The Gospel of Unbelief

[LOki]

I pointed out that the definition of religion you made up is lacking a reference to the supernatural, you fix it. I'm quite content to use the definitions provided by the dictionary.

Why shouldn't I be surprised that you're content with logical fallacy?

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

ClayTaurus is correct.

I have not asserted that God doesn't exist, but even if I had, I could still manage the courtesy of respecting that others believe in God to the extent that I'd capitalize His name.

or just because our culture considers the word use in this manner to be
a propper noun.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

On the basis that Athiesm--that there is no deity--is a statement of faith.

You said it. You are asserting that Atheism is a religion. A religion by your definition is faith in something. The key element of religion is faith. Yet you agree that the statement "I have faith that there is no God" is an asinine statment. So, therefore, in order to faith you have to have faith in something, not the lack thereof. By your own definition, Atheism is not a religion.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

ClayTaurus is correct.

I have not asserted that God doesn't exist, but even if I had, I could still manage the courtesy of respecting that others believe in God to the extent that I'd capitalize His name.

Touche. I haven't had much experience with those that defend Atheism giving the proper respect to God. It's nice. Thank You.

 

[MissileMan]

Why shouldn't I be surprised that you're content with logical fallacy?

It's fallacious to construct a definition of religion that makes no mention of the supernatural.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

You said it. You are asserting that Atheism is a religion. A religion by your definition is faith in something. The key element of religion is faith. Yet you agree that the statement "I have faith that there is no God" is an asinine statment. So, therefore, in order to faith you have to have faith in something, not the lack thereof. By your own definition, Atheism is not a religion.

Faith can also exist outside religion as in an idea.
Which, on a side note, is what I believe religion is anyway.

 

[LOki]

It's fallacious to construct a definition of religion that makes no mention of the supernatural.

Demonstrate.

Without being self referential.

Without begging the question.

Then we discuss.

 

[MissileMan]

Demonstrate.

Without being self referential.

Without begging the question.

Then we discuss.

Let's start with your definition:

religion: A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

Faith, as it relates to religion, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. Whether it is a god, or angels, or reincarnation, or other planes of existence, it is all supernatural, unless, that is, you want to redefine supernatural to fit your argument too.

So I guess in a way, you have limited your definition of religion to a belief in the supernatural, which then excludes atheism.

 

[jillian]

But how do you decide what should be the government enforced rules of the social structure, the public morality. This is where you keep diverting. You don't want this discussion.

I'm not uncomfortable with this discussion at all. I don't need government to sanction my religious beliefs. I only want it to not interfere with those beliefs. Morality should be based on freedom. Each of our freedoms stop at the tip of the others' noses. So, as I already said, laws against murder, theft, rape, etc., are laws which recognize that no one has the right to interfere with anyone else's person, life or property. These have nothing to do with religious beliefs as no belief in a deity is necessary to recognize the importance of those moral precepts.

I bolded a section above. What are the foundations of these philosophical beliefs? What were these beliefs? Is this basis you speak of documented? Is there a canon per se?

The philosophical beliefs? Political philosophers from Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Locke, De Toqueville, and everyone in between and since have written about man's relationship to to government and recognized a "social contract". Man can have shared moral beliefs without some sort of pre-eminent being ready to smite us if we don't measure up.

As for our own government, I also already pointed out that most of the Founding Fathers were deists who believed in a higher power but not in Christianity, per se, and wanted no part of organized religion and government to mix.

Morals is what you do when no one else is looking. :halo:

 

[LOki]

You are asserting that Atheism is a religion.

Yes. It requires faith in the assertion that there is no God.

A religion by your definition is faith in something.

Important correction: A religion by my definition requires faith in something. Belief derived from other sources like evidence, or anectdote, seem separate from faith in a significant manner--your next point seems to confirm our agreement here.

The key element of religion is faith.

It certainly is a key element.

Yet you agree that the statement "I have faith that there is no God" is an asinine statment.

I made no such agreement, but even if I had, my judgment of that faith has no bearing upon it's existence, except in that it certainly implies it's existence. Otherwise, there is no object that could be the subject of such a judgement.

So, therefore, in order to [have?] faith you have to have faith in something, not the lack thereof.

Having faith presumes the existence of an object for that faith--yes. That object can be the positive assertion of non-existence. I'm not talking skepticsism, where one questions the existence of, say God, but rather the affirmative proposition that "there is no God."

By your own definition, Atheism is not a religion.

No. Your conclusion does not follow.

 

[LOki]

Let's start with your definition:

Yes. Let's.<blockquote>religion:
A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.</blockquote>

Faith, as it relates to religion,...

Foul. Self referential. Try again.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not uncomfortable with this discussion at all. I don't need government to sanction my religious beliefs. I only want it to not interfere with those beliefs. Morality should be based on freedom. Each of our freedoms stop at the tip of the others' noses. So, as I already said, laws against murder, theft, rape, etc., are laws which recognize that no one has the right to interfere with anyone else's person, life or property. These have nothing to do with religious beliefs as no belief in a deity is necessary to recognize the importance of those moral precepts.



The philosophical beliefs? Political philosophers from Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Locke, De Toqueville, and everyone in between and since have written about man's relationship to to government and recognized a "social contract". Man can have shared moral beliefs without some sort of pre-eminent being ready to smite us if we don't measure up.

As for our own government, I also already pointed out that most of the Founding Fathers were deists who believed in a higher power but not in Christianity, per se, and wanted no part of organized religion and government to mix.

Morals is what you do when no one else is looking. :halo:

Ok. You talk a good game. But I'm going to hold you to the statements you've made here about respect for life and liberty :gross2: .

 

[MissileMan]

Yes. Let's.<blockquote>religion:
A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.</blockquote>

Foul. Self referential. Try again.

You have to define faith as it relates to religion, to use any other definition, say, a girl's name, would be fallacious.

 

[LOki]

You have to define faith as it relates to religion,...

Agreed. Religion is dependent upon faith, yet faith remains independent of religion. Your attempt to make faith dependent upon religion makes your definition self referential.

... to use any other definition, say, a girl's name, would be fallacious.

Demonstrate.

No self referential argument.

No begging the question.

GO!

 

[MissileMan]

Agreed. Religion is dependent upon faith, yet faith remains independent of religion. Your attempt to make faith dependent upon religion makes your definition self referential.
Demonstrate.

No self referential argument.

No begging the question.

GO!

You defined religion using the word faith. I defined faith as it relates to religion. Based on my definition of faith, your definition of religion cannot pertain to atheism. See how easy that was.

 

[LOki]

You defined religion using the word faith.

Yes. Religion is dependent upon faith.

I defined faith as it relates to religion.

Yes you did. The manner in which you did so made made the definition of faith and religion self referential--making both your tautological definitions of faith and religion useless for discussion. That will certainly shut-up the dumbs who cannot recognize the fallacy--unfortunate for you, I'm not one of those precise dumbs.

Based on my definition of faith, your definition of religion cannot pertain to atheism. See how easy that was.

Your definition of faith:<blockquote>The belief in something for which there is no evidence(insert: Faith) is the belief in something for which there is no evidence (insert: the supernatural).</blockquote>See how stupid that is? It's called a tautology--it's a statment that's true only because it refers to itself.

Keep trying.

 

[MissileMan]

Yes. Religion is dependent upon faith.
Yes you did. The manner in which you did so made made the definition of faith and religion self referential--making both your tautological definitions of faith and religion useless for discussion. That will certainly shut-up the dumbs who cannot recognize the fallacy--unfortunate for you, I'm not one of those precise dumbs.
Your definition of faith:<blockquote>The belief in something for which there is no evidence(insert: Faith) is the belief in something for which there is no evidence (insert: the supernatural).</blockquote>See how stupid that is? It's called a tautology--it's a statment that's true only because it refers to itself.

Keep trying.

I see, so you are saying that I need only define faith as the belief in the supernatural in order to satisfy your sense of logic. Fine, faith is belief in the supernatural. That still leaves atheism out of your definition of religion. Next!

 

[LOki]

I see, so you are saying that I need only define faith as the belief in the supernatural in order to satisfy your sense of logic. Fine, faith is belief in the supernatural. That still leaves atheism out of your definition of religion. Next!

What a complete dumbass.

 

[Nuc]

It's fallacious to construct a definition of religion that makes no mention of the supernatural.

Perhaps this is why so many Buddhist say that it's not a religion, but a philosophy. But it's the only major "religion" that doesn't demand belief in supernatural mythology.

 

[archangel]

Perhaps this is why so many Buddhist say that it's not a religion, but a philosophy. But it's the only major "religion" that doesn't demand belief in supernatural mythology.

Don't Buddhist believe in 'Supernatural reincarnation' to some this may be considered a myth!