a non belief a religion? hardly. you would then be setting yourself up to the same branding because of a few extremists. i'm not anti religion. believe in what you will. it's just that i don't believe in the very basis of most practicing religions. budhism would be a religion without a god. atheism has no ritual. no set standards, morals, or ideas. it is non belief, nothing more. if someone is swayed to take up a cause of anti-religion over it, then that is a right guaranteed them in our free society. i live in canada, no first amendment here. but it sounds like you're saying to me that if i don't relate to it as a religion, then i am unable to be one. i think that that is just sheer ludicrousy. after all, religion is the worship of deity, atheism it's denial.
"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
P
psungee
Guest
definitions...
While atheism disavows the existence of a god (or gods) or any form of supreme being it doesn't, necessarily reject religion.
Dictionary.com includes a definition for religion as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."
while this does not, according to Dictionary, necessarily command a belief in a supreme being, it is generally understood that if you are religious (in the most common sense) you believe in the power of a supreme being.
According to Reference.com, "Buddhism is often described as a religion and a collection of various philosophies, based initially on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha. To many, however, Buddhism is not a religion, nor a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but rather teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in what is now Nepal and taught primarily in northern India, and is hereafter referred to as 'the Buddha'."
Taoism, for example, is considered (more) a "quasi-religion".
Subscribers to Bahá'í refer to their belief system as a "faith"
If we give that a religion doesn't necessarily need a supreme being to, in fact, be a religion; then any person who subscribes to these godless (read as explanatory - not derogatory) religions must, then, be agnostic - not atheistic.
With all this said, I see, personally, no conflict in an atheist writing about god. Let's face it, Rowling wrote about a wizard ... then made this fictional character, after the fact, gay. She believes in the money get gets from her work - not wizards. Then there's the Blob. I suspect nobody believes the "blob" actually exists - but there certainly was a movie about it. So?
All this says, is that parents should be vigilant about what they allow their children to see. If you believe, don't send your kids. If you don't believe - what's the diff?
It's useful, at least, to have posts like this as it brings awareness to readers but, certainly, as Fossten stated in reference to a stated opinion, "That's your opinion."
If this comment, "As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, 'Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.'" is accurate (not having, nor intending, to see the film) it clearly discredits the author's knowledge-base anyhow.
Opinions are useful but I'm afraid that's all there is here - just opinions.
This is just my opinion
While atheism disavows the existence of a god (or gods) or any form of supreme being it doesn't, necessarily reject religion.
Dictionary.com includes a definition for religion as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."
while this does not, according to Dictionary, necessarily command a belief in a supreme being, it is generally understood that if you are religious (in the most common sense) you believe in the power of a supreme being.
According to Reference.com, "Buddhism is often described as a religion and a collection of various philosophies, based initially on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha. To many, however, Buddhism is not a religion, nor a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but rather teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in what is now Nepal and taught primarily in northern India, and is hereafter referred to as 'the Buddha'."
Taoism, for example, is considered (more) a "quasi-religion".
Subscribers to Bahá'í refer to their belief system as a "faith"
If we give that a religion doesn't necessarily need a supreme being to, in fact, be a religion; then any person who subscribes to these godless (read as explanatory - not derogatory) religions must, then, be agnostic - not atheistic.
With all this said, I see, personally, no conflict in an atheist writing about god. Let's face it, Rowling wrote about a wizard ... then made this fictional character, after the fact, gay. She believes in the money get gets from her work - not wizards. Then there's the Blob. I suspect nobody believes the "blob" actually exists - but there certainly was a movie about it. So?
All this says, is that parents should be vigilant about what they allow their children to see. If you believe, don't send your kids. If you don't believe - what's the diff?
It's useful, at least, to have posts like this as it brings awareness to readers but, certainly, as Fossten stated in reference to a stated opinion, "That's your opinion."
If this comment, "As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, 'Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.'" is accurate (not having, nor intending, to see the film) it clearly discredits the author's knowledge-base anyhow.
Opinions are useful but I'm afraid that's all there is here - just opinions.
This is just my opinion
I never said atheism is a formal religion. I said it was effectively a religion and religion to some. My definition is totally dependent on peoples actions. People who try to take "under God" out of the pledge, or remove the Ten Commandments from public building do it on the basis of the establishment clause. Michael Newdow, the man bringing the "under God" case to the supreme court even calls himself "reverend". To use the establishment clause to remove Christianity from the public square is to claim that athiesm is a religion. Otherwise it isn't protected under the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment. You seem to be missing the point on that one. Most athiests I know are just as hardcore about their faith in athiest views as are any Christians. Granted most I know are very politically active and young too. You can't say that athiesm isn't a religion and then expect the Supreme Court to recognize it as a religion (which it effectively does). It isn't just a religion when it's convenient. While many may simple hold an athiest point of view, there are also many who are athiest zelots, and even though they don't wanna admit it, athiesm is there religion. Those people have more faith in athiesm then I have ever seen in a Christian.
While atheism disavows the existence of a god (or gods) or any form of supreme being it doesn't, necessarily reject religion.
Dictionary.com includes a definition for religion as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."
while this does not, according to Dictionary, necessarily command a belief in a supreme being, it is generally understood that if you are religious (in the most common sense) you believe in the power of a supreme being.
According to Reference.com, "Buddhism is often described as a religion and a collection of various philosophies, based initially on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha. To many, however, Buddhism is not a religion, nor a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but rather teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in what is now Nepal and taught primarily in northern India, and is hereafter referred to as 'the Buddha'."
Taoism, for example, is considered (more) a "quasi-religion".
Subscribers to Bahá'í refer to their belief system as a "faith"
If we give that a religion doesn't necessarily need a supreme being to, in fact, be a religion; then any person who subscribes to these godless (read as explanatory - not derogatory) religions must, then, be agnostic - not atheistic.
With all this said, I see, personally, no conflict in an atheist writing about god. Let's face it, Rowling wrote about a wizard ... then made this fictional character, after the fact, gay. She believes in the money get gets from her work - not wizards. Then there's the Blob. I suspect nobody believes the "blob" actually exists - but there certainly was a movie about it. So?
All this says, is that parents should be vigilant about what they allow their children to see. If you believe, don't send your kids. If you don't believe - what's the diff?
It's useful, at least, to have posts like this as it brings awareness to readers but, certainly, as Fossten stated in reference to a stated opinion, "That's your opinion."
If this comment, "As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, 'Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.'" is accurate (not having, nor intending, to see the film) it clearly discredits the author's knowledge-base anyhow.
Opinions are useful but I'm afraid that's all there is here - just opinions.
This is just my opinion
Your missing my point. Read my previous post.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And THERE it is. Denial. Thank you for admitting the truth.
Let me ask you something: If you are an atheist who believes in evolution, then you must believe that we as human beings are nothing but biochemical accidents, mere compositions of molecules moving randomly and aimlessly about. If you are not a created being, but are simply an accident, then you have no purpose. You need no morals, as you can excuse any behavior you choose by simply thinking that you as a mere collection of molecules without a soul cannot discern what is a rational thought and what is not.
If you were not fashioned in the image of God, you are not accountable to a Higher Being in any way, and thus you have no destiny after death. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. In the mean time, your thoughts and sayings are nothing but random acts with no meaning, because you have no meaning. In fact, your very consciousness is not grounded in reality or rationality, since everything you do and say is simply a result of random movements of the molecules and synapses of your body and brain.
On the other hand, if there is a God, which any rational (non-atheist, in other words) being can see by simply looking around at the earth and the universe, He surely does care about you and your behavior, and you will one day stand before Him and give an account of your life. If you lived a life of sin and failed to repent, you will suffer judgment along with everyone else who rejected God. That's not me talking, that's what the Bible says. Disbelieve it if you want to, but if I were you I'd google "Pascal's Wager" before I went to sleep.
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
Most Christians usually refer to their god as "he" or "him"; I was also paraphrasing a popular bumper sticker.
now that sounds like a bible thumper lost in the indoctrination of his religion. yes, when you die thats it. if you want to believe that a person has no purpose, then that would be YOUR opinion. everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species. in the ideal of evolution, it is of great interest to go back and find out where the beginnings are.without the developement of science and it's ideals, you would not be where you are, sitting and writing on this forum. our knowledge of the universe would still be back at a time where the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. there is nothing special about man other than he was able to evolve to higher levels of intelligence and create a written language so knowledge can be better transferred and added to for future generations. as for morals, that's up to the society you live in. and any rational being looking at the whole picture of the universe and it's start could see it's not the product of some omnipotent being who has no beginning and no end. it just exists. i believe more strongly in the beginning of the universe coming from factors not completely understood at this time than some mythical being creating them from nothing. involve yourself in the higher levels of science and it becomes quite clear. i'm a person who needs a little proof and deals within the logic of possibilities and plausible explanations. i don't beleive in magical or mythical beings. if your statements of a god are true, i'd like to see concrete proof of your convictions. after all, the "knowledge" of a mono theistic god has existed for at least 6000 years. yet, human generations in some form have been traced back from fossil records for more than a million. but i know, modern man just appeared out of no where. no, man started like all life, from the simplest beginnings billions of years ago to become what he is. stars are the creators of all elements that make up the building blocks of planets and solar systems and biological life. if you hide behind the ideal of creationism, you will not strive to seek the answers of how it all comes to be. being atheist doesn't leave one without purpose. just as believing in god doesn't give one purpose. it's still what you make of life while you have it. and you should sit down and read a little bit from richard dawkins at some time before creating such strong opinions of "non believers". there are a lot of answers for a lot of things, but somebody must sit in a bias to not even ponder whether they are after the truth or being spoon fed something that isn't plausible with the knowledge of the day.
He doesn't have to prove; its called "faith" for a reason. Just as you put your faith in science (and the scientific community and all it's personal bias). You put your "faith" in (among other things) darwinian evolution even though it has never been proven, and can't be. It will never be more then a theory, and a less believable one as time goes by. Your statement seems as much (if not more) based on "faith" as Fosstens previous post. If you "believe" in Darwinian evolution and man-made global warming, due to a "consensus" then you are doing so on faith.
"everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species" Why? Christianity gives an expanation, though you don't wanna accept it. So what is your justification? Who are you to determine whether I have a "role" to play. It sounds like you are subscribing to fate, specifically one guided by some sort of "plan" (hence the use of the word "betterment").
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Now, Hrmwrm, was that you that replied to my post, or was that a bunch of random acts by a collection of molecules? See, based on your own beliefs, there really IS no YOU.
By the way, I've read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins, and he's the nastiest, name-calling, non-debating atheist I've ever seen, including Christopher Hitchens. He is a disgrace to his own profession and his own belief system. He proves my point - atheism is devoid of a moral compass. And you just proved my point as well, by calling me a "bible thumper." So you resort to name-calling just like your hero Dawkins. Very telling. Especially since you ignore the FACT that I used a very logical and non-Biblical argument. Your response was knee-jerk and not at all convincing.
For example, you just admitted that you believe in the Big Bang Theory, supporting which theory is ZERO evidence or plausible explanation, yet you accept it on faith - this despite there was NO EYEWITNESS. Then you say that you don't believe in magical or mythical beings, then you say that STARS are the CREATORS? Get a clue big guy, you are very confused.
DunItRight
Dedicated LVC Member
Talk about tossing stones.
Since when did you know my type?
People can believe in any religion they want to but then you have the extremists, and not everyone that believes in religion is a fanatic nut case.
Regardless, fantasy or scifi ITS NOT REAL why would it be taken seriously. I still stand with what I said about that.
Seeing your reaction to that, I think you shouldn't talk about certain types of people and their beliefs and how you feel it is typical of them to toss stones.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
There you go again, putting God into a little box, of either "it's this way or it isn't". Why does it HAVE to be an accident, if there isn't a God; who made those ground rules? Why should people do without morals if there isn't a God? Why are peoples lives "meaningless" if there isn't a God by deafult?
Are you implying that the only reason you don't go on a raping, pillaging and killing spree is because you believe God will cast you out, once you die, if you do?
Your "Pascal's Wager" scenario is nothing more than an attempt to sway people by means of fear, aka Boogeyman tactics.
I suspect because atheists see the word “god” or “God” as just a word and therefore using God’s name is meaningless and is nothing but an expression rather than some quasi-belief that God exists. Atheists aren’t trying to kill God in the physical or literal sense. They are trying to sanitize God from society including government and the public square. An example of this would be Rosie O’Donnell’s hate for Christian beliefs, certainly with respect to Christian opposition to same-sex marriage. And the list goes on, which began with the Scopes evolution trial to removing prayer from public schools to the current trend, which is to remove Christianity from the public square entirely by calling expression of Christian beliefs, “hate speech.”
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all. (circa 1892)
You do realize that "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 right? So not sure your "athiest are trying to force their 'religion' down our throats" stance works.
The fanatics tend to be the people who try and force/pass their own religious views and interpretations of holy scripture as laws which everyone must adhere to.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
"Less believable as time goes on"? You really think that about evolution? BTW, Darwin was a pioneer in the field, he definitely didn't get it perfectly correct, as much of his work has been revised/reworked as new and improved scientific methods allow us to better understand. No one really subscribes to "Origin of the Species" as unquestionable facts, like I said, he was a pioneer; he laid the ground work; it's been a slow steady process since then. Gravity is also just a theory, yet you believe in gravity, right?
-
I love how (some) the religious ones ask for proof, when given, they deny/disregard and demand "more proof", yet hide behind their safety blanket of "I have faith" when asked for proof to substantiate their claims.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Uh...you were taught in school about the "theory of gravity?" LOL What school did you go to? Credibility alert!
By the way, before you spout off about Darwin being a pioneer, you should read Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."
i'm sorry fossten. bible thumper should have read "creationist".as for proof, it is as i said. the weight of evidence stands very high. the fossil record speaks volumes of the past earth. and yes, dawkins is a bit of a zealot, but i admire him for the strength of his views in reality. and i didn't say stars are THE creator, just without them, nothing would be made. do you understand the fundamental laws of how a star works? and why do you keep refering to me as a bunch of random acts of molecules? a living thing is a compilation of wonder. i'm as awed at it as you. i just don't believe, based upon huge amounts of evidence that are contrary to your ideals, that it was all started by 1 omnipotent being. creationists are a dying breed with no evidence of their reality except for "the word". and shagdrum, i don't need actual proof, just any sort of real evidence might sway me. but alas, there is none that exists except some texts from a time when people created ideas to be able to explain how it all came to be. funny how throughout history, there are so many different kinds of ideals. just depends on where you lived at the time and when in history you were. and on a final note, pascals wager would lead me to the idea of it's logic that i should still believe in santa claus under the hopes of getting a present, or the tooth fairy so as i age and lose teeth, i might get something for them. it's very outdated logical attitude was years before high evidence against gods existence surfaced. shagdrum thinks my ideas are based on faith? no, they are based an a very real amount of evidence that creationist's just care to turn a blind eye to and stand in thier corner of ignorance of truth. the evidence is very compelling. and darwin's ideals may be a theory, but there is a lot of evidence to stand behind his theory. where is the evidence for the creationists side? but, i know as well as shagdrum and fossten, that i will not sway them in thier ideals, and neither they me, so i will desist if they will. and we may humbly co-exist on this forum as we always have before this encounter.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, I learned Newton's Laws in H.S.... some I.D. proponents and creationist refute gravity as a law, based on certain factors, you missed my point.
Does Behe have proof that someone else came up with Evolution before Darwin, therefore not making Darwin a pioneer in the field?
Edit... I looked up Behe, he uses the "Irreducible Complexity", which is laughable at best. Did you know that Behe testified as an "expert witness" in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, he flopped, along with the other two I.D. "experts.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Spoken like someone in denial. You question whether or not evolution becomes less and less believable, yet you refuse to examine evidence that demonstrates this. Go read the book - I have. You don't even know what "irreducible complexity" is, or you wouldn't say it's laughable. He RESEARCHED irreducible complexity, something Darwin wasn't aware of when he claimed that the cell was the smallest particle, which IS laughable. What's also laughable is you calling gravity a "theory." You have no credibility on this subject, especially since you're unwilling to examine evidence that might show you to be wrong. I on the other hand have done so. I've looked at the evidence presented by evolutionists and creationists alike, and have determined on my own without somebody else telling me, that evolution is a crock. I'm confident in this. You on the other hand are not so confident - in fact, you are not very sure of yourself - that's why you continue to say things like, "Well, evolution is always improving" and "Evolution isn't a perfect science yet".
The global warming debate has proven one very important fact: Scientific consensus doesn't mean squat. Science has nothing to do with consensus. Yet the evolutionary debate is as much about consensus as GW is. They're both as full of baloney as eugenics was.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I've read up on Behe, his work is laughable; he conceded his own points during the trial where he testified as an "expert witness" on I.D. "Irreducible Complexity" (certain biological aspect being to complex to form from simplier forms, the 'watch in sand' argument etc.) is a crucial aspect for I.D., who's in denial now? Like I said, it's proponents of I.D. that call gravity a theory, that's the angle I was using (of course you won't listen; it's fine), Google "theory of gravity", you'll get several hits on it by I.D. pushers.
Yes, Evolution science isn't a perfected science where no further research needs to be done; that certainly doesn't make it less credible. It's a step by step process, like all other sciences. By your logic, we should just give up if the first attempt at research doesn't bear perfection. We might as well give up researching cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer treatments too.
BTW, I am curious to your response to my "Pledge" & "God" posts above...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If you're trying to equate evolution theory with AIDS and Alzheimer's research, then I agree with your comparison. After all, AIDS and Alzheimer's are diseases that need a cure. To atheists, evolution is the cure to the need to believe in a living God. Continuing the theme that this "disease" needs a cure, scientists will spend any amount of money they can get their hands on and try any experiment they can think of in order to come up with a solution, just like they do with AIDS and Alzheimer's. If an experiment or line of thinking doesn't work, they will try something else in their neverending quest to prove that God did not create the universe. Even if they have to invent new ideas and processes, the quest continues, for stamping out the belief in God is the ultimate goal. They will even convince some religious people that God USED evolution, an attempt to at least somewhat reduce the importance of God's role in creation. Yes, we all need to donate to "anti-God research," especially if we have relatives who suffer from this awful disease. It's a moral imperative that we replace this antiquated, old-fashioned, Puritan belief system with something more, er, contemporary and enlightened.
Thank you for clarifying my point.
Oh, and by the way, Behe is right and you are wrong. And laughable. I read all of Behe's testimony in that trial, and he didn't fumble squat. You haven't read all of his testimony, you've only read what TalkOrigins says about it. Why don't you go to True Origins and see Behe's response to his critics? Oh, but I know you don't want to do that. It wouldn't do to have your bubble popped, would it?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
There you go again, thumping your 'holier than thou' chest and spinning what people say to fit your agenda... nothing changes I guess. "Clarifying" your point, lol.
Let me ask you something, besides your faith, do you have any credible shred of proof that there is a God to begin with and/or God created Adam from dirt? The earth only 6k years old? Where's that Ark? You want to have your cake and eat it too.
If you recall, this isn't the first time we've spoken about evolution or Behe for that matter; if I recall correctly, we first spoke of Behe about a year ago, when you posted the "watch evolution in sand" (or something like that) argument, which was good for a laugh.
Behe's work at best is pseudo-science, that's a fact you need to come to terms with. No, I didn't read up on Behe at 'Talk Origins', I wasn't aware he was covered on there. Sure, I'll check out ‘True Orgins’.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Look, Deville, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. I have yet to see links that back up your assertions about Behe. So don't get mad when I call you on it.
As far as my faith being my only evidence, I only have my COMMON SENSE.
I will leave you with a passage of Scripture to ponder, from Romans 1:
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
DunItRight
Dedicated LVC Member
I accept that apology but reading my posts has nothing to do with what I believe in and how I keep faith,.... and nothing in terms of this topic
.