A post for Soul Winner

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power. In which case nations like the USSR, where people absolutely abdicated their moral responsibility to the state and to the party, do not qualify.

To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.

Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.

I literally could not have phrased it in a more clear or succinct manner:

Me wrote:

How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.

^
|
|
What he said

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you wouldn't agree with Christopher Hitchens that the Russian Orthodox Church stood side by side with the Stalinist regime and that there was never a moment in Russian history where the powers that be did not find that Church convenient?

As Christopher Hitchens says, Stalinist Russia was a pseudo-religious state -- I wouldn't have used the word "pseudo" here -- which borrowed extensively from christianity. These borrowings included its servile modes of hero-worship, its persecution of independent scientific and ethical thinkers, its ugly totalitarianism, its pretense that it's perfect, its inflexibility, its total commitment to itself as an end rather than the ends to which it pretends it aspires, its self-professed ambition to control the world. And so on.

This is to be expected from a political movement lead by a man who spent several years studying to be a christian priest. And who sought to control the church by whatever murderous means he could, because he understood from his own personal experience, the corrupting power of a competing, and only slightly less unpleasant, totalitarianism.

To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? ) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.

Pushtrak

robindch wrote: »

To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? ) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIB8YnocsU

stevejazzx

robindch wrote:

To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? ) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.

I think soulwinnner meant the 'idea' of god but he just couldn't bring himself to say that!

MagicMarker

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.

I think you're the only one who didn't get it tbh.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power.

No, here's what your very first ****ing line says: (Hey how come mine gets starred out??? :mad: )

Zillah wrote: »

How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power".

So as well as wording your sentences badly you then make up stuff that you didn't say in the first place and then say that you said it. I believe that these words were probably going around in your head at the time of typing but try better next time to convey your thoughts to 0s and 1s. Cheers...

Zillah wrote: »

This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

Which is another way of saying that Stalin's Russia was not in fact an atheist regime. What a clever thing you just did. Instead of calling a spade a spade you've decided (all by yourself) that a spade is actually a club in order to support your argument. To you a regime who massacres priests, and destroys churches did it because it was the thing to do back then and it had nothing to do with their ideology. Thats what some people would call intellectual prostitution. The point I make is that if a religious organization did similar things you guys would blamed it on their religion and not on their greed for money and power. If religious ideologies can cause an institution or regime to commit atrocities then other ideologies are equally capable to committing them. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted, and cemented in atheistic ideals and hence was the cause of his atrocities. Get over it. Either that or religion is not as responsible for most of the evil that atheists would like to beleive its responsible for.

Zillah wrote: »

Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?

Finland - Christian Nation
Norway - Christian Nation
Sweden - Christian Nation
USA - Christian Nation
China - Communist Nation
Saudi Arabia - Muslim Nation

Why do you have Norway Sweden and Finland on one side and USA, China and Saudia Arabia on the other? The only non religious state is China, one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. Congratulations.

Zillah wrote: »

To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.

I didn't do that in the first place. You are the one who decided to change all reality of the situation into an illusion that happens to suit you. Real life doesn't work that way buddy.

Soul Winner

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think soulwinnner meant the 'idea' of god but he just couldn't bring himself to say that!

I often use the phrase 'If God exists' in my posts which is not a million miles away from the idea of God,. I have no problem with using the phrase 'the idea of God' at all. Hey feel free to go back and overlay idea of God where I said God in any of my posts.

In any case I was quoting Peter Hitchens. Read it again. It has these little things ---> "" <--- before and after what was said. They're called quotation marks, they are used when quoting other people. What you see in between these marks are what the quoted person is saying, not what I'm saying. Clear? He asked his brother "Why can't you just accept that the Soviet Regime was an atheist regime which hated God?"

Sorry for quoting him verbatim. Tell you what, I'll put in atheist friendly meanings to all sentences the next time I quote somebody. Will that make you all feel better?

liah

I don't even get the point of this argument at all.

"We" "have" Stalin and I guess China. You "have" Hitler, the Inquisition, hundreds of religious-driven atrocities from the bible and history, etc.

Why are you turning into a competition? To bring athiesm "down" to the level of Christianity in the opinions of atheists? To make us realize that all people are the same regardless of religion or belief system? To convince us that atheism is a belief system at all?

What the hell is the point of this at all?

Atheism isn't a belief system, ideology, religion, etc. It, therefore, cannot really be compared with a religion with a set structure, philosophy, belief system and user manual.

However, I get your argument-- look at any large enough group and regardless of their beliefs there's bound to be a few members who turn out to be bad seeds. That can't be helped. The point where your argument kind of doesn't work is that the majority of large-scale atrocities under the name of religion were built on the back of that good ol' user manual and many found valid reasons within that user manual to reinforce what they believed they were right in doing (which, in hindsight, was obviously very wrong).
Atheism doesn't have that user manual. It has no rules, no guidelines, no specifics, no ideals, nothing. Nothing at all. Whatsoever. It is simply-- oh so simply-- not believing in a god, the same way you don't believe in orcs. That. Is. IT. Why is this always such an issue of contention?!


When we "blame" Christianity for things like the Inquisition, we're "blaming" the belief system that led that to be justified in the eyes of so many at the time. Not the people who actually believe in a god (I hate Christianity, but I get on fine with Christians). When you guys attack atheists, you tend to just blame people who don't believe in god. Regardless of their philosophies.

Get it now?

(Regarding the quotation marks, I hope you get them in context. Just picture a person doing the quotations symbols with their fingers with an exaggerated tone of voice for proper perspective.)

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

Finland - Christian Nation
Norway - Christian Nation
Sweden - Christian Nation
USA - Christian Nation
China - Communist Nation
Saudi Arabia - Muslim Nation

No, the US is not a christian nation. The 1st amendment to their constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion.

Finland, Norway and Sweden could only be described as secular societies, although I think Norway's constitution does allow for a state religion.

The Mad Hatter

SleepDoc wrote: »

No, the US is not a christian nation. The 1st amendment to their constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion.

Hrm...

In practice a little different, no?

SleepDoc

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hrm...

In practice a little different, no?

Well yes and no. At least you won't get any state sponsored promotion of religion.

strobe

liah wrote: »

I don't even get the point of......<snip>......for proper perspective.)

Nicely said Liah. I don't think there is anything more to be said on the matter really. But you know they will never 'get it' unfortunately....or at least will pretend not to.

Mickeroo

Surely the only reason stalin was killing priests/ destroying churches was because he didn't want people worshipping something besides himself rather than a crusade to wipe religion out. Kind of like when Jane Seymour used to have female members of the cast of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman written out of the show if she felt they were prettier than herself.

Soul Winner

liah wrote: »

I don't even get the point of this argument at all.

"We" "have" Stalin and I guess China. You "have" Hitler, the Inquisition, hundreds of religious-driven atrocities from the bible and history, etc.

Why are you turning into a competition? To bring athiesm "down" to the level of Christianity in the opinions of atheists? To make us realize that all people are the same regardless of religion or belief system? To convince us that atheism is a belief system at all?

What the hell is the point of this at all?

Atheism isn't a belief system, ideology, religion, etc. It, therefore, cannot really be compared with a religion with a set structure, philosophy, belief system and user manual.

However, I get your argument-- look at any large enough group and regardless of their beliefs there's bound to be a few members who turn out to be bad seeds. That can't be helped. The point where your argument kind of doesn't work is that the majority of large-scale atrocities under the name of religion were built on the back of that good ol' user manual and many found valid reasons within that user manual to reinforce what they believed they were right in doing (which, in hindsight, was obviously very wrong).
Atheism doesn't have that user manual. It has no rules, no guidelines, no specifics, no ideals, nothing. Nothing at all. Whatsoever. It is simply-- oh so simply-- not believing in a god, the same way you don't believe in orcs. That. Is. IT. Why is this always such an issue of contention?!


When we "blame" Christianity for things like the Inquisition, we're "blaming" the belief system that led that to be justified in the eyes of so many at the time. Not the people who actually believe in a god (I hate Christianity, but I get on fine with Christians). When you guys attack atheists, you tend to just blame people who don't believe in god. Regardless of their philosophies.

Get it now?

(Regarding the quotation marks, I hope you get them in context. Just picture a person doing the quotations symbols with their fingers with an exaggerated tone of voice for proper perspective.)

Hey, MagicMarker started this thread and sent a personal message to me requesting that I participate. Had I ignored his request I'd be getting slated for not replying now. You can't win in here

Anyway, atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God, atheism positively maintains that there is no God. You are getting that confused with Agnosticism which is simply a lack of belief in God. So with that in mind are you willing to submit that nothing can grow out of an ideology that is rooted in the concept that there is no God? That there is no ultimate accountability to a higher power for one's actions and behavior in this life? If you don't believe that then I suggest that you read the likes of Nietzsche, Freud and Marx, not to mention Kant and Hume and many others too numerous too mention. All their philosophies are based on this presupposition. If you think that ideologies and world views like these have not affected or altered human history in anyway shape or form then I submit that you are simply ignorant of the facts of history.

Soul Winner

SleepDoc wrote: »

No, the US is not a christian nation. The 1st amendment to their constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion.

Finland, Norway and Sweden could only be described as secular societies, although I think Norway's constitution does allow for a state religion.

So you want to add the USA to your list of model nations? OK you've got 'em. As for Finland, Norway and Sweden they're all Christian nations. On average 70% of their populations belong to their state religion.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway, atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God, atheism positively maintains that there is no God. You are getting that confused with Agnosticism which is simply a lack of belief in God.

I love when theists come into the atheism forum to tell atheists what atheism means. You know that most of the atheists on this forum don't fit your definition of an atheist right?

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway, atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God, atheism positively maintains that there is no God.

You've spent enough time here to know that this is just not true.

It would be handier for you if it were, but it isn't.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I love when theists come into the atheism forum to tell atheists what atheism means. You know that most of the atheists on this forum don't fit your definition of an atheist right?

Atheism can mean whatever an atheist wants it to mean. Some atheist are quite comfortable with the positive assertion that there is no God, others like it to mean anything from lack of belief in any God to I'm open to the possibility that a God exists but I'm not going to beleive until I see strong evidence. So yes I know quite well that all atheists in here do not hold to the same definition. You have factions just like all the other religions. :pac:

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you want to add the USA to your list of model nations? OK you've got 'em. As for Finland, Norway and Sweden they're all Christian nations. On average 70% of their populations belong to their state religion.

OK, I'll take the US and France and you can have the Vatican, Saudi and Iran.

Nobody belongs to a religion any more than they belong to a golf club.

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheism can mean whatever an atheist wants it to mean. Some atheist are quite comfortable with the positive assertion that there is no God, others like it to mean anything from lack of belief in any God to I'm open to the possibility that a God exists. So yes I know quite well that all atheists in here do not hold to the same definition. You have factions just like all the other religions. :pac:

Atheism is not a religion.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheism can mean whatever an atheist wants it to mean. Some atheist are quite comfortable with the positive assertion that there is no God, others like it to mean anything from lack of belief in any God to I'm open to the possibility that a God exists but I'm not going to beleive until I see strong evidence. So yes I know quite well that all atheists in here do not hold to the same definition. You have factions just like all the other religions. :pac:

Ignoring the facetious attempt to brand not believing in fairy tales a religion, even if you do think atheism can only mean the positive assertion that there is no god why insist on this definition when you know it's not the one used by the majority of people you're talking to? It would be like me telling a group of protestants that being a Christian requires believing in transubstantiation and demanding that they justify this belief, all the while ignoring their pleas of "but we don't actually believe that!"

Soul Winner

SleepDoc wrote: »

Atheism is not a religion.

It's not defined as a religion in texts books but it functions like one. It is an ideology i.e. it maintains that there is no God or rather in its strictest sense it maintains this view. It has adherents who agree with this premise or derivatives thereof i.e. followers. These followers call themselves atheists and debate with theists who hold to the view that there is a God. Atheists argue against this view of the theists again and again in these debates hence they defend the position that there is no God. The only thing that can differentiate an atheist and a theist is that the theist knows that he subscribes to a particular religious view, atheists don't seem to be capable of recognizing this in themselves, only in others. But its a young religion, in time it will grow and learn and possibly become the dominant religion.

robindch

SleepDoc wrote: »

Nobody belongs to a religion any more than they belong to a golf club.

Theoretically, that's true.

In practice religion is all about owning people, in both senses of the word.

MagicMarker

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's not defined as a religion in texts books but it functions like one. It is an ideology i.e. it maintains that there is no God or rather in its strictest sense it maintains this view. It has adherents who agree with this premise or derivatives thereof i.e. followers. These followers call themselves atheists and debate with theists who hold to the view that there is a God. Atheists argue against this view of the theists again and again in these debates hence they defend the position that there is no God. The only thing that can differentiate an atheist and a theist is that the theist knows that he subscribes to a particular religious view, atheists don't seem to be capable of recognizing this in themselves, only in others. But its a young religion, in time it will grow and learn and possibly become the dominant religion.

And are the people who don't believe in fairies, unicorns and goblins part of a religion too?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's not defined as a religion in texts books but it functions like one. It is an ideology i.e. it maintains that there is no God or rather in its strictest sense it maintains this view. It has adherents who agree with this premise or derivatives thereof i.e. followers. These followers call themselves atheists and debate with theists who hold to the view that there is a God. Atheists argue against this view of the theists again and again in these debates hence they defend the position that there is no God. The only thing that can differentiate an atheist and a theist is that the theist knows that he subscribes to a particular religious view, atheists don't seem to be capable of recognizing this in themselves, only in others. But its a young religion, in time it will grow and learn and possibly become the dominant religion.

You do realise that by that definition anyone who holds an opinion about any topic is a member of a religion right?

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

And are the people who don't believe in fairies, unicorns and goblins part of a religion too?

Of course they are! Right next to the clubs for people who don't collect stamps, aren't they? :pac:

Mickeroo

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's not defined as a religion in texts books but it functions like one. It is an ideology i.e. it maintains that there is no God or rather in its strictest sense it maintains this view. It has adherents who agree with this premise or derivatives thereof i.e. followers. These followers call themselves atheists and debate with theists who hold to the view that there is a God. Atheists argue against this view of the theists again and again in these debates hence they defend the position that there is no God. The only thing that can differentiate an atheist and a theist is that the theist knows that he subscribes to a particular religious view, atheists don't seem to be capable of recognizing this in themselves, only in others. But its a young religion, in time it will grow and learn and possibly become the dominant religion.

hang about now, the only thing required to be an atheist is not to believe in any gods, I'm pretty sure to be or fuction as a religion it would need to have rules and doctrines of some sort? Otherwise pretty much every ideology or opinion which groups of people subscribe to would also be considered religions. Just because atheists debate with theists over the existence of god doesn't make it a religion.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ignoring the facetious attempt to brand not believing in fairy tales a religion, even if you do think atheism can only mean the positive assertion that there is no god why insist on this definition when you know it's not the one used by the majority of people you're talking to? It would be like me telling a group of protestants that being a Christian requires believing in transubstantiation and demanding that they justify this belief, all the while ignoring their pleas of "but we don't actually believe that!"

Isn't it ironic then that Martin Luther the great reformer and father of Protestantism always held to the belief in transubstantiation? Anyway, not believing in fairies can hardly be regarded as a religion, however, holding to the view that there is no creator is a different kettle of fish because the implications of that being true would have a catastrophic affect on this world if per chance everyone woke up tomorrow began to hold to this view. See the difference?

So atheism, if true, is a powerful thing and should it have free reign on the thought processes of everyone on this planet we would have a different kind of civilization, hence it is a type of religion in its own right. And just because there might be varying degrees of conviction in its adherents that would do nothing to stem the flow its overall affects on the world as we know it.

Most people in the world don't actually debate the existence of fairies so its not likely to cause much of a stir should the actually truth about their existence or not be revealed to all in sundry. I just had a thought, what if it turned out to be true? Now that would be funny, plus it still would not negate the existence of God. That debate would still be alive and kicking.

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn't it ironic then that Martin Luther the great reformer and father of Protestantism always held to the belief in transubstantiation? Anyway, not believing in fairies can hardly be regarded as a religion, however, holding to the view that there is no creator is a different kettle of fish because the implications of that being true would have a catastrophic affect on this world if per chance everyone woke up tomorrow began to hold to this view. See the difference?

So atheism, if true, is a powerful thing and should it have free reign on the thought processes of everyone on this planet we would have a different kind of civilization, hence it is a type of religion in its own right. And just because there might be varying degrees of conviction in its adherents that would do nothing to stem the flow its overall affects on the world as we know it.

Most people in the world don't actually debate the existence of fairies so its not likely to cause much of a stir should the actually truth about their existence or not be revealed to all in sundry. I just had a thought, what if it turned out to be true? Now that would be funny, plus it still would not negate the existence of God. That debate would still be alive and kicking.

If everyone woke up tomorrow not believing in a god perhaps we could concentrate on making the best of this world, the real one, rather than the imaginary one that you believe in.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn't it ironic then that Martin Luther the great reformer and father of Protestantism always held to the belief in transubstantiation? Anyway, not believing in fairies can hardly be regarded as a religion, however, holding to the view that there is no creator is a different kettle of fish because the implications of that being true would have a catastrophic affect on this world if per chance everyone woke up tomorrow began to hold to this view. See the difference?

So atheism, if true, is a powerful thing and should it have free reign on the thought processes of everyone on this planet we would have a different kind of civilization, hence it is a type of religion in its own right. And just because there might be varying degrees of conviction in its adherents that would do nothing to stem the flow its overall affects on the world as we know it.

Most people in the world don't actually debate the existence of fairies so its not likely to cause much of a stir should the actually truth about their existence or not be revealed to all in sundry. I just had a thought, what if it turned out to be true? Now that would be funny, plus it still would not negate the existence of God. That debate would still be alive and kicking.

Firstly, if there is no god then as far as I'm concerned the world would be exactly as it is today, since I don't think there is one.

And even if it would have big ramifications if true, that still doesn't make it a religion

Mickeroo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn't it ironic then that Martin Luther the great reformer and father of Protestantism always held to the belief in transubstantiation? Anyway, not believing in fairies can hardly be regarded as a religion, however, holding to the view that there is no creator is a different kettle of fish because the implications of that being true would have a catastrophic affect on this world if per chance everyone woke up tomorrow began to hold to this view. See the difference?

Hardly be catastrophic now. If everyone held that view it wouldn't be a big deal, they'd find something else to debate/fight over.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So atheism, if true, is a powerful thing and should it have free reign on the thought processes of everyone on this planet we would have a different kind of civilization, hence it is a type of religion in its own right. And just because there might be varying degrees of conviction in its adherents that would do nothing to stem the flow its overall affects on the world as we know it.

Again, that doesn't make it a religion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Most people in the world don't actually debate the existence of fairies anymore ..........

ya left out a word there :P

Soul Winner

Mickeroo wrote: »

hang about now, the only thing required to be an atheist is not to believe in any gods, I'm pretty sure to be or fuction as a religion it would need to have rules and doctrines of some sort? Otherwise pretty much every ideology or opinion which groups of people subscribe to would also be considered religions. Just because atheists debate with theists over the existence of god doesn't make it a religion.

When someone begins to believe in a particular religion it is called conversion because it is something different from was previously believd in to be true. But to be converted one must hold to a different view prior to this new belief. If one is an atheist and is subsequently converted to Christianity (I just picked that one out of the blue ) then what has that person been converted from? Another view of the world. Hence his former atheism was how he saw the world. It dictated his behavior and thought processes and affected his opinions in conversations and might even have led to an argument or two. In effect atheism is just like a religion.

Mickeroo

Soul Winner wrote: »

When someone begins to believe in a particular religion it is called conversion because it is something different from was previously believd in to be true. But to be converted one must hold to a different view prior to this new belief. If one is an atheist and is subsequently converted to Christianity (I just picked that one out of the blue ) then what has that person been converted from? Another view of the world. Hence his former atheism was how he saw the world. It dictated his behavior and thought processes and affected his opinions in conversations and might even have led to an argument or two. In effect atheism is just like a religion.

That makes no sense. If someone didn't like football and started supporting Manchester United all of a sudden what team did they support before?? By your logic it's impossible for someone not to have supported a football team before.

Soul Winner

SleepDoc wrote: »

If everyone woke up tomorrow not believing in a god perhaps we could concentrate on making the best of this world, the real one, rather than the imaginary one that you believe in.

You see? To you my world is an imaginary world, that is the frame of reference that you are locked into whether you like it or not, that is what you believe, but learn this, just because that is your default frame of reference, it isn't what actually makes you right, at the end of the day we both have beleifs that are either true or false.

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

When someone begins to believe in a particular religion it is called conversion because it is something different from was previously believd in to be true. But to be converted one must hold to a different view prior to this new belief. If one is an atheist and is subsequently converted to Christianity (I just picked that one out of the blue ) then what has that person been converted from? Another view of the world. Hence his former atheism was how he saw the world. It dictated his behavior and thought processes and affected his opinions in conversations and might even have led to an argument or two. In effect atheism is just like a religion.

No, he would have been converted from someone who lacked belief in a god to a believer in god and specifically the christian religion.

I don't get your argument...atheism is the default and some people choose to move from that default and buy into a religion and start following that religions rules. Some buy into a religion and then decide it's not for them and move back to being an atheist. There are no behaviours or opinion affected by atheism other than a lack of belief in a god. I have never been anything other than an atheist, I was born without a religion and nothing I've heard in my lifetime has convinced me of a gods existence and to buy into a religion.

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

You see? To you my world is an imaginary world, that is the frame of reference that you are locked into whether you like it or not, that is what you believe, but learn this, just because that is your default frame of reference, it isn't what actually makes you right, at the end of the day we both have beleifs that are either true or false.

"...learn this"? Learn what? You believe in fairy tales, written many years after the alleged event.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, if there is no god then as far as I'm concerned the world would be exactly as it is today, since I don't think there is one.

Yeah but imagine everyone waking up and being just like you? There'd be no need for an A&A forum anymore.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And even if it would have big ramifications if true, that still doesn't make it a religion

I think we've driven the atheism is/isn't a religion thing into the ground enough. I've given the reasons why I think it is a religion and all I'm getting back is yeah but atheism isn't a religion comments, lets agree to disagree on this one shall we?

Soul Winner

Mickeroo wrote: »

That makes no sense. If someone didn't like football and started supporting Manchester United all of a sudden what team did they support before?? By your logic it's impossible for someone not to have supported a football team before.

He was in the unfortunate position of not liking football, what a terrible condition to find oneself in, but then to find yourself following MU is an even worse condition. He's been converted to the prawn sandwich brigade. Couldn't you have chose a better religion excuse me football club?

Soul Winner

SleepDoc wrote: »

"...learn this"? Learn what? You believe in fairy tales, written many years after the alleged event.

So if enough years go by things that happened in the past didn't really happen? Excellent logic, well done

Mickeroo

Soul Winner wrote: »

He was in the unfortunate position of not liking football, what a terrible condition to find oneself in, but then to find yourself following MU is an even worse condition. He's been converted to the prawn sandwich brigade. Couldn't you have chose a better religion excuse me football club?

I don't support Man-U thankfully

So if it's possible to not support a football team why is impossible to have no religion in your mind?

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Right next to the clubs for people who don't collect stamps, aren't they?

What color is the hair of a bald man?

SleepDoc

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if enough years go by things that happened in the past didn't really happen? Excellent logic, well done

That is not my logic.

If you write about something that happened 60 years ago, with only the benefit of hearsay evidence, the likelihood is that it will be an inaccurate account.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah but imagine everyone waking up and being just like you? There'd be no need for an A&A forum anymore.

very true

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think we've driven the atheism is/isn't a religion thing into the ground enough. I've given the reasons why I think it is a religion and all I'm getting back is yeah but atheism isn't a religion comments, lets agree to disagree on this one shall we?

Ok, if supporting Manchester United, voting for Fianna Fail and supporting women's rights are religions then atheism is a religion too. Otherwise not so much

Soul Winner

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't support Man-U thankfully

So if it's possible to not support a football team why is impossible to have no religion in your mind?

Wouldn't you rather they started to follow your team? Or to enjoy at least watching a game on its merits there with a few pints down the local with a few mates? Beats sitting at home doing the ironing thinking about what could have been. :pac:

Soul Winner

SleepDoc wrote: »

That is not my logic.

If you write about something that happened 60 years ago, with only the benefit of hearsay evidence, the likelihood is that it will be an inaccurate account.

Well the Jews for instance had a very good oral tradition that made stories spread by word of mouth easier to remember plus if you can find evidence of writings which can be dated to within the life time of the eyewitnesses to the events in question then this puts you on a better footing and gives you good grounds for accepting the validity of later copies of these documents. That wouldn't make the story true obviously but it at least gives credence to the later manuscripts and the charge of heresy cannot be leveled as easily.

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well the Jews for instance had a very good oral tradition that made stories spread by word of mouth easier to remember plus if you can find evidence of writings which can be dated to within the life time of the eyewitnesses to the events in question then this puts you on a better footing and gives you good grounds for accepting the validity of later copies of these documents. That wouldn't make the story true obviously but it at least gives credence to the later manuscripts and the charge of heresy cannot be leveled as easily.

Gosh, you're right. Maybe's it's time I gave Zeus and the lads another chance.:pac:

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

When someone begins to believe in a particular religion it is called conversion because it is something different from was previously believd in to be true. But to be converted one must hold to a different view prior to this new belief. If one is an atheist and is subsequently converted to Christianity (I just picked that one out of the blue ) then what has that person been converted from? Another view of the world. Hence his former atheism was how he saw the world. It dictated his behavior and thought processes and affected his opinions in conversations and might even have led to an argument or two. In effect atheism is just like a religion.

By this logic, if somebody has black hair and shaves it all off then, in effect, they've changed their hair color.

Except of course, really, they haven't.

Zillah

Getting back to this...

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, here's what your very first ****ing line says: (Hey how come mine gets starred out??? :mad: )

Haha, your forum-fu is weak.

So as well as wording your sentences badly you then make up stuff that you didn't say in the first place and then say that you said it. I believe that these words were probably going around in your head at the time of typing but try better next time to convey your thoughts to 0s and 1s. Cheers...

Uh...what I said was a direct copy/paste of my post so you've gotten really really confused about what I said. You've even quoted all the material you claim I made up. Were you just out of bed when you wrote this post?

Which is another way of saying that Stalin's Russia was not in fact an atheist regime. What a clever thing you just did. Instead of calling a spade a spade you've decided (all by yourself) that a spade is actually a club in order to support your argument. To you a regime who massacres priests, and destroys churches did it because it was the thing to do back then and it had nothing to do with their ideology. Thats what some people would call intellectual prostitution. The point I make is that if a religious organization did similar things you guys would blamed it on their religion and not on their greed for money and power. If religious ideologies can cause an institution or regime to commit atrocities then other ideologies are equally capable to committing them. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted, and cemented in atheistic ideals and hence was the cause of his atrocities. Get over it. Either that or religion is not as responsible for most of the evil that atheists would like to beleive its responsible for.

There are no such things as atheistic ideals. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted and cemented in the ideals of authoritariansim, despotism and communism. Yes, one element of his ideology was the removal of religion's influence, but that doesn't mean atheism was a driving force. Atheism can't be a driving force, that doesn't even make sense.

Finland - Christian Nation
Norway - Christian Nation
Sweden - Christian Nation
USA - Christian Nation
China - Communist Nation
Saudi Arabia - Muslim Nation

Why do you have Norway Sweden and Finland on one side and USA, China and Saudia Arabia on the other? The only non religious state is China, one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. Congratulations.

You still don't understand my point. It is about abdication of moral responsibility to a higher authority. Let's see if these statistics explain why I get Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Sweden - Belief in God at 23%
Norway - Belief in God at 32%
Finland - Belief in God at 41%

USA - Belief in God at 91%
Saudi Arabia - I'm not sure, but certainly 90+%
China - Authoritarian Communist State where the people abdicate moral responsibility to the party.

You can also have North Korea (authoritarian), Iran (very religious and authoritatian) or...I dunno...Peru (very religious).

When we look at societies around the world and throughout history we see a strong correlation between societal health and a populace who are morally independent from authoritarian government and religious influence.

You don't like it, that doesn't change it.