Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct. We would have entered the realm of philosophy.


Actually, you probably could use science for those.


That... certain things aren't science?

What does that have to do with whether or not certain things are religion?


This is just word salad.

Please explain to me, in simple terms, how you differentiate something that is a religion from something that is not a religion.

It is simple. Take me former line of work in part. I was a military medic. I now have several wounded soldiers to care for. I use science as for the actual caring and I use the evaluation system of triage if I don¨t have enough time and resources.

Science can tell how to save a human, but not who I ought to save.
So that is an example of how to deal with humans even for their life as their life.
And it is a local example of in effect the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings.
I was taught to do that according to the laws of wars, for which I also if relevant had to save the enemy. Why, because they are humans qua being humans.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is simple. Take me former line of work in part. I was a military medic. I now have several wounded soldiers to care for. I use science as for the actual caring and I use the evaluation system of triage if I don¨t have enough time and resources.

Science can tell how to save a human, but not who I ought to save.
So that is an example of how to deal with humans even for their life as their life.
And it is a local example of in effect the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings.
I was taught to do that according to the laws of wars, for which I also if relevant had to save the enemy. Why, because they are humans qua being humans.

This is not defining the difference between something that is a religion from something that is not a religion.

I present to you two ideas. How do you identify that one idea is a religion and the other is not?

And, before you do so again, science has nothing to do with it. Science is not the opposite of religion. Something that is not science is not necessarily therefore "a religion".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not defining the difference between something that is a religion from something that is not a religion.

I present to you two ideas. How do you identify that one idea is a religion and the other is not?

And, before you do so again, science has nothing to do with it. Science is not the opposite of religion. Something that is not science is not necessarily therefore "a religion".

No, but the answer to do humans have value, is religion.

 

[Apostle John]

Uh huh.

I guess that does make it sound more like a religion

It can be the only reason why you are posting here on a so called religious forum your defensive atheistic views. In #202 you agreed with what you called “his schtick” saying you should challenge religion with your organised religion. It is a religion because it is based on faith in science as you have no facts to dispute the existence of God.
Can you give a stable, rational reason why you should challenge the existence of God when atheists are more mentally unwell than Christians?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, but the answer to do humans have value, is religion.

I disagree. We can value humans without appeal to religion, and I would suggest that any definition of religion which includes any and all means to value humans is, again, so broad as to be worthless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It can be the only reason why you are posting here on a so called religious forum your defensive atheistic views.

You know this is a religious DEBATE forum, right?

In #202 you agreed with what you called “his schtick” saying you should challenge religion with your organised religion. It is a religion because it is based on faith in science as you have no facts to dispute the existence of God.

Do you have facts to dispute the existence of my pet dragon?

If not, then your non-belief in the existence of my pet dragon is a religion.

Correct?

Can you give a stable, rational reason why you should challenge the existence of God when atheists are more mentally unwell than Christians?

I guarantee I am more mentally well than you, but thanks for asking.

We should challenge it because it's always worth challenging ideas, especially when they can potentially produce harm.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He’s obviously a high priest for the likes of you, an atheist.

Obviously? What's obvious here, is your obsession with the man, for whatever reason.

I've explicitly stated several times, and in the very post you are responding to, that I am not religious and that I worship no one. Are you going to tell me I'm lying, because YOU have an obsession with the man? Gimme a break.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. We can value humans without appeal to religion, and I would suggest that any definition of religion which includes any and all means to value humans is, again, so broad as to be worthless.

What is your evidence that is worthless? You are 1st person subjectively doing evaluation.
The correct answer is: To you based on how you evaluate, you get the result that is so so broad as to be worthless as to you.
That is not objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
All humans make base evaluations and you are not positively special in that. Neither am I.

So again, it is subjective reasonable to you and different to me. Now if you can do it really objectively I will listen.

 

[F1fan]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion ...

Thre is no such thing as "atheist religion". But you say this as if religion is a bad thing, and you are a religious person. Self-sabotage?

along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion.

As an atheist I have no awarenss of any award, but who cares? There are awards for many things, like the Superbowl and the Oscars, are they religions too?

Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him.

Really? Where is the evidence?

They clearly spend their time on this forum.

Really? Can you identify them, and their mental illnesses? I hope you aren't bearing false witness since it is your character to ruin with false accusations of members.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion. Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him. They clearly spend their time on this forum.

So people who give out awards are religious? Like all those people who get Academy Awards every year? Or Nobel Prizes? Or the Stanley Cup?

You're not making any sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is your evidence that is worthless?

This is a philosophical claim. The utility of a word or a category rests on its distinctions unless it is a more complicated label, combined with its common understanding and usage. To refer to all thoughts of value as "religion" renders literally any cognitive form of evaluation "religion". The definition has no utility because there is no distinction between a form of valuation that is religion and a form of valuation that is not religion. The distinction, therefore, of a distinct "religion" is rendered meaningless because all things can fit the descriptor.

You are 1st person subjectively doing evaluation.
The correct answer is: To you based on how you evaluate, you get the result that is so so broad as to be worthless as to you.

That's not a correct answer, that's just a nicer way of saying the exact same thing with lots of unnecessary qualifiers.

Of course it is according to me - I am the one saying it.

That is not objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
All humans make base evaluations and you are not positively special in that. Neither am I.

The correct answer is: To you based on how you evaluate, you get the result that all humans make base evaluations and that I am not special in that.

I disagree. I am completely 100% objective and everything I say is a fact. This is indisputable.

So again, it is subjective reasonable to you and different to me. Now if you can do it really objectively I will listen.

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thre is no such thing as "atheist religion". But you say this as if religion is a bad thing, and you are a religious person. Self-sabotage?

...

No, but can an atheist besides being that be religious?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It can be the only reason why you are posting here on a so called religious forum your defensive atheistic views. In #202 you agreed with what you called “his schtick” saying you should challenge religion with your organised religion. It is a religion because it is based on faith in science as you have no facts to dispute the existence of God.

There is no faith in science. Endlessly repeating things with no thought, doesn't make them true.

Can you give a stable, rational reason why you should challenge the existence of God when atheists are more mentally unwell than Christians?

This statement doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe in god(s) because I don't have any good evidence for the existence of god(s). Got any? Personal attacks don't count.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a philosophical claim. The utility of a word or a category rests on its distinctions unless it is a more complicated label, combined with its common understanding and usage. To refer to all thoughts of value as "religion" renders literally any cognitive form of evaluation "religion". The definition has no utility because there is no distinction between a form of valuation that is religion and a form of valuation that is not religion. The distinction, therefore, of a distinct "religion" is rendered meaningless because all things can fit the descriptor.


That's no a correct answer, that's just a nicer way of saying it.

Of course it is according to me - I am the one saying it.


The correct answer is: To you based on how you evaluate, you get the result that all humans make base evaluations and that I am not special in that.

I disagree. I am completely 100% objective and everything I say is a fact. This is indisputable.


Atheism is not a religion.

So usefull because that is which we are playing is objective how?

 

[Apostle John]

You know this is a religious DEBATE forum, right?


Do you have facts to dispute the existence of my pet dragon?

If not, then your non-belief in the existence of my pet dragon is a religion.

Correct?


I guarantee I am more mentally well than you, but thanks for asking.

We should challenge it because it's always worth challenging ideas, especially when they can potentially produce harm.

It’s a religious forum.

‘especially when they can potentially produce harm’- that does sound hysterical. It’s also no different to saying atheism can potentially do harm.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So usefull because that is which we are playing is objective how?

To be clear, no definitions are objective. There is no "correct" definition, and I am more than happy to let you have your personal definitions in whatever context you feel supports them. I may not personally find such definitions reasonable, but I would not begrudge you a personal use in those such contexts

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It’s a religious forum.

So you missed the part of the forum that this section is in, titled "General Debates".

‘especially when they can potentially produce harm’- that does sound hysterical. It’s also no different to saying atheism can potentially do harm.

Yes, which is why I always think it's a good thing to challenge atheism too.

It's pretty obvious that what I said pertained to ALL ideas. But, then again, maybe I'm too "mentally unwell" to read my own words properly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be clear, no definitions are objective. There is no "correct" definition, and I am more than happy to let you have your personal definitions in whatever context you feel supports them. I may not personally find such definitions reasonable, but I would not begrudge you a personal use in those such contexts

Yeah, you see it is so personal that I am the author of the text and the only person in the world, who holds that view. We are playing sub-culture for nature and nurture and that is all. Your answer is as cultural as mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It’s a religious forum.

‘especially when they can potentially produce harm’- that does sound hysterical. It’s also no different to saying atheism can potentially do harm.

Well, you really have to learn that atheism is not a label for a whole human. Neither is theism. It is secondary social labels used to describe a limited part of being a human.
But as long as you think being an atheist is all there is to being a human, then we will disagree.

 

[Apostle John]

So you missed the part of the forum that this section is in, titled "General Debates".


Yes, which is why I always think it's a good thing to challenge atheism too.

It's pretty obvious that what I said pertained to ALL ideas.

Nope, not obvious at all. You didn’t explain why religion potentially causes harm (hysterically in my view) in comparison to atheism, you just deflected with your obsession to try to debate.