your religion, do you believe in god?

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:05:39

thephan wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I consider myself pretty strong on civil liberties, and a pretty strong advocate of non-establishment. But I fail to see what harm a national day of prayer does to anyone.

The fervent confusion between freedom OF religion VS the much touted freedom FROM religion.

...

The First Amendment only says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This segments State from establishing church, ala Church of England and the sway of the Roman empire that was recently and historically ruling Europe as the Roman Catholic Church.

I would argue that a national day of prayer constitutes an establishment of religion. That it does not establish a specific religion is immaterial.

As to the harm done, it would result in lost productivity.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:07:01

phatj wrote:
thephan wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I consider myself pretty strong on civil liberties, and a pretty strong advocate of non-establishment. But I fail to see what harm a national day of prayer does to anyone.

The fervent confusion between freedom OF religion VS the much touted freedom FROM religion.

...

The First Amendment only says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This segments State from establishing church, ala Church of England and the sway of the Roman empire that was recently and historically ruling Europe as the Roman Catholic Church.

I would argue that a national day of prayer constitutes an establishment of religion. That it does not establish a specific religion is immaterial.

As to the harm done, it would result in lost productivity.

Right, freedom of and freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. The "no freedom from religion" talking point is another one that needs to be murdered in cold violence as well.

by **jamiethekiller** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:07:02

Houshphandzadeh wrote:human centipede

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:09:51

CrashburnAlley wrote:
phatj wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:No, no relation. And holy $#@! is it annoying to hear yahoos say that atheism is a religion. ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF AN EXISTENCE OF GOD. That's it. Anything else is on the person, since there is no atheist bureaucracy a la the Catholic Church and there is no holy book (although many atheists do swear by The God Delusion).

"atheists r relijus 2" may be my least favorite talking point ever.

What's the evidence that God doesn't exist?

None is needed. The burden of proof isn't on atheists.

If I told you an invisible mutant bunny lived under the sink in my kitchen, you probably wouldn't believe me. In fact, you'd probably go so far as to say that I'm lying -- that said rabbit does not exist.

So would you have the burden of proof here -- to prove that this invisible mutant bunny does not exist?

At any rate, an atheist failing to prove that God doesn't exist wouldn't make the atheist "religious".

Oh, balls.

Theists assert God exists. They attempt to support this assertion in various ways.

Atheists assert that God does not exist. Where's the evidence for this assertion?

by **Woody** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:11:34

What in the Sam Harris is going on around here

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:23:56

I have the feeling phatj might have a Wikipedia link or two heading his way

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:34:41

I can't wait.

Here's the thing. There's a difference between not believing in god, and believing that God doesn't exist.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40:20

There's no need to assert that God doesn't exist. Here's how it goes:

Theist says: God exists bro
Atheist says: Evidence pl0xz!!111!
Theist says: *shrugs shoulders*
Atheist says: *cue FF7 victory music*

There is no need for atheism to be an active belief system. It is simply a rebuttal of theism. Atheism, of course, cannot exist without theism, amirite?

You would certainly not consider yourself atheistic about that mutant bunny under my sink; you don't actively espouse your atheism re: mutant bunnies.

TL;DR version: atheism is reactive, not proactive. Thus, no need for evidence since it is not a positive claim.

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:45:14

CrashburnAlley wrote:There's no need to assert that God doesn't exist. Here's how it goes:

Theist says: God exists bro
Atheist says: Evidence pl0xz!!111!
Theist says: *shrugs shoulders*
Atheist says: *cue FF7 victory music*

There is no need for atheism to be an active belief system. It is simply a rebuttal of theism. Atheism, of course, cannot exist without theism, amirite?

You would certainly not consider yourself atheistic about that mutant bunny under my sink; you don't actively espouse your atheism re: mutant bunnies.

TL;DR version: atheism is reactive, not proactive. Thus, no need for evidence since it is not a positive claim.

English please?

I disagree. You can ask a theist for evidence to support his claim that god exists, and not accept the evidence given, without being atheist. Atheism is active, not passive.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:48:27

I'll assume it was the Internet gibberish you didn't follow. I'm trying to be witty!

pl0x = obnoxious misspelling of plz; plz = please; exclamation points are obnoxious and the 1's are a mockery of when someone gets excited and lets go of the shift key early, thus a trail of !'s become 1's.

FF7 = Final Fantasy 7, a popular RPG video game that is well-known for its music

amirite = am i right?

TL;DR = Too long; didn't read

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:50:29

See my edit.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:57:06

Right, but an atheist does that for ALL postulated gods. Of course, I am speaking for my brand of atheism. There are some active atheists who will state definitively "there is no god". When they do that, they do incur the burden of proof.

My atheism is such that I see no reason to be theistic until given ample evidence, so atheism is the default position. Sort of like how a light switch is off until you flip the switch.

Atheism, broken down, is the prefix a- meaning without, and theism meaning belief in God. I don't have to actively say "God does not exist" to not have belief in God. I can simply not have seen any reason to believe in God. It's hard for a lot of people to grasp this because believing in God is such a common concept that it seems like an atheist would have no other position than to actively deny God's existence.

However, if you are a Christian, you passively deny thousands of Gods as well whether they are Hindu or Greek or Roman. Does a Christian have the burden of proving the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or disproving the existence of Hindu, Roman, and Greek Gods? If a Christian doesn't, than neither should an atheist. (And they don't.)

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:03:35

There's a brand of atheism out there that goes simply an individual holding the belief that there is no divine entity in the universe.

However, many atheist go beyond the belief in a factual proposition and make an ethical claim that says no one is entitled to the belief in a divine entity because of the evidence against that belief. That is the proselytizing move that has entered this conversation.

But it's an odd move to make. From the perspective of a theist, it's a self-contradicting argument. It begins with a skeptical premise, but must end in a positive assertion (thou shalt not believe) and thus the conclusion.

1. Thou shalt not believe things which one lacks sufficient evidence.
2. Thou lacks sufficient evidence for the existence of the God of Abraham.
3. Conclusion: Thou shalt not believe in the God of Abraham.

However, not believing is still a belief. So we're back at the beginning.

As an aside, it is interesting that most accounts of atheism I'm aware of are based on rejecting the existence of the God of Abraham as if the Abrahamic tradition was the only spiritual tradition in existence.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:04:48

Isn't it a logical contradiction for a lack of belief to be a belief? I can't quite wrap my mind around that one.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:08:30

CrashburnAlley wrote:Isn't it a logical contradiction for a lack of belief to be a belief? I can't quite wrap my mind around that one.

No, a lack of a belief is still a belief. That is, since I'm not talking about indifference to the issue at hand, I'm talking about two beliefs. If I say I don't believe in a heliocentric solar system I'm still stating a belief.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:13:16

It might be better stated, then, as "I don't believe that God can exist." In other words, the active atheism I described above. It's a bit of semantics but the wording is crucial.

EDITED (a couple times) for clarity.

And for further clarity, whenever I write God, I am using God in the most general sense: a supernatural being; not referring to any specific religion.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:16:44

Isn't your passive atheism just a different way of saying agnostic? If you don't believe god exists, but aren't willing to state that definitively because Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid the burden of proof falls on you, you're open to the existence of a higher power.

And your atheism, or however you want to term your religious worldview, isn't passive in another sense of the word. You're annoying and attack religion all the time.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:21:19

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't your passive atheism just a different way of saying agnostic? If you don't believe god exists, but aren't willing to state that definitively because Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid the burden of proof falls on you, you're open to the existence of a higher power.

And your atheism, or however you want to term your religious worldview, isn't passive in another sense of the word. You're annoying and attack religion all the time.

Atheism and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive. Gnosticism refers to knowledge; theism refers to belief in God, and of course you know what the prefix means. So I would say that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't think that, given the knowledge we have, that it is possible to prove either way that God does or does not exist, but I see no reason to believe in God until I see evidence that God exists.

And your description of my treatment of religion is correct. My atheism is passive; my treatment of religion is not.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:31:31

I think atheism is stronger in its rejection of belief in a higher power than you are making it out to be. Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing, and I think they sort of are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is saying we can't know if god exists or not. Atheism says god doesn't exist.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:33:48

Why are you putting the burden of proof on Crash when you wouldn't put it on anyone who does profess a religion or belief in a god?

Archived

your religion, do you believe in god?

what religion are you?

Quick Reply