Always Atheism vs Christianity?

[LuisDantas]

You know, your knowledge of what atheism and atheists are has not improved in the last few days.

 

[Koldo]

Atheists, REAL atheists, true to their doctrinal "label", claim to not trust in any higher authority: not in any ruling, universal laws, not in any creator, not in anything other than themselves and other sentient humans. They don't trust in gravity; they don't trust that the ground they stand on will hold them up. They think all is chaos and confusion; they don't trust in any sort of order. That is because they don't trust in anything that they can't see.; because they claim that the UNSEEN world does not exist.

Then according to your definition of 'atheism', the majority of atheists are not REAL atheists.

It must be said though that you are conflating atheism with extreme skepctism from my point of view.

Abandoned it for WHAT??? For NOTHING??? The atheists here aren't saying. All they're saying, is that they have abandoned their trust. That looks very good in print, where things don't necessarily have to make sense; but in real life, EVERYONE lives by trust -- which is to say, everyone has a God or god. Atheists simply do not DEFINE Him as God.

Let me put it this way: A god is like a walking stick to an atheist. There is no need for a walking stick once you realize you don't need it anymore. As you don't need to replace it for something else as well.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Last part first: They DO need to fall into the same general category. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Once again, this is patently false, and makes zero sense. I can compare an apple to an automobile (or an apple to an orange), if I so choose- indeed, we can compare any two things we care to pick, even two things which couldn't be more different, much less from the same general category. And if I can compare an apple to an automobile without an apple being required to be an automobile, then one can compare atheism and Christianity without them being the exact same sort of thing.

And aside from being a clearly false and ludicrous claim, its moot anyways, since the OP doesn't require us to do any comparison of atheism and Christianity in the first place.

Everyone wants to feel as though he/she is right. Christians and Atheists, however, share a life-and-death interest in being right. In the Christian view, if someone is wrong in their thinking, they are going to hell. In the Atheist view, if the Christians are right in their thinking, the Atheist is going to hell. Christians and Atheists, therefore, are playing a metaphorical tug of war over the Lake of Fire, while the Buddhists, etc. blissfully look on. The Buddhists have their own presumed ticket into the afterlife; the Atheists have no "Plan B". What's more, Buddhists do not insist on being right, even if they would like to: They try to transcend this desire, along with all others.

In other words, this is not a feature which has anything to do with religion as such at all. Even if we buy this "life-and-death interest in being right" (which doesn't really apply to the atheist anyways), its still a matter of degree only, not of kind. Confidence in one's correctness, even to the point of irrationality, is not exclusive to religious views.

I did; you apparently didn't

I don't know what you sing about, in particular. One atheist poster claims to write songs attacking other religions. I can't remember -- Is that you? You might have a more positive outlook on life, if you wrote songs in praise of nothing.

Sarcasm aside, this is a silly argument. "Nothing" is not any entity- if we worship nothing, this doesn't mean we worship some thing, i.e. nothing; that's absolute nonsense. If you worship nothing, this simply means that it is not the case that you worship something.

That said, I did hold forth an alternative proposal -- that you worship nature.

Except, most atheists, so far as I'm aware, do no such thing, although some may. At the very least, this is not a necessary feature of atheism.

You can't seriously expect me to believe that the world is run by chaos: There are natural laws, holding everything together; immutable natural laws. Absent a Lawgiver, those laws themselves stand in the place of a God; for they are omnipotent. The atheists posting here, however, try to skirt around this issue by saying that Atheism has no doctrine concerning these things -- only a doctrine (which you call a "non-doctrine") about the absence of what you define as a "God".

Because that's precisely what is the case. Perhaps one holds NO views about "how the world is run", or perhaps one does hold that the world is fundamentally chaotic- or that it is not. But one's view on this matter is not dictated by atheism.

Pardon me for not buying that malarkey. Baron d'Holbach had a definite doctrine concerning what governs the world we live in. As I said in a previous post,

"For him, nature's laws are fixed and necessary, and if Man wants to find happiness it is best to accept this."

If you are honest, you will admit that you believe this also.

Ah, once again, you've who've never met me, and who are clearly not an atheist yourself (given your propensity for making laughably false statements about atheism), get to tell me what I do or don't believe. How nice.

Unfortunately, its almost universally taken for granted that the laws of nature are NOT "necessary"- I certainly don't hold that they are necessary, when in a strict logical sense they are clearly contingent only. And I'd imagine most atheists are also with me in not reifying the laws of nature anyways- the "laws of nature" are observed regularities, no more. They are not entities.

Concerning "worship", moreover, Were you under the impression that "worship" means "singing songs"??

Um... no, but thanks...

If it is, than atheism actually isn't about anything -- because the only "gods" atheists don't believe in are those defined as gods by atheists.

No, the gods atheism rejects are the gods authored by other religions, and "god" is a common noun defined in English. Atheists have no monopoly on defining this word.

In any case, atheism has none of the features which distinguish a religion as such, covered in my previous post. And that those are the features, or most of the major features, which distinguish a religion as such can hardly be doubted. By your lack of any further response to this point, I can only surmise that you've finally realized this fact.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Then according to your definition of 'atheism', the majority of atheists are not REAL atheists.

It must be said though that you are conflating atheism with extreme skepctism from my point of view.

Let me put it this way: A god is like a walking stick to an atheist. There is no need for a walking stick once you realize you don't need it anymore. As you don't need to replace it for something else as well.

What you seem to be saying, Koldo, is that an atheist is a god unto himself, in a world occupied by billions of other little gods. You also seem to be saying, that atheists have no interest in the world around them, and how it came about. That is a very courious way to live.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

If I told you there was an invisible cliff in front of your next step and you looked down and saw no cliff...would you never take that step and stay right where you were the rest of your life? Or would you doubt my claim and continue walking?

Debate is a fun hobby. Do you think you are actually converting people or bringing them some truth that they didn't know here?

I bring this up because there is a misconception that if an Atheist debates or talks about god there are other implications.

I do not enjoy debate. If people are in danger, I warn them. If they don't want to heed that warning, I have no more interest in conversation; it's a waste of effort.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...the OP doesn't require us to do any comparison of atheism and Christianity in the first place...

...and the OP is only interested in comments by atheists. I will take my leave, then -- I have more important things to do.

Cheers.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...and the OP is only interested in comments by atheists.

We've long since stopped discussing the OP. Not sure why this just became a problem for you. Curious.

I will take my leave, then -- I have more important things to do.

Than dogmatically arguing silly and clearly false assertions like that baldness is a hair color (and that in order to compare baldness to a hair color, baldness must be a hair color)? I certainly hope so. We can also only hope that some of the eminently sound points that have been urged against your confused characterization of atheism have sunk in, and that you actually take something away from all this, rather than simply going and rationalizing to yourself why you were right after all, despite every appearance to the contrary. Can a comparison be drawn between atheism and Christianity, or religion in general (even if the OP doesn't require us to do so)? Sure, in a relevant context- but this no more means that they are both religions than comparing Tiger Woods to Micheal Jordan, or Roger Federer, mean that they are all golfers.

 

[Koldo]

What you seem to be saying, Koldo, is that an atheist is a god unto himself, in a world occupied by billions of other little gods. You also seem to be saying, that atheists have no interest in the world around them, and how it came about. That is a very courious way to live.

That wasn't what I said though.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not enjoy debate. If people are in danger, I warn them. If they don't want to heed that warning, I have no more interest in conversation; it's a waste of effort.

Well you say that....

 

[ImprobableBeing]

My father, were he still alive, would be 101. I don't believe you are he; so please don't call me "son".

It is the gnostic atheists, who believe that they they are absolutely right (check out your own definitions). They get this from their Christian heritage, which in turn comes from the Christians' Jewish heritage.

As for my being "retarded": if I had called you that. RF would have me suspended for three months. Since you are an atheist, you get a bye.

I believe I said that very thing, several posts ago. I don't think the discussion is over; I think you will repent.

Again, you can take shelter in the fact that you are atheist, immune to RF's rules. If I had said what you just said, I would have been reprimanded.

Let's consider Israeli religious practices:

ISRAELI JEWISH RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

Religious PracticeAlwaysSometimesNever

• Light Shabbat candles 56%22%20%
• Recite Kiddush (Friday night) 46%21%32%
• Synagogue Saturday morning 23%22%56%
• Don't work [in public] on Sabbath 42%19%39%
• Paraticipate in Passover Seder78%17%5%
• Light Hanukkah candles 71%20%9%
• Fast on Yom Kippur70%11%19%
• Bless Lulav (Sukkot) 26%15%59%
• Observe Kashrut at home 69%18%14%
• No pork, shellfish, etc. 63%16%21%Brit Milah92%
• Bar Mitzvah83%Wedding 87%
• Burial/Shiva/Kaddish88 -91%
• Mezuzah on front door 98%Contribute to charity74%

(I suppose you've already noticed that the above are called "religious" practices by the author, Daniel J. Elazar (Don't look now, but I think he's Jewish, so he ought to know what's "religious" and what isn't. Now, let's continue to what he says about atheism in Israel:

ISRAELI JEWISH RELIGIOUS BELIEF

"To what extent do you believe or not believe in each of the following?"Believe CompletelyNot SureDo Not Believe

• There is a God 63% 24% 13%

All the above can be found at How Religious are Israeli Jews?

Ah, again the insults. When you return to this discussion, which I am confident you will do, I expect you will stop yanking my chain and get down to talking about the OP.

By the way, you might be curious how I stack up against Israeli Jews in practice:

• Light Shabbat candles -sometimes
• Recite Kiddush (Friday night) -sometimes
• Synagogue Saturday morning -never (I'm a Friday nighter)
• Don't work [in public] on Sabbath -always
• Paraticipate in Passover Seder -always
• Light Hanukkah candles -sometimes
• Fast on Yom Kippur -always
• Bless Lulav (Sukkot) -sometimes
• Observe Kashrut at home -sometimes
• No pork, shellfish, etc. -always
• Brit Milah -"sometimes" (The evidence is there; but my Jewish doctor did it, not a moher)
• Bar Mitzvah -never
• Wedding -never
• Burial/Shiva/Kaddish -never
• Mezuzah on front door -always
• Contribute to charity -always

If I were an Israeli Jew, that would make me about average in religiosity; but of course, I am not -- I'm either a "Messianic Jew" or "Others or None", depending on who is defining me.

l'hitra'ot

I actually follow most Jewish traditions but tha thas absolutely nothing to do with any god. I also follow a great deal of the Viking traditions but that has nothing to do with Oden. Funny thing is that all Christians follow some of both and they believe it's to praise their god.

Anyway, your source is ... terrible.

From the IDF numbers there are about 30-40% actual religious Jews in Israel at any given time during the last decade. It's around the same number for secular humanists at any given time.

 

[LuisDantas]

What you seem to be saying, Koldo, is that an atheist is a god unto himself, in a world occupied by billions of other little gods. You also seem to be saying, that atheists have no interest in the world around them, and how it came about. That is a very courious way to live.

It is also a very weird way for an Atheist to live, assuming that it is possible at all.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

What you seem to be saying, Koldo, is that an atheist is a god unto himself, in a world occupied by billions of other little gods. You also seem to be saying, that atheists have no interest in the world around them, and how it came about. That is a very courious way to live.

What he said was that he doesn't need a crutch, that doesn't transform him into a crutch.

To make that assumption would make you Allah since you don't believe in Allah? It's one of those "i refuse to listen to what you say and will instead replace it with what i think fits" notions.

You honestly don't seem to be interested in reading what anyone else says, you just hold your own opinions of all others regardless of what they actually say to you.

Chaval al ha-zman

 

[ImprobableBeing]

It is also a very weird way for an Atheist to live, assuming that it is possible at all.

It's not, a-theos literally means "without [a belief in] god/s"

His little "oh you think you are god" quip isn't new and no, an atheist couldn't believe that unless that atheist didn't believe that he himself didn't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

To be fair, there are at least rumors of some beliefs that seem to use similar wording, and that at least attempt to be perceived as atheistic under certain circunstances.

All the same, that would be very much the exception, and I am not sure I trust those people's word in the first place. This group I am thinking of makes a point of having fun with the disorientation of others.

 

[Cephus]

How did you arrive that such a conclusion?

He made it up, of course.

 

[Cephus]

I do not enjoy debate. If people are in danger, I warn them. If they don't want to heed that warning, I have no more interest in conversation; it's a waste of effort.

Then it seems rather silly that you're posting in a forum specifically dedicated to debates. If you hate debating so much, perhaps you ought to limit your time to the discussion forums?

Just trying to be helpful.

 

[s2a]

Or maybe


Definition of atheism in English
atheism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(&#601m/
Translate atheism | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheist if they lack belief in gods.

That will suffice too.

 

[s2a]

I've been down this path a million times. Atheism as I would probably assume you agree, is the lack of a belief in god not the direct disbelief in god. The vast majority of athesits are Agnostic Atheists and this insistent need for people to force the idea of Atheist to mean a BELIEF in anything ranges from grasping at straws to pure blatent lie.

Its very important to set aside the meaning of these words.

Than allow my own imposition of clarification, singularly...as not to be included with your inferred "vast majority" of "Agnostic Atheists" (last I looked was 2% vs. 12%, but as you like it).

I remain of the distinct opinion that ANY claims of a "god" or "gods...remain consistently and to this day, completely unsubstantiated bunk.

Clear?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Than allow my own imposition of clarification, singularly...as not to be included with your inferred "vast majority" of "Agnostic Atheists" (last I looked was 2% vs. 12%, but as you like it).

I remain of the distinct opinion that ANY claims of a "god" or "gods...remain consistently and to this day, completely unsubstantiated bunk.

Clear?

Clear.