Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[firedragon]

But you only cited the UN one when wanting to state that atheists fell under "someone's" definition of religious.

No. I have gone to the etymology of the word. The UN was just a reference. One.

Darn, you read and responded before the edit I made to make this point clearer. It was, quite honestly, my favorite point in my entire reply. I did not mean to say that YOU, in particular were "ignoring facts." It was a colloquial "you" meant to refer to the atheist. I saw how it might be misinterpreted and I edited it after the fact, but you were already replying to the original. See here:

OH I am sorry. I may have misunderstood you.

Ultimately pointing out that if you want to call atheists bad behaviors "religious" and then also continue to apply the term "religious" to yourself, then there are obvious inferences that might be made from something like that. After all, you are the one wanting to apply terms to people and behaviors in the OP due to what ends up being no more than their technical espousal to particular parts of particular definitions/meanings. If one were to call a particularly uncouth dogmatic adherence to things "religious" for example, and then call themselves "religious" on top of that, then questions should rightly be raised.

You are right. I will have to think about how to approach this better.

 

[ChristineM]

Try and address the OP.

You don't so glass houses comes to mind

Anyway its been interesting, but i think you need to go back into my ignore list... Goodbye

 

[firedragon]

You don't so glass houses comes to mind

Anyway its been interesting, but i think you need to go back into my ignore list... Goodbye

Oh please do that. I will be very grateful.

 

[halbhh]

We do not get privileged benefits; like tax free

Atheist organizations are getting taxed in ways churches are not? (??) Could you give an example?
(perhaps you are not in the U.S. then??)

 

[blü 2]

I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.

I'm afraid the Christians have a strong, loud tradition going back to the gospels of asserting that particular verses mean things they very plainly don't, The nonbelievers are a millennium or two behind the game there.

What a real god should do is a different subject ─ not just sit on [his] hands while death and tragedy go on all over the world, for a start.

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse

Which particular verse, and what did each side say it meant?

Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".

Please quote the definition. Otherwise it's very hard to comment.

The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning.

According to Google Translate, "dheen" (or as they say, "din") means debt, religion, faith, debit, loan, credit, due, cult, leash, persuasion, score, judgement. So some part of the idea is "obligation", some part "undertaking", some part "faith". How do you see it?

One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together.

Science specializes in what's real, a quality gods aren't good at, or we'd have lots of photos and videos of them.

This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what.

In the end it's all a matter of evidence or lack of evidence, isn't it?

trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever.

Religion in war is more often a tool than a cause, but there have been wars where the difference wasn't important eg Europe's Thirty Years War, Catholic v Protestant, which had far more than the normal share of savagery. Sunni and Shi'ite aren't always so friendly either. We're tribal creatures by nature, as anyone who has a favorite team will tell you.

 

[firedragon]

I'm afraid the Christians have a strong, loud tradition going back to the gospels of asserting that particular verses mean things they very plainly don't, The nonbelievers are a millennium or two behind the game there.

What a real god should do is a different subject ─ not just sit on [his] hands while death and tragedy go on all over the world, for a start.

Yeah. But saying "God should have made sure that scripture should be in some kind of modern day English or something" is a very lame argument and is just another retort to make an argument. As you said it is a different subject.

Which particular verse, and what did each side say it meant?

That would lead to another topic.

According to Google Translate, "dheen" (or as they say, "din") means debt, religion, faith, debit, loan, credit, due, cult, leash, persuasion, score, judgement. So some part of the idea is "obligation", some part "undertaking", some part "faith". How do you see it?

Google translate is not Classical Arabic. But, what you said is right. You can use it in times of debt as well. I dont know if this could mean cult, and I have never in my life heard that definition.

Science specializes in what's real, a quality gods aren't good at, or we'd have lots of photos and videos of them.

You missed the point in that argument.

In the end it's all a matter of evidence or lack of evidence, isn't it?

Evidence can matter only if you intend to.

Religion in war is more often a tool than a cause, but there have been wars where the difference wasn't important eg Europe's Thirty Years War, Catholic v Protestant, which had far more than the normal share of savagery. Sunni and Shi'ite aren't always so friendly either. We're tribal creatures by nature, as anyone who has a favorite team will tell you.

Oh. Religious wars have taken place. Of course. You gave a good example, there have been many more. But yet again, I think you missed the point.

 

[Wrangler]

Atheists are on a high horse?

Yes, atheists are on a high horse. Don't everyone think their religious beliefs are right?

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, atheists are on a high horse. Don't everyone think their religious beliefs are right?

I did not know that not sharing in a god belief could be construed as a religious belief.

 

[firedragon]

I did not know that not sharing in a god belief could be construed as a religious belief.

Exactly. Maybe you didnt know.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah. But saying "God should have made sure that scripture should be in some kind of modern day English or something" is a very lame argument and is just another retort to make an argument. As you said it is a different subject.

It's not an argument I'd use. My interest in history means I'm not wholly unfamiliar with ancient documents.

Google translate is not Classical Arabic. But, what you said is right. You can use it in times of debt as well. I dont know if this could mean cult, and I have never in my life heard that definition.

Interesting point though ─ thanks for raising it.

Evidence can matter only if you intend to.

I'd say we should always consider the evidence. It's our path to understanding the world outside ourselves.

But yet again, I think you missed the point.

Perhaps you could state the point for me ─ in a line, if possible.

 

[Wrangler]

I did not know that not sharing in a god belief could be construed as a religious belief.

Now you do.

Therefore, religion is an inescapable and inherent part of the human condition. I've found that atheists and agnostics prefer non-religious terms to mean the same thing, e.g., world view.

 

[lukethethird]

Now you do.

Therefore, religion is an inescapable and inherent part of the human condition. I've found that atheists and agnostics prefer non-religious terms to mean the same thing, e.g., world view.

Only religious people could make such statements.

 

[lukethethird]

Exactly. Maybe you didnt know.

No, and I still don't.

 

[firedragon]

No, and I still don't.

Okay.

 

[firedragon]

No, and I still don't.

Do you have any refutation to what was said about what religion means in the OP?

 

[wellwisher]

You didnt address the post at all. Thats a big sign of missionary type of activity.

Anyway, what you have just done is prove the OP. You claimed in other words that Atheists have started to evangelise and make missionary type of apologetics, but worded it differently.

Also, about science you missed the bus completely. Oh yes. Without science we will not be communicating. And there was a religious guy who developed algorithms that made that possible. Now someone might turn around and say "it was not because of religion" which would show that person missed the whole point.

You just made it clear that you seem to think science is exclusive to atheists. Also you made it clear that "we" as in your group, are a religious group.

Isn't it?

There are two basic types of science. There is pure science and applied science. Applied science, such as engineering, invented communication devices. It also invented all the tools used by pure science. Pure science more or less tries to correlate what we see and know. Pure science used to call Pluto a planet and then changed its mind.

Applied science cannot be as wishy washy as pure science, since it has to make something that is cost effective and functional in hard reality. To do this, one needs only science that is solid enough to make this possible. Not all pure science is solid enough for applied science.

For example, we cannot use the pure science of evolution to make accurate predictions for your future offspring. The applied scientists cannot count on evolution as a solid foundation for cost effective technical innovations. The theory is too dependent on errors for any needed change. Imagine a factory where you purposely try to screw up quality control, to allow errors, that can make the product better? The pure scientists does not have to create and manufacture things, so half baked is good enough.

Pure science is a work in progress and often changes with politics and the data. Applied science has to sift through pure science and find only the pure sconce this is close to a done deal, since this platform will be needed to manufacture umpteen quality units within hard reality. The applied scientists cannot depend on consensus speculation about hard reality. It has to be real to work for applied science.

A good example of the contrast is 1920's era nuclear physics was sufficient for applied scientists to create successful nuclear bombs and nuclear power. The more modern pure science of particle physics was not a good platform for applied science, since it did not have the same levels of success. One would conclude the old timer nuclear physics is more solid and closer to reality.

I mentioned this contrast, so one is clear that not all science is as solid as we think it is. Computer models for climate change are not accurate as they should be. The applied scientists do not have the best pure science foundation to work with. However, it is being required that they try, anyway. Applied scientists, may have to leave this particular pure science plantation, so they can accomplish the task that is assigned. Often the applied scientists will need to help the pure science by redefining the state of the art of them. All modern pure science is only modern, due to the tools created by applied scientists, who use only solid science.

When one is lecturing religion about science, it is important to make the distinction between pure and applied, since applied science is what the average person sees as science; i-phone. Applied science has to be solid or else one could not make things happen in reality. Pure science gets to be speculative since it is not required to make anything, that is extrapolated from the theory. Pure science is not the best judge or jury when it comes to hard reality. Applied science has a better handle on the pulse of reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Anyone who believes a court judgment is the ultimate definition of what a religion comprises needs to have his/her head examined - relying on half a dozen individuals or so. All such a-whatevers might be so construed as such in that case. I doubt any atheist feels themselves attached to a religious belief, but more likely happy to be free of such.

 

[firedragon]

Anyone who believes a court judgment is the ultimate definition of what a religion comprises needs to have his/her head examined - relying on half a dozen individuals or so. All such a-whatevers might be so construed as such in that case. I doubt any atheist feels themselves attached to a religious belief, but more likely happy to be free of such.

How does that address the topic of the thread and OP?

 

[Mock Turtle]

How does that address the topic of the thread and OP?

Not a lot.

 

[firedragon]

Not a lot.

Okay.