Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm (This post was last modified: May 11, 2011 at 7:33 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 11, 2011 at 12:47 am)SleepingDemon Wrote: While I might concede that atheism is a philisophical position, I don't get the leap to religion. It is a position on a subject, not a guide for living, an explanation for the why's of existence. It has no deities, no sacred scripture, no sacred holidays, no canon of behavior, no spiritualism, and makes no claims that must be taken on faith. While there may be leaders in the political movement, there is no uniformity to atheism aside from the a and theism. We hold the position, based upon evidence, that no gods exist. We do not believe that anything has any sort of divinity or will that controls the universe. We accept reality from a scientific viewpoint, in that the universe is governed by laws and forces, none of which are sentient, much less divine. What seperates religion from atheism, is that religion makes claims that atheist do not accept. If there were no theists, we would still be atheists, but it would be a nonissue because everyone is atheist. People believe in many things, the act of denying those claims is only a position on the subject.
To further that point. Here is a list of things I also do not believe in: angels, dragons, demons, vampires, werewolves, fairies, satyrs, minotaurs, ghosts, bigfoot, nessie, magic, genies(tho sometimes I wish I had one), flying elephants, alien abductions, crop circles, ancient alien astronaut theories, orcs, ogres, trolls, superman, spiderman, ghost rider, or the thousands upon thousands of other mythological creatures and deities that people believe in or have believed in. My position on these subjects is shared by others, are these positions religions as well?
Ok, I see why you are making the comparison between believing in God and believing in fairies, I get the point you are making. I just think it's not a proper comparison. I don't believe in fairies anymore than you do. However, let’s say that I started calling myself an "A-fairy-ist", and I started frequenting forums targeted at people who also shared my disbelief in fairies. I also purchased books written by some of the A-fairy-ist leaders in the a-fairy-ist community. These leaders went around the world participating in debates trying to make a-fairy-ists out of people. Some of these leaders wrote books designed to evangelize and convert others to a-fairy-ism. Many of these a-fairy-ists described their conversion to a-fairy-ism as a liberating day and the greatest moment of their life. Many of these a-fairy-ists wanted to also make a federal holiday to recognize the birth of a great scientist who they believed helped show the world that believing in fairies was not necessary because science could explain it all away. Let's say that many of these a-fairy-ists referred to this scientist as "the Great Liberator" and defended his honor and ideas with a great ferocity. Let's also say that some a-fairy-ists had also developed their own moral code and called it Secular Fairy-ism. They tried to convince others that this was the best moral code for society. Let's also say that a-fairy-ists held their own conventions where they celebrated popular figures' conversions to a-fairy-ism, and chastised and ridiculed former a-fairy-ists for leaving the movement. Many of my a-fairy-ist friends would go to court to ensure that we a-fairy-ists had the same “religious freedoms” as our fairy-ist friends. We’d also take out ads and put up signs in public forums to try and convert others to a-fairy-ism. Let's also say that I chastised "fairy-ists" because their leaders had committed terrible atrocities in the distance past, but then would turn around and say that the a-fairy-ists who had committed far worse atrocities in the not-so-distant past didn't do it because they were a-fairy-ists because a-fairy-ism can do no wrong because it really is not a true position or belief.
If my a-fairy-ist friends and I really did all of this, you'd be one of the first people calling us religious, and for good reason. So there you go.
I can point to many atheists who do all of these things and unless you can point to people who act like this when it comes to their “absence of belief” in fairies, the comparison to atheism really is not proper.
(May 11, 2011 at 6:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(May 11, 2011 at 6:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(May 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I think I can say that I ran him off.. I joked him hard and the last response I remember him posting was crying to the mods.
Yeah leave it to the Christian to actually want to follow the rules set forth in this forum.
LMFAO..what rules.
So Waldorf... where have you been? Are you ready for another verbal beating?
I think you are a glutton for punishment.
Perhaps you should fly away from here on "holier than thou doves wings" over to Rapture Ready.
The forum rules you were supposed to read but obviously didn't before you signed up for this forum. I have been right here, I posted yesterday. If you claim that anything you have done is even remotely close to a "verbal beating" then you sir are delusional. That really was not the best you had was it?
(May 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The forum rules you were supposed to read but obviously didn't before you signed up for this forum. I have been right here, I posted yesterday. If you claim that anything you have done is even remotely close to a "verbal beating" then you sir are delusional. That really was not the best you had was it?
Sorry waldorf... I have been working for Joint Staff / NATO and I havent had the time to pay attention to you.
You were saying about rules?
Waldork..you have the brains of a rotten watermelon in the summer sun. Here is to hoping you get sunburn on your sphincter.
Perhaps you should suck start a fart out of my asshole you theoconservative fascist ding dong sniffer.
Reverend Jeremiah's Asshole Wrote:I dont need a suck starting... Rayaan was more than happy to help a few minutes ago on his "Muslims arent terrorist because Americans plotted 9/11 - Praise Osama Bin Laden!" thread.
May 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm (This post was last modified: May 11, 2011 at 10:52 pm by Angrboda.)
(May 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If my a-fairy-ist friends and I really did all of this, you'd be one of the first people calling us religious, and for good reason. So there you go.
I can point to many atheists who do all of these things and unless you can point to people who act like this when it comes to their “absence of belief” in fairies, the comparison to atheism really is not proper.
Actually, there is such a group, and they are numerous and relatively well organized. They are called skeptics, and have been disputing claims that fairies exist for a long time. The most prominently disputed case, that of the Cottingley Fairies (see: Wiki, below), first became public in 1920. A brief scan of Amazon.com reveals 91 items about the Cottingley Fairies, though no doubt not all are skeptically oriented. The popular skeptics message forum JREF reveals 103 posts, including the 24 who misspelled "Cottingley". Googling for skeptic or skeptical and the phrase "Cottingley Fairies" returns 5,410 results. Granted all those may not be skeptical or 'a-fairyist', but at the least it shows that the issue of the Cottingley Fairies is far from a dead issue. And that's not to address the question of skepticism about fairies generally -- I don't know whether you're American or not, but most Americans are unaware that the term "fairies" actually applies to a great range of creatures -- more commonly believed in Europe and Asia than the U.S -- and that there are still many people who believe in such creatures, and many likewise who dispute them.
Another superficially plausible argument, self-exploding on closer examination.
ETA: Wikipedia notes that skepticism reaches as far back as the 5th century BC with the Sophists, so before you go arguing that skepticism isn't relevant, remember that skeptics have been around longer than your dear Christianity. Having met and talked to skeptics, read skeptical literature and debated the foundations of skepticism itself, I can assure you that it -- unfortunately -- can attract dogmatic proponents and those who act like it is a religion. However, that being said, skepticism attracts theist, atheists, agnostics, Buddhist and all stripe of religious persuasion. It does tend to attract agnostics and the non-religious somewhat preferentially, as those who are wont to be skeptical of earth-bound fairies are quite likely to be skeptical of fairies-in-the-sky as well. (I believe there was at one point a semi-serious proposal to have a holiday for Carl Sagan, a beloved hero of science and skepticism.)
Not to caricature your argument, but if commemorating the lives of great men is a sign of a religion, I guess celebrating Martin Luther King day is a sign that being black is a religion. While the theists may have no interest in pursuing the possibility of their beliefs not being a religion, you might have better luck selling your argument to the black man. I'm sure they would be delighted to be able to claim tax exemption simply on account of their being a negro.
Stat and Rev., a few things here. Please look at this as a head's up.
1. Statler, the action that you said was against the rules, actually wasn't. Therefore, instead of "leaving it up the the Christians to follow the rules," why don't we leave it up to everybody? Please do not tell other members that there are rules that do not exist.
2. The above being said, it is now against the rules because you two cannot behave. Please stop abusing the quote function, RevJ. and please stop abusing the report post function, statler. If you see something that is against the rules, by all means, use the function. If it is not against the rules, but it offended you, talk to a moderator or administrator.
3. Personal attacks are a by occurrence thing here. There is no specific rule, but it is discouraged. Cut the shit and talk like big boys. If you guys can't stop mucking about and stay on topic, I am going to close this thread.
(May 11, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Shell B Wrote: 3. Personal attacks are a by occurrence thing here. There is no specific rule, but it is discouraged. Cut the shit and talk like big boys. If you guys can't stop mucking about and stay on topic, I am going to close this thread.
(May 11, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Shell B Wrote: 3. Personal attacks are a by occurrence thing here. There is no specific rule, but it is discouraged. Cut the shit and talk like big boys. If you guys can't stop mucking about and stay on topic, I am going to close this thread.
Thanks a bunch!
Being a big boy is overrated.
That may be so. However, when you are the boy wrangler, it is helpful if the boys act like bigguns.
May 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm (This post was last modified: May 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm)apophenia Wrote:
(May 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If my a-fairy-ist friends and I really did all of this, you'd be one of the first people calling us religious, and for good reason. So there you go.
I can point to many atheists who do all of these things and unless you can point to people who act like this when it comes to their “absence of belief” in fairies, the comparison to atheism really is not proper.
Actually, there is such a group, and they are numerous and relatively well organized. They are called skeptics, and have been disputing claims that fairies exist for a long time. The most prominently disputed case, that of the Cottingley Fairies (see: Wiki, below), first became public in 1920. A brief scan of Amazon.com reveals 91 items about the Cottingley Fairies, though no doubt not all are skeptically oriented. The popular skeptics message forum JREF reveals 103 posts, including the 24 who misspelled "Cottingley". Googling for skeptic or skeptical and the phrase "Cottingley Fairies" returns 5,410 results. Granted all those may not be skeptical or 'a-fairyist', but at the least it shows that the issue of the Cottingley Fairies is far from a dead issue. And that's not to address the question of skepticism about fairies generally -- I don't know whether you're American or not, but most Americans are unaware that the term "fairies" actually applies to a great range of creatures -- more commonly believed in Europe and Asia than the U.S -- and that there are still many people who believe in such creatures, and many likewise who dispute them.
Another superficially plausible argument, self-exploding on closer examination.
ETA: Wikipedia notes that skepticism reaches as far back as the 5th century BC with the Sophists, so before you go arguing that skepticism isn't relevant, remember that skeptics have been around longer than your dear Christianity. Having met and talked to skeptics, read skeptical literature and debated the foundations of skepticism itself, I can assure you that it -- unfortunately -- can attract dogmatic proponents and those who act like it is a religion. However, that being said, skepticism attracts theist, atheists, agnostics, Buddhist and all stripe of religious persuasion. It does tend to attract agnostics and the non-religious somewhat preferentially, as those who are wont to be skeptical of earth-bound fairies are quite likely to be skeptical of fairies-in-the-sky as well. (I believe there was at one point a semi-serious proposal to have a holiday for Carl Sagan, a beloved hero of science and skepticism.)
Not to caricature your argument, but if commemorating the lives of great men is a sign of a religion, I guess celebrating Martin Luther King day is a sign that being black is a religion. While the theists may have no interest in pursuing the possibility of their beliefs not being a religion, you might have better luck selling your argument to the black man. I'm sure they would be delighted to be able to claim tax exemption simply on account of their being a negro.
Are you even for real? lol. You just proved there are people who dispute the existence of fairies (something I never contested). You in no way proved that it resembles the "New Atheism" in the slightest (no pushing for legal rights, holidays, moral codes, seeking of converts, figure heads). You seem to always fall short of comprehending the point of the analogy. Atheism is a one of a kind "absence of belief" system, and you cannot and will never be able to point to one like it.
After 15 pages, you've made a sound argument in defense of your position. Kudos for that. Now, as for a-fairyism, I still wouldn't consider that a religion. Not believing in fairies doesn't require faith. There is no spiritualism involved. That is a defining characteristic of religion that simply does not exist in atheist. Yes some atheists are aggressive, yes we gather in groups of like minded individuals, yes we write books and do talk shows and have seminars. But there is no doctrine in atheism about existentialism. Religion gives an explanation for why we are here, most atheists do not bother with why, only how. Atheists pray to no one, while the new atheism movement has its champions, none are revered to the extent of messiahs. Regardless of your interpretation of what people say about "coming out" it isnt spiritual. Atheism has no canonized doctrine, no spiritualism, doesn't bother with the existential questions. We do not bow to statues, we do not deify animals or men. What is the message in atheism? Grow up, leave these juvenile notions behind and lets make a better future. The aggressive, take no prisoners political political movement may have some parallels to its opposition, but it offers no alternative to the spiritual and philosophical side of religion, which differentiates religions from each other
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
(May 12, 2011 at 12:15 am)SleepingDemon Wrote: After 15 pages, you've made a sound argument in defense of your position. Kudos for that. Now, as for a-fairyism, I still wouldn't consider that a religion. Not believing in fairies doesn't require faith. There is no spiritualism involved. That is a defining characteristic of religion that simply does not exist in atheist. Yes some atheists are aggressive, yes we gather in groups of like minded individuals, yes we write books and do talk shows and have seminars. But there is no doctrine in atheism about existentialism. Religion gives an explanation for why we are here, most atheists do not bother with why, only how. Atheists pray to no one, while the new atheism movement has its champions, none are revered to the extent of messiahs. Regardless of your interpretation of what people say about "coming out" it isnt spiritual. Atheism has no canonized doctrine, no spiritualism, doesn't bother with the existential questions. We do not bow to statues, we do not deify animals or men. What is the message in atheism? Grow up, leave these juvenile notions behind and lets make a better future. The aggressive, take no prisoners political political movement may have some parallels to its opposition, but it offers no alternative to the spiritual and philosophical side of religion, which differentiates religions from each other
Thanks for the kudos.
I am not sure if having faith is something all religions require. Is it in the definition? I didn't look. However, I think that everyone has to have faith in some form regardless of their worldview. As to atheism not answering "why?", isn't telling people that life really has no overlying purpose still answering that question? Penny for your thoughts?
It is answering the question. But it is a safe assumption. Christianity promotes the notion of some eternal battle between good and evil over human souls. There is a big difference. Atheism doesn't manufacture some elaborate struggle in which we are important, it simply states that because no purpose to life is readily perceivable, life does not have a purpose. It is simple, doesn't require wild imaginations or fantastic epics of the importance of man.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
If you guys can't stop mucking about and stay on topic, I am going to close this thread. 
However, when you are the boy wrangler, it is helpful if the boys act like bigguns. 
