happy or athiest

[dadman]

I have a theory I’d like to run by you people.
Unhappy people are atheist, they want life to be over and hope that when you die that’s it;
you just go to sleep forever.
Happy people tend to look for someone to thank and turn to god;
they like life and want more of it.

I agree . . . and would continue to understand this inward reality

​

 

[Guy Incognito]

And I've posted a link to atheists.org which directly refutes his doctrinaire position.

I am perplexed by the whole thing. He and scourge seem so upset that there are different types of atheists out there.

 

[sangha]

I am perplexed by the whole thing. He and scourge seem so upset that there are different types of atheists out there.

The militant atheists are so certain, in spite of their lack of evidence. Scientists have figured out some of the reasons for why some cling to disproven ideas

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

 

[Guy Incognito]

The militant atheists are so certain, in spite of their lack of evidence. Scientists have figured out some of the reasons for why some cling to disproven ideas

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

I disagree, and I think the term militant atheism is simply a slur. I think that study you linked to seems to describe some fundamental aspect of human nature, whether it is in regard to atheism or another religion, or political beliefs that the study was in reference to. I heard a guy on NPR the other day who said that the mind isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer, trying to find evidence from reality to support its ingrained belief system.

I think a lot of atheists are just so convinced their worldview is the definitive truth that they can't fathom another atheist reaching a different worldview. It's a lot like any other religious believer. It's hard to break out of that shell.

 

[scourge99]

Atheists.org disagree with that definition

American Atheists | atheism

You realize that this is one of the worst arguments you could have presented, right?

You might as well linked to the Vatican's website and said that they define Christian only as people who, among other things, believe in the authority of the pope, therefore no one but Catholics are Christian.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You might as well linked to the Vatican's website and said that they define Christian only as people who, among other things, believe in the authority of the pope, therefore no one but Catholics are Christian.

That's not what the Vatican website would say. Catholics don't believe that only Catholics are Christian.

 

[scourge99]

I am perplexed by the whole thing. He and scourge seem so upset that there are different types of atheists out there.

Are you just trolling now?

I've asked that you present the different types of atheists. So has Anarcho-fascist. Weak atheism and strong atheism do not make any claim about an afterlife. What other types of atheism is there?

 

[scourge99]

That's not what the Vatican website would say. Catholics don't believe that only Catholics are Christian.

So you don't understand the point being made? wow.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You realize that this is one of the worst arguments you could have presented, right?

What matters is not that you find that description on atheists.org convincing. It is simply a matter of whether or not such belief exists, and that people do self-identify in this way. Therefore you are over reaching when you say that atheism does not address to an afterlife. For some people, clearly it does.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So you don't understand the point being made? wow.

Your point is incoherent. You are also factually incorrect about Catholics.

 

[sangha]

I disagree, and I think the term militant atheism is simply a slur. I think that study you linked to seems to describe some fundamental aspect of human nature, whether it is in regard to atheism or another religion, or political beliefs that the study was in reference to. I heard a guy on NPR the other day who said that the mind isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer, trying to find evidence from reality to support its ingrained belief system.

I think a lot of atheists are just so convinced their worldview is the definitive truth that they can't fathom another atheist reaching a different worldview. It's a lot like any other religious believer. It's hard to break out of that shell.

The link I posted defintely does not apply only to the militant atheists. It does describe a fundamental aspect of human nature. I posted it, not because it only applies to some atheists, but because I think it applies here.



And yes, the similarities between some atheists and the religious they criticize are profound. They have few, if any, doubts about their beliefs.

 

[Verthaine]

I have a theory I’d like to run by you people.
Unhappy people are atheist, they want life to be over and hope that when you die that’s it;
you just go to sleep forever.
Happy people tend to look for someone to thank and turn to god;
they like life and want more of it.

I agree . . . and would continue to understand this inward reality

​

Excuse me dadman,but what exactly do you mean by "God" ?


I'm a Taoist and consider "God"(The Tao) to be a "Sublime and Subtle Unified Force That Contains Both Life and Consciousness That Underlines And Encompasses All Of Reality" rather than a "Supernatural Being That Rules This Universe".

I have a beautiful wife,a wonderful daughter, a nice home, a nice car, am a successful business man,is active in a number of charitable organizations ,and a respected member of my community.

And I have an extremely happy in life.

I attribute that all to my hard work,applying Taoist principles to everything I do,and letting myself be happy.

I just asked my wife (who at this moment is looking over my shoulder) who is an atheist and she says she is very,very, happy because she has a loving husband,a wonderful step-daughter, a nice home,a nice car herself,a successful medical practice, is active in a number of charitable organizations,is a respected member of our community, and I let her win [/b] she wins all our arguments.

She says she is happy because of her all hard work and her desire to be happy.
A "Supernatural Being that Rules This Universe" has nothing to do with it.

Whether we meet up together in some afterlife is not as important to us than cherishing the time we have here together now.

 

[scourge99]

What matters is not that you find that description on atheists.org convincing. It is simply a matter of whether or not such belief exists, and that people do self-identify in this way.

Just because some minority group defines atheism in a particular way doesn't make them some authority on atheism for everyone and definitions.

If a christian group claims that no one else except them are "true Christians" or the "one true church of Christ and god" it doesn't mean anyone else who identifies as a christian isn't correctly labeled as a Christian. That is analogous to the dumb argument you and Sangha are making.

Therefore you are over reaching when you say that atheism does not address to an afterlife. For some people, clearly it does.

Sure. And to some people being a Christian means that you must read the Bible literally otherwise you aren't a true christian.

Christians can both read the Bible literally, metaphorically, or anything in between and still be correctly labeled as a Christian. Likewise, atheists can have beliefs in the supernatural or disbelieve anything supernatural and still be considered atheists. Just because you have some people on the fringe who think themselves the authority on labeling doesn't mean they actually have a solid and consistent definition.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Just because some minority group defines atheism in a particular way doesn't make them some authority on atheism for everyone and definitions.

If a christian group claims that no one else except them are "true Christians" or the "one true church of Christ and god" it doesn't mean anyone else who identifies as a christian isn't correctly labeled as a Christian. That is analogous to the dumb argument you and Sangha are making.


Sure. And to some people being a Christian means that you must read the Bible literally otherwise you aren't a true christian.

Christians can both read the Bible literally, metaphorically, or anything in between and still be correctly labeled as a Christian. Likewise, atheists can have beliefs in the supernatural or disbelieve anything supernatural and still be considered atheists. Just because you have some people on the fringe who think themselves the authority on labeling doesn't mean they actually have a solid and consistent definition.

Scourge, talking with you is a lot like talking with a creationist about evolution, or an a evangelical about the historicity of Jesus. I get the feeling you don't want to have a discussion, you just have an axe to grind. You malign other atheists for not sharing your belief system, you are adamant, you are frantic, you are almost hysterical.

As someone who is concerned for your well being, I think you need to chill out a bit. It's not that serious one way or the other.

I am right about this. An atheist can believe that atheism speaks to the non existence of afterlife. You haven't got a monopoly on true "atheism" any more than those fundamentalist Christians you refer to have a monopoly on true "Christianity." Indeed, the only people who think they possess such monopolies, be they monopolies on atheism or on Christianity, or whatever, are the fundamentalists; the fanatics. These are the people who take devotion to their worldview to an unhealthy extreme.

You have a precise variety of atheism that is agnostic towards afterlife. I think that is a great worldview. Good for you! But other atheists go farther than this, and make truth-claims as to the nonexistence of afterlife. We have seen at least two examples in this very thread. And I acknowledge them as well. They are just as entitled to the word "atheist" as you are.

 

[scourge99]

Your point is incoherent.

That is only because you lack the intellectual capacity or honesty to actually address the gaping flaws in your position brought to light by others, including myself.

Several members have demonstrated where you are wrong and asked you clarify weaknesses in your position. Do you think that ignoring their statements and questions goes unnoticed?

You are also factually incorrect about Catholics.

Let me rephrase. The Catholic church will label others groups and denominations as "Christian". But the Catholic Church makes it no secret that they believe themselves the "one and only true church of Christ".

Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - International - Catholic Online
Roman Catholic - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostolic church of Christ, while other Christian Orthodox and Protestant denominations that “suffer from defects” share elements of “sanctification and of truth,” said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church.

...

The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves " Catholics " for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church ", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation " because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals.

 

[scourge99]

Scourge, talking with you is a lot like talking with a creationist about evolution, or an a evangelical about the historicity of Jesus.

The only thing sad about this whole discussion is that you can't go more than a few posts without making some amateurish comment about a poster's personal motivations. You've turned into a troll. Perhaps you should try leaving out all the personal comments and focus on the arguments rather than the poster? THat includes making silly statements that you know what others are privately thinking and privately motivates them.

I get the feeling you don't want to have a discussion, you just have an axe to grind.

The only axe i have to grind is with trolls who constantly make comments and accusations about posters rather than addressing their arguments.

you are adamant, you are frantic, you are almost hysterical.

This is an example of you being a troll. You completely ignore the arguments and make personal accusations.

As someone who is concerned for your well being...

Do you think anyone buys your feigned concern?

The only thing I'm concerned about is that you actually address others arguments. You seem incapable of doing so for more than a few minutes at a time.

I am right about this. An atheist can believe that atheism speaks to the non existence of afterlife.

Sure. And a Christian can believe that no one but his sect is a Christian. It doesn't mean either has a good definition.

You haven't got a monopoly on true "atheism" any more than those fundamentalist Christians you refer to have a monopoly on true "Christianity."

I don't claim to have a monopoly on definitions. I claim that my definition is the most coherent, consistent, and useful as it covers all beliefs within the dichotomy of theism/atheism whereas others do not.

But other atheists go farther than this, and make truth-claims as to the nonexistence of afterlife.

Yes i agree. Some atheists believe that leprechauns exist or that aliens have visited earth. Nothing about such beliefs have anything to do with the term atheism.

 

[sangha]

...Sure. And a Christian can believe that no one but his sect is a Christian. It doesn't mean either has a good definition....



I don't claim to have a monopoly on definitions....Some atheists believe that leprechauns exist or that aliens have visited earth. Nothing about such beliefs have anything to do with the term atheism.

And the funniest thing about this is that he thinks he is being consistent. He truly, and sincerely believes it.

 

[Tucker Case]

Atheists.org disagree with that definition

American Atheists | atheism

And why would I care what they get wrong?

 

[Tucker Case]

That isn't true, most schools of Buddhism recognize many deities. Buddhism usually incorporates the folk deities of the culture to some extent, and also venerates some types of bodhisattvas that can only be compared to demigods. You may be thinking of a few school, such as Chan, which are more agnostic towards folk-deities, but this agnosticism is not so much a tenet of the religion as a pragmatic ambivalence. These schools consider beliefs about deities to get in the way of enlightenment.

Buddism, in and of itself, is consdiered atheistic since it has no diety. Remember, I said the religion is atheistic. Not the practitioners. There's a difference.

What you are talking about is secondary beliefs that are adopted by certain sects of buddhism. Buddism is a fluid religion, which is compatible with any number of secondary beliefs.

The religion is atheistsic, while practitioners are not required to be atheists themselves.

 

[sangha]

And why would I care what they get wrong?

If you're going to disregard the facts, why should I care about what you care about?

 

[sangha]

Buddism, in and of itself, is consdiered atheistic since it has no diety. Remember, I said the religion is atheistic. Not the practitioners. There's a difference.

What you are talking about is secondary beliefs that are adopted by certain sects of buddhism. Buddism is a fluid religion, which is compatible with any number of secondary beliefs.

The religion is atheistsic, while practitioners are not required to be atheists themselves.

No, Buddhism is not atheistic. It does not require a non-belief in God. Buddhism is non-theistic because it neither requires nor prohibits a belief in God and is explicit about this position. Atheism, in contrast to Buddhism, PROHIBITS a belief in God, by any definition of the word "atheism"

 

[The Rev Kros]

The discussion on what atheism is confuses me. Atheism is the state of not being convinced in a supernatural deity. Atheism has always existed. Everyone is born an atheist. They have to be convinced, either by their own ignorance or the persuasion of others, that a supernatural force influences our natural realm.

A person can believe anything they want to, but the term atheist is pretty cut and dry: Lack of belief in a deity. It is the direct opposite of a theist. It is "a-theist". Any appending to this definition creates something different.

 

[scourge99]

And the funniest thing about this is that he thinks he is being consistent. He truly, and sincerely believes it.

let me know when you actually have an argument to support your position. Perhaps then we can continue the debate.

 

[Tucker Case]

If you're going to disregard the facts, why should I care about what you care about?

What is it that you imagine to be a fact that I have disregarded here?

 

[Tucker Case]

No, Buddhism is not atheistic. It does not require a non-belief in God. Buddhism is non-theistic because it neither requires nor prohibits a belief in God and is explicit about this position.

rof the prefix a- means an absence of, just as the prefix non- does.

religions can be atheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic.