you might assert that such cultists are not 'sane', as they are under a form of mind control. But being under mind control is not mental illness, unless you're going to re-write the textbooks in order to win a point.
You continue;
Likewise, atheistic ideologies differ in terms of customs. Communism and Secular Humanism are very different in terms of what is and what is not accepted. However the basic function of all of the preceeding is to create a template of understanding, a way of differiating the acceptable from the unacceptable, and a foundation for the possibility of stasis in society.
In short they all serve the function on an individual to make sense of an attempt to control the environment; and on the societal scale to crreate stasis as opposed to chaos.
Yes, but because something is yellow, it is not neccesarily a bannana. You are, willfully I think (and you haven't answered the question about whether you've posted under other identities yet, hmmmmm), are ignoring what I agree with you on, as you keep re-stating large parts of it as though I disagreed with it, and also, uniquely (special, aren't you), ignoring where I differ from you in opinion.
So this;
Your previous statement is schocking in its level of avoidance.
Is funny!!!
You also LIE. A LOT. Ad homs I can take. You having to go to another thread and dig up something that someone else said about me, well, I think that makes you PATHETIC. But the lies?
I asserted;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say its not fair to say theistic people are mad, yet have not answered my point that, clearly, some theistic people believe in things that result in actions that any reasonable person would think of as mad, so that any assertion that it is unfair to say theistic people are mad is a meaningless generalisation, as some obviously are, purely as a function of their theistic beliefs[/i].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reply?
If I was to follow your reasoning here, I would need to conclude that just because any sane person would agree that atheistic communism has resulted in the harm and destruction of peoples' lives on an unprecedented scale, all atheists are just as mad.
I said the OPPOSITE of that. DO you really think people are THAT stupid they can't see a flim-flam man.
Oh, MORE LIES!! And this is you lying about stuff YOU SAID!!;
For the millionth time, I have never even remotely indicated that atheism is a religion. Why do you insist on trying to compare the two. (out of breath) A comparison of theism to atheism is possible; likewise a comparison of atheistic ideologies and religion is possible. But to constantly attribute to me something I have never said in a childish attempt to sidetrack the discussion is simply mind numbing rhetoric and unacceptable.
WHen you actually said in your first post;
...would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional
So which is it you great goon? Are you saying that, like you originally did, that "popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional", which means to anyone who can read through your prose that "Any one who says that atheistic tenets are not the same as religious ones is wrong". Or are you saying "I have never even remotely indicated that atheism is a religion"?
You can't have it both ways.
Tell you what darling little doesn't know what he says; you decide WHAT you are saying, and I'll tell you whether I agree with it or not WHEN you've stated it clearly?
Is that fair?
Oh, you ask;
Please illustrate to us how the atheist can validate a something from nothing belief; or an infinite digression of cause and effect events to explain the origin of the cosmos. If you cannot,then your entire house of cards fall because your verifiability claims are totally discredited.
Last twenty years of cosmology pass you by? As you've forgotten what I said earlier (not surprising as you've forgotten what you said), go back and look at what I said about little-old-ladies and fossils. I dealt with this issue earlier, and I'm BORED with C&Ping to illustrate your sloppiness.
Oh, what is this? I said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you have not made one cogent arguement regarding differentiation of either differently beliefed theists, or of differentiation between the paradigms of belief of a theist or a non-theist[/i].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you said;
Again my friend the burden of proof is on you since you are suggesting a postulate that has never been observed in the history of mankind
Let me get this right. You want me to prove that different religions are different, and that the paradigms used by theists and non-theists are different? And you are saying that this "postulate that has never been observed in the history of mankind".
Please tell me you are saying this. It would be so funny. Anyone want to do this for me?
Tell you what Perry, you tell me why you change arguement mid-stream (as shown above; you DID assert atheism was a religion, and now say you DIDN'T), and tell me what you actually mean by the above quote, as I can't believe you believe what you said, and the other questions. Cut the insults. And if you ARE saying all religons are the same and thiests and atheists use the same paradigms, I'll prove you are wrong tomorrow.
Using a brio in my teeth and a French keyboard; no hands.
Then, when you've explained WHAT the hell you are saying, I'll answer any questions that remain. Of course, as it now seems you actually mis-stated what you believe (re. atheism being a religon) at some point, once that is clarified by you (as it's your error), we might find we actually agree on a lot.
Perry

Whooosh,
Somebody get a garden hose and cool the patient down. Never, in my years of discussion with people from all schools of thought have I had the pleasure of debating with someone who attacks their apponnent with such vicious and personal rhetoric. Why the ad hominems?
True, I have attacked your reasoning as baseless, mind numbingly repetitive (others have noticed this as well) and inattentive and inapproiate to my logic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever said the words "you are" and then go on to deliver a choice derogatory. True, I did say that you appeared foolish in much of you repetitiveness...I don't feel that is out of line based on the extreme methods you have rersorted to.
However, look at this wonderfful logic you have presented for sctutiny:
[QUOTE/]And this sort of shit;Talk about poisoning the well......you turned it into a sewer.
You also LIE
After a bit of uncontrolled laughter, I actually felt sad for you for sinking to such insults as opposed to sustained coherent argument.
And this is just beautiful animalistic poetry here:
Are you banging the ground, or your chest, or running around screaming waving bits of bushes about? Because that is all that is, chimp level posturing. I know. I do it to. Better. OoooOOOahahaha! See? The triple backflip holding a hardy perenial? Beat that.
Dear Abaddon, I have answered each and every charge with logic and sound reasoning and am still awaiting a rudimentary argument concerning my original post. In your apparent discomfort with the subject matter, your tyrannical anthropoid-like rages that have prompted such unprofessional attacks are now being attributed to me; as if were it to be true, it would somehow improve the moral character of your primitive attacks.
So which is it you great goon?
So when you fail to bully someone into mindless obvilion, just call them a derrogatory? So sad. Abaddon, may I ask you a question? Have you ever had your ass whipped before? If not, please know that it can yield great benefit to those that will allow it to serve a growth mechanism. No, I am not sying that I will deliver to you a good ole' fashion Texas ass whipping, although my previous experience with this type of communication has resulted, more times than not, in a more respectful dialouoge.
And now, after your persona has digressed to the level of hundreds of thousands of years of pre-human evolution, to the point of neanderthal-like name calling and tree destroying rages, you actually have the tamarity to tell all here reading this thread that you have agreed with me from the very beginning? As hard as that is to believe here it is:
I said:
My thesis is that a society and people in general,(I concede to exceptions in cases of derelicts, mentally ill, and the mentally challenged)cannot function without a dominate ideology guiding them.
You last response:
Oh, I agree with that, and I haven;t argued against that, have I?
As ludricrous as this statement is; I agree, you are making my point here.
In fairness to you, I looked up the word tenet, since you defend your very long-winded and now discarded arguments with this interpretation.
Here it is:
a principle, belief or doctrine held by a person or a group
Standing alone the term tenet could be construed either way; either as an underlying principle to support a position, or as an outgrowth of an uncontested belief or position.
Perhaps in your haste to feebly discredit someone with a point of view different than your own, you failed to read my qualification of "tenet" a few lines down in my original post:
Let's look at my point in my very first post:
If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion. However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.
Very clearly I am agreeing that athiesm is not a religion. So why all the baseless personal attacks, ilogical reasoning, and beast-like posturing?
It was obvious to everyone else that the pivital point was the functional societal difference, or lack thereof, of the ideologies based on atheism serving essentially the same societal function as religion.
While I'm happy to now know that you are in agreement with with my original assertion and thus have preserved a remnant of intellectual credibility by abandoning an otherwise utterly stupifying line of thought; it concerns me deeply that you have a habit of starting divisions by agreeing with people and then over and over claiming that there is still something to argue about.
When I posted another posters' response to such idiotic, verbose, rhetoric which said:
Abaddon.
Im finished with you bud.
Ive answered ya fifty times and you just keep putting up new posts asking why I dont answer the accusations Ive already answered....50 times.
Get lost.[/QUOTE]
I feel I was fully justified in bringing this to your attention. I know the truth hurts, but how else are you to grow in terms of delivering a coherent and productive discussion?
The Greeks, who mastered oration and public debate to an unusual degree, had a term that when translated into English, loses much of its meaning. Here's the English word:
"Factious"
The Greek for this phrase became a technical term to describe a type of person who was a heretic to his own philosophy, by propagating extreme views of legitimate truths.
One must only conclude that that you are a heretic to your own philosophy since you evidently were forced to admit agreement with my original post after a lenghty debate on our agreement. Like I said earlier, better educated athiests would never sink to such obvious tactics; but rather would gladly opine the virtues and benefits of such.....which of course the heretic course prevents you from doing.
Abaddon, you are a poor athiest, an inept debater; and for many here it seems a waste of time.
While many of your lighter posts on other threads that deal with for example your abilities in the practice of Cunnilingus seem more appropriate for your debate style. You are likely to only encounter giggling females and embarrassed readers who see no point in pursuing such topics on this DB.
Perhaps you merely confused the term Cunnilingus with a false impression that that would somehow empower you as a formidible Cunning Linguist.
Just a thought. ;-)
Abaddon

Perry, I know I'm not as half as clever as I think I am. It's a pity you don't have the same level of knowledge about yourself.
For a start, you think I'm angry? Oh, tish tish Perry. This is FUN. Come to dinner with my family. WWIII round the table, all forgotten about when the meal is finished. I'm sorry you have issues with a free and enthusiastic exchange of opinion. I can be far gentler, but you seemed to be able to take it; you do dish it out yourself.
Nice posturing on your part re. ad homs. If you hadn't used any yourself you might have a point. Funny how I've restricted mine to your behaviour in this thread; you're the sad little puppy whose had to go back through my posts to find ammo (oh wow, I make posts about cunnilingus, I have no credability, woe is me!). Cracking jibe about cunning linguists... I expect you think that's original...?
Whatever, obviously, you can disagree enthusiastically and use ad homs and I can't. Fine. How, er, foolish of, er, me?
And you are wonderfully condesending. Spent so much time telling me how dumb I am you clean forgot about the weakness of your arguement as regards differentiation. AGAIN. Fine. Oh, and you also forgot the question about whether you've posted under another handle. Your choice, Captain, my Captain!
And, you still need the 'help' of another person's opinion to prove your point. Great. Are your friends going to wait outside school and say I have cooties?
And you really don't get sarcasm, do you, as you spend quite a bit analysing a sarcastic aside without realising what it was. Watch some Monty Python, it will richen your life.
When I say you lie, I am describing your actions. So that's not even an ad hom. You might not mean to. But you do do it. However, the more I look at your defence of what you said the more I think this boils down to language skills.
You describe the paragraph I am going to quote below thusly; "Very clearly I am agreeing that athiesm is not a religion"
If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion.
This means in plainer English; "If pure atheism isn't a religion, then pure theism isn't a religion". Okay dear. I'm not even going there again.
However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.
This means in plainer English; "However, the products of both atheism and theism can be defined as religious."
So, you are actually saying atheism functions as a religion - which I disagree with, for the reasons I have outlined.
No doubt you will start being all semantical; I personally wouldn't live on the difference between a religion and something that functions like a religion, and think if your entire arguement is 'atheism isn't a religon, but for all intents and purposes is one', you're still wrong, but could have saved a lot of time by cutting to the chase. I stand by what I said in my initial reply about you begging the question.
I think there is a clear case of you not having the language skills to use the vocabulary and dense scholastic prose you favour. I know I can be a tas sesquipadalian at times, but I actaully TALK like that, so it's no affectation for the benefit of the board. I shudder to think what your reaction to this observation is, as you do seem to think even more highly of yourself than I do of me (clue; SARCASM).
This is proved by the earlier quoted "popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.", which amplifies the previous assertion "However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.".
Now, you might disagree. I frankly don't mind if you do.
I would love to know your academic background; my jibes regarding Anita Loomba were due to having to read her turgid prose last year whilst studying Shakespeare - even my own tutor (who compliled the Open University course books she was quoted in) had to read her several times to know what the hell she was on about - sad really, for someone who studies English to use it so poorly.
I don't know if you study English; for the sake of future students, I pray (oh my god, an atheist is praying, you're RIGHT, atheism DOES function like a religion) (yes, more sarcasm, getting the idea now, are we?) not.
Quite frankly, I think I'm gonna leave the last word to you; I'm sure you have a good explaination of how, even when close reading of your initial post shows what you said, you didn't actually say that. I shudder with trepidation at the ass whipping you will give me, which will probably be ultimately unsatisfying to you as I'm far to dumb to know when I'm beat by a superior intellect. Or something. And while you're at it, what do you mean by 'is'?
gravedancer

Ab - you are my favorite poster on the board these days. I die laughing at your posts.
But I never knew you believed in the saskwatch (sesquipadalian). Do you honestly think that they are real?
"Atheism is a religion." tut tut tut.
Since some here favor dictionary definitions of things I have the following definintion from dictionary.com:
re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Is this an acceptable defintion of the word "religion"?
I cannot find anything in the defintion that I would say describes atheism or the lifestyle it affords.
"the lifestyle it affords"....Let's look at the key differences here.
Atheism puts no obligation on me to consider how my actions will be construed by some God. I do not have to pay heed to stuff like "whatever we do we do for the glory of God" or "pleasse be wise my son, so that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me". There is no guilt trip associated with it. Why because I dont even think about how my pleasures and decisions affect some God. A religious person would do so....its part of the lifestyle. An atheist does not think about what isn't a factor.
We can go on for hours about this. But do you see the point? a religion imposes on YOU and the way you live your life. The lack of or opposite of religion does not impose anything on me at all.
To equate atheism with religion is ludicrous. To say that because an atheist lives with decency and trets people with integrity he is in "religious" is laughable.
SixofNine

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Given the above, I don't see the product of atheism being, in substance, a religion.
In fact, I don't think there is a product of atheism. It is what it is, and what it is is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural God.
Atheism says nothing about a first cause, though probably not for the reason one might think. Atheism says nothing about a first cause because atheism says nothing. It really is that simple.
QUOTE]If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion. However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.[/QUOTE]
I think that your point in that paragraph was obscure and obscured. Now that I read that paragraph clearly, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part, and disagree completely with the later half.
There is no product of either theism or atheism. Theism barely qualifies for the word "belief". Atheism is not a belief per se, but rather a lack of belief. And it really is that simple.
The effects of theism and atheism appear the same to me, on that we agree. What those effects are, I'm guessing we disagree. The effects are.....nothing. There is no logical outgrowth from belief or disbelief.
There is logical outgrowth from the idea that God has communicated to humans. From what I can see, mostly negative things have come from that idea.
Still, the MOST logical take on God's communicating with man, imo, is that we can learn about God from nature, as the theist believes it is His work, therefore reflective of Him.
Funny though, the logical outgrowth from such a belief, is pretty much the same as the logical outgrowth of an atheist looking around and saying "hmmm, I wonder what I can learn from nature".
For an ideology? I hate that fuzzy, muddled word...but the best one, imo, is also the simplest. Reciprocity. I first heard of it from the bible, but that was not its origin. If it is from God, it seems to me to have been his first and last words. I cannot totally explain it's appeal, but it seems to be universal. Perhaps because, while it sounds at first blush to be so wonderfully self-less, it is in fact so perfectly selfish. Especially since the days of Smith & Wesson.
All other ideologies are megalomaniacal salesmans' tools.
gravedancer

If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion.
This is the type of logic that is commnly accepted because it sounds smart.
It's like saying because bright sunny days don't make you wet then it must be true that miserable, rainy days don't make you wet either.
or
just because my logic is bullshit then yours must be too...

No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

Share this