Seems like Carrabuh is being put on trial as being a religous person for not believing in Gods? Ahmed believes in god and that all babies are born into his set of beliefs so he is religeous.
I am holding back to see where Rob is going with this....at the moment I am a little puzzled to say the least.
Rob, I really think that you are out of order on this one. Carrabuh's position is a perfectly tenable one.An Atheist is a singular position unlike and apart from all religions. Atheism is the position of reason. All we are saying is this "You (insert Jews/Moslems/Christians/Jedis/Jehovahs/Mormons) say that your gods and prophets exist,show us some evidence. I will go even further,if any of them can do that I will happily renounce my Atheism and follow their religion. As that is about as likely as QPR winning the Prem I think I am fairly safe.
Sorry Colk, but I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment on atheism and you only have to read carrabuh's posts to see why. Atheism is an absolute conviction and knowledge that there is no God. One cannot be born an atheist because babies do not know there is no God. You can come to believe it on the basis of the evidence you see, but a baby must be born agnostic because babies do not know one way or another.
Yes, see above With respect CT, I think you're misunderstanding the point I've been making. I'm not saying carrabuh's position on atheism is not perfectly tenable. In fact although I describe myself as agnostic, that's only because I am not absolutely certain that there is no God. I suspect there isn't. So I tend towards atheism. But I think you'll find Carrabuh is absolutely certain there is no God. It's a singular position, indeed. That's the point. It's a belief. And my point is that Carrabuh behaves religiously, which is why I pose this question: Carrabuh, let me give you a different example. There is a man named Ahmed. He professes himself a Muslim. Not necessarily all the time, but if asked. He is convinced that being a Muslim is the righteous path. He is absolutely certain there is one God. He is dogmatic in his belief in Islam because as far as he is concerned, the evidence states he should be. If challenged he will confidently tell others that their faith means they are misguided. He feels certain he is correct and that they are wrong. He strongly believes that babies are born Muslims. He believes it is cruel and wrong to teach children other faiths - it is simply child abuse. And he will happily announce that to the world, with no qualms or concerns. Would you describe this man as behaving religiously? Simple yes or no. Anyone can answer as well as Carrabuh if they like. So far it seems Thai has said yes and (I think) SN23.
Sorry Rob, don't want to trouble you but I cannot see where that was said - in need of help here buddy
I think my position is basically the same as Rob's. I would call myself an agnostic because I cannot prove that God does not exist - I can't prove a negative. However, I am as sure as I can be that the Bible is twaddle.
I'll be fair, what he actually said was "Atheism is the starting point for everyone before any outside influence brings about belief." In the context of teaching in schools. Which I think can only be incorrect - babies do not know there is no God. They don't know anything really. CT - if it helps clarify - being an atheist doesn't make you religious. It makes you an atheist. Being religious is a state of activity. What I have consistently said is that Carrabuh acts religiously - in the exact same way as those who one would steriotypically think of as religious because they form part of a clear, organised religion. It's the behaviour that's important. Atheism is a religion simply on the basis that it is a single-minded belief. To act religiously, you have to be very certain of that belief and, as part of it, preach it. Atheism on its own - just a positive belief in no God - is not really much of a religion. It's only got one tenet - that there is no God. I'm saying Carrabuh's "religion" (and we can put it in bunny ears if that helps) has many tenets - no God, no teaching of theism in schools, no involvement of theism in politics, the base correctness of science, forcing theism on children is cruelty. Etc, etc. It's got quite a few tenets. And he's religious because he fervently believes it and, what is more, is prepared to preach it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. As I said, I'm closer to this. I'm just asking him to see his behaviour for what it is - not so very different from a fervent theist and in many ways exactly the same just with a different subject matter.
Without trying to stir anything Essentially what you are saying is that Carrabuh's thoughts and belief's can be likened to that of a religious fruit-cake, but that doesn't make him religious. It might make him an extremist of some sort in the eyes of his opponents, but not religious as such.
So you're saying you have the selective thinking of a baby? Sorry, that's not called for but I couldn't resist. If I'm being really honest I would say I'm a humanist and I only want what's better for the advancement of humans as a whole. Advance comes from science and asking questions where as religion in any form hinders that. I don't think it really matters what you call yourself, so long as you want what's best for humans as a whole, and religion will always hold that back.
I cut an apple in two for breakfast this morning ready to eat and blow me there was a vaguely human face formed in the core, I'm quite certain that this is conclusive proof that there is in fact a God and one of the pipps looked the spit of a flying Monkey! So I poo-poo your rational ways! And another thing, if there are no vampires, ghosts and stuff then does this mean the Buffy is actually lying to us all and is actually a fat middle aged doley who does nothing more risque than knit and have the odd sherry? Bah!
I think the whole issue here is semantics. My other half is an RS teacher and I have had a very similar argument with her in the past. Rob sounds fairly well versed in religeous matters and at a guess has the similarly different (Maybe correct) view of what it is to be religeous. Her indoors also supposes that my absolute view that the Quran, Bible etc are fairy stories to control people and garner power, means that I am religeous. I of course associate the term with only people who believe in some God or other. This difference in definitionseems to be completely side tracking the debate. Carrabuh is certainly not religeous by less religeously educated folks definition or understanding of the term. By Robs and the nearly wifey's definition he is. Can we not agree to disagree on the semantics? Your both religeously dogmatic about your sides of the argument and neither will likely backdown in a month of sundays! Going back to the original post is Alex Neil restoring any of your faith in humanity RM2. How about Tony Pulis ? http://www.itv.com/news/central/2015-01-19/tony-pulis-to-row-from-london-to-paris-for-charity/ Bah!
To be honest, on the matter of the existing of God(s), yes, I do have the selective thinking of a baby! I really do not know. But as I said I lean towards the idea there isn't one.
Actually I was just about to post that it's a semantic argument when I read the good General's comments. I think it's correct. I did like Douglas Adam's argument that a sentient puddle woke up one morning and thought. "This hole that I am in fits me so remarkably well that it surely must have been designed by some sort of higher being" Can we all agree that belief in fairies at the bottom of one's garden is equally valid to a belief on God?
Yeah, I said earlier that I thought our definitions were poles apart. But you are spot on that we are both being religiously dogmatic on this thread! (Which was essentially my point) Likened to that of a religious fruit-cake in the way they present their views, yes. Absolutely. I think the part after "but" boils down to the semantics that Melchy highlights. So yes, it's the behaviour I was getting at. As far as I am concerned, they are both belief systems (we can leave the emotive "religion" word behind). Belief systems are based on beliefs (obviously...) and Carrabuh acts in accordance with his beliefs in the same way that a Muslim might act. I'm not saying it's a problem or a big deal, just that it's a point for self-reflection. The opposite of having a belief system is not having a belief system - i.e. agnostic.
