The Atheist Experience

[Oswlek]

Originally Posted by Jaric

Regarding dogma: I understood your point, I just disagree that secular religions don't come with their own dogma attached.

"Secular religions" do, because you've defined them that way.

Essentially, what you are saying is, "dogmatic secular societies have their own dogma". This is a useless tautology and misses the point. Let's try to clarify your position without using the phrase that keeps confusing you.

Are secular and religious societies equally prone to the emergence of harmful dogma?

I really don't think we do need to go any further than "I don't know."

It depends on the purpose of the discussion, sometimes it is better to stay colloquial, sometimes it is better to be more detailed.

It's also important to note that such pedantry isn't non-believers abusing language, it's because theist apologetics often exploit gray areas in colloquial linguistics (whether intentional or not). Enhanced precision is a defense against said exploitation.

[Jaric]

Are secular and religious societies equally prone to the emergence of harmful dogma?

Yes.

Let's try to clarify your position without using the phrase that keeps confusing you.

I don't know if this was your intention, but this comes across as incredibly condescending.

[Oswlek]

Originally Posted by Jaric

Yes.

Good, at least we were finally able to narrow down on where we disagree.

[Jaric]

Originally Posted by Oswlek

It's also important to note that such pedantry isn't non-believers abusing language, it's because theist apologetics often exploit gray areas in colloquial linguistics (whether intentional or not). Enhanced precision is a defense against said exploitation.

I might be many things, but I don't think you can call me a theist apologetic.

I don't even agree with them (or atheists for that matter) on what God means let alone much else.

Edit: although, in defense of Atheists, you're just using the definition the religious gave you, and it was wrong from the start it's not entirely your fault for propagating it.

[Jaric]

So I'm curious, Oswlek, under the definition I provided, what God are you "praying" to?

[Oswlek]

Originally Posted by Jaric

Edit: although, in defense of Atheists, you're just using the definition the religious gave you, and it was wrong from the start it's not entirely your fault for propagating it.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

So I'm curious, Oswlek, under the definition I provided, what God are you "praying" to?

I can't answer this because your definition of "god" is too poorly defined. Not only is the subject impossible to specify, but I have no idea what "praying" means in this context.

I don't know if this was your intention, but this comes across as incredibly condescending.

Sorry, that's my frustration showing. Despite numerous attempts on my part, misinformed tropes abound. The great irony of this conversation is that it is atheism, not the bible, that is misunderstood.

[Jaric]

This sentence makes no sense to me

The concept of God as a person in the clouds is terrible. This is what people seem to think of when they say God, theists and atheist alike. The dispute between the two parties assumes the theist conception of God is correct and therefore the argument is over the existence of this conception.

I believe it's the conception is what's wrong, and where the discussion moving forward should be.

Sorry, that's my frustration showing. Despite numerous attempts on my part, misinformed tropes abound. The great irony of this conversation is that it is atheism, not the bible, that is misunderstood.

Oh, the Bible is most definitely misunderstood by believers and non- believers alike.

That doesn't mean atheism can't also be misunderstood.

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Originally Posted by Oswlek

Exactly what the words mean?

Atheism believes that there is no God...Atheism is a religion.

[AnOldTroll]

Oswlek, might be too personal a question but just curious..do you ever have an inner conversation with yourself?

One thing I've gathered, you have an awesome vocabulary.

[RoadNasty]

Originally Posted by Big/Sky/Fly

Atheism believes that there is no God...Atheism is a religion.

Not even remotely accurate - Biil Maher sums it up rather well:

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Originally Posted by RoadNasty

Not even remotely accurate - Biil Maher sums it up rather well:

It's absolutely a religion. It's not organized, but, it's a religion.

[Jaric]

Originally Posted by RoadNasty

Not even remotely accurate - Biil Maher sums it up rather well:

Exchanging sky guy for smug condescension isn't a sign of reason or intelligence.

Edit: I can testify to that from firsthand experience

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Originally Posted by Jaric

Exchanging sky guy for smug condescension isn't a sign of reason or intelligence.

Edit: I can testify to that from firsthand experience

Darwin is their God...or leader. Their faith is being faithless.

It may be off 180/degrees, but, it's a religion.

Science is also a religion.

[RoadNasty]

Originally Posted by Big/Sky/Fly

Darwin is their God...or leader. Their faith is being faithless.
It may be off 180/degrees, but, it's a religion.
Science is also a religion.

Darwin isn't my "god", nor is anyone or anything else. However, Darwin did provide some fine observations that have held up rather well.

Researchers and historians have discovered over the years the big lie has been religion. The bible was written by MEN, not a god. These people were village elders, soothsayers, intellectuals, fortune seekers, wanna be intellectuals, etc. You might say they were the original "flat earthers", they had absolutely no sense of the earth's place in the cosmos. They thought the sun orbited the earth…..their myopia simply was intense - "it's gotta be all about us” was their mindset, unaware of the fact the little chunk of granite we call home is nothing more than a tiny spec in a vast galaxy and simply a micro spec of dust in a much vaster universe. Talk about sheer levels of ignorance and arrogance. These fanciful yarns of theirs were passed from generation to generation……and only after decades/centuries of these fireside chats was an effort made to commit something to paper….and I can only imagine the level of embellishment that took place after such a sheer amount of time. Think the “telephone game” in school and what that little exercise did to the original message. Therefore, in my mind it’s hard to place much credence in the bible and associated scriptures - they are all a nice collection of fanciful yarns and stories from eons ago.

[Jaric]

Originally Posted by Big/Sky/Fly

Darwin is their God...or leader. Their faith is being faithless.

It may be off 180/degrees, but, it's a religion.

Science is also a religion.

"Reason" or at least the appearance of reason would probably be a more accurate "god"