Some people believe there is a monster in Loch Ness ..... there is a whole tourism industry built upon this myth. A myth is what it is though. A lot of what has passed down in stories throughout the ages is mythical too I suspect (King Arthur, Alfred burning the cakes, Robin Hood, etc) but some people believed these things existed. People believe want they want to believe - that's what gives them freedom. It's when that freedom is taken away and the choice is removed that the problems start .....
And that is essentially where my concerns are centred. The local vicar isn't likely to fetch up on my doorstep railing at me for disagreeing with him. In fact he is a genial chap I can share a pint with. Now I see two of the dirty ****s are in court on FGM charges. This is,in my opinion as bad as the worst rapes,not even a Ched Evans type I said ,she said affair. He got five years,lets see what these two get. My bet Suspended sentence.
Aha back again. Firstly, lets put to bed the notion that atheism is a religion. It is not. It is Zero belief in God. For example, a robot has a microchip brain but no programming. Does it a) Believe in God B) Believe God may exist as it cannot be disproved C) Have no knowledge of god to believe in The answer is of course C. Although it does not know it, it is an athiest because of having no knowledge of God to believe in. The robot is given a few random personality traits to set him on his way. After a period of time the scientist re-programmes him with the concept of God but to not believe it. The robot now knows he is an atheist. Does the robot now change his behaviour. Has the robot now been given a reason to change his behaviour. Has being aware he is an atheist given him new beliefs to change his life. No, atheism offers no guidance on how to behave. Therefore atheism is not a religion. Wikepedia, if you check out the list of religions and spiritual traditions (there are hundreds) Atheism does not appear. It does state that the list is not complete, however I think we can assume the author is aware of Atheism. "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, beliefs, and world views that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. While religion is hard to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system". With regards to Robs description that religion is conviction. Conviction is not a religious term, I can pick my nose with conviction, I can believe my eyes with conviction. A man tells me my car has 3 wheels, I go round and check, "it has 4" I say, "aah, but when you go round the otherside God makes one of them disappear". Now, the fact that I do not believe what he says with conviction does not make me religious, despite the fact I cannot prove it (yes I'm aware I could lie down and see all four but I'm sure you get the gist). But who here would say, "for all I know he may be speaking the truth"? Now lets look at agnosticism in comparison to atheism (Oxford Dictionaries) Atheist "A person who disbelieves or lacksbelief in the existence of God or gods:" Rob, note the term lack of belief Agnostic "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." Which definition speaks of belief in something, an agnostic, not believing they will ever know whether God exists can possibly CHANGE his approach to life just to make sure he gets through those pearly gates if needed. He now has a set of beliefs and guidance to live his life religiously and remain Agnostic. Pehaps this person will find their answer when they die. So in essence, true Agnostics have far more in common with those believing in God. You can in fact be agnostic with conviction. eg I am convinced that that we will never know about the existence of God. I am convinced that God exists but cannot prove it. Conviction is not the correct term to describe religious belief. Only when used as religious conviction, and atheism cannot be called so. Religion "The belief in and worship of a superhumancontrolling power, especially a personalGod or gods"- Is atheism a religion? Lets take the term religious (Oxford dictionaries) "Relating to or believing in a religion" "(Of a belief or practice) forming part of someone’s faith in a divine being" "Belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion" "Treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship" Do any of these sound like atheism? According to Rob my religion is Atheism and I follow it religiously like a mad prophet. Now of course Rob was trying to imply I was religious, but in reality, the term religiously could only be used in the context of "he religiously brushed his teeth 3 times a day" ie a pattern of behaviour. Much like that I preach. I can also preach good road safety. The term is being used in a derogatory way to establish a point. Now the mistake that Rob (quite deliberately) is making, is that he is confusing a religious opinion with an opinion on religion. I think I have clarified Atheism is not a religion, so therefore I do not have a religious opinion. I have an opinion on religion. I have no God to influence my opinion. Finally, do I (specifically) follow atheism religiously, in the way that it describes a lifestyle for me. Can I be shaken from my non-believing stance. If a supernatural being popped up one day and we had a chat and it did enough to convince me it was real, would I be an atheist? Of course not. My atheism is based on the other side proving me wrong (much like the story about the 3 wheels). In addition, I'm also some rabid follower of atheism. Now I am not a follower of atheism because there is nothing to follow. It doesn't tell me to murder people, be nice, sleep with everyone, dress in jeans. My views are on religion, they are political, not from religion. Lets use an example A man proclaims that a giant camel sits above us at all times (invisible of course). He says, in order to see him and get his great gift you must forever hop on one leg. Now a lot of silly people believe this and do as he says, more and more take up hopping on one leg. After a while people start clogging up hospitals with damaged limbs, tiredness, days off work and the economy is effected. The hoppers start there own districts within the country. Now the President says "hang on a minute, I don't believe any of this invisible camel nonsense, I'm going to put a stop to it. I now decree that hopping in the name of this religion is outlawed, it is a ridiculous notion and causes us harm". The President is not acting religiously but making a decision on religion. I don't consider myself militant because I don't physically go out looking to change, I speak on a football blog. Do I go on religious forums and state my views, no, am I a member of the National Front, no, do I hate religious people, no. Do I respect their religion, no I don't, do I think policy should phase it out, yes, do I think it damages the country, yes, should faith schools be described as child abuse, yes. Now ask yourself this, do you respect somebodies belief in all powerful bananas, if alot of people believed in the all powerful banana and it is the most important thing in life would you want it phased out, if teachers taught/imposed that view on children, would it be child cruelty? Am I militant? I'm confrontational in the context of a football forum, would I go up to a religious person and flatly tell them what I think, no. Would I flatly tell them if they asked my opinion, yes. But militant can also imbues violence. So I don't think it is appropriate terminology.
The dinosaur brain was to small to comprehend an afterlife so therefore once they passed over they accepted the next step without question, where as the human brain questions many things so it stand to reason that some stick around in 'purgatory' looking for answers.............probably.........
I'm an atheist - I don't believe in God (which alone would make me agnostic) but furthermore I dispute the existence of God (this is the part that makes me atheist). But if someone provides me compelling evidence for the existence of God then I am willing to change my views. Therefore I cannot see how you could possibly view atheism as a religion, at least in my case.
Christ Carrabuh, you could have saved yourself a lot of time by saying "what Melchy said - it's all just semantics". Which is all that long post of yours is. By the by, your definitions are truly bizarre and highly unusual http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism. Either we agree to disagree (which I believe most posters are probably begging for) or just answer me the simple question I posed: 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. So far it seems Thai has said yes and (I think) SN23. What do you think Carrabuh? Or anyone else? No caveats, ifs or buts - just a plain and simple yes or no based on these facts.
On the issue of semantics, one cannot be an 'atheist' without the existence of a 'theist'. The former term depends on the latter (it is 'marked'). So in that sense 'atheist' is a religious concept and Carrabuh's position is 'religious'. Hardly a key argument, though. The real issue we're skirting around here (it seems to me) is whether atheism is a credible position or whether it is just as dogmatic and unsubstantiated as theism. In other words, is agnosticism the only truly rational position because every other position is a statement of faith, not reason? If you see what I mean.
Btw, amazing that a non-football thread gets so much traffic. I guess it shows just how important this issue feels at the moment to people.
I would say yes, because he has been told this is the way to act by his religion. "The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply, theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge." Whilst theism deals with belief, atheism deals with non belief. Doesn't make it religious, like saying dog and no dog. Doesn't describe anything.
To be honest Rob, semantics crop up in your posts all the time, not just in this debate, but on these boards in general.
Meanwhile back to the OP 45 churches and at least 10 killed in Nigeria because of the latest Hedbo cartoon. Those Boko Haram Nigerians have decided to kidnap a load of women and children in Cameroon now . http://m.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30888188 http://m.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30882991 More disgusting actions in the name of religeon/Islam Boko Haram simply means Western Education is forbidden so anyone found with a Charles Darwin book or a Beatles album could expect to be killed probably . It's very hard to seperate Islam the peaceful religeon with all the horrific acts carried out by people believing they are acting in the name of Allah.
SN23 China fact of the day . There are nore non muslims in China than the entire population of Muslims on Earth. If the crazy nut jobs that teach children that every child is born muslim and they would like to forcibly convert us all ,or face death want to expand their operation over here they would be facing an uphill task to say the least.
SN, No not people killed because of the CH cartoons. People killed because the savage and backward followers of an especially savage and backward religion decide that they cannot live their lives within any kind of democratic and secular framework. One incidentally that does not seek to curtail their right to believe in all this craziness,just to tolerate other people's forms of craziness, or, in the case of atheism, not to be crazy.
With you it does. Mostly because I ascribe normal definitions to words, whereas you give them new definitions when you've been caught out to duck reality...
I didn't ask for a "because"! You are a typical politician Carrabuh But as I'm sure you realised, the point is this: There is a man named Carrabuh. He professes himself an Atheist. Not necessarily all the time, but if asked. He is convinced that being a Atheist is the right path. He is absolutely certain there is no God. He is dogmatic in his belief in Atheism 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 Atheist. He believes it is cruel and wrong to teach children about faiths - it is simply child abuse. And he will happily announce that to the world, with no qualms or concerns. So, we can quibble over the cause of the action (you think that Islam or religion is some sort of guiding mind, as if the Quran is Tom Riddle's Diary, commanding its followers, whereas I see no evidence of a superior being guiding people, I sincerely believe people make their own choices off their own backs and if they choose to follow a 1400 year old book, that's their own decision and it makes them no less guilty for their bad actions). And we can quibble over the definition of religion and religious to our heart's content - you only have to google them to see how many different meanings are ascribed to them (inevitably, I like the broadest, whereas Carrabuh likes selective narrow definitions). And we can also quibble over the definition of agnosticism and atheism (I've never heard of atheism being described as anything other than a positive, absolute belief in no god, so your definition is unusual to say the least). But the bottom line is, wherever you want to fall on those definitions, Carrabuh's actions, the product, is exactly the same as that of Ahmed. From the outside, they look identical. Fine, I won't describe it as religious if that upsets you. But you're only kidding yourself if you think you're behaving much differently to a religious person whatever your motivation. I appreciate it's patronising, but the fact is it's called "self-awareness". By the way, I never meant it to be derogatory. Humanity admires people with convictions. I certainly do, depending on the motivating factors. And I very much lean towards the atheism point of view, though I haven't had the fortune to be certain of anything. But we have to be honest with ourselves.
No,that's wrong for the following reason.You are ascribing what appears to be similar actions as having the same motivations. What in effect you are arguing is the same as people who claim the extreme Left in politics is the same as the extreme Right. This is in fact nonsense. Although you can ascribe similar actions to Ahmed and Carrabuh this is ultimately a specious argument. Religion and Atheism are quite demonstrable polar opposites with entirely different roots and motives. The first comes from human frailty of spirit and a deep lack of confidence that makes it's followers very good subjects for social control. They can be made quite easily to believe in concepts such as the Divine Right to rule,to pursue and support wars because "God is on our side" and to conform to restrictive social systems and class structures. The Atheist meanwhile is a far more difficult person to control.He makes up his own mind,often having different views from his parents and teachers. He works on logic and believes only what can be demonstrated. Which one do you think governments prefer? And btw Rob,I detect a little tetchiness in your recent replies and references to Carra which,despite your claims,is often the hallmark of one who sees the argument slipping away from them.
I wish the press would make more effort to point out that all these atrocities are being committed in the cause of Wahhabi/Salafi Islam, and not the more common, peaceful forms of Islam. Boko Haram, Isis, Al-Quaeda all follow Wahhabism, why not call it that? When it's only the Catholic church committing crimes, the press don't drag the Baptists or CoE into it?
