Why?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Athiesm is the belief that there is nothing there because there is no evidence that there is anything. With out evidence faith is not needed.

Atheism is a faith-based belief system.
You have faith that there is nothing there based on a perceived lack of any evidence pointing in any direction.

No decision is a decision in and of itself.

Why do people have to come up with their own definition for words that are already clearly defined? If you want to make up your own dictionary at least publish it!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Atheism is a faith-based belief system.

Not if you eliminate circular definitions it isn't.

(See, for example, the upshot of Babin's point re: unicorns, et al.)

[champu 1]

See, this is exactly my point. This argument isn't about god existing or not, it's just tired misunderstanding and some people trying to shove words in each others' mouths.

Atheism, for me anyway, is a "working hypothesis." That doesn't mean that I believe god doesn't exist in the way that someone else believes that he does. All it means is that I spend little or no time looking at god as an explanation for anything. There are plenty of avenues to explore in sociology, psychology, biology, astrophysics, etc. before you get to the devine.

What I explicitly avoid doing is saying, "because god doesn't exist ." and the reason I don't is because that would be the "faith" thing that people keep saying is required of atheists. It turns out that I never really need to make such an assertion because it never helps me make a point. The closest to that you'll probably hear me say is, "If god doesn't exist ." which is just me trying to get people to consider the consequencies their faith has on themselves and, more importantly, on others.

[rushmc 23]

"If god doesn't exist ." which is just me trying to get people to consider the consequencies their faith has on themselves and, more importantly, on others.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Atheism, for me anyway, is a "working hypothesis." That doesn't mean that I believe god doesn't exist in the way that someone else believes that he does. All it means is that I spend little or no time looking at god as an explanation for anything. There are plenty of avenues to explore in sociology, psychology, biology, astrophysics, etc. before you get to the devine.

this would be the most literal translation of atheism:
a (without)
theism (god)

Yes, so many things to do and think about that actually bring me satisfaction or entertainment. (or money)

[billvon 3,107]

>Atheism is a faith-based belief system.

So the absence of a belief equals a belief? Do you think an anarchist believes in government?

[rushmc 23]

Do you think an anarchist believes in government?

[billvon 3,107]

>Of a type, yes

OK. So it would be accurate to say that you are a socialist - of a type.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Of a type, yes

OK. So it would be accurate to say that you are a socialist - of a type.

Hmm

maybe saying I have some views that may lean toward that would be a better way of saying it

But to your example, there would still be some kind of leader or governing body. It would happen by default

As minimal as it may be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

This is your post

Quote

So the absence of a belief equals a belief?

Read it again
Do you really think the answer is no?



On a humorus note,

Or should I ask if you really believe you believe it....what you said.....ah ...what we are talking about?

I think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

"If god doesn't exist ." which is just me trying to get people to consider the consequencies their faith has on themselves and, more importantly, on others.

I am just curious
What are some consequencies of some one's faith on others, are you posting to?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"If god doesn't exist ." which is just me trying to get people to consider the consequencies their faith has on themselves and, more importantly, on others.

I am just curious
What are some consequencies of some one's faith on others, are you posting to?

It's almost always an indirect consequence. The teaching of a particular right or wrong that is rooted in religious scripture results in people voting (in the case of our country) or dictating (in the case of certain other countries) that particular right or wrong into law. As soon as it's law, it very clearly affects others.

Now, in many cases, there are also good social well-being, economic, etc. reasons that make the law a good idea and in those cases there aren't going to be a lot of complaints. But every so often there's a right or wrong written into law that, when you peel back the onion, doesn't have anything but a religious leg to stand on, but people defend them anyway.

[billvon 3,107]

>maybe saying I have some views that may lean toward that would be a
>better way of saying it

Hmm, you seemed to be suggesting that if someone opposed government (i.e. was an anarchist) they still have a belief in it (i.e. they oppose it, and therefore have some sort of belief in it.) So your views that _oppose_ socialism are what would make you a socialist of sorts.

And while that's self-consistent, it also makes it sort of hard to define things. Oppose abortion? Then you believe in it. Oppose Islam? Then you believe in Allah. Self-consistent, but confusing to someone who doesn't understand that logic.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>maybe saying I have some views that may lean toward that would be a
>better way of saying it

Hmm, you seemed to be suggesting that if someone opposed government (i.e. was an anarchist) they still have a belief in it (i.e. they oppose it, and therefore have some sort of belief in it.) So your views that _oppose_ socialism are what would make you a socialist of sorts.

And while that's self-consistent, it also makes it sort of hard to define things. Oppose abortion? Then you believe in it. Oppose Islam? Then you believe in Allah. Self-consistent, but confusing to someone who doesn't understand that logic.

I get it

You dont care to aswer the question

like normal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I would put objections to gay marriage into that box.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I would put objections to gay marriage into that box.

Wendy P.

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

It's almost always an indirect consequence. The teaching of a particular right or wrong that is rooted in religious scripture results in people voting (in the case of our country) or dictating (in the case of certain other countries) that particular right or wrong into law. As soon as it's law, it very clearly affects others.

Now, in many cases, there are also good social well-being, economic, etc. reasons that make the law a good idea and in those cases there aren't going to be a lot of complaints. But every so often there's a right or wrong written into law that, when you peel back the onion, doesn't have anything but a religious leg to stand on, but people defend them anyway.

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I do tend to focus on the negative examples of it because those are the situations I would like to see changed, but I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Since you seem keen to bypass the discussion of "how" or "why" and jump right into a more indepth discussion of a particular "what", I'll pick one that gets less talk around here: the banning and/or withholding of public funding for certain types of stem cell research.

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I would put objections to gay marriage into that box.

Wendy P.

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

But this isn't about your objections.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's almost always an indirect consequence. The teaching of a particular right or wrong that is rooted in religious scripture results in people voting (in the case of our country) or dictating (in the case of certain other countries) that particular right or wrong into law. As soon as it's law, it very clearly affects others.

Now, in many cases, there are also good social well-being, economic, etc. reasons that make the law a good idea and in those cases there aren't going to be a lot of complaints. But every so often there's a right or wrong written into law that, when you peel back the onion, doesn't have anything but a religious leg to stand on, but people defend them anyway.

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I do tend to focus on the negative examples of it because those are the situations I would like to see changed, but I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Since you seem keen to bypass the discussion of "how" or "why" and jump right into a more indepth discussion of a particular "what", I'll pick one that gets less talk around here: the banning and/or withholding of public funding for certain types of stem cell research.

thanks

I understand where you are coming from better now

And if I read you right

One/you could accept the argument that a total lack or religion in the types of things you post here about could be just as bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I would put objections to gay marriage into that box.

Wendy P.

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

But this isn't about your objections.

I simply pointed out that her example has more to it than just religious objections

So, what exactly is your point?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

any common sense or nature arguments against gay marriage would be just as present in legal unions if you've really removed religion from the equation.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

any common sense or nature arguments against gay marriage would be just as present in legal unions if you've really removed religion from the equation.

I dont see it that way but I see your point


I see it more as a traditional issue

Someone posted here some time back that they thought the gov should get out of marriages and that all together

The more I thought about it the more that seems right to me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, I take it you view these, consequences, as more of a negative than a positive?

If so, why and do you have an example?

(I am not trying to put words into your mouth. As this is the internet I am just trying to understand your position)

Edited to add

I am posting to this country the US

I would put objections to gay marriage into that box.

Wendy P.

Well
I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion

Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed

(please remember, I have no problem with them being seeing as legally joined but that is another thread)

But this isn't about your objections.

I simply pointed out that her example has more to it than just religious objections

So, what exactly is your point?

You asked Champu “What are some consequencies of some one's faith on others?” [sic]. He replied about laws being “rooted in religious scripture”. So your objections don’t come into play, only the objections of those that passed those laws.

[champu 1]

Quote

One/you could accept the argument that a total lack or religion in the types of things you post here about could be just as bad

Well, maybe, maybe not.

I subscribe to the theory (again, just looking for a sociological explanation before a divine one, not asserting anything) that religious texts that form the basis for organized religion are simply man's attempt to snapshot the moral code as it had evolved up to the time of the writing and explain it from the reference frame of what we knew of the world at that time.

Some things change over time and some don't. So if we could wipe our memory clear of religious texts and we sat down today to write something akin to the bible based on what we think works well as a society and what we know of the world today, we might come up with a lot of the same moral code, but there would probably be quite a few additions and omissions. I imagine the fables, stories, and explanations of natural phenomenon would look a lot different too.

[champu 1]

Quote

Well, I object to it but it has nothing to do with religion. Common sense and nature are all the arguments needed.

...

Someone posted here some time back that they thought the gov should get out of marriages and that all together. The more I thought about it the more that seems right to me.

Here's a post explaning my frustration with the "government should get out of marriage" argument. As you pointed out, that's another thread, so I'll leave it there.

But I have no problem repeating myself when it comes to the idea of "common sense". I've really come to dislike that term as I've realized that it doesn't actually mean anything. I would challenge people to avoid using it in discussions.