Wow, lot of replies. Am I going to let such an entertaining thread die a natural death? No!
Apologies for the non-assigned quotes, but the quoting system on these forums is either terrible, or I don't know how to use it properly.
Firstly, for Franklin:
People kill each other because of psychological and sociological reasons, not because of religion. Blaming religious belief is just a very easy answer to a very complex problem.
A somewhat circular argument as human psychology and society is heavily influenced by religion. I doubt it is as complex as some people hope it is.
I would say that religious concepts and doctrine are interpreted through the veil or filter of human psychology. People kill each other, not because it is commanded by God or commanded by a religious text, but because that is how they interpret a command from God or a piece of religious text. The motive for killing someone has nothing to do with religion, but its a very useful excuse.
Human psychology and society is not influenced by religion, but by interpretations of religion.
And for chadz (and Phazy):
3) God has a plan for the world, and it runs according to that plan (which makes d impossible)
4) People follow different religions because of some aspect of the Divine Plan, which is beyond human understanding
Well of course this cannot be assumed. That ideas would have to come from somewhere. When you think about a subject, you cant just start in the middle. Tabula rasa!
If you just assume the above - or even take them into consideration - that's like writing a book about the best book in the world, which is actually the book you are currently writing on. Infinite Loop!
You're missing point 2). 3) and 4) can be assumed without infinite regression if you posit God. The ideas (not really ideas in this conceptual scheme, but religious truths) are created by God - God is where they come from.
And no blank slates here, that's a whole different argument
Atheism is just as much a belief system as any given religion is. And its just as culturally influenced, too.
That is also, by definition not true. "Not playing tennis" is not a sport, "being bald" is no haircolour and "not having sex" is not satisfying.
Well put!
It's so refreshing to have someone actualy make sense for a change on these forums.
Atheism is NOT a religion. Quite the opposite: it's the absence of it. No 'leaps of faith' required. Thank god.
I agree that atheism is not a religion. But it
is a belief system. The example of 'not playing tennis is not a sport' is not a valid analogy. Not playing tennis, or even playing tennis, doesn't involve a knowledge statement about the world. You're not asserting that playing tennis exists.
If you say that God does not exist (and as Quine says, you can talk about a thing without accepting it's existence - he uses the example of a unicorn; by saying that unicorns don't exist, you're not saying they do exist by talking about them) you are stating that you have knowledge about the existence or non-existence of a proposed being: God. In fact, you are saying that the knowledge you have is true, and that God does not exist.
Please demonstrate that you actually have such knowledge. If you don't, and you still call yourself an atheist, then you are making a leap of faith. You are making an epistemological claim about the world, with no evidence (no matter about the criteria for what constitutes evidence). This is exactly what other belief systems do (though religions at least claim that they have evidence).
In this way, atheism (the claim that there is no such thing as God), is a belief system (i.e. requires a leap of faith, or doesn't need evidence or proof of the knowledge).
Edit: I feel I have the right to attack religions, I was forced to be scared from god when I was a child and then put into an totally elite catholic church school where people were molested left and right of me from priests, thank god I was lucky enough to skip the experience first hand
Well, everyone has the right to attack religions, regardless of their personal experiences I think. The point where its not considered ok to attack religions and religious truths and assumptions (and the same goes for any philosophy or ideology) is the point when the religion gets dangerous, and also when the religion loses a lot of its meaning and value.
As for the whole Atheism causing deaths thing mentioned by some people, its ridiculous. The same as if you say Christianity caused the death of millions of people. It takes away all the personal responsibility of the people involved, both those who committed the actions, and those who did nothing to stop them. Its like saying YMCA was the cause of the deaths of millions of Jews. It wasn't. It was the people who killed them, who ordered their deaths, and who did nothing. Such a conception of Atheism or religion or an ideology removes free will and responsibility, and does exactly what those people did - uses the idea/belief as an excuse.
I think its sad that there are people, who belief in nothing.
I believe in science, reason, and the beauty of natural order that produced life and human emotion.
I think it's sad that there are people who believe in something that isn't true, that there is a gigantic magic person in the sky just waiting to punish them with his (always his, for some reason) fiery -ahem- "rod" of justice.
I'm glad that you've managed to find out that God isn't true. Please share your evidence or proof of this with everyone, so that we may all be as enlightened as you are
For Bull:
I lol'ed at this thread and didn't bother to read through 6 pages of internet dorks who think their opinion on the subject is worth a damn.
Well, everyone who has posted here's opinion
is worth a damn. Religion is a universal subject. You could even argue that someone who has studied religion in an academic context has as much worth in their opinion as someone who knows nothing about religion, but believes in something, or believes that something is not the case. Religion is so complex, it is both personal and individual, and metaphysical and normative.
Everybody has religious expertise, because religion and belief are innate to humans.
Finally, for the people arguing over terms. The difficulty with terminology in religion, including the names of Satanic beings, is that the terms aren't fixed. Yes, it is hard to separate the words from their origins, but at the same time it isn't. Look at Allah for example. The origin of that name is completely irrelevant to its meaning today.
The various names for Satan mentioned in the old testament are generally thought to be deities of other non-Jewish (or non-Israelite more specifically) tribes. However, to say that these are not all names for one thing (Satan) is misleading, because they are. For the Christian tradition, all those deities are false idols and lies spread by Satan, so they are all names for Satan. However, if you asked an ancient Phoenician, Baal was a God.
Oh, and Leviathon is usually translated as: 'That which gathers itself in folds'. They had a different name for whales
Fun thread!
Poll