Conversation from the war on christians being moved to here

Which is it? Fallacy of ambiguilty is going on here.




Now you're just weasel wording. There are atheist organization.  There are also atheist bus ad campaigns going on in the U.K, D.C (I think), and Indiana.  Obviously, they feel the need to advertise something and enough of them felt compelled to do it.  I am saying that its a single person constitutes a religion yet it is also what the dictionary is stating.  How does a religion/movement get started by a single individual or a group of individuals. You're trying to state that an individual can't have his own religion when in reality an individual can.



This is why I used the dictionary.  The point of having a dictionary is that words have an agreed upon meaning, in such a manner that conversation can be had with out words all of sudden switching meaning.  The word cat can not describe a tree all of sudden because the dictionary has a separate meaning for cat and separate meaning for tree to prevent this from happening.

Take it up with webster's if you feel that they have incorrectly defined a word.  A dictionary is to be an authority on words. 

Theocracy - 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Yes you are right that it puts clergy in charge yet for what purpose?  The purpose is so that religion is expressed completely.  The clergy are just a conduit for that religion, so in reality a brand of Islam could be a theocracy for example like in Saudi Arabia.

You are correct by that Jews are a special case BUT I was not being exhaustive in when I was stating that fact.  That's  just one example.

It seems that the only way Atheism is like religion is that there are a lot of different opinions about what it means to be one.

In a way... it's not a special case as two related identities. There is a Jewish people and a Jewish religion, just like there was once a Germanic people and a Germanic religion.

There are even cases where religion defines nationality even though the religion is not unique to the nationality. In (the former) Yugoslavia between Slovenia and Macedonia, a Catholic is a Croatian, a Muslim is a Bosniak, and an Orthodox Christian is a Serb. In Iraq a Christian is an Assyrian and when he converts to Islam he pretty much becomes an Arab. Many Lebanese patriots saw Christianity in the same way regarding a Phoenician rather than Arab nationality, and in Egypt Christianity is a defining characteristic of Egyptian rather than Arab nationality.

 

So do you believe he isn't all-powerful or infallible?

Non sequitur. I didn't say anything about it and when in doubt, assume things are normal; i.e. omnipotence and infallibility are attributes of the being described by the word "G-d".

What is it with you people asking about clarification on issues that are parallel to the subject?

Do I ask you how your tea usually is when you mention that you drank coffee yesterday???

 

Or, in a more cynical way, a "theocracy" is a system of government in which G-d is replaced by a system of government.

 

Inflexible much?

I"m not talking about ghosts or pychics. I am talking about God, Jesus, etc. That area of supernatural.

 

Mm, that works too.

 

 

So?

How is it relevant what YOU are talking about when the subject is WHAT a word means?

 

 

Because when I was talking about atheism I was entailing religion/faith, not ghosts. I agree, some atheists may believe in ghosts or psychics, but the fact that they are a-theist, means no supernatural beliefs when it comes to God(s), jesus, etc.  Personally, I do not believe in ghosts, et al. - but that is only me.

Meaning there was no Jesus, or just that he wasn't supernatural?

Mmm, it depends on the person. I don't personally believe that Jesus was a real man, but I know people who consider him to have really existed and that while he wasn't divine/the son of God, et al., he was certainly an interesting individual.

Some religions believe in spirits and not gods. Animists are often atheists. But what does this have to do with their belief in ghosts?

As a level of belief in the supernatural the word "atheist" is useless. I believe in far fewer supernatural things than most atheists I have met. Just consider all the people who believe in horoscopes. The idea that stars influence our fortunes requires supernatural forces (because stars, per physics, don't). These people are very often atheists, and I understand Christian churches discourage belief in astrology. (Judaism forbids it.)

 

I think Jesus was a real man, but I don't believe in his supernatural birth.

I think he was one of many preachers living in the Jerusalem area 2000 years ago. They had hundreds of those and many started cults. But not all managed to get a following among the Greeks and Aramaeans (i.e. non-Jews) and most of the cults faded back into Judaism. (A notable exception are the Mandaeans, another cult based on John the Baptist. They eventually decided that Jerusalem is an evil city, that the god of the Jews is evil too, and moved to southern Iraq where they are now also subject to persecution, obviously.)

 

 

I wasn't the one that brought up the belief in such things. As far as i'm concerned it isn't part of the conversation, though out of consideration I commented on the specific topic of ghosts/spirits, etc. So to me, it (ghosts, etc. ) doesn't have anything to do with it. I was talking about atheism as per gods/deities

 

 

 

I wasn't the one that brought up the belief in such things. As far as i'm concerned it isn't part of the conversation, though out of consideration I commented on the specific topic of ghosts/spirits, etc. So to me, it (ghosts, etc. ) doesn't have anything to do with it. I was talking about atheism as per gods/deities/jesus, etc.

 

 

The difference being?

@ The People's Party:

Alright, fine, I'll concede the point. You've got some good arguments for the word "religion" being applicable to atheists. However, that's using the word so broadly that... well, what's the point? What does it even mean anymore? To create a completely fictionalized (I think?) example, what if the word "apple" could be broadly interpreted to mean any sort of fruit? Sure, most people would use it for the original purpose, but when the word is used in a situation where it has to apply to all sorts of fruit, then the more specific definitions would be lost, but would remain as points for confusion.

Case in point, I was pretty much arguing the semantics based off a more specific definition of religion that includes community and spirituality that I've become used to using and hearing myself. I don't see what there is to be gained in labelling atheism a religion, since it implies that atheistic thinking is something it's not.

If you want to call a specific athiestic philosophy--like Secular Humanism--a religion, alright, there's little to be gained in disputing that, but calling atheism a religion seems as absurd to my mind as calling theism a religion. Religions CAN be atheistic or theistic, but the reverse is not always correct.

The difference being?

@ The People's Party:

Alright, fine, I'll concede the point. You've got some good arguments for the word "religion" being applicable to atheists. However, that's using the word so broadly that... well, what's the point? What does it even mean anymore? To create a completely fictionalized (I think?) example, what if the word "apple" could be broadly interpreted to mean any sort of fruit? Sure, most people would use it for the original purpose, but when the word is used in a situation where it has to apply to all sorts of fruit, then the more specific definitions would be lost, but would remain as points for confusion.

Case in point, I was pretty much arguing the semantics based off a more specific definition of religion that includes community and spirituality that I've become used to using and hearing myself. I don't see what there is to be gained in labelling atheism a religion, since it implies that atheistic thinking is something it's not.

If you want to call a specific athiestic philosophy--like Secular Humanism--a religion, alright, there's little to be gained in disputing that, but calling atheism a religion seems as absurd to my mind as calling theism a religion. Religions CAN be atheistic or theistic, but the reverse is not always correct.

Yes, we already told you that your usage of "atheist" == "doesn't believe in the supernatural" is wrong.

 

 

I was implying/referencing God/jesus, as being the supernatural. Not ghosts, not psychics. I'll admit that I should've clarified better, however, now that it is clarified...lets look at it as supernatural = god/jesus/deities. 'cause that was what I mean Leauki, and you should realize that.

 

 

I can't say I understand why other atheists sometimes reject one but are less skeptical about the other. Perhaps it's because they view one as morely likely to be understood through scientific means/empirical evidence? When it comes to me, I don't believe in the existance of ghosts/psychics, etc.

 

~Alderic

In reality it really doesn't accomplish anything like you said.  I do appreciate you compliments that I formed some good agruments.  The apple example would be better replaced with the word coke.  Most people in the southern part of the States call all forms of carbinated beverages a coke as in Coca Cola (even if its a pepsi product or pepsi for that matter) while if you go to the rest of the country if you asked for a coke you're gonna get a coke and not a bonanza of other carbonated options.

The dictionary comes in handy with semantic issues hence why I was quoting the dictionary.  It wasn't the fact that I didn't get what you were saying or I was being obtuse.

I've met a fair amount of people that claimed the dictionary wasn't an authority or an authority on words/definitions (and I guess spelling for that matter).  I didn't think you were a person of that particular caliber. In reality, its utterly pointless to have a discussion with people that feel that dictionary isn't some type of an authority due to the fact only they are able to define and decode the words they speak.  I love having discussion but those discussion turned into absolutely ridiculous (trust me I've had plenty of ridiculous and those are on the very bottom of that spectrum).

SS1, Was it you that questioned my use of lepton?

I'm not sure how a discussion formed about if Jesus existed or not, but there is enough historical evidence (outside the New Testament as well) that he existed.

p.s. please no recap either.

Ok, let's look at that angle.

What's your point?

 

That's a much better example than mine.

And yes, yes I did. I looked around in a dictionary and while the word lepton exists, I couldn't find a definition that fit in context. As far as I can tell you were calling me a sub-atomic particle.

Maybe because they're not all empiricists, naturalists, or materialists? There ISN'T an answer! "Athiesm" doesn't say anything about the person besides them not believing in god or gods! It doesn't say anything about their affinity for science, or their insistence on evidence or even rejecting faith, the word only rejects a few specific spiritual concepts!

If you're going to talk about people with the beliefs you are assuming, may I suggest you not attempt to use athiesm as a catch-all? It simply isn't accurate.