A World Without A Religion?

kasm · January 24, 2007

1. It argues from the assumption that a belief is simply something you can choose, like choosing a stock you hope to get rich from. Related to this point, since you can not choose a belief, a "chosen" belief can't be a legitimate belief, and no all knowing creator is going to get duped by a believer who merely believes because he knows it would give him access to the riches of heaven.

Even it is not the issue here but belief is a choice by believer. They chose to believe in God and not to unbelief in Him. They chose in one belief and not in another. Every action for us is either our choice or we enforced to do that. You choose to go bed or continue awake. You choose to eat or not to eat. You choose to obey the law and rules or not. Arabs Moslem's when they conquered many places they gave people choice between entering in Islam or to be killed. They give our Egyptian ancestors a special treatment. They added one extra choice, either to Convert to Islam or Pay a big amount of money or to be killed. I think my ancestor were rich and they paid for their survival.

2. It argues from the assumption that the creator is specifically Christian.

I don't think anyone argue that the creator was Christian. Every believer know that the creation was long long time before Christianity.

You should really read up on your history. Nazism and Hitler's ascension, and policies had everything to do with religious fanaticism, which was used to rally and propagandize the public into wholeheartedly supporting his horrifying war atrocities. Crosses were painted on their planes and Hitler constantly talked of his work being the creators work, etc. etc.....

And that is probably the central reason that this was brought up, so your naming a few wars and saying those "weren't for religion reasons" misses the point. Religion facilitates extremism, opens up crowds to people and policies that try to align themselves with that religion and helps persuade people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. Like support war.

As far as British Colonies, one of their main objectives was to culture and christianize the lands they conquered.

I know lot of history. Also I use logic , reason and effect frequently. When we say that war was for a religion reason, it mean that they went to war for enforcing a religion or spread it, or for defending something related to the religion. I don't know that happened except in in two occasions[you can remind us with any other] :

First was the Arabic invasion from Arab Venezuela to North Africa, Asia and South Europe to spread Islam by the sward.[Please don't argue that fact otherwise tell us how and why Arabs went there].

Second was the crusade war to protect the Christian objects in Philistine. But everyone knows why Hitler went to war and occupied territories under Christianity.

If Hitler used a symbol which is that funny sort of crosses it does not not mean he went to these countries to make them Christian. The British, Greek, Sweden and other Countries have a Cross in their flags. If Hitler acted against the Jews it was for two reasons :

First because as they consider themselves the chosen and selective nation which contradict Hitler's Nazism [ i.e the German National Distinction].

Second because Hitler has found from Jews, blackmails awarded by promised their own land by Britain in the Philistine.[belfry's Promise]. So you confuse CAUSE with Effects.

AS saying the Britain colony was for spread Christianity is wrong it was not. It was fight and competition between France and Britain. Both of them are Christian. Britain was in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Emirates, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and people there were not converted to Christianity. France was in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania and people there weren't converted to Christianity. But that doesn't mean the ministries and Churches found a way to invite some to Christianity or spread the Christian Culture through hospitals and schools. This called EFFECT. So you are again confuse CAUSE with EFFECTS.

I am Australian since 20 years and know that Britain came to Australia mainly to bring crowded criminal to there. Moreover it was lest France took it first since French Navy was around.

And Thomas Jefferson never affiliated himself with any religion, but he was not an atheist. At the least, he was a deist...

It doesn't matter what he was believe?. Many people aren't speak about their belief including me. I only speak about that in this Forum only and without verses or extreme.

caos dreamer · January 24, 2007

iam a christ on the paper but for myself i dont have any belief and iam living fine with it. i think i have my own way to come along with everything and i dont think religion is bad or should be abolished. i mean if it helps people to manage their life its okay but i was fine with managing my life by myself so far

glenstein · January 25, 2007

Even it is not the issue here but belief is a choice by believer. They chose to believe in God and not to unbelief in Him. They chose in one belief and not in another. Every action for us is either our choice or we enforced to do that. You choose to go bed or continue awake. You choose to eat or not to eat. You choose to obey the law and rules or not.

That is false in the completest possible sense. If you believe something is factually true, there is no choice about it. Truth has no equally valid alternative that you can just flippantly decide to replace it with. There is no choice about what you observe to be true.

You can't "choose" that a color you see in front of you is red and you can't "choose" whether a god you observe and feel to be real exists. You can't "choose" to not be hungry and you can't "choose" not to be tired, even if when you eat and sleep are determined by you.

There are facts of reality coming at you from every direction and you can't "choose" things into and out of existence. Thus, if someone actually truly believes based on their experience in the real world that there is a god, then god is there, you believe, and there is no "choice" about it.

Even if, supposing hypothetically a belief were a choice, its fundamentally different in nature from just telling an atheist they should choose to "believe" just to be on the safe side (which was your point #1 in response to the atheist). There is no legitimacy in a non-believer believing in god, just in case. Thus, you have no argument when you hint that an atheist should switch over because "what if you are wrong"?

I don't think anyone argue that the creator was Christian. Every believer know that the creation was long long time before Christianity.

Unfortunately, this misses the point. Insofar as a Christian thinks the argument is valid for believing in Christianity, they are wrong (and regardless of whether you are going to admit it, the Christian specific argument is unmistakably relevant and applicable because this point is argued by Christians, and everyone arguing it intends to prove their religion, most commonly Christianity, right).

The same goes for any other religion."Just in case" doesn't help anyone know whether they should be believing christianity or judaism or perhaps believing in some as yet unknowable deity). Believing "just in case" is still a useless argument because there is no way to know what to believe in.

I know lot of history. Also I use logic , reason and effect frequently. When we say that war was for a religion reason, it mean that they went to war for enforcing a religion or spread it, or for defending something related to the religion.

You changed the subject. I will show you where you did this.

I know lot of history. Also I use logic , reason and effect frequently. [Here]When we say that war was for a religion reason[/here], it mean that they went to war for enforcing a religion or spread it, or for defending something related to the religion.

Between those two "Here" tags is where you changed the subject. Religion can be a negative component of war. Religion can help make war happen. There could have been 1000 wars that weren't about religion but that were nonetheless facilitated by religious extremism. And Hitler, (which you denied but were proven wrong about) is a perfect example. As I said in my still unanswered quote:

Religion facilitates extremism, opens up crowds to people and policies that try to align themselves with that religion and helps persuade people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. Like support war.

It doesn't have to be the central cause of the war itself. This is the point you are ignoring. It's a perfectly valid argument about the potential vices of religion.

I could go on, but this is too obvious to have to explain, so I'll stop here for now.

Edited January 25, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

kasm · January 25, 2007

That is false in the completest possible sense. If you believe something is factually true, there is no choice about it. Truth has no equally valid alternative that you can just flippantly decide to replace it with. There is no choice about what you observe to be true

....

There could have been 1000 wars that weren't about religion but that were nonetheless facilitated by religious extremism. And Hitler, (which you denied but were proven wrong about) is a perfect example. As I said in my still unanswered quote:

It doesn't have to be the central cause of the war itself. This is the point you are ignoring. It's a perfectly valid argument about the potential vices of religion.

I could go on, but this is too obvious to have to explain, so I'll stop here for now.

I think the disscusion withglenstein is going in cycle. This is my opinions:

1. Beliefs is different than Facts that why we call it "belief".

2. Choice is in any action or event. Any action is happened either by choice or was enforced to be done. Belif is a choice i.e you believe in something or not. to believe in your own theory or other's theory and reject the others. To believe in Darwinism or not.

3, I don't suggest to the Athesist that he is to beleve as a safe matter. I speak about my status and answer their claim. I said I believe for many rerason [whetever right or wrong] and if I was wrong as they claim I don't loose anyhing. If I was right then it is OK that I did.

4. We all know except the wars to spread Islam or of Crusade, were wars for Economic reasons and Colonisations was for Economic benefits either directly or to secure path to the main points [e.g Suez Canal, Temperory ports to way to the End points e.g occupation of part of Yemen to the way to India]

glenstein · January 25, 2007

I think the disscusion withglenstein is going in cycle. This is my opinions:

1. Beliefs is different than Facts that why we call it "belief".

2. Choice is in any action or event. Any action is happened either by choice or was enforced to be done. Belif is a choice i.e you believe in something or not. to believe in your own theory or other's theory and reject the others. To believe in Darwinism or not.

3, I don't suggest to the Athesist that he is to beleve as a safe matter. I speak about my status and answer their claim. I said I believe for many rerason [whetever right or wrong] and if I was wrong as they claim I don't loose anyhing. If I was right then it is OK that I did.

4. We all know except the wars to spread Islam or of Crusade, were wars for Economic reasons and Colonisations was for Economic benefits either directly or to secure path to the main points [e.g Suez Canal, Temperory ports to way to the End points e.g occupation of part of Yemen to the way to India]

I was probably being uncivil, but unfortunately there is not a ton of progress being made in this discussion so I'm bowing out now.

BooZker · January 25, 2007

3- Because it's not actually a religion?

Me and Truefusion agree that Atheism IS a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs. I bet me and you are both religious on murder. So, in this case, Atheism is a religion. If you have your own definition then i dont know. Some poeple mistake religion as a belief in a higher power. This is true, but it is not only this. Just as Albert Einstein used it. And people actually thought he was a believer in a higher power haha.

Awesome. The world would be a better place based on the votes from the 101 people so far. It came back! It was worse for awhile.
Edited January 25, 2007 by BooZker (see edit history)

glenstein · January 25, 2007

Me and Truefusion agree that Atheism IS a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs. I bet me and you are both religious on murder. So, in this case, Atheism is a religion. If you have your own definition then i dont know. Some poeple mistake religion as a belief in a higher power. This is true, but it is not only this. Just as Albert Einstein used it. And people actually thought he was a believer in a higher power haha.

Awesome. The world would be a better place based on the votes from the 101 people so far. It came back! It was worse for awhile.

As we all know what atheism is, atheism, it is only by semantic wrangling and hair splitting over "personal" definitions that anyone can come out saying atheism is a religion. I looked at dictionary.com and wikipedia. And google has this wonderful tool that scours for definitions all over the internet. Check it out. What do you notice about every single definition of religion, virtually without exception? There is the element of supernatural, god, of a deity. Of worship or faith in some sort of metaphysical phenomena. What is the god of atheism? Can that question be answered without saying something subjective and disputable like "belief"or "truth" or "science"? Any of those answers would be deeply subjective and fundamentally different, throwing up red flags by the dozens for how different such a "god" would be from a religious god. There is no holy prophet, no founding book, no supernatural creator, of atheism and in those respects (the only ones that seem to matter) and perhaps a small collection of others, atheism is distinguished from anything you or I would recognize as an actual religion (i.e. Judaism, Buddhism, etc.).

The definitions on the google link (which I strongly recommend anyone viewing takes a look at) represent what respected institutions have to say on this. Here is another resource for definitions from credible encyclopedias.

Also, no actual atheist would agree with this (and their voice, of all voices, in this particular discussion ought to have a significant amount of weight). Only religious people want to call atheism a religion, for various reasons, mostly to be able to say atheism has the same faults it accuses religion of having or to throw some other jab at it, for the larger purpose of reinforcing some religious stance.

Semantic disputes and personal, narrow interpretations only serve the purpose of evading the undeniable backdrop of common sense that tells us atheism is not a religion. If a belief is a religion global warming is a religion and trust in the earnestness of firefighters is a religion and the term religion loses any useful meaning.

If you redefine religion to be simply a "belief", that is, anything at all that anyone in existence beliefs about anything, that is one of the most radical revolutionary departures from any accepted definition I've ever heard of, and it probably disagrees with the accepted definitions used by most atheists, scientists, linguists, and religious people alike. For me, the merits of atheism matter more than whether, in the context of a certain debate when you look at things a certain way it can be classified as a religion. And once you get into those merits, it is opposed to conventional religions on every possible subject. Which kind of implies that it ought to be distinguished from religion.

Note: Calling religion a "set" of beliefs rather than a belief would run into the same issues raised above. There are many "sets" of beliefs (examples: How to define Southeast Asia, what it takes to be a better country singer etc. etc. etc.) and none of those are like religion either. If any set of beliefs is a religion, the term is so drastically expanded as to have no meaning, and if that umbrella happened to include atheism along with millions of other things, it wouldn't signify much.

Edited January 25, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

red flag · January 25, 2007

Very interesting topic...I voted Yes it would be a better place. If you look back at history, a lot of wars have been fought over religion and belief (The Crusades, Gaza and all that). Religion tends to cuase hatred and corruption between people. You should never mix religion and politics.

glenstein · January 26, 2007

Very interesting topic...I voted Yes it would be a better place. If you look back at history, a lot of wars have been fought over religion and belief (The Crusades, Gaza and all that). Religion tends to cuase hatred and corruption between people. You should never mix religion and politics.

Interesting that a user with the name red flag posts right after I used the word. Or at least I thought so. One of those coincidences...

truefusion · February 1, 2007

As we all know what atheism is, atheism, it is only by semantic wrangling and hair splitting over "personal" definitions that anyone can come out saying atheism is a religion. I looked at dictionary.com and wikipedia. And google has this wonderful tool that scours for definitions all over the internet. Check it out. What do you notice about every single definition of religion, virtually without exception? There is the element of supernatural, god, of a deity. Of worship or faith in some sort of metaphysical phenomena. What is the god of atheism? Can that question be answered without saying something subjective and disputable like "belief"or "truth" or "science"? Any of those answers would be deeply subjective and fundamentally different, throwing up red flags by the dozens for how different such a "god" would be from a religious god. There is no holy prophet, no founding book, no supernatural creator, of atheism and in those respects (the only ones that seem to matter) and perhaps a small collection of others, atheism is distinguished from anything you or I would recognize as an actual religion (i.e. Judaism, Buddhism, etc.).

The definitions on the google link (which I strongly recommend anyone viewing takes a look at) represent what respected institutions have to say on this. Here is another resource for definitions from credible encyclopedias.

Also, no actual atheist would agree with this (and their voice, of all voices, in this particular discussion ought to have a significant amount of weight). Only religious people want to call atheism a religion, for various reasons, mostly to be able to say atheism has the same faults it accuses religion of having or to throw some other jab at it, for the larger purpose of reinforcing some religious stance.

Semantic disputes and personal, narrow interpretations only serve the purpose of evading the undeniable backdrop of common sense that tells us atheism is not a religion. If a belief is a religion global warming is a religion and trust in the earnestness of firefighters is a religion and the term religion loses any useful meaning.

If you redefine religion to be simply a "belief", that is, anything at all that anyone in existence beliefs about anything, that is one of the most radical revolutionary departures from any accepted definition I've ever heard of, and it probably disagrees with the accepted definitions used by most atheists, scientists, linguists, and religious people alike. For me, the merits of atheism matter more than whether, in the context of a certain debate when you look at things a certain way it can be classified as a religion. And once you get into those merits, it is opposed to conventional religions on every possible subject. Which kind of implies that it ought to be distinguished from religion.

Note: Calling religion a "set" of beliefs rather than a belief would run into the same issues raised above. There are many "sets" of beliefs (examples: How to define Southeast Asia, what it takes to be a better country singer etc. etc. etc.) and none of those are like religion either. If any set of beliefs is a religion, the term is so drastically expanded as to have no meaning, and if that umbrella happened to include atheism along with millions of other things, it wouldn't signify much.

The most widely used definitions are placed on top. But to deny the other definitions and just consider the ones that mention the words "god" or "supernatural being", etc, is to be biased. And, in reality, everything comes down to belief. This may also come down to choice, 'cause we choose to believe things as a fact or not by what is presented to us.

Let's say a person is ignorant of all continents, countries, etc. You hand over a map that has names of countries that are not on the most widely used map of today, but does portray the world geographically correct. The person studies it and remembers everything on it. Because of what was presented to them the person will believe that this country is named [this] and that country [that], while disagreeing with everyone else.

I can make plenty of scenarios relative to what i have just mentioned.

glenstein · February 1, 2007

The most widely used definitions are placed on top. But to deny the other definitions and just consider the ones that mention the words "god" or "supernatural being", etc, is to be biased. And, in reality, everything comes down to belief. This may also come down to choice, 'cause we choose to believe things as a fact or not by what is presented to us.

Yeah, it's biased, but I don't always think bias is a bad or unimportant thing. Bias can reinforce the more significant points of consideration, or operate in the name of virtue in various other ways. Similarly with widely used definitions. You are right that belief is important, and widely used definitions are like a measurement on what people believe, and perhaps also a rough measurement of the critical reflection of our culture (or whatever forces) that lead for such a distinguishment to exist. Which, though imperfect, I think is significant. (EDIT: I would also add that the "other definition" you talk about was never mentioned at all in most every source listed, and when it is, it is rare and less emphasized for a reason. It is that much more biased to favor the obscure definition over the accepted one.)

And on your map example, I think I actually agree with you there. The person who made the map would use a different word but would be describing the same thing even if he believed he should call its contents different things. Which is why I think the words don't matter as much as the subject. That is, the names on the map aren't as important as the actual geography.

So, for my position, I don't think whether or not atheism is called a religion matters. Keeping with the map metaphor, I don't think it's a case of just referring to the same landmarks on a map by different names. That person who memorized the obscure map wouldn't disagree with anyone if they were discussing substance of the map, i.e., what country is what shape or how many miles from one country is from the next. They would agree on those things.

I think what I'm saying, is that you gave this guy a map with a land mark named "atheism" on it. I don't disagree with the title (or if I do it's not an important disagreement), but I disagree with the shape of the drawing. Atheism would be drawn one way, Religion would be drawn another. And they are actually totally different countries.

Edited February 11, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

BooZker · February 26, 2007

(EDIT: I would also add that the "other definition" you talk about was never mentioned at all in most every source listed, and when it is, it is rare and less emphasized for a reason. It is that much more biased to favor the obscure definition over the accepted one.

This is true. I would have to agree. It would be like the word dude. Most people agree that it is a friend or fellow person. Now if you made a topic and were to say "This one dude loves going fishing in his backyard because he lives in the forest" and i were to go, "How is this possible if a dude is someone who is a person reared in a large city?" It just makes things harder for people to understand and is not something which is unnecessary.

iGuest · January 17, 2008

I think that, well yeah, there may be less wars, but, I believe that everyone needs something to believe in, why should it matter what that belief, whether its one all true mighty, or its eight, everyone has the right to believe in something.-unknown