Got my tattoo today.

[ninjaaron]

 

with religions, the source of their morals comes from their belief in god... with various political and philosophical views the source of their morals is independent of their belief in god. I know it is hard for a theist to understand because morals and the belief in god are so closely linked... but for someone that does not believe in the supernatural, morals have nothing to do with this belief. My morals are also not linked to my disbelief in the evidence for leprechauns. You could not find a religious person who says that their morals have nothing to do with their belief in a god. Do you see where I am coming from and why there is a difference?

 

 

Not all religions dictate a moral code. They do dictated value systems, but any world-view does, including those than are based on atheism. Atheism, as we have all agreed over and over, does not constitute a complete world-view. However, everyone has a world-view, including atheists. They do not all have the same world-view, just as not all religious people have the same world-view, and I daresay all Christians do not have the same world-view. I was considering dating a Christian girl recently, but I decided against it because I thought our world-views were too different.

 

Religious people are no more homogeneous than Atheists. They are probably less so, if anything.

[ninjaaron]

also marxism is not a {censored}ty form of atheism. to say that would be to say marxism is a {censored}ty form of the disbelief in unicorns. the not believing of something based on lack of evidence does not link with any political view.... the belief in a god however does directly link with religion.

 

I didn't say it was a {censored}ty form of Atheism. I said it was a {censored}ty world-view based on atheism.

 

WE ALL KNOW THAT ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLD-VIEW DAMNIT!:facepalm:

 

And belief in a god is not a world-view either.

 

[edit]Crap. I did say that Marxism was a {censored}ty form of Atheism. That's not what I meant

 

I think this means I need to go to bed. G'night ya'll. I'll continue this tomorrow if I feel like it, which I probably won't, without any alcohol in my system.

[ninjaaron]

 

Something about my tattoo.

 

wait, nevermind.

[humancertainty]

God dammit. I came in here to read about the {censored}ing tattoo.

[ninjaaron]

There was something about the tattoo on the first page, I think.

[draelyc]

I don't care. I'm kinda ripping off Vanhoozer in my latest post. I usually post about Biblical studies, so don't expect too too much stuff about metaphysics and Theology. That's kinda my weak point (something I'm trying to work on). Of course, Biblical studies are supposed to fuel theology, so you may get inspired that way. Actually, that's sort of what I'm all about, doing biblical studies to serve the needs of the church.

 

Dig ~ I got that from reading through the first page. Just saying I think your work will be that much more interesting to me because I tend to come at the general subject from a slightly different angle, so it's a chance for me to learn, y'know? I'm just glad I have some cursory (undergrad) experience with linguistics so as to have at least a basic clue about where such studies are coming from.

 

In my denomination, fwiw, we have the cliche of the three-legged stool for understanding the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, and we hold that all three are needed or the Faith falls down. I'd say the academic study of Scripture definitely covers at least two of those legs...

[motzman13]

If you look at the major religions... there is a moral code that is based on their belief in god..

Atheism has absolutely no link to any moral code. personal philosophies do, but not atheism. You tried to equate the moral code of mao and stalin to atheism which is wrong. Their moral code is linked to their political and social philosophies. However the moral code of the major religions which is directly influenced by theism has led to interpretations(wrong or right) that has led to violence. So do you see how their is a link to violence from theism through the major religions who use theism to base their moral code which is interpreted to promote violence. And atheism which holds no moral code because it is just the rejection of and idea because of lack of evidence has no link to a moral code that has been interpreted to promote violence. The moral codes of atheists are based on various philosophies that are to be criticized for their role in violence, NOT ATHEISM.

[draelyc]

Then you're just selectively reading the Bible. :poke:

 

If, by "selectively," you mean "informedly" and "educatedly," then I'd wholeheartedly agree.

[draelyc]

 

also marxism is not a {censored}ty form of atheism. to say that would be to say marxism is a {censored}ty form of the disbelief in unicorns. the not believing of something based on lack of evidence does not link with any political view.... the belief in a god however does directly link with religion.

 

 

Nonsensical post is nonsensical. Your definitions ~ they do not line up accurately.

[motzman13]

 

Nonsensical post is nonsensical. Your definitions ~ they do not line up accurately.

 

 

lack of belief in any supernatural entity based on lack of evidence has no link to any moral code. Moral codes are ideas that are brought by the belief in something whether it is god or philosophy not the disbelief in the supernatural.

[draelyc]

If you look at the major religions... there is a moral code that is based on their belief in god.. Atheism has absolutely no link to any moral code. personal philosophies do, but not atheism. You tried to equate the moral code of mao and stalin to atheism which is wrong. Their moral code is linked to their political and social philosophies. However the moral code of the major religions which is directly influenced by theism has led to interpretations(wrong or right) that has led to violence. So do you see how their is a link to violence from theism through the major religions who use theism to base their moral code which is interpreted to promote violence. And atheism which holds no moral code because it is just the rejection of and idea because of lack of evidence has no link to a moral code that has been interpreted to promote violence. The moral codes of atheists are based on various philosophies that are to be criticized for their role in violence, NOT ATHEISM.

 

Dude, he's right that you're completely missing the mark, since you're comparing "atheism" and "religion" ~ apples and oranges.

 

Try paying attention to the hints that have been dropped: try comparing "atheism" to "theism."

 

"Theism" is not a world view. "Theism" does not dictate (or even imply) any moral code.

 

There are a PLETHORA of "theistic" philosophies, JUST LIKE there are a PLETHORA of "atheistic" philosophies like you just mentioned.

 

Dig?

 

It's not a hard concept, really.

 

Now, critiquing "religion" from an atheistic perspective is rather like critiquing "atheism" from a religious perspective ~ it just don't make no durn sense.

[motzman13]

marxism is not a form of atheism... there is no form of atheism... it is simply the lack of belief in the evidence for god...... organized religions however are forms of theism...... if you do not understand this then we are just at a fork in the road.

[draelyc]

lack of belief in any supernatural entity based on lack of evidence has no link to any moral code.

 

Yes, I heard you the first time. Doesn't make you any less wrong now than you were wrong before.

 

Let me highlight your specific problem here, with this "lack of evidence" thingie: what do you mean by "evidence"? Something tangible? Something empirical? Yes?

 

Let me know, and then I'll continue...

 

Moral codes are ideas that are brought by the belief in something whether it is god or philosophy not the disbelief in the supernatural.

 

Answer my question about what you mean by "evidence" and I'll respond to this point.

[draelyc]

 

marxism is not a form of atheism... there is no form of atheism... it is simply the lack of belief in the evidence for god...... organized religions however are forms of theism...... if you do not understand this then we are just at a fork in the road.

 

 

Likewise, there is no "form" of "theism." There are world-views that are "theistic" in nature; and I'm sorry, but there are world-views that are "athistic" in nature.

 

Do you like that better than using the term "form"?

[motzman13]

religions use theism to justify their moral code. hence god said this is the right thing to do........ marxism does not use atheism to justify their moral code....their moral code is based on a political and social philosophy... this is why something like marxism can not justify its beliefs by saying the disbelief in the supernatural says this... cause disbelief doesn't say anything about how to live.... I understand you think theism and atheism are comparable.... and you say that marxism is a form of atheism and religions are forms of theism I disagree there is no form of atheism it is simply the disbelief in evidence.

 

Dude, he's right that you're completely missing the mark, since you're comparing "atheism" and "religion" ~ apples and oranges. Try paying attention to the hints that have been dropped: try comparing "atheism" to "theism." "Theism" is not a world view. "Theism" does not dictate (or even imply) any moral code. There are a PLETHORA of "theistic" philosophies, JUST LIKE there are a PLETHORA of "atheistic" philosophies like you just mentioned. Dig? It's not a hard concept, really. Now, critiquing "religion" from an atheistic perspective is rather like critiquing "atheism" from a religious perspective ~ it just don't make no durn sense.

[ninjaaron]

 

If you look at the major religions... there is a moral code that is based on their belief in god.. Atheism has absolutely no link to any moral code. personal philosophies do, but not atheism. You tried to equate the moral code of mao and stalin to atheism which is wrong. Their moral code is linked to their political and social philosophies. However the moral code of the major religions which is directly influenced by theism has led to interpretations(wrong or right) that has led to violence. So do you see how their is a link to violence from theism through the major religions who use theism to base their moral code which is interpreted to promote violence. And atheism which holds no moral code because it is just the rejection of and idea because of lack of evidence has no link to a moral code that has been interpreted to promote violence. The moral codes of atheists are based on various philosophies that are to be criticized for their role in violence, NOT ATHEISM.

 

 

ok, my drunkenness has just started to affect my fingers, so I don't know what this will come out like... BUT, I've got a lot to say. {censored}.

 

I didn't... but yes, I agree that atheism is... not a world-view? bye.

[ninjaaron]

good, draelyc is picking up my slack.

 

Lesson:

Cocktails are surprising. Be careful wat yuou pour.

[motzman13]

theism asserts a claim.....religions(theistic world views) use this claim to develop their moral code

atheism makes no claim... it rejects the claim made by theists.... all subsequent "world views" are based upon new claims whether they are philosophical or political... not based on the rejection of the theistic claim.

[draelyc]

religions use theism to justify their moral code. hence god said this is the right thing to do........

 

You don't seem to have studied the subject of religion very closely. SOME religions espouse a moral code that is essentially based upon the notion that "god/the gods said so," but many do not. Many base their moral codes upon stated values about the nature of humanity and its place in "the world" (i.e., reality), upon foundational principles regarding the nature of reality itself, etc.

 

In fact, the moral codes of many religions (and certainly all the great faiths of the world) are based on extremely refined systems of philsophy and ethics.

 

So your whole statement amounts to "straw man" irrelevance, since it doesn't apply to all, or even most, religions.

 

marxism does not use atheism to justify their moral code....their moral code is based on a political and social philosophy...

 

Just as the moral code of many religions is based upon political and social philosophies.

 

this is why something like marxism can not justify its beliefs by saying the disbelief in the supernatural says this... cause disbelief doesn't say anything about how to live....

 

You are appearing to contradict yourself there. Disbelief in the supernatural does have quite a bit to say about how one ought to live, especially in a world in which so many people accept some sort of belief in something supernatural. Such disbelief, in that context, automatically sets the "disbeliever" up in opposition to a great many other people's worldviews.

 

That does not make the "disbeliever" wrong, not at all! But it DOES mean that his lack of belief "justifies" living in a certain way. Period.

 

I understand you think theism and atheism are comparable.... and you say that marxism is a form of atheism and religions are forms of theism I disagree there is no form of atheism it is simply the disbelief in evidence.

 

Is English your first language? I'm NOT trying to be insulting, but it seems apparent that either you didn't read what I posted, or that you didn't understand what I posted. If the latter, I'm glad to clarify it for you; if the former, why should I bother?

[draelyc]

good, draelyc is picking up my slack. Lesson: Cocktails are surprising. Be careful wat yuou pour.

 

Glad to help, but I gotta get home soon. And I have no cocktails in my future...

[humancertainty]

Seriously, folks. I'm as atheist as one can be. To the point of being anti-religious. ALL religions.

That being said, I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do or think. All I ask is the same courtesy be extended to me.

I've never seen Aaron post anything on here trying to convert anyone. He respectfully answers questions in as non-judgmental of a way as he can. He has a sense of humor about things. Even blasphemous things such as Jesus riding a dinosaur.

And he started this thread about a {censored}ing tattoo. Get the {censored} over it.

To paraphrase a post someone else put up, these threads never end with anyone changing their mind. It's going to get locked, someone else will put up an innocuous thread that has some sort of bearing to their personal life(guns, religion, etc.), and everyone will jump in and troll their beliefs and their opposition to what other people do or believe. The last gun thread was a perfect example with someone specifically saying they were in the thread to criticize gun owners.

 

 

 

 

Now, I'll step off my soap box and add that I'm glad to hear Aaron is happy with his first tattoo. Be careful. They get awfully addicting.

[draelyc]

theism asserts a claim.....religions(theistic world views) use this claim to develop their moral code atheism makes no claim... it rejects the claim made by theists.... all subsequent "world views" are based upon new claims whether they are philosophical or political... not based on the rejection of the theistic claim.

 

1. There is no one, single "theistic claim."

 

2. You can say that atheism "rejects" a claim, or you can say that it "asserts a negative." I understand why you prefer to say "rejects a claim" ~ because asserting a negative doesn't work, logically. But tomato, tomato.

 

3. Because of #1, above, there are MANY different "atheistic" positions, relative to the many different *theistic* positions.

 

You would do better, imo, to think of "atheistic" and "theistic" as *adjectives*, and not as nouns in and of themselves.

[motzman13]

he claimed stalin and maos atheism was the reason for their actions......

[draelyc]

 

he claimed stalin and maos atheism was the reason for their actions......

 

 

Aah, okay.

 

But what about my question regarding "evidence"? :poke:

[motzman13]

what is theism.... I took it to mean the belief that at least one deity exists.... that is a pretty standard definition. atheism rejects this claim..... this rejection has no influence on the world view.... whatever philosophy the person who rejects this claim accepts is what influences his world view.....