They actually say this stuff?

[S.T. Ranger]

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  

Quote:Does atheism have "narratives?" (world history)

NO. Or maybe you could clarify what you thought with this exactly, but I do not see atheism making any kind of world history, or influencing it, there was always some religion influencing world history, not atheism.

Quote: Symbols?

NO. What symbols?

Hello Filox (say...your last name isn't Mulder, is it? just kidding), and thanks for the response.

How about a fish with legs?

See here for examples.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  

Quote: Sacred histories...? That give "meaning" (explanation for) to life? That explain the origin of life and the universe?

NO. If you think about some scientific books, that has nothing to do with atheism, because a lot of religious people write those books and think of them as scientific evidence, no matter that they say the opposite of what their religion says in the scriptures. Atheism does not have a Bible as such.

While the use of the word "sacred" might actually be taboo, for some atheists, the defense of science and scientific findings are regarded by some to be without controversy and above reproach. Much as the Christian views the Holy Bible, and most religionists view whatever "holy writ" is associated with their particular group.

Of course it should be kept in mind that devotion is a variable that will determine the zeal of the adherent.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  

Quote: And do these aspects of atheism drive the morality, ethics, laws (I left off "religious," though even in this thread it was suggested that Christians be rounded up and localized in one area...sounds suspiciously like past events in history to me), and...preferred lifestyle?

NO. We do not use scriptures to give us clues to morality, we use our simple logic and humanity to feel the morality and ethics of our actions, and the laws are given to all of us by the state in which we are living.

No-one said that scripture had anything to do with it. The reverse is true, in that opposition to biblical teaching is oftentimes the foundation for the establishment of an alternative moral stance and has in America had a direct impact on even the laws.

This cannot be denied.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  

Quote: So if we use even a secular source to define religion, we would have to compare the similarities of Secular Humanism to religion, and I myself would conclude that atheism, by definition, is a religion, though their is an absence of a particular deity, which many of us see as having been replaced by the individual him/herself, in being the one who establishes right and wrong from which all the above will "be derived."

You can debate about the philosophical meaning of the words "believe" and "religion" as much as you want, but the fact is that "atheism" is the opposite of religion, not another religion, as we don't have holly books, scriptures, symbols, rituals, even deities to believe in... Only thing we do have is moral and ethics, and that alone makes us human, not religious.

There is no need to debate the meaning of the words "believe" and "religion." Their meanings are not vague, and their definitions are readily accepted in most cultures.

While the perception of certain things such as "holy books, scriptures (which I don't actually remember crediting to atheists as an acceptable term), symbols, rituals, or deities" might be debatable, a rose, by any other name...is a rose.

Admitting morality and ethics does not change the fact that Atheism is foundational to particular morals and ethics.

Not only that, but it places man as the determiner of right and wrong, whereas Christians, and even most religionists (and this could, of course, be picked apart), look to the decree of their religious writings and God (or gods) to determine right or wrong. In another thread, this was exampled by one presenting the findings of science over that which is given in the creation account.

As far as simply being human, rather than religious, another look at the word religion will show that for the atheist, just as for the religionist, devotion to what they believe is not an option, but is required. For if one does not truly believe there is no God, they can no longer be deemed an atheist, even as if one does not truly believe there is a God, they can no longer be deemed a religionists.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  So, this is all nonsense you just wrote here.

As Bugs would say, "Nyaah...could be!" lol

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  By the definition of the "religion", none of those things fit in the "atheism".

Sure they do.

(04-10-2011 05:16 AM)Filox Wrote:  Sorry, try again.

Saw this the other day, thought it was cool:

; )

Supposed to be a "wink," I guess.

S.T.