• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

happy or athiest

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



​
 
sangha said:
And I've posted a link to atheists.org which directly refutes his doctrinaire position.
Click to expand...

I am perplexed by the whole thing. He and scourge seem so upset that there are different types of atheists out there.
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
Atheists.org disagree with that definition

American Atheists | atheism
Click to expand...

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.
 
scourge99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not what the Vatican website would say. Catholics don't believe that only Catholics are Christian.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I am perplexed by the whole thing. He and scourge seem so upset that there are different types of atheists out there.
Click to expand...

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 said:
You realize that this is one of the worst arguments you could have presented, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Guy Incognito said:
Therefore you are over reaching when you say that atheism does not address to an afterlife. For some people, clearly it does.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Your point is incoherent.
Click to expand...
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?

Guy Incognito said:
You are also factually incorrect about Catholics.
Click to expand...

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



 
Guy Incognito said:
Scourge, talking with you is a lot like talking with a creationist about evolution, or an a evangelical about the historicity of Jesus.
Click to expand...

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.

Guy Incognito said:
I get the feeling you don't want to have a discussion, you just have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
The only axe i have to grind is with trolls who constantly make comments and accusations about posters rather than addressing their arguments.

Guy Incognito said:
you are adamant, you are frantic, you are almost hysterical.
Click to expand...
This is an example of you being a troll. You completely ignore the arguments and make personal accusations.

Guy Incognito said:
As someone who is concerned for your well being...
Click to expand...
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.


Guy Incognito said:
I am right about this. An atheist can believe that atheism speaks to the non existence of afterlife.
Click to expand...
Sure. And a Christian can believe that no one but his sect is a Christian. It doesn't mean either has a good definition.

Guy Incognito said:
You haven't got a monopoly on true "atheism" any more than those fundamentalist Christians you refer to have a monopoly on true "Christianity."
Click to expand...

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.

Guy Incognito said:
But other atheists go farther than this, and make truth-claims as to the nonexistence of afterlife.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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

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 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.
 
sangha said:
And the funniest thing about this is that he thinks he is being consistent. He truly, and sincerely believes it.
Click to expand...

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

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

religions can be atheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…