That is the good thing about atheists. They will never knock on your door and they will never fly a plane into your buildings, but the internet is fair game.
Provide proof that an atheist would never do these things. Atheist don't knock on doors? What do they do? Are there no atheist in prison? Have an atheist ever killed anyone? Are there no atheist pilots in the world?
To say never is beyond logic and a little critical thinking would show otherwise.
I forgot that we're supposed to pretend that your arguments aren't rife with fallacies, because you don't understand them. It's like you think your arguments should be given special considerations because you're an incompetent debater. I'm not going to afford you that luxury.
Funny that as soon as you post an argument they are up-voted. Do you up-vote yourself by use of other accounts often or just when your convinced you don't have a valid argument?
Did you take into account all those that claim to be religious because it looks better at parole hearings? Just because someone says they are religious, doesn't make it so. Remember atheists also claim atheism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.
Religion is measured by conviction, conviction alone however may not lead one to act on that conviction. For example, an smoker might believe people shouldn't smoke, but finds his addiction to be too difficult to overcome. How then do you measure conviction if not by action, all that is left is the person's word. Sure the person could be lying, but its the best method we have.
Remember that republicans also claim that republicanism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.
Remember that psychologist also claim that their theories are not religions, but continue to preach.
Remember that marketers also claim that their brands are not religions, but continue to preach.
You take small insignificant sentiments overly serious quite often. You should be able to tell these from serious or strongly believed points. Thus you must either be truly ignorant to this fact or are simply throwing your opinion around for mere entertainment.
For largely the same reason I oppose atheist "churches". It is a move away from independent thought and towards group-think. It is these belief re-affirming institutions and practices that I have criticized religion for. To make atheism more like religion can only have a deleterious affect, not just on atheists but on everybody. It gives the impression that we must totally surrender ourselves to some pre-defined school of thought.
It is a move away from independent thought and towards group-think.
Group think has it's advantages and disadvantages. Do you agree that the institution of a government is the same sort of "move away from independant thought"?
Please critique the following statement: "Religion consists of those specific philosophical principles that an individual decides to live up to and promote"
It is these belief re-affirming institutions and practices that I have criticized religion for.
You might criticize a religious sect as you recognize it, but to criticize religion itself would be just as pointless as attempting to criticize government in general.
One of your beliefs that may be in need of critical scrutiny is that a "move away from independent thought and towards group-think" is necessarily unwise.
To make atheism more like religion can only have a deleterious affect, not just on atheists but on everybody
Are you willing to defend the "can only" portion of that statement?
It gives the impression that we must totally surrender ourselves to some pre-defined school of thought.
It gives that impression to you.
BTW CreateDebate didn't notify me of that response.
Group think has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Social advantages I'm sure, but as for epistemological advantages there are none.
Do you agree that the institution of a government is the same sort of "move away from independant thought"?
Disagree. Any legitimate form of government is concerned with actions and not innate personal beliefs. Political parties on the other hand do lend to this sort of group-think. George Washington in some of his early statements expressed his concerns over the creation of political parties.
Please critique the following statement: "Religion consists of those specific philosophical principles that an individual decides to live up to and promote"
If I were to find fault with this statement it would be the use of the word 'Specific'. The principals a religion chooses to promote are often very inter-related not only with each other but with the dogma of that religion. Some of the more successful religions typically include doctrine which attempts to punish or dissuade dissenting thought. There are notable excepts however.
You might criticize a religious sect as you recognize it, but to criticize religion itself would be just as pointless as attempting to criticize government in general.
I don't see anything pointless about either. Both of these social institutes exert an incredible influence over our lives so it is important to criticize them so that they remain honest, the problem with religion is that people are often afraid to criticize it publicly.
Are you willing to defend the "can only" portion of that statement?
How about if I said "overwhelmingly will", would that be better?
Any legitimate form of government is concerned with actions and not innate personal beliefs.
It seems to me that there is no measure of conformity of thought like conformity of outward actions. So to be concerned with one is to be concerned with the other.
If I were to find fault with this statement it would be the use of the word 'Specific'. The principals a religion chooses to promote are often very inter-related not only with each other but with the dogma of that religion.
I think removing "those specific" from the statement wouldn't detract from it's meaning at all so... Do you think of yourself as "anti-religion"?
I don't see anything pointless about either.
I don't think you can make a critical comment about religion in general without referencing something that's not common to every religious sect. If you could I'd be greatly surprised. The same goes for government. If you can point out something about government in general that is objectionable without referring to a specific type of government, I would understand my logic to be flawed.
How about if I said "overwhelmingly will", would that be better?
Well I think that what it would be overwhelmingly deleterious of, would be the false distinction that there are religious and non-religious people.
It seems to me that there is no measure of conformity of thought like conformity of outward actions. So to be concerned with one is to be concerned with the other.
Well the actions that government is concerned with are those affecting the survival of society and it's prosperity which is only a fraction of all possible actions, even so one may conform in action and dissent in thought or to dissent in both action and thought.
I think removing "those specific" from the statement wouldn't detract from it's meaning at all so... Do you think of yourself as "anti-religion"?
I am only anti-religion when religion is anti-me. I may dispute religion in terms of veracity and usefulness, but so long as religion doesn't presume to dictate my actions or beliefs then I am perfectly fine with others being religious.
I don't think you can make a critical comment about religion in general without referencing something that's not common to every religious sect.
Here is something common to all of religion the priority of faith over reason, and the presumption of the supernatural.
The same goes for government. If you can point out something about government in general that is objectionable without referring to a specific type of government, I would understand my logic to be flawed.
Have you ever conversed with an anarchist?
Well I think that what it would be overwhelmingly deleterious of, would be the false distinction that there are religious and non-religious people.
Of course there is a distinction between the religious and the non-religious, it may not be a black and white distinction, but a distinction can be made nonetheless.
Well the actions that government is concerned with are those affecting the survival of society and it's prosperity which is only a fraction of all possible actions, even so one may conform in action and dissent in thought or to dissent in both action and thought.
This can be said of religion as well. But I will note that the official definitions of society and prosperity are often skewed to favor a select demographic. If you can, or are willing to try, explain how my thinking that a religion is nothing but a government without the burden of securing territorial borders is somehow incorrect.
I think it's clear that neither a government or a religion can be expected to tolerate activity that significantly varies from the established orthodoxy. Anyone can think whatever they want and be considered in the protected group. Speak effectively against either, and expect a swift expression of dogmatism.
Here is something common to all of religion the priority of faith over reason, and the presumption of the supernatural.
I could list a few religious sects who don't fit that stereotype.
Have you ever conversed with an anarchist?
None that are comfortable with the label and what it has come to mean. :)
First off this was a phone poll. Secondly people often claim to be something they are not, like atheists being smart (Just making a point). Often people claim to be Catholic, etc. merely on the grounds their parents were and so they were listed as Catholic even though they may never attend church. In conclusion, this is only misinformation and not factual.
"First off this was a phone poll" this is but one poll of many that all have the same result, and when I have the opportunity to use a desktop computer I will be more then happy to post more polls. "Often people claim to be Catholic, " if they believe themselves to be part of that religion, then they are. Just as atheists have those who simply don't care if there is god religion has those that don't follow standards of their religion. All represent a base and even through that, atheists overall have a greater understanding of religion then the common believer. "In conclusion, this is only misinformation and not factual." Your logic accomplishes nothing for your argument. According to you, no poll ever taken could be taken seriously.
If one is in college does that mean he/she can boost of being educated. Attend one quarter/semester and your educated. Why go? The same can be applied to people that claim to be Catholic and yet never attend.
To be Catholic, one must be baptized, take conformation, and be a member of a congregation.
catholic: Dictionary.com
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Catholic with capital c only pretains to the requirements listed above.
I'm sure that the Secular Humanists are already on their way to trying to spread their ideals unto others (including Atheism). This is why they want a secular government to control education. This is why they want a secular government to control everything (and are opposed to privatization). The belief behind Secular Humanism is that:
1. Government must have power over the evil men (because evil, for some reason, still exists)
2. Government must be "secular" (aka, atheist).
This, of course, means that atheism must be the standard.
But do not worry, my friends. There is another branch of Atheism that is growing. It is quite different from Secular Humanists. They are still secular, but believe that most things should be left to the people. If you believe in shit like Jesus, you will have so many opportunities to continue that belief without fear of breaking some law or code.
Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Individualists and Objectivists are concerned with Post-Theistic ideals (no longer worrying about the fact that Theism exist).
I see nothing about "government having power over evil men."
I think it is more likely a lack of belief in boogymen and divine beings naturally leads to a humanistic view of life, whereby people are neither trembling perpetually in fear of never-ending hellfires nor gov'ment agents stealing our socks in our sleep.
Thus when government isn't seen as some evil ominous being but a human tool, and a tool that within a democracy at least we have some say in how it is used, can often be a good thing.
I do apologize, Secular Humanism is a philosophy/religion, Secular Progressives are just usually Secular Humanists.
But yeah, those who think that bigger government is actually necessary and also happen to believe that religion should be completely out of government.
