Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

robindch

UDP wrote: »

Maybe people are taking these books out of context?!

Open heart? Nah. Open legs.

joseph brand

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There's one fatal flaw running throughout your theory.
Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened. In fact I'd be much more suspicious of eye witness and oral accounts that tallied exactly.

I think I can safely assume you are NOT a Detective.

Detective Defective. :P

joseph brand

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean those who believe most in natural selection also happen to be those who aren't being selected?

The humour seems to travel well to the realm of the scientific...



(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

Professional, well educated couples have less children on average than early school-leavers and those single mothers or couples who live off the benefits that come with many sprogs.

This clip from Idiocracy illustrates my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU

I can just picture that couple with the dozen or so sprogs mumbling on about how 'the Lawwrd provides'.

The 'trouble' with atheists is that they ask questions. They should listen to this pastor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F-hhaNxnSmA#!

Morbert

seamus wrote: »

From reading the article, when he says, "Impersonal forces", it appears that he's talking about things like gravity, probability, etc etc, as opposed to any supernatural forces.

While it's always fraught with error to say that all atheists agree on anything, it's fair to say that the vast majority agree that there are forces within our universe which do not care about us.

He seems to be implying there are impersonal forces when it comes to morality.

Michael Nugent

Morbert wrote: »

He seems to be implying there are impersonal forces when it comes to morality.

No, that’s not what I intended to imply, though I can see how the sentence could be read like that. If you add in numbers and (a) and (b) sub-clauses, what I intended to convey is roughly this:

1. Atheists disagree with theists that gods exist, either (a) as supernatural beings that created and/or intervene in the universe or (b) as moral guides and lawgivers.

2. With the advances of science and secularism, some theists are redefining God to mean either (a) an impersonal force or (b) a set of universal values such as love and goodness.

3. Atheists can agree with theists (a) that there are impersonal forces in the universe, which we could describe as the laws of nature; and (b) that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.

4. However, atheists disagree with theists who describe these phenomena as “God”, because this description creates an illusion that there is a wider acceptance of the idea of either (a) a personal intervening god or (b) a moral guide god, because it uses the same label to describe a very different type of idea.

beerbuddy

Point two is not necessarily true as there are many Athiest religions for example Buddism who would see things in this way.Please note that you throw the net so wide when discussing religion and belief in god the lines seem to blur.

Buddism is an Athiestic Religion and they have a completly different concept of diety as say a christian.So you are saying in this statment is cancelling out your origional statment.

Delirium

A general definition of theism:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Definition of a deity:

1. A god or goddess.
2.
a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
b. Deity God. Used with the.

So, if someone believes in a deity then they aren't an atheist.

MagicMarker

Just because you can be an atheist and be a buddhist at the same time doesn't mean Buddism is an atheist religion, there's no such thing as an atheist religion.

Hotblack Desiato

sensibleken wrote: »

Ha! Reminds me of when Mark Thomas confronted a C of E spokesman about their shares in GEC marconi (who manufacture arms) by presenting them with a rapier missile launcher with 'thou shalt not kill' and 'blessed are the meek' written on the missiles.

It's a defensive weapon though. Fail!

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just because you can be an atheist and be a buddhist at the same time

Whuh? Didn't get that memo. At this rate I'll end up as a lapsed atheist.






and as it happens, the Python sketch includes a missile. Maybe there is a Dog after all?

beerbuddy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just because you can be an atheist and be a buddhist at the same time doesn't mean Buddism is an atheist religion, there's no such thing as an atheist religion.

Scientology and Buddism are athiest religions and there are more Jainism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.

Michael Nugent

beerbuddy wrote: »

Please note that you throw the net so wide when discussing religion and belief in god the lines seem to blur.

I’m sure that I carelessly make that mistake at times, but I haven’t mentioned religion at all in the comment you are responding to.

beerbuddy

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’m sure that I carelessly make that mistake at times, but I haven’t mentioned religion at all in the comment you are responding to.

. With the advances of science and secularism, some theists are redefining God to mean either (a) an impersonal force or (b) a set of universal values such as love and goodness

Indeed you did not but you mixed the some thiests redefine god as to mean impersonal force or a set of universal values such as love and goodness.

Well you dont need to state it but it is inherent in what you say.
One aspect comes from western philisophical thought and is a stance held by many thiest religions.

However i would like to see which thiest religions break down god to mean love or goodness.Looks like more buddism to me.I presume you read the book by harris where he principly tried to redefine the word morality and failed misserably.

beerbuddy

koth wrote: »

A general definition of theism:


Definition of a deity:


So, if someone believes in a deity then they aren't an atheist.

Quick question where do you put Buddistsor Scientologists?

Hotblack Desiato

beerbuddy wrote: »

Scientology and Buddism are athiest religions and there are more Jainism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.

That is complete and utter crap.

MagicMarker

beerbuddy wrote: »

Scientology and Buddism are athiest religions and there are more Jainism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by ''atheist religion'', do you mean a religion for atheists or do you mean the religion itself is atheist?

If the former, well that's clearly untrue. If it's the latter, well, I'm currently eating my Friday morning muffin, is it an atheist muffin too?

Delirium

beerbuddy wrote: »

Quick question where do you put Buddistsor Scientologists?

It's my understanding that Buddhism doesn't teach that a god or supreme being is responsible/overseeing reality. So, it's quite likely based on that some Buddhists could be athests. I wouldn't consider it an atheist religion though as it doesn't preach "there are no gods" (AFAIK).

Scientology believes an alien created life on Earth, but I have no idea what explanation they give for the alien creator. So it's possible that members could be atheists or theists.

sensibleken

ninja900 wrote: »

It's a defensive weapon though. Fail!

its used against aircraft, what the aircraft is doing at the time is fairly irrelevant

Dades

beerbuddy wrote: »

Quick question where do you put Buddists or Scientologists?

They're put wherever they want to be put.

Even if their religion is silent on "deities", like everyone else they might have their own ideas. They might be atheists, they might be deists, they might make up their own deity who they like the sound of.

beerbuddy

ninja900 wrote: »

That is complete and utter crap.

fine tell me why then

beerbuddy

Dades wrote: »

They're put wherever they want to be put.

Even if their religion is silent on "deities", like everyone else they might have their own ideas. They might be atheists, they might be deists, they might make up their own deity who they like the sound of.

Janists are not Deists neither are scientologists so where does that put them then if they are not athiests and are not Thiests ?

Religion does not always mean belief in a diety in its strongest sence.

I have seen definitions such as this .......

1.A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

2.An institution to express belief in a divine power.

3.A belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief.

4.The sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe .

Chomsky using a similar definition to point 4 reciently refered to Hitchens and Harris as nothing more than religious fanatics.
I would also include members of Athiest Ireland in this group.

Delirium

science is a religion based on point 4.

beerbuddy

koth wrote: »

science is a religion based on point 4.

ehhh no its not.I would not define science in that way and i am sure you wouldnt either. Please read what i wrote and try again.

Delirium

beerbuddy wrote: »

ehhh no its not.I would not define science in that way and i am sure you wouldnt either. Please read what i wrote and try again.

ok. let's do that. you wrote:

beerbuddy wrote: »

4.The sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe .

Many answers given by science would do that, as would philosophy and history.

Dades

beerbuddy wrote: »

Janists are not Deists neither are scientologists so where does that put them then if they are not athiests and are not Thiests ?

Firstly, who introduced Janists and why are you implying I have made some sort of statement about them? And secondly - simply restating something doesn't make it true.

beerbuddy wrote: »

Religion does not always mean belief in a diety in its strongest sence.

I have seen definitions such as this .......

1.A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

2.An institution to express belief in a divine power.

3.A belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief.

4.The sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe .

Chomsky using a similar definition to point 4 reciently refered to Hitchens and Harris as nothing more than religious fanatics.
I would also include members of Athiest Ireland in this group.

Now you're just flip-flopping about introducing other definitions into an argument (of your starting) that you already have lost grasp of.

So now we're on the atheists = religious thing. Yay. In future when you feel you need to use the "well you're just as bad as us argument", you should probably just stop typing.

And for the record, I have no affiliation with, or great love for AI. I do however appreciate they get off their arse and kick up a fuss about education, however.

beerbuddy

Dades wrote: »

Firstly, who introduced Janists and why are you implying I have made some sort of statement about them? And secondly - simply restating something doesn't make it true.

Now you're just flip-flopping about introducing other definitions into an argument (of your starting) that you already have lost grasp of.

So now we're on the atheists = religious thing. Yay. In future when you feel you need to use the "well you're just as bad as us argument", you should probably just stop typing.

And for the record, I have no affiliation with, or great love for AI. I do however appreciate they get off their arse and kick up a fuss about education, however.

Sorry but i didnt imply anything have a look again.
I asked an open question and would apreciate an answer.
Nobody said you had a great love for AI and the well your as bad as us argument seems to imply that religious are fe***** as i said no such thing.

What i am stating by definition religion does not require a God or supernatural beings etc. If you dont agree with this please tell me why.

Dades

beerbuddy wrote: »

What i am stating by definition religion does not require a God or supernatural beings etc. If you dont agree with this please tell me why.

A religion may be silent on supernatural beings, but it is the supernatural aspect that separates it from, say, a movement or a philosophy.

Anything known as a religion, including Scientology and Buddhism involves elements of the supernatural. Both are rife with it depending on how far you dig.

And leaving aside the supernatural, there also needs to be a doctrine or agreed set of rules/laws. Something that is entirely missing from atheism, which is not to say that a lot of atheists don't share views on certain matters.

It's not enough to just say Hitchens, Harris etc. are "religious fanatics". They're not. They don't belong to a religion.
Fanatical some atheists may be, but why muddy the water?