10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Mad_Michael]

Exactly. I think humanity has evolved a need to believe in a deity...

I believe the common term of reference for this is the evolution of a "god-shaped hole" in humans.

It is one of the more colourful religious arguments, hardly worthy of mockery, let alone consideration!

[Mad_Michael]

...and yet it is, IMO for this one reason alone , they worship NO outside supernatural or divine deity/ies.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it is meaningful to state that atheists "worship". That butchers the language.

[Riverwind]

It is one of the more colourful religious arguments, hardly worthy of mockery, let alone consideration!

ROTFL. What an amazing demonstration of rational thought! I realize that I will never convince any of the anti-theist zealots that they are just as narrow minded and dogmatic any fundamentalist theist. Fortunately, the anti-theists seem to be more than willing to prove my argument with their own words.

[Riverwind]

" I think it is ridiculously hypocritical for atheists to claim that their belief system is substantially different from the belief system of any theist.

and yet it is, IMO for this one reason alone , they worship NO outside supernatural or divine deity/ies.

The worship or rejection of a supernatural deity is an irrelevant detail in any belief system. It is the intent of system which is significant - not the details of the construction or the rational for its existence.

[Mad_Michael]

It is one of the more colourful religious arguments, hardly worthy of mockery, let alone consideration!

ROTFL. What an amazing demonstration of rational thought! I realize that I will never convince any of the anti-theist zealots that they are just as narrow minded and dogmatic any fundamentalist theist. Fortunately, the anti-theists seem to be more than willing to prove my argument with their own words.

Anti-theist? I don't believe so. You are being rather obnoxious with your accusations here.

Non-theism is not anti-theism.

Personally, I'm a longtime defender of the right of religious expression and religious freedom (though I admit, it is getting harder and harder to maintain this political position these days).

[Figleaf]

The worship or rejection of a supernatural deity is an irrelevant detail in any belief system.

Saying the worship of a supernatural deity is an irrelevant detail of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity has got to be one of the most stunningly ridiculous statements I've ever read on a forum, and I've read a few stunners!

It is the intent of system which is significant - not the details of the construction or the rational for its existence.

That's silly too. The details of construction is instrumental to the likelihood of the intent being properly or effectively delivered. And please explain what distinction you are relying on between the intent and the 'rational' [sic]?

[Riverwind]

Saying the worship of a supernatural deity is an irrelevant detail of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity has got to be one of the most stunningly ridiculous statements I've ever read on a forum, and I've read a few stunners!

It is the belief system that is relevant and how it affects the moral and ethical framework for individuals. The symbolism and myths used to rationalize the belief system are completely irrelevant. That is why a belief system built on an atheist religion is essentially the same as any belief system built on a theist religion.

The details of construction is instrumental to the likelihood of the intent being properly or effectively delivered. And please explain what distinction you are relying on between the intent and the 'rational'?

All religions fill a need within the human psyche (this includes the atheist religion). Different religions are simply different languages that individuals use to explain the world they live in.

Someone could explain how to build a house in Chinese, English or Russian. Do you believe the fundemental nature of the house will change if the instructions are given in a different language using different cultural metaphors?

[guyser]

That is why a belief system built on an atheist religion is essentially the same as any belief system built on a theist religion.

All religions fill a need within the human psyche (this includes the atheist religion).

I have been through this thread more than once in an effort to understand all this. But damn , I am not having any luck and sincerely want to understand. Both you and Mad Mike are obviously learned , and I wish not to denigrate anyone.

That said, how the H can the above quote be valid?

If my belief system, (ie I believe the sun rises in the East, that we revolve around the sun , the Leafs will win the cup eventually) was formed without any religious context, then how can it be the same?

(NB: of course my original beliefs were formed by a church as I too was indoctrinated/brainwashed by my folks dragging me off on Sun morn-but my beliefs have since been re-calibrated for my absolute non-religious non-belief status)

Maybe believing the Leafs will win it is faith,but thats as far as I will go.

Maybe I should just damn Dancer for all of this?

[Figleaf]

It is the belief system that is relevant ...

Relevant for what?

and how it affects the moral and ethical framework for individuals. The symbolism and myths used to rationalize the belief system are completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to who???

That is why a belief system built on an atheist religion ...

That sentence is meaningless. The phrase 'atheist religion' is a contradiction.

...is essentially the same as any belief system built on a theist religion.

That could be -- except that atheism is the opposite of theism and has virtually nothing in common with it.

Different religions are simply different languages that individuals use to explain the world they live in.

Why do you do that? Using words with different meanings interchangeably means you are not communicating. You are wasting our time. 'Language' and 'religion' are not the same thing.

[Riverwind]

If my belief system, (ie I believe the sun rises in the East, that we revolve around the sun , the Leafs will win the cup eventually) was formed without any religious context, then how can it be the same?

How do you really know the earth goes around the sun? Are you an astrophysicist that has conducted your own experiments to prove that this is true? I am guessing that you believe it to be true because you have faith the scientists that tell you that the earth goes around the sun.

There is currently a debate about the science of global warming. The science is complex and every hypothesis is virtually impossible to prove. Which group of scientists do you have faith in? Have you noticed that many of the scientists on both sides of the debate talk a lot like missionaries spreading the gospel? The similarity is not a co-incidence. They are following a well established pattern of spreading the faith.

The metaphysical belief system for each person is an intrinsic part of their moral and ethical framework. For the most part you don't care how someone creates their moral and ethical framework - all you care about is whether their framework is compatible with yours. I say atheist and theist belief systems are essentially identical because they all produce a virtually identical moral and ethical framework.

[Riverwind]

That could be -- except that atheism is the opposite of theism and has virtually nothing in common with it.

An electron is the opposite of the proton. However, they are both atomic particles and there are many times when there is no need to distiguish between the two.

Incidently, many people feel that a marriage between to men is a contradiction and object strenously when people use the word in that way. They can even point to some dictionary definitions that specifically describe marriage as union between a man and a women.

Why is your objection to the use of the word religion to describe atheism any different than the objection that some have to the use of the word marriage for same sex couples?

[kuzadd]

...and yet it is, IMO for this one reason alone , they worship NO outside supernatural or divine deity/ies.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it is meaningful to state that atheists "worship". That butchers the language.

anyone can 'worship' anything?

worship: idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol;

I find my mind wandering upon gazing at the handsome Johnny Depp, is it worship, or something darker? Dunno?

My 'worship' of Johnny Depp has nothing to do with the supernatural or the divine deity.

the point was more the worshipping of the external supernatural or divine deity.

with deity:

any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

atheists don't do that.

[kuzadd]

It is the belief system that is relevant and how it affects the moral and ethical framework for individuals. The symbolism and myths used to rationalize the belief system are completely irrelevant. That is why a belief system built on an atheist religion is essentially the same as any belief system built on a theist religion.

except the "belief system" for an atheist includes NO external supernatural force or deity.

Where as, for a Christian, it is an absolute requirement.

"The symbolism and myths used to rationalize the belief system are completely irrelevant."

This is an incredible statement , so you are saying, that Jesus, God, Allah or what/whom ever are completely irrelevant to there specific religions.

Excuse me, but Jesus, is the reason for Christianity.

Because a Christian is a follower of Christ , that is Jesus Christ,(external supernatural deity) so saying the symbolism or myths are irrelevant to the belief system, is quite a non-credible statement.

[Riverwind]

except the "belief system" for an atheist includes NO external supernatural force or deity. Where as, for a Christian, it is an absolute requirement.

So? Does that mean Buddhism is not a religion because there is no requirement to believe in a deity?

This is an incredible statement , so you are saying, that Jesus, God, Allah or what/whom ever are completely irrelevant to there specific religions.

Yes. The imagery is simply a way of conveying a message regarding the nature of the universe. The message is basically the same even if the imagery is different. Many of the more thoughtful followers of major religions recognize this. That is the driving force behind the various interfaith dialogues that go on today.

[Drea]

How do you really know the earth goes around the sun? Are you an astrophysicist that has conducted your own experiments to prove that this is true? I am guessing that you believe it to be true because you have faith the scientists that tell you that the earth goes around the sun.

I know the earth revolves around the sun because I can get on a shuttle and test it if I had the million of dollars to do it with.

See!

How many times have I said that religious folks cannot (or will not) imagine life without a "diety" or "faith" of some kind.

I guess that's natural -- I cannot know exactly what it is like to worship a diety and they cannot know exactly what it is like not to.

They believe there MUST be SOMETHING beyond our day to day lives. This has never been proven.

Eons ago our stoneage ancestors believed they needed to prostrate themselves so that Mr. Sun would rise in the am. Today we know that the sun will rise, and indeed, we know WHY and HOW it rises. We do not just have "faith" that some scientist is correct -- sheesh.

In the future the same level of knowledge will be attained regarding gods. People will laugh at how naive we were back in the 21st century.

[kuzadd]

except the "belief system" for an atheist includes NO external supernatural force or deity. Where as, for a Christian, it is an absolute requirement.

So? Does that mean Buddhism is not a religion because there is no requirement to believe in a deity?

This is an incredible statement , so you are saying, that Jesus, God, Allah or what/whom ever are completely irrelevant to there specific religions.

Yes. The imagery is simply a way of conveying a message regarding the nature of the universe. The message is basically the same even if the imagery is different. Many of the more thoughtful followers of major religions recognize this. That is the driving force behind the various interfaith dialogues that go on today.

ahhh, noticed you ignored this....

I'll repeat

I said "Excuse me, but Jesus, is the reason for Christianity.

Because a Christian is a follower of Christ , that is Jesus Christ,(external supernatural deity) so saying the symbolism or myths are irrelevant to the belief system, is quite a non-credible statement."

[Riverwind]

I know the earth revolves around the sun because I can get on a shuttle and test it if I had the million of dollars to do it with.

You don't know that. You believe that because you have faith the people say you can.

Today we know that the sun will rise, and indeed, we know WHY and HOW it rises. We do not just have "faith" that some scientist is correct -- sheesh.

Have you ever personally conducted experiments that prove that the earth goes around the sun? If not then you are simply taking the word of those people that have done that.

People will laugh at how naive we were back in the 21st century.

I can see people in the future laughing at the naivety of people who believed that the universe only consisted of things that we can perceive with our senses.

[Drea]

Oh Puuulease!

Is the earth flat? How far must one travel before one falls off the edge?

Your argument holds no water River. Science is testable and proveable -- your fantastic notion of an entity controlling things is not.

[Riverwind]

Your argument holds no water River. Science is testable and proveable -- your fantastic notion of an entity controlling things is not.

I am not saying that there is a deity. I am saying that you have faith in science and that faith is very similar to a the faith that some people have in a deity.

For example, you, kuzadd and figleaf all insist that the WTC towers collapsed because of bombs planted by the US government. You claim that 'science' proves this but no respectable scientist shares your views. Most people consider such beliefs to be lunacy on par with people who claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. However, such criticisms do not bother you because you have 'faith'.

Please explain how your faith in the science peddled by 9/11 revisionists is any more rational than having faith in a deity?

[cybercoma]

I am not saying that there is a deity. I am saying that you have faith in science and that faith is very similar to a the faith that some people have in a deity.

For example, you, kuzadd and figleaf all insist that the WTC towers collapsed because of bombs planted by the US government. You claim that 'science' proves this but no respectable scientist shares your views. Most people consider such beliefs to be lunacy on par with people who claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. However, such criticisms do not bother you because you have 'faith'.

Please explain how your faith in the science peddled by 9/11 revisionists is any more rational than having faith in a deity?

This entire post is an insult to educated minds everywhere. It's a total affront to logic, reason and science. It is precisely this dangerous mindset of putting wild guesses and assertions on a level playing field with testable science that makes our society so ignorant that people will blow themselves up at bus stops and in crowded cafes.

"Religious faith has as much credibility as scientific consensus." I don't know if a more ignorant statement has ever been made on these forums.

[Figleaf]

How do you really know the earth goes around the sun? Are you an astrophysicist that has conducted your own experiments to prove that this is true? I am guessing that you believe it to be true because you have faith the scientists that tell you that the earth goes around the sun.

As anyone following this thread knows by now, it is necessary to be clear and precise about definition when discussing these subjects with you. So, what do you mean by 'faith' in that sentence?

Personally, yes, I have some faith in the ability of my fellow humans to discover and convey correct representations of reality when that is what they have set out to do. Particularly when they are able and willng to explain their findings lucidly and respond thoroughly to questions. What I don't have is (capital F) Faith of the kind that bids me not be skeptical if I have doubts and not question when the explanations are not coherent.

The metaphysical belief system for each person is an intrinsic part of their moral and ethical framework.

Not if they don't have metaphysical beliefs.

I say atheist and theist belief systems are essentially identical because they all produce a virtually identical moral and ethical framework.

No, they don't.*

[Figleaf]

That could be -- except that atheism is the opposite of theism and has virtually nothing in common with it.

An electron is the opposite of the proton.

What sort of sloppy thinking nonsense is that. An electron is a subatomic particle and a proton is a subatomic particle and they have opposite electrical charges. They are not otherwise opposites except in respect of the electrical charge.

Theism and atheism are opposites by definition. Atheism is constructed as the opposite of theism, in terms of what the whole of theism means.

Why is your objection to the use of the word religion to describe atheism any different than the objection that some have to the use of the word marriage for same sex couples?

There is a perfectly good answer to this question, and many posters will realize it immediately, but I think it's time you answered some of the questions I've put to you instead.

[Riverwind]

"Religious faith has as much credibility as scientific consensus." I don't know if a more ignorant statement has ever been made on these forums.

That is not what I said. I said the faith in science as demonstrated by certain posters is equivalent the faith that others have in a deity.

I also pointed out that science is not always clear cut. For example, the science of climate change is far from proven and asks people to take a leap of faith.

[Figleaf]

So? Does that mean Buddhism is not a religion because there is no requirement to believe in a deity?

It has already been thoroughly established (on this thread if I'm not mistaken) that Buddhism does in fact have deities.

This is an incredible statement , so you are saying, that Jesus, God, Allah or what/whom ever are completely irrelevant to there specific religions.

Yes. The imagery is simply a way of conveying a message regarding the nature of the universe.

That may be what YOU THINK is going on, but people professing a religion do ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT. That's what it's all about.

The message is basically the same even if the imagery is different.

Absolutely not. Christianity's message includes the assertion that Jesus Christ, a part of God, became a human, came to Earth and was crucified thereby expiating worldly sins.

Judaism' message denies each and every element of the forgoing.

You will note, I hope, that they are therefore quite categorically NOT 'the same'.

[Riverwind]

Not if they don't have metaphysical beliefs.

Everyone has metaphysical beliefs. Believing that there is nothing more that the physical world is a metaphysical belief.

I say atheist and theist belief systems are essentially identical because they all produce a virtually identical moral and ethical framework.

No, they don't.*

Virtually every major religion including secular humanism and atheism have an moral framework that is virtually identical. There are differences between groups but these differences are insignificant compared to the differences between individuals within the same group.

Theism and atheism are opposites by definition. Atheism is constructed as the opposite of theism, in terms of what the whole of theism means.

They are opposite at one level because they do describe different types of belief systems. However they still share traits that are common to all belief systems. A toyota prius and a ford mustang are very different constructions. However, they both are still cars.

It has already been thoroughly established (on this thread if I'm not mistaken) that Buddhism does in fact have deities.

What you insist on calling Buddhist deities are really no more than saints or revered teachers. Buddhism - at its core - has no diety.

You will note, I hope, that they are therefore quite categorically NOT 'the same'.

The engine system of a electric car is completely different from the engine of a gasoline car. They are still both cars.