Arcoon Effox
Xiam
People aren't religion, though. Alright. Let's try something else.
...then why did you keep this in the post?
Because I am not a good editor.
Arcoon Effox
Language does not require belief in the supernatural, so it's actually
quite different than religion. I get what you're saying, but it's not the best analogy, nor is it applicable to atheism; if religion = language, atheists wouldn't be speaking at all.
You know what also doesn't require a belief in the supernatural?
Religion.
Arcoon Effox
Regardless of perceptions, the question is whether or not those outsiders are
correct... which they're not.
Says what? "Fact"? Because this is sort of a matter of abstracts. Of beliefs (or nonbeliefs) and worldviews. Not exactly the realm of facts and evidence. More of a matter of opinion.
Arcoon Effox
Atheism is not a worldview or system, nor does it combine a set of beliefs, traditions, rituals, and community structures like religions do. Interestingly enough, if atheism
were a religion then atheists couldn't exist, since atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
Oh, I should have read this before I outright said "worldview."
Here's the thing. It's a view on the world. A view that does not include the belief of god. It's an actual, real way that you view the world. I don't know how else I can explain how this is
literally a worldview.
Xiam
Arcoon Effox
By indicating that are Christian and also that protestantism is bad or whatever, that suggests you don't think that about Catholicism/Orthodox.
Or it could mean they consider Protestants worse than Catholics or Orthodox.
Isn't that basically what I said...?
What you said is basically that they didn't consider them. What I said is that they probably considered them, and decided they weren't nearly as bad.
Arcoon Effox
Xiam
I'd point out the
actual response, but you already seem to have found it, and scoffed at their responses.
...as indicated by the way I was quoting him, which raises the question why you're doing this.
You quoted just to mock him, didn't you? Did I mistake you for some other person brushing off someone's
actual points, just to scoff at them?
Arcoon Effox
Xiam
Rather than actually address some of the points he made
I addressed
every point he made... it's just that he didn't make any.
I'll just keep reading and hope you did too.
Xiam
Kaworu 17
Arcoon Effox
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods, it is a lack of belief in gods.
Gods are not necessary for religion so this is great news for atheism.
Kaworu 17
Arcoon Effox
that suggests you don't think that about Catholicism/Orthodox.
Why would anyone who isn't a fanatic antireligionist sheep think that? The Catholic church created Western Civilization. It's the largest charity in the world, it was the first to built hospitals in Europe, it preserved the ancient classics and its theologians invented the concept of human rights.
So here I'd just like to repost them, and perhaps you can reply back to him (so he can see it) on the same post that you're perhaps mocking my presumptive responses to possible things you probably wouldn't say, or scoffing at my statements in some way that doesn't require you to actually think about what
you've said in any way (so I can see it).
...nice run-on sentence, there.
Not a rebuttal. Why did
you include
this?
Arcoon Effox
Anyway, yeah... I've said everything I'm going to say to Kaworu on the subject until he stops misrepresenting me and invoking fallacies right and left. For the sake of your own curiosity, though:
"Fallacies, therefore I won't respond." Right. How about you
actually ******** address this, and then just respond anyway? Yes, I am curious, so let's go for it.
Arcoon Effox
Gods (or something like them)
are necessary for religion; without them, you have a philosophy, which is not the same thing as it does not involve worshiping a supernatural force.
And yet, the atheistic schools of Buddhism are legally considered in many countries to be religions.
Arcoon Effox
Kaworu's insinuation that I'm an "anti-religionist sheep" in response to me insinuating (correctly) that he holds protestants in a place of contempt but does not feel the same about Catholics was completely out of left field, and what followed was largely hyperbole.
Which leads me to ask... do you dislike religion?
Arcoon Effox
Claiming that the Catholic Church "created western civilization" seems like a grievous overstatement, to me. I'd like to see some support for this which isn't from a Catholic source. Likewise, I'd like to see the same about the Catholic Church being the most charitable organization on earth.
Actually a good request there. Those claims just smack of "I have evidence, but I refuse to show you." For the record though... the Catholic Church
has had a lot of cultural and scientific influence upon Western Civilization (though the relationship with science has been
a bit shakey). The
Romans as a culture may have a better claim than Catholics though. Which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Arcoon Effox
I take issue with his claim that the Church "preserved the classics", when in fact it burned books that it did not find agreeable. Perhaps today's "classics" are thought of as such simply because they were spared the torch, and other books which may have been considered such are now lost forever, We'll never know.
Catholic monasteries often preserved, translated, and reproduced many books though, including those of Greek philosophers. Much of the blow to knowledge during these times actually came from the
Vikings, though one of the most widely considered tragedies in the loss of knowledge comes from the destruction of the
Library of Alexandria, for which numerous people are at fault.
Arcoon Effox
His claim that the Church "invented human rights" is also blatantly untrue. The
Al-Risalah al-Huquq is (obviously) not of Catholic origin, nor was the Magna Carta was not developed by "Catholic theologians". In fact, the Church didn't really have anything to do with Human Rights issues until around the 16th century, as a result of the Spaniards' treatment of Native Americans.
Oh sweet, history lesson! I got nothing here.
Arcoon Effox
Xiam
...really I'd prefer you to try a bit harder, and either defend your position or admit you're wrong. Either one would do.
I've defended my position plenty well enough against Kaworu's weak arguments, thank you very much. Perhaps if he'd say something that wasn't based in personal opinion or that had some fact behind it I'd have to try harder.
Aren't we in the Morality & Religion subforum? Morality and religion are
hugely a matter of opinion. You can discount the little things with evidence, but not the biggest issues. By that point, you're only left with doubt. Which, yes, is an opinion.
Arcoon Effox
Xiam
Defending is more fun (and, if you're right, educational for me), but don't feel like it's an obligation to pretend to be smart on my account.
Okay, first of all, are you
trying to be condescending...?
Only on that last bit. I don't much care for pretending to be smart either. I don't really consider myself to be smart, it's actually sort of baffling when people tell me I am. Though I do have a low opinion of everyone else as well...
Arcoon Effox
Second, if Kaworu wants to defend himself by actually presenting an argument free of fallacies and red herrings, he's free to do so... but as we can see by his suggestion that "Extremist Islam" is itself a religion, and his invoking of the Atheist Authorities Fallacy in the post immediately before this one (more on that in a moment), one gets the impression that such a thing is not likely going to happen.
Oh. I mentioned this someplace - wait, did I get a reply on this? Extremist sects are, in a way, religions in themselves. They don't represent the religion they're
a part of as a whole, of course. After all, Evangelism is Christianity, but Christianity is not Evangelism.
Well... er... depending on who you ask.
But Evangelism
is a religion, in a way. And it seems a bit intellectually dishonest to deny the zealots their religious fervor.
I'm not familiar with this "Atheist Authorities Fallacy." Is this regarding the fact that there are very outspoken "pop atheists," like Dawkins and his ilk?
Aren't there people who are pretty strong followers of these people? Not necessarily in the sense that they view them as prophets and
actually follow them around... then again...
No. Thing is, over the years I've met
atheists (maybe newcomers, I've seen some very strange occurrences in the transition from one worldview to another) who treat it very religiously. Which is to say, enthusiastically, and with the same zeal as religious extremists.
Hang on, I feel like I should go back to that "strange occurrences" thing. And the zeal thing. I've noticed (in myself as well as others, such as people who were "Born Again" Christians) that when you are "awakened" to a new way of looking at things, you get
really eager to talk about it, to whoever will listen. Even those who won't. This is just speculation here, but it also seems a bit similar to folks who just got into a new TV series, or books, or movies, or music. And they just have to find someone, anyone, who shares their experience. And if they
can't find anyone, they set out to
make them. A whole need for socialization and shared culture, right?
A need that can cause problems if people actually don't give a s**t, or like something that leads to clashing between the
fandoms groups.
Sorry, this all may be a bit off-topic. Again, not good at editing myself. But as I was learning about Pantheism, a lot of things I'd learned over the years clicked in place, and I'd felt this sort of urge to rant about it. I still sort of have difficulty reining it in.
And it reminds me of folks (like my brother-in-law) who weren't particularly religious, but seemingly became religious overnight, and are
incredibly enthusiastic about it (thankfully he's not the pushy drag-you-to-church, debate-you-about-Jesus type). Not to mention the types who read a book by Richard Dawkins and think suddenly they're genius experts who are
so ******** certain there is no God.
100
175
100
100
250
100
