An argument we are having at work...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

But back to the point: athiesm is not a religion, and athiesm is not a belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I'm not so sure. At the core of Atheism is the statement: there is no god. I would think this is what separates atheists from agnostics, ambivalents, and the undecided.

Can you actually prove that there is no god? Since you can't prove a negative, wouldn't that mean that you have to beleive it to be true?

[Jellby]

A religion is not just a belief. It's a set of beliefs, plus rituals, plus culture...

It can be argued that atheists believe that there is no god (it depends on how you define "atheism", and there will always be people who talk about "strong" and "weak" atheism, etc.). But even if it is a belief with no possible proof, it does not lead to any common behaviour, rituals, or whatever. It takes more than a belief to make a religion.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Nearly everybody I know is an athiest and they all have completely unique beliefs, values, and attitudes. You cannot define a group of people by something they don't believe. It's nonsensical. You can group people (however crudely or stereotypically) by a belief or set of common values they do hold (such as a religion). Any group of Christians will have similar beliefs and values (by definition). Any group of athiests could be as diverse as any group of people selected at random from the world's population. You can not determine anything about an athiest based on their athiesm. You can determine quite a lot about a Christian based on their religion (e.g. they believe in God, believe in Jesus, probably have Christian parents, probably live in a 'western' country, etc.)




That's true, but you can't compare a group that has no defining characteristics with a group this is defined quite specifically by a set of beliefs and values.



Fair or not, caricatures of relgious groups are based on reality, regardless of how distorted or selective they are. You can't create a caricature of athiests because you cannot define a group by a belief they don't have. By all means think of a way to caricature people who don't believe I'm wearing green socks or people who don't collect stamps or who don't believe there is a magic teapot orbiting the sun.

I don't defend such caricatures. The fact that you're trying to draw parallels between athiesm and religion hints that you don't know the difference.

But back to the point: athiesm is not a religion, and athiesm is not a belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Oh, now I see! You're right and everybody else is wrong. This seems to be the recurring theme in atheism-promoting conversation.

Good luck with your continuing evangelization!

- Ahi

[ahammer]

Athiesm is excluded from that definition of religion by the first three words:

Athiesm is a lack of belief in deities. Simple as that. Athiesm is not the belief in the absence of deities.

so what you are saying that a athiesth can know there is no god.. unless they can is it still a belief. (and if ether side can prove themself right with no way to disprove it then there would be no other reiligions)

the only way that athiesm can come up as lack of belief in god is for the person to have never incountered a person that believes in a god(s).(I think you will find no one on this world that has not) else they must chose to say that "I belief there is no god" to be a athiest.

Athiesm is as much a religion as not believing in magic slippers is a religion.

How is athiesm any different to not believing in walking trees? Would you assert that everything everyone doesn't believe in forms a religion?

this is a moot point as they do not expen how the world began.
Athiesm does try to explan this point. that is why it is a religion and said "magic slippers" is not

Even the (completely wrong) definition of athiesm as a belief in the absence of deities doesn't qualify it as a religion any more than 'belief in God' is a religion in and of itself.

Let's look at that definition:

This excludes athiesm as a religion. There is no set of beliefs or practices agreed upon by athiests.

athiests do have a set of beliefs they all hold
that man was made thru natual meens.
that the universe was made thru natual meens.

None of those include athiesm either.

That last point relies on there being some kind of 'athiest ethics' that all athiests agree on, which there isn't.

tell me when you look up words do they have to meet all the diffrent useage
becuse if so there are a lot of word that must confuse you.


im also of the belief right now nothing I say will let you see my point and yet still I try hmmm.

I think our big issue here is there is not realy a set diff on what a religion is.
we each have diffrent veiws on how it sould be defined.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Jellby

A religion is not just a belief. It's a set of beliefs, plus rituals, plus culture...

It can be argued that atheists believe that there is no god (it depends on how you define "atheism", and there will always be people who talk about "strong" and "weak" atheism, etc.). But even if it is a belief with no possible proof, it does not lead to any common behaviour, rituals, or whatever. It takes more than a belief to make a religion.

Yeah... like countless people sharing said belief purposefully misusing words and mischaracterizing other beliefs in so exactly the same damn way as to lead incautious observers to question whether they even have minds of their own.

If anybody sees me post again on this topic, please tell me to stop... I am utterly unable to take certain brands of atheists* any more seriously than lunatic fundamentalist christians**... which makes for pointless discourse more than anything else.

My apologies to anyone that may be (or have been) offended by my views on this topic.

- Ahi

* On most topics of religion.
** On certain topics of science.

[pdurrant]

If people would like to discuss atheism, religion, etc. Could they please start a thread in the lounge so that the rest of us can avoid it easily? Thanks.

(I've spent too much time in sort this discussion to think that either side will hear the other. So I've stopped taking part. Mostly.)

[ahammer]

I think our big issue here is there is not realy a set diff on what a religion is.
we each have diffrent veiws on how it sould be defined.

wanted to expand on this point.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition

Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes, principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural.

[wayspooled]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

If people would like to discuss atheism, religion, etc. Could they please start a thread in the lounge so that the rest of us can avoid it easily? Thanks.

cheers to that.

[astra]

Some things are weird. If they don't fit into reality of sci-fi/fantasy story, it is wrong.
Like the other day I read The Dark Elf Trilogy (Homeland + Exile + Sojourn) by R. A. Salvatore.
Drizzt's friend Belwar fared pretty well despite the loss of his hands. He now bears an enchanted weapon on each stump, one a pickaxe and one a hammer. How on the earth does he cook/eat/go to toilet?

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by astra

Some things are weird. If they don't fit into reality of sci-fi/fantasy story, it is wrong.
Like the other day I read The Dark Elf Trilogy (Homeland + Exile + Sojourn) by R. A. Salvatore.
Drizzt's friend Belwar fared pretty well despite the loss of his hands. He now bears an enchanted weapon on each stump, one a pickaxe and one a hammer. How on the earth does he cook/eat/go to toilet?

thats a good point.

storys can be good and be wrong but they tend to less of a good the story when they are .

[ahi]

Originally Posted by astra

Some things are weird. If they don't fit into reality of sci-fi/fantasy story, it is wrong.
Like the other day I read The Dark Elf Trilogy (Homeland + Exile + Sojourn) by R. A. Salvatore.
Drizzt's friend Belwar fared pretty well despite the loss of his hands. He now bears an enchanted weapon on each stump, one a pickaxe and one a hammer. How on the earth does he cook/eat/go to toilet?

Or make sweet sweet love!

Though one possible answer does occur to all of your questions:

Very VERY carefully!

[astra]

Originally Posted by ahi

Or make sweet sweet love!

Though one possible answer does occur to all of your questions:

Very VERY carefully!

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I was talking with some co-workers (one of whom does not read for fun) about a current book I am reading, and a problem I am having with it. Basically, I feel that the book does not make any sense. The two main characters get transported to the future, where there is a highly advanced technological utopia-esque society. Yet the entire world (except for a portion of mid-town Manhattan) has been rendered uninhabitable by nuclear war and other catastrophes. There are literally no people living anywhere else.

So, after pages of a parade of cool new technology including some special bathtubs, I started wondering how a society as 'large' as mid-town Manhattan would be able to sustain the manufacturing and agricultural infrastructure to support such things. It just did not make sense to me. If Manhattan was all you had to work with, you'd lose a lot of useable space just growing food to support the people, never mind manufacture the special bathtubs. It just defied logic that the society portrayed in the book could exist.

And he told me that it's all pretend anyway so it doesn't have to make sense. I say fiction or not, it still has to make sense and if there is some special explanation for something illogical, they need to clue the reader in. So, what do you think...it's all pretend so who cares, or I am right to demand an explanation.

Haven't read any of this thread except this post, so this is all my reply relates to.

I saw a really interesting special on green architecture recently. There are now designs for workable highrise no-soil "fields." The crops actually grow in this substrate, and they can pack several acres of substrate into each level of a highrise. Same thing for manufacturing ... if you put your manufacturing, and living space into a tall enough building, you can have a fairly healthy community in a really small space.

I will have to find a link (if there is one) to the substrate farming buildings. Oddly, if I recall correctly, they were planning one for New York.

Oh, here, I found the link to an article by Cory Doctorow. It's actually called "Vertical Farming." http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/24...rming-hig.html

[DixieGal]

Tiim messes around with that sort of farming in our back yard. He grows amazingly yummy hydroonic cucumbers, just don't look at the disgusting growing liquid and it will be fine. He grows veggies in a mix of shredded paper from work that is mixed with compost (gotta have something to fluff up the paper, or else it becomes paper mache). The paper shreds dissolve quickly, so he has to keep top-dressing the beds with more. Having seen all of this, it seems like it would be super easy to feed a city with a high rise building full of growing flats.

BTW, vegetable beds dressed with shredded copier paper look lovely - like they are growing in snow!

[Patricia]

I'm really curious to know the author and title of the original book that started this discussion.