I could point out that Whilst religion is a belief system Not all belief systems are religions
A belief system of the Harris atheist kind is definitely NOT a religion, but some atheists are pretty religious about it. They're as bad as theists in my book. The problem is the basis in faith, not the object of faith. But I wouldn't want to spoil your missionary fun ;-) Can you ping a link to that forum ? Ian On 5/6/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Allright, so I get a little bored sometimes, and sometimes it is fun to > whine at random internet people, and while it usually don't result in much > amusement I think you all will find at least the last reply of this huy > quite amusing and perhaps you will feel that you have heard this somewhere > before.. =D > > (I pointed out that Atheism is a belief system i.e a religion) > > [Random Guy:] > Is it recognized that atheism is a religion? Really? By whom? > > You're way off, mate. Atheism is NOT a religion, by definition it's just > that: a desbelief in the existence of deity. How is THAT a religion? Because > disbelief is also a belief? That's ridiculous, nothing more than word play. > > [Me] > It is not word play, but rather the most basic philosophy. One must start > with a metaphysical assumption in any case, and metaphysical assumptions can > only be proved by other metaphysical assumptions - but no matter: > > Atheism may not be an organized religion in the scale of Christianity or > Islam say, but as you say Atheism has a core belief - That there is no god > or anything like that - and this core BELIEF then links up with other > assumptions that follows from it: the most predominant one being that there > is an objective reality (or for that matter a subjective one) all of which > is beliefs, and banded together they constitute a frame of reference of the > world that is in essence no different in nature to religious views - both > are systems with which to categorize and handle the experiences that people > have. > > [Random Guy] > ALL different in nature to religious views. Atheism is involved with science > (though by now I think you might think science "is a form or religion" too). > Anyway, if you're not sure that there is an objective reality and that there > is a systematic method to find out approximate truths of this reality, > called the scientific method, I suggest you jump out of a 50th floor, see if > gravity is just a belief pretty much like religious ones. Who knows, maybe > after the thump you'll wake up in an even wealthier country. Or you can test > Ohm's law with your own body if you happen to have a pair of electrodes. It > won't be so traumatic in the first low-voltage trials. > > Anyway, it's all the more ridiculous since you DO lead your everyday life > under the assumption that there is an objective reality. > > > [Me, amused] > Haha, I've heard this argument a million times. It's always the same. "But > science can be proven!" - sure it can: within it's own realm. There is > absolutely no denying that science is based on metaphysical assumptions > however: and as for those "jump down a building and see what happens" kind > of "arguments" they are really just noise in the wind. It doesn't prove an > objective reality in any way: in truth you can't any way you try - because > the concept of an objective reality is a metaphysical assumption, and to > prove it you have to use the tools that that metaphysical assumption hands > you. To simplify: first you say that the world is made up of A, then you > prove this by using the tool AB. The problem is that this tool must be based > on A to work, and thus A can't be proven. > > So, if someone says that the world actually consists of 1 and then tries to > prove this with the tool 1.2 - you are really doing the same thing. > > (and to overly simplify A = There is an objective reality and 1 = God is the > originator of our reality) > > > So it's all beliefs you see: what it comes down to is perhaps what belief is > the most useful one: but then again if within the realm of assumption E > there is no value in this kind of usefulness. > > > [Random Guy] > Anyhow, I put it this way: in your GUT you know that it'd still be stupid to > jump off that building. And you don't dip your finger in boiled water > because you KNOW you'll get burned, every time you do it. That's a pattern, > but you choose to label that "A" as a metaphysical belief. Science is based > on this kind of patterns and therefore it is as real as anything can get. > But if you think this is all assumptions without basis, you may as well live > in a nut house. > > > - here I would enter and say: QUALITY. But I'm tired of missionary work and > have work to do. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
