Post #155,554
5/17/04 5:14:56 PM
|
Now CRC is going to get all riled up again . .
I had a long battle with him a couple years ago as to whether athieism is a religion - he maintains it is not with religious zeal.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,559
5/17/04 5:21:18 PM
|
Shares the trait of being internally consistent
Religion: If it is right it is good. God defines right.
Atheism: If it is good it is right. I define good.
This, of course, is why the religious have often accused the irriligious of "elevating themselves to godhood."
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #155,564
5/17/04 5:25:55 PM
|
Generalization
Religion: If it is right it is good. God defines right.
Atheism: If it is good it is right. I define good. As a matter of course, most people don't live in these extremes. Religion, or lack thereof, are much more fluid concepts than either side wants to credit. I am reminded of the more recent work by the author of "Why People Believe Things" (or some such title). It was his conclusion that smart people don't necessarily believe things because they are rational, but rather they are better at rationalizing their beliefs once chosen.
|
Post #155,571
5/17/04 5:35:47 PM
|
Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things
[link|http://skeptic.com/b62pb.html|Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time]
[link|http://skeptic.com/books.html|More books]
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #155,573
5/17/04 5:37:11 PM
|
"Why People Believe Weird Things" - by Michael Shermer
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,612
5/17/04 8:20:17 PM
5/17/04 8:21:21 PM
|
Heinlein said it best
'Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing one.'
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
Edited by Silverlock
May 17, 2004, 08:21:21 PM EDT
|
Post #155,613
5/17/04 8:20:25 PM
5/17/04 8:21:00 PM
|
Dup. Ignore
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
Edited by Silverlock
May 17, 2004, 08:21:00 PM EDT
|
Post #155,561
5/17/04 5:22:11 PM
|
Right.. we've had that one.
Given the inadequacy of both atheism, agnosticism to er 'fully characterize' Anyone's actual POV -- I thought it was agreed that agnosticism [I Don't Know] was the neutral course, whereas ummm "accepting final 'proof' of a Negative?" - appears indistinguishable from its obverse, in the attitude of one's mentation.
Oh well.
Ashton
|
Post #155,570
5/17/04 5:35:10 PM
|
Well, atheism is not a religion
Atheists lack a particular kind of belief.
Now there are many atheistic belief systems that share a lot with religion - enough to possibly be called religions. Two well-known ones are communism and a particularly literal belief in Science over all.
However atheism is not a religion.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,585
5/17/04 6:00:03 PM
|
well it is a belief system with some more rabid
followers than others, shares symbols much like a religion and has organized congregations.
thanx,.
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,605
5/17/04 6:41:25 PM
|
Excuse me?
That's an interesting set of claims. Every one at odds with my understanding and experience. Care to expand on how atheism is a belief system, shares symbols, and has organized congregations?
Perhaps it would clarify my position for me to say that atheism is to me no more a religion than monotheism or polytheism are religions. There are many things you could claim to be religions that fall into one of those 3 categories, but the category itself is not a religion. (Some belief systems fall into more than one, for instance wicca arguably falls into all three.)
If you have concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,606
5/17/04 6:54:30 PM
|
here ya go
[link|http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9860.htm|http://www.positivea.../mail/eml9860.htm] darwin fish, American Atheists congregation symbal and the secular humanists symbol
congregations where they worship together
[link|http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/members.html|http://www.atheistal.../aai/members.html]
belief systems vary by believer just like other organized religons, some are more rabid than others, back when Nick declared himself an atheist and someone like yourself who I would almost hesitate to declare you as an absolute atheist but you clearly can demonstrate all of the rationals used.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,608
5/17/04 7:06:32 PM
|
I don't consider that example nearly sufficient (new thread)
Created as new thread #155607 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155607|I don't consider that example nearly sufficient]
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
