Anoushik Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 But, to show me wrong, you provide articles comming from an atheistic site, it does not make sense at all. style_images/master/snapback.png No, of course not. I guess I should have given the more popular Christian articles on atheism, in which they claim that atheists are either confused individuals or just very angry at God and they'll burn in hell for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Oh, and that definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. Is what I have been saying for long. style_images/master/snapback.png Atheism does not concern the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) I do not care what that website says. Atheism is not a religion. The way that website defines a religion makes it so it is impossible to not be in a religion. That is ridiculous. "Oh, you have an opinion on the supernatural so you are religious." Um... no I am not but thank you for trying to deprive me of the freedom of choice by your surreal semantics. Nonsense. This is more to my liking. Like I said, a religion can be atheistic but atheism is not a religion. Edited February 1, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 You did left out good portion of my post when quoting me, which in essence was totally deferent manning then what you presented, in middle ages someone in France was executed because the coma was misplaced, so don’t do it again, please. style_images/master/snapback.png Alright. I am tired of this. This is what you said... Totally agree, however, thru religion/sperituality/faith/ in essence doesn’t say otherwise. ... right? Ok let us break that down. By "totally agree" you were agreeing with the comment about faith in humanity and the future. Then you went onto say that religion, spirituality and faith are defined by those same ideas on faith. If yoiu paid attention to what I wrote instead of what I quoted you will notice that I responded to just that. I responded to everything you were intending to convey. So stop telling me I left stuff out. I quoted the last part because that is what strayed from the original faith comment. Ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Oh, and humanism is not a type of atheism either. Reverence for humanity and belief in the supernatural are not mutually exclusive. An atheist can be a humanist and a theist can be a humanist. This is also quite obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Atheism does not concern the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. style_images/master/snapback.png It does, if someone was to write a paper denying global warming, it doesn't change the fact that what he wrote concerns global warming. If someone writes a paper exposing a Turkish genocide myth it does not change the fact that the subject of the paper is a said Turkish genocide. Atheism is a "taking position" a belief concerning a divinity, its non-existance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) No, of course not. I guess I should have given the more popular Christian articles on atheism, in which they claim that atheists are either confused individuals or just very angry at God and they'll burn in hell for that. style_images/master/snapback.png You know what I will answer to that. But it is obvious that atheists won't qualify their belief as a religion, but there are atheists that do.(they are honest enough to do it) I suggest you to visit Muslim message boards and ask believers if Islam is a religion, you'll have an answer to that that might surprise you. The thing is that every believer wants his belief to be special and have its proper qualification. Edited February 1, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I do not care what that website says. Atheism is not a religion. The way that website defines a religion makes it so it is impossible to not be in a religion. That is ridiculous. "Oh, you have an opinion on the supernatural so you are religious." Um... no I am not but thank you for trying to deprive me of the freedom of choice by your surreal semantics. Nonsense. This is more to my liking. Like I said, a religion can be atheistic but atheism is not a religion. style_images/master/snapback.png Stop displaying dogmatism, accepting things or refuse them based on your linking. Religion is a very vague term, and I have posted a link with many different interpretation, some being very restrictive, and others too inclusive... the best compromise is to set it as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion And no, it is not only an opinion, but a belief, you have a belief that concerns divinity, supernatural etc. On the other hand, atheism is the disbelief in a god, which is a belief concerning a divinity(a god). Another problem arrises, is that many times a religion is qualified as a system recognised... sects are not considered as religions... because the "teacher" the Guru is still alive. Atheism as a system is a big cathegory that contains other groups, this I have already admitted, I know that it is not really correct to use the "big" cathegory when qualifiying it as a religion, but the same can be said about theism, patheism(even pantheists considers their belief as a religion). And beside that, in the cases of "atheism" it can not be qualified as a sect, because the teachers are already dead, those that professed are dead, and we just have followers, and other teachers that merely support the notion based on the belief of the non-existance of divinities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Oh, and humanism is not a type of atheism either. Reverence for humanity and belief in the supernatural are not mutually exclusive. An atheist can be a humanist and a theist can be a humanist. This is also quite obvious. style_images/master/snapback.png Irrelevent, many atheists do believe in the supernatural, it is a god that they reject, both are different things. A humanist does not believe in a god(or think that god has no influence on humans at all), believing in a god, or believing that a god influence us in anyway defy entirly the notion of real humanists. A humanist believe in the human potential, for him, humanity is the closest thing to a god, that humanity will become better, without any exterior entities. Belief in the destiny of humanity. It is as well about humans having their destiny in their hands. Read philosophers like Rousseau, and you'll see why. Humanism is classified as a type of atheism by many, but after reflection, I do admit that all humanists are not necessarly atheists, there are some sub-group that do believe in a higher power that does not interact with us in anyway. I would like to add as well, that behind any religion hides a philosophy, so humanism can very well be a religion, if its center of attention is a belief concerning gods etc. So, I will have to conclude that because humanists are not generaly obsessed on the belief concerning... it is not necessarly a religion, it depend on how much importance a humanist attribute to his belief concerning gods and supernatural. On the other hand, atheism belief is centered around those belief concerning those matters, so I have no other option than calling it a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 But the definitions you posted, can as well be interpreted as supports to what I have been claiming. So a clarification from your part will be more than welcome. style_images/master/snapback.png No comments! Does that clarifies my statement? style_images/master/snapback.png Sorry it doesn't, I'm the kind of slow type, I need clarifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 But it is obvious that atheists won't qualify their belief as a religion, but there are atheists that do.(they are honest enough to do it)style_images/master/snapback.png Honest? No. They just do not understand what they are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) Stop displaying dogmatism, accepting things or refuse them based on your linking. Religion is a very vague term, and I have posted a link with many different interpretation, some being very restrictive, and others too inclusive... the best compromise is to set it as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion And no, it is not only an opinion, but a belief, you have a belief that concerns divinity, supernatural etc. On the other hand, atheism is the disbelief in a god, which is a belief concerning a divinity(a god). Another problem arrises, is that many times a religion is qualified as a system recognised... sects are not considered as religions... because the "teacher" the Guru is still alive. Atheism as a system is a big cathegory that contains other groups, this I have already admitted, I know that it is not really correct to use the "big" cathegory when qualifiying it as a religion, but the same can be said about theism, patheism(even pantheists considers their belief as a religion). And beside that, in the cases of "atheism" it can not be qualified as a sect, because the teachers are already dead, those that professed are dead, and we just have followers, and other teachers that merely support the notion based on the belief of the non-existance of divinities. style_images/master/snapback.png What dogmatism? Now you are making things up. You are discrediting the fact that I provided a link by telling me your link is better. That is absurd. I cannot believe I am still responding to this ridiculousness. The dictionary is not as credible a source for definitions as a website that relies on its audience for definitions? Is that what you want me to believe? I do not think so. There is no practical difference between an opinion and a belief. Stop using rhetoric to gain an audience. Who cares if it is a belief concerning God? It itself is not religion! You are defining it in such a way that makes it impossible to not be religious. How can you not see that? This mean that if you ask someone whether they are religious or not and they say they are not, you will claim they are because they have a belief concerning the supernatural. That is illogical! If you put every belief under the umbrella of religiousness then it defeats the purpose of the distinction between religion and lack of religion. Let us ignore the fact that you do not know what a sect is and just point out that all mention of the idea is entirely off topic and inconsequential. What do you mean the big category?! Atheism is not a religion. Period! You are still caught up in the fact that it is possible for a religion to be atheistic. Edited February 1, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) Irrelevent, many atheists do believe in the supernatural, it is a god that they reject, both are different things. Denying is not support for belief in existence! Just because I mention something does not automatically mean it exists. You cannot deny something with out mentioning what that something is. You are too caught up in language. A humanist does not believe in a god(or think that god has no influence on humans at all), believing in a god, or believing that a god influence us in anyway defy entirly the notion of real humanists. A humanist believe in the human potential, for him, humanity is the closest thing to a god, that humanity will become better, without any exterior entities. Belief in the destiny of humanity. It is as well about humans having their destiny in their hands. Read philosophers like Rousseau, and you'll see why. A humanist is someone who loves people. That is it! What you went on to describe is a possible manifestation of humanistic beliefs. That does not mean that all types of humanism deny God. Humanism is neither theistic or atheistic. It is humanism. I would like to add as well, that behind any religion hides a philosophy, so humanism can very well be a religion, if its center of attention is a belief concerning gods etc. No, humanism cannot be a religion. A religion can be humanistic. Edited February 1, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) What dogmatism? Now you are making things up. You are discreditting the fact that I provided a link by telling me your link is better. That is absurd. I cannot believe I am still responding to this ridiculousness. The dictionary is not as credible a source for definitions as a website that relies on its audience for definitions? Is that what you want me to believe? I do not think so. Let me refresh your memory again. I do not care what that website says. Atheism is not a religion. The way that website defines a religion makes it so it is impossible to not be in a religion. That is ridiculous. "Oh, you have an opinion on the supernatural so you are religious." Um... no I am not but thank you for trying to deprive me of the freedom of choice by your surreal semantics. Nonsense. This is more to my liking. Like I said, a religion can be atheistic but atheism is not a religion. This dogmatism; you can not only accept things based only on if you like them or not, this is prone to dogmatism. The problem with your claim is that it does have a serious logical flow. If a religious can be atheistic, it is wrong to say that atheism is not a religion. Your own claim should be that atheism can in fact be a religion.(based on your proposition that there can be atheistic religions) And again, I stress to the fact that religion is a very ambiguous term, and discussing the religious nature of a system of thoughts become a philosophical discussion. An example, and it is Pantheism, pantheists are honest enough to consider their belief as a religion, Carl Segan, that was as well very well known skeptic and atheist, and Pantheist in “Pale Blue Dot” discuss about religion, I propose you to read it, and what he claims goes exactly in line with what I say here. Another example is “scientism” which is another religious belief, which place science at the center of everything. In French we have “scientist” and “scientifique.” Scientifique is translated in English to “scientist,” from my knowledge there are no equivalent for the French worst “scientist” in English. A “scientist”(the French definition) is someone adhering to “scientism.” But scientism is harder than atheism to place as a religion, because of the lack of clear position regarding the concerned issues, like a clear answer regarding the universe, supernaturals etc.... A scientist position could be changed depending on new scientific discovery, while atheism is atheism, there are no variable which could take different values depending to time and circumstances. There is no practical difference between an opinion and a belief. Stop using rhetoric to gain an audience. Belief is more profound than an opinion, and not always someone having an opinion really believe that his/her opinion is true... someone can still exercise dough. Your claim that I am trying to gain an audience, is an opinion, but this does not necessarily mean that you really believe it is the cases. Who cares if it is a belief concerning God? It itself is not religion! You are defining it in such a way that makes it impossible to not be religious. How can you not see that? This mean that if you ask someone whether they are religious or not and they say they are not, you will claim they are because they have a belief concerning the supernatural. That is illogical! If you put every belief under the umbrella of religiousness then it defeats the purpose of the distinction between religion and lack of religion. I will ask you to stick to the point please, “religious” and religion can be very different, religious can be interpreted as someone having a very strong obsessed position about something, religiously sticking to it, but it does not necessarily mean it is a religion. By bringing the term religious, you are giving me arguments. As I said, a mere belief regarding the metaphysical world is not a religion, but a system of thought that is centered on it is. Atheism is specifically a belief that is centered and revolve around on the non existence of a god. That is why I agreed with you and accepted my mistake regarding humanism, and when I said it is was not necessarily a religion, but can be one. Because humanism is more about humanity, and not specifically about a belief concerning the metaphysical. But the same can not be said about atheism. “If you put every belief under the umbrella of religiousness then it defeats the purpose of the distinction between religion and lack of religion.” Where am I doing this? As for religion and lack of religion, agnosticism may be considered as a lack of religion, because it does not have a belief but dough regarding those issues. “Let us ignore the fact that you do not know what a sect is and just point out that all mention of the idea is entirely off topic and inconsequential.” The central difference between a religion and a sect as I wrote it, isn't my invention but comes from a theologist, to whom I have asked the question years ago. What do you mean the big category?! Atheism is not a religion. Period! You are still caught up in the fact that it is possible for a religion to be atheistic. Big category, Theists, which includes Judaism, Christianism, Islam etc. Pantheism, like many Amerindian beliefs, Atheism, like many Asian beliefs etc. There are other big groups like Polytheism, Paganism etc. That is what I mean by the “Big” categories. As I repeated, I am well aware to the fact that it is not really “clean” to call a Big Group a religion, like it isn't clean to call Theism a religion, but rather say, that it does contain religions like Judaism etc. But I as well said, that what it contains are religions, beliefs centered behind the idea that the “Big” category proposes. So, to simplify things, I do call the big category a religion, which isn't really the wrong thing to do. Denying is not support for belief in existence! Just because I mention something does not automatically mean it exists. You cannot deny something with out mentioning what that something is. You are too caught up in language. Your answer seems interesting as a post, but I do not see what it has to do with what you have tried to answer. A humanist is someone who loves people. That is it! What you went on to describe is a possible manifestation of humanistic beliefs. That does not mean that all types of humanism deny God. Humanism is neither theistic or atheistic. It is humanism. This is not what humanism is, again, as I proposed you, read Rousseau, you'll see everything it imply. No, humanism cannot be a religion. A religion can be humanistic. Again, the same logical flaw as your similar statement with atheism. Edited February 1, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Honest? No. They just do not understand what they are talking about. style_images/master/snapback.png The fact is that atheists have difficulty accepting that their belief is not as special as to need to be classified as an independent entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 The fact is that atheists have difficulty accepting that their belief is not as special as to need to be classified as an independent entity. style_images/master/snapback.png Congratulations. That makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) This dogmatism; you can not only accept things based only on if you like them or not, this is prone to dogmatism. I am not being dogmatic. You are playing semantics games. Nice try. The problem with your claim is that it does have a serious logical flow. If a religious can be atheistic, it is wrong to say that atheism is not a religion. Your own claim should be that atheism can in fact be a religion.(based on your proposition that there can be atheistic religions) You could not make less sense. An apple is a fruit but a fruit is not an apple. And again, I stress to the fact that religion is a very ambiguous term, and discussing the religious nature of a system of thoughts become a philosophical discussion. Even if it were so ambiguous, it would be illogical to attemp to define it to include all beliefs. Sorry, Atheism is still not a religion. An example, and it is Pantheism, pantheists are honest enough to consider their belief as a religion, Carl Segan, that was as well very well known skeptic and atheist, and Pantheist in “Pale Blue Dot” discuss about religion, I propose you to read it, and what he claims goes exactly in line with what I say here. That is not honesty; it just common sense. Since a Pantheist believes in a supernatural power you can argue that it is a religion. That means nothing to me. Another example is “scientism” which is another religious belief, which place science at the center of everything. In French we have “scientist” and “scientifique.” Scientifique is translated in English to “scientist,” from my knowledge there are no equivalent for the French worst “scientist” in English. A “scientist”(the French definition) is someone adhering to “scientism.” But scientism is harder than atheism to place as a religion, because of the lack of clear position regarding the concerned issues, like a clear answer regarding the universe, supernaturals etc.... A scientist position could be changed depending on new scientific discovery, while atheism is atheism, there are no variable which could take different values depending to time and circumstances. Scientism is not a religious belief. You seem to think any philosophical position is a religion. Well, that is not true. Belief is more profound than an opinion, and not always someone having an opinion really believe that his/her opinion is true... someone can still exercise dough. Your claim that I am trying to gain an audience, is an opinion, but this does not necessarily mean that you really believe it is the cases. Nope. There is no practical difference between an opinion and a belief. Stop using rhetoric to gain an audience. You are playing semantics games here too. I will ask you to stick to the point please, “religious” and religion can be very different, religious can be interpreted as someone having a very strong obsessed position about something, religiously sticking to it, but it does not necessarily mean it is a religion. By bringing the term religious, you are giving me arguments. As I said, a mere belief regarding the metaphysical world is not a religion, but a system of thought that is centered on it is. Atheism is specifically a belief that is centered and revolve around on the non existence of a god. That is why I agreed with you and accepted my mistake regarding humanism, and when I said it is was not necessarily a religion, but can be one. Because humanism is more about humanity, and not specifically about a belief concerning the metaphysical. But the same can not be said about atheism. If you think that I gave you arguments by what I said, then you did not understand what I said. Where am I doing this? As for religion and lack of religion, agnosticism may be considered as a lack of religion, because it does not have a belief but dough regarding those issues. Now you change your story. Your accepted definition is "Religion is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief." If you say "belief concerning" as you have been, anosticism, to you, would be a religion. But it is not and neither is atheism. The central difference between a religion and a sect as I wrote it, isn't my invention but comes from a theologist, to whom I have asked the question years ago. A sect is an off-shoot of a previously existing religion. That is it. Anything else is just subjective and interpretive and has no place in a discussion of concrete ideas. As I repeated, I am well aware to the fact that it is not really “clean” to call a Big Group a religion, like it isn't clean to call Theism a religion, but rather say, that it does contain religions like Judaism etc. But I as well said, that what it contains are religions, beliefs centered behind the idea that the “Big” category proposes. So, to simplify things, I do call the big category a religion, which isn't really the wrong thing to do. Yes, it is wrong. Just because you think they can be lumped together does not mean they all need to be described as religions. Atheism is not a religion. It is a philosophical stance that can include religious beliefs. You have not shown it to be anything else. Your answer seems interesting as a post, but I do not see what it has to do with what you have tried to answer. It is an argument against the idea of "belief concerning" being the operative concept in the definition of a religion. This is not what humanism is, again, as I proposed you, read Rousseau, you'll see everything it imply. Rousseau would laugh at you. If there is an argument to be made then make it. Saying "Go read this" means nothing to me. You seem to be uncomfortable with definitions. You like playing language games. A humanist by definition is one who loves people. You cannot keep giving examples of humanism with the hope of altering the definition. Again, the same logical flaw as your similar statement with atheism. There is nothing illogical about what I said. Nothing. Anyone familiar with logic will attest. This discussion is the most boring ever. You have your view and it will never change and neither will mine because I am right. So give it a rest. Edited February 1, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) I am not being dogmatic. You are playing semantics games. Nice try. I have done that? How? You could not make less sense. An apple is a fruit but a fruit is not an apple. Wrong again, the second statement contradict the first. What you should say is that a fruit is necessarily not an apple, and not that a fruit is not an apple, because by claiming it is not an apple, you exclude the apple from the fruit group. So as I said and repeat again, your theses about atheism is contradictory with your argument of inclusion. Even if it were so ambiguous, it would be illogical to attemp to define it to include all beliefs. Sorry, Atheism is still not a religion. How can it be illogical, show me how. You keep repeating that it is not a religion, while I made it clear that this discussion has turned into a philosophical one, which means that both parties can bring arguments to support a theses. This being the cases, arguments must be the only way to say whom makes sense. Repeating a theses many times without strong arguments doen't change the fact that you haven't brought any valid argument. That is not honesty; it just common sense. Since a Pantheist believes in a supernatural power you can argue that it is a religion. That means nothing to me. You have shown ignoring what humanism is, and now you display an ignorance of what pantheism is, before making such a statement, please read more about pantheism. Scientism is not a religious belief. You seem to think any philosophical position is a religion. Well, that is not true. Do you even know what “scientism” is? If you don't, maybe it is time for you to search about it before commenting. Beside that, I more said scientism being a religious belief rather than a religion, and I said what are the problems to qualify it as a religion. I qualify it as religious and not as a religion. And no, I do not think that all philosophical positions are religions, I think I was clear about what I think. Nope. There is no practical difference between an opinion and a belief. Stop using rhetoric to gain an audience. You are playing semantics games here too. You are again, refusing to understand what the point is, I made a simple comment regarding the uses of the word belief and why I distinguished it from opinion. That there are no practical differences is not the point here. A religion is about a belief before anything else, and not only an opinion. As I said, one can have an opinion, but it doesn't necessarily or entirely correlate with ones belief. If you think that I gave you arguments by what I said, then you did not understand what I said. Maybe I did not, clarify please. Now you change your story. Your accepted definition is "Religion is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief." If you say "belief concerning" as you have been, anosticism, to you, would be a religion. But it is not and neither is atheism. I think you are not trying to understand what I write. Agnosticism can not be a religion, because it is not a belief but dough, doughting something is not really a belief, neither a belief of the contrary. A sect is an off-shoot of a previously existing religion. That is it. Anything else is just subjective and interpretive and has no place in a discussion of concrete ideas. I will tend to believe that your definition is too narrowed, I may be wrong. But suppose that I claim being contacted from a god who tell me all existing religions are fakes and gives me a new book... and later I find followers, that will follow me... would my group not be considered as a sect? Yes, it is wrong. Just because you think they can be lumped together does not mean they all need to be described as religions. Atheism is not a religion. It is a philosophical stance that can include religious beliefs. You have not shown it to be anything else. We are turning in circle, I will repeat, that behind any religions there are philosophies etc. it is not because something is a philosophical conception that it means it is not a religion. Not only I think that they can be lumped together, but I have as well brought arguments to support the claim that they can. It is an argument against the idea of "belief concerning" being the operative concept in the definition of a religion. I need clarification here. Rousseau would laugh at you. If there is an argument to be made then make it. Saying "Go read this" means nothing to me. You seem to be uncomfortable with definitions. You like playing language games. A humanist by definition is one who loves people. You cannot keep giving examples of humanism with the hope of altering the definition. Humanism in its philosophical term,(and that's of what I am talking about, and by claiming that Rousseau will laugh at me, you do suppose it's about that) at me and is not what you mean, of course it may be one characteristic of a humanist, but it is not because you love people that it means you are a humanist. Here, this is one among many other Humanist organisations: http://www.secularhumanism.org/ and it's the Humanism brought by philosophers like Rousseau. There is nothing illogical about what I said. Nothing. Anyone familiar with logic will attest. This is absolutely wrong, and I am sure that even those that do not agree with me will tell you that. This discussion is the most boring ever. You have your view and it will never change and neither will mine because I am right. So give it a rest. I am open to discussion, and will consider views contrary to mine, if the person that support it support it with strong arguments. On the other hand, someone claiming that he is right, and that is all there is about a discussion, is a dogmatic. Posts after posts, you display being one. Edited February 1, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Congratulations. That makes no sense. style_images/master/snapback.png ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig9 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 What does 2 peoples discussion on religion have to do with this poll and thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I am open to discussion, and will consider views contrary to mine, if the person that support it support it with strong arguments. On the other hand, someone claiming that he is right, and that is all there is about a discussion, is a dogmatic. Posts after posts, you display being one. Oh, right. That is what I have been doing this whole time. Just saying I am right an not giving any support. You are not open to other beliefs because you are unable to understand the support. --------------- I do not need to search about scientism because I know what it is. How about you search? Yes, that is a better idea. But make sure you understand what you read this time. I know what pantheism is, as well, and I did not show any ignorance to what humanism is. Your entire form of argument is to tell people to research as if such a command automatically validates your point. Well, guess what: nothing you have said or no term you have brought up has been something I have not heard before. I am familiar with all of the meanings and all of the arguments and I stand by my view. --------------- I read through your post and all it consists of is a bunch of misunderstandings, red herrings and other illogical assertions, semantics games, gross misrepresentations, and some stunningly evasive comments that completely ignore what I have said, most of which I have already addressed. You could understand why I no longer have an interest in responding to you and repeating myself... again. Like I said, give it a rest. --------------- And to close (for good), if you are only interested in playing the "read this, research that" game, I suggest you go and get a better understanding of what logic is and what makes something logical or not. You are embarrassingly ignorant of the entire concept and are seemingly of the impression that something is illogical because you do not agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Oh, right. That is what I have been doing this whole time. Just saying I am right an not giving any support. You are not open to other beliefs because you are unable to understand the support. You've started the discussion by claiming that it takes someone having neurons not working like they should 'to have my position, you've been repeating all along that you were right I am wrong... you posted a definition, and added it was the one of your liking. I was ready to accept your position, and I have been asking arguments again and again. I am the one open to discussion, and have even admitted my mistake of placing humanism as a religion, which was an error from my part. I do not need to search about scientism because I know what it is. How about you search? Yes, that is a better idea. But make sure you understand what you read this time. I know what pantheism is, as well, and I did not show any ignorance to what humanism is. Your entire form of argument is to tell people to research as if such a command automatically validates your point. Well, guess what: nothing you have said or no term you have brought up has been something I have not heard before. I am familiar with all of the meanings and all of the arguments and I stand by my view. To not offense you, I will not be using the term lying to qualify your claim above. Just because “scientism” contains the same etymology as the word science, you concluded right away. And “scientism” is a rather new word used for that definition in the English language. Definition: Scientism usually means the acceptance of scientific theory and scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion. Here, science is held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of public policy and even religion. Thosefor, scientism is a religious belief, not necessarily as a religion(and I stated why). Your claim about pantheism was absolutely wrong, you could not have said what you have said if you knew what it was. I will post its definition. \Pan"the*ism\, n. [Pan- + theism.] The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; cosmotheism. Pantheism does not necessarily means that someone believe in a god or the supernatural, Carl Sagan was a Pantheist, and yet was one of the founding members of the first organized skeptic organizations, and an ardant “rejector” of claims of supernatural. In fact, many, and many atheistic scientists whom reject anything supernatural are pantheists. Contradicting your belief about why Pantheism is a religion. Coming to what humanism is, I don't understand why is it so hard for you to accept that you were obviously wrong. And it is not for me to educate you on that, there are many papers written by Rousseau available on the web for you to read. I will add nothing more about that. I read through your post and all it consists of is a bunch of misunderstandings, red herrings and other illogical assertions, semantics games, gross misrepresentations, and some stunningly evasive comments that completely ignore what I have said, most of which I have already addressed. You could understand why I no longer have an interest in responding to you and repeating myself... again. Like I said, give it a rest. Give me any such examples found in my post please. And to close (for good), if you are only interested in playing the "read this, research that" game, I suggest you go and get a better understanding of what logic is and what makes something logical or not. You are embarrassingly ignorant of the entire concept and are seemingly of the impression that something is illogical because you do not agree with it. I will ask, anyone whom disagree with me, including Siamanto and Anoushik, to come and read the statements coming from you which I claimed being illogical. I am confident that they will agree with me, since what I have reported being logical mistakes were basic logical mistakes. Let see if they will claim they were not. If you were to know many of the concepts you erroneously uses, I won't be forced to ask you to read about those concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 A humanist is someone who loves people. That is it! Humanism does not only define by limiting one with the phrase “love for people” unless one is not a Human in a thru meaning of the sence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 All major religions are humanistic in essence as they are ultimately for the benefit of humans. Take Christianity for example, as tought by Jesus Christ: "Love your enemy". Is there any more humanistic principle than this? As to secular humanists, they have directly or indirectly taken basic Christian principles or moral codes and shaped out their philosophy. One would say fine, but then why reject the Christian religion if you are essentially agreeing with its moral code? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 All major religions are humanistic in essence as they are ultimately for the benefit of humans. Take Christianity for example, as tought by Jesus Christ: "Love your enemy". Is there any more humanistic principle than this? As to secular humanists, they have directly or indirectly taken basic Christian principles or moral codes and shaped out their philosophy. One would say fine, but then why reject the Christian religion if you are essentially agreeing with its moral code? style_images/master/snapback.png No! Secular humanists place humans above anything else, including above gods... they think of the benefit of humans above anything else, including gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.