I don't get Atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Did not need this lecture on the difference between a definition and a stereotype. The point is, a dictionary definition does not automatically dictate meaning in everyday life. Just because a person doesn't live up to the narrow dictionary definition of "Catholic" doesn't mean you can tell them they are not a catholic.

I'm beginning to think that the reason you have more respect for the religious fundamentalist position is that you are a kind of "fundamentalist" yourself, as in preferring clearcut answers and dismissing that which does not fit in that narrow purview.

Yes. Comes off as very rigid. Not that there is anything wrong with it, very upfront about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Did not need this lecture on the difference between a definition and a stereotype. The point is, a dictionary definition does not automatically dictate meaning in everyday life. Just because a person doesn't live up to the narrow dictionary definition of "Catholic" doesn't mean you can tell them they are not a catholic.

I'm beginning to think that the reason you have more respect for the religious fundamentalist position is that you are a kind of "fundamentalist" yourself, as in preferring clearcut answers and dismissing that which does not fit in that narrow purview.

Yes. Comes off as very rigid. Not that there is anything wrong with it, very upfront about it.

I bet a lot of baptized and observant Catholics have never even looked up "Catholic" in the dictionary. Why would they? They already know what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Did not need this lecture on the difference between a definition and a stereotype. The point is, a dictionary definition does not automatically dictate meaning in everyday life. Just because a person doesn't live up to the narrow dictionary definition of "Catholic" doesn't mean you can tell them they are not a catholic.

I'm beginning to think that the reason you have more respect for the religious fundamentalist position is that you are a kind of "fundamentalist" yourself, as in preferring clearcut answers and dismissing that which does not fit in that narrow purview.

You absolutely needed the lecture, because in your previous post you insisted that we deviate from dictionary definition of religion, because in real life people's actual practices do not fit those "stereotypes". Conflating the meaning of these two different words is again not good for productive conversation. Your listener/reader are constantly left guessing what you really mean.

The definition of religion is very broad, by the way, it is not narrow at all. It encompasses all of the different belief systems that have come and gone and those are still here being practiced. I don't understand why you feel that accepting the dictionary's definition of religion becomes such a problem. Maybe what you mean is that people are spiritual, which encompasses even more, including religion, or simple quiet reflection. But simple quiet reflection is not religion, and calling it religion doesn't make it so. Similarly, calling someone who believes God is a metaphor a Christian is also incorrect. This is a simple statement of fact which you are free to disagree with, but you'd be wrong.

As for being a fundamentalist, I am an engineer by training and now a small business owner. My bullshit meter is pretty sensitive, I seek to find good solid answers where possible, while understanding that there are somethings with no good answers for. That said, I am not forcing any artificially narrow definition or view of anything, I am simply imploring you and others to call a spade a spade and not a diamond. My insistence on this is to simply sticking to facts where the facts are readily available, rather than wishful thinking. This is practical rationality, not fundamentalism.

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Did not need this lecture on the difference between a definition and a stereotype. The point is, a dictionary definition does not automatically dictate meaning in everyday life. Just because a person doesn't live up to the narrow dictionary definition of "Catholic" doesn't mean you can tell them they are not a catholic.

I'm beginning to think that the reason you have more respect for the religious fundamentalist position is that you are a kind of "fundamentalist" yourself, as in preferring clearcut answers and dismissing that which does not fit in that narrow purview.

You absolutely needed the lecture, because in your previous post you insisted that we deviate from dictionary definition of religion, because in real life people's actual practices do not fit those "stereotypes". Conflating the meaning of these two different words is again not good for productive conversation. Your listener/reader are constantly left guessing what you really mean.

The definition of religion is very broad, by the way, it is not narrow at all. It encompasses all of the different belief systems that have come and gone and those are still here being practiced. I don't understand why you feel that accepting the dictionary's definition of religion becomes such a problem. Maybe what you mean is that people are spiritual, which encompasses even more, including religion, or simple quiet reflection. But simple quiet reflection is not religion, and calling it religion doesn't make it so. Similarly, calling someone who believes God is a metaphor a Christian is also incorrect. This is a simple statement of fact which you are free to disagree with, but you'd be wrong.

As for being a fundamentalist, I am an engineer by training and now a small business owner. My bullshit meter is pretty sensitive, I seek to find good solid answers where possible, while understanding that there are somethings with no good answers for. That said, I am not forcing any artificially narrow definition or view of anything, I am simply imploring you and others to call a spade a spade and not a diamond. My insistence on this is to simply sticking to facts where the facts are readily available, rather than wishful thinking. This is practical rationality, not fundamentalism.

McLeanAtheist

No, what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to hold people to the dictionary's definition of what their faith is. You've set that standard, but many religious people don't check the dictionary to see what they are supposed to believe, so it doesn't matter. It just lets you think that you can dictate how people should think/believe based on your standard of the only reliable source of information about religion -- the dictionary. This is a fundamentalist view.

[Anonymous]

I think you need to think more about the Santa Claus metaphor. Is Santa Claus real? Of course he is. He is me and every other parent who is Santa Claus. Just because he is not the kind of person who can be killed, who has one single body, does not mean he is either a metaphor or that he does not exist. He clearly exists. His actions are entirely predictable. They take the same form everywhere. He is not just a metaphor, as he really delivers the gifts. He is not just parents play acting. Why on earth would parents all over the world play act like this? Even parents who are not Christian do it. It is not just culture. It is not just peer pressure. It is not just not wanting to disappoint your children.

Some things are real even if they are not corporal and even if they were created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to hold people to the dictionary's definition of what their faith is. You've set that standard, but many religious people don't check the dictionary to see what they are supposed to believe, so it doesn't matter. It just lets you think that you can dictate how people should think/believe based on your standard of the only reliable source of information about religion -- the dictionary. This is a fundamentalist view.

I can't believe how you can continue to make mistakes after mistakes. I know you think it's okay use words beyond their intended meaning, but do you also have a reading comprehension problem too? I don't particularly care what people believe as long as they are honest about it. I don't care if they believe in Jesus or the flying spaghetti monster, it makes no difference to me. What I am saying is two things: 1) if you think Jesus and God are metaphors, don't call yourself Christian, it's an incorrect usage of the word Christian to describe your religion. If you don't have a fixed belief system for reference, don't call yourself religious, it's again an incorrect usage of the word "religion" to describe your spirituality. 2) If you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then it's more intellectually honest to commit to your beliefs, rather than picking and choosing what parts to believe based on your personal preference - because God didn't make the rules for you to change them, He made the rules for you to follow; even if you don't like a rule, you should have faith that it is the right thing to do.

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

Being religious is not equal to being spiritual.

I would rather be spiritual and not follow any religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not particularly appealing, but you can't decide to believe something that makes no sense to you. You either believe or you don't. That can change over time.

+1. It doesn't appeal to me. Do you know what appeals to me? Believing that my deceased loved ones are in some shiny, happy heaven. Or believing that if one of my kids, or my husband, or I get cancer, I could just pray and some god would fix it for me. But I don't believe. I can't force myself to believe in a god anymore than I can force myself to believe in Santa Claus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to think more about the Santa Claus metaphor. Is Santa Claus real? Of course he is. He is me and every other parent who is Santa Claus. Just because he is not the kind of person who can be killed, who has one single body, does not mean he is either a metaphor or that he does not exist. He clearly exists. His actions are entirely predictable. They take the same form everywhere. He is not just a metaphor, as he really delivers the gifts. He is not just parents play acting. Why on earth would parents all over the world play act like this? Even parents who are not Christian do it. It is not just culture. It is not just peer pressure. It is not just not wanting to disappoint your children.

Some things are real even if they are not corporal and even if they were created.

You are conflating the concept of Santa with the Santa as described by fairy tale, these are not the same thing. Sure the concept of Santa is very real, but the the fairy tale Santa Claus is said to live in the north pole and have a team of elves and several flying reindeers, including one with a glowing nose. I have not seen any proof that there is someone who live in the north pole with a team of elves and flying reindeers. The fairy tale Santa Claus almost certainly does not exist - I don't know with absolute certainty, but there's no satisfactory evidence that he exists.

Now personally, it doesn't really make much of a difference that Santa Claus is only a metaphor, life goes on. Everyone is happy. But Christianity is not claiming a metaphor of God, but an actual existing God. A God who created our universe, as opposed to some natural process; made us in his image, as opposed to the process of evolution; gave us the commandment that he is the only God we should serve, as opposed to be free thinkers to follow other sources of moral guidance; and who will upon death damn us to eternal hell fire unless we accept Jesus as savior, as oppose to just becoming a decomposing biological heap of nothing. To satisfactorily explain this God as nothing but a metaphor, you'll have to explain the relevant and useful illustrated by each of these points.

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

^^^^ *...relevant and useful concept illustrated by each of these points.

McLeanAtheist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to hold people to the dictionary's definition of what their faith is. You've set that standard, but many religious people don't check the dictionary to see what they are supposed to believe, so it doesn't matter. It just lets you think that you can dictate how people should think/believe based on your standard of the only reliable source of information about religion -- the dictionary. This is a fundamentalist view.

I can't believe how you can continue to make mistakes after mistakes. I know you think it's okay use words beyond their intended meaning, but do you also have a reading comprehension problem too? I don't particularly care what people believe as long as they are honest about it. I don't care if they believe in Jesus or the flying spaghetti monster, it makes no difference to me. What I am saying is two things: 1) if you think Jesus and God are metaphors, don't call yourself Christian, it's an incorrect usage of the word Christian to describe your religion. If you don't have a fixed belief system for reference, don't call yourself religious, it's again an incorrect usage of the word "religion" to describe your spirituality. 2) If you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then it's more intellectually honest to commit to your beliefs, rather than picking and choosing what parts to believe based on your personal preference - because God didn't make the rules for you to change them, He made the rules for you to follow; even if you don't like a rule, you should have faith that it is the right thing to do.

McLeanAtheist

I can't believe you continue to insist that religious people adhere to your view of what their religion should be. It might help if you looked up "religion" in places other than the dictionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to think more about the Santa Claus metaphor. Is Santa Claus real? Of course he is. He is me and every other parent who is Santa Claus. Just because he is not the kind of person who can be killed, who has one single body, does not mean he is either a metaphor or that he does not exist. He clearly exists. His actions are entirely predictable. They take the same form everywhere. He is not just a metaphor, as he really delivers the gifts. He is not just parents play acting. Why on earth would parents all over the world play act like this? Even parents who are not Christian do it. It is not just culture. It is not just peer pressure. It is not just not wanting to disappoint your children.

Some things are real even if they are not corporal and even if they were created.

You are conflating the concept of Santa with the Santa as described by fairy tale, these are not the same thing. Sure the concept of Santa is very real, but the the fairy tale Santa Claus is said to live in the north pole and have a team of elves and several flying reindeers, including one with a glowing nose. I have not seen any proof that there is someone who live in the north pole with a team of elves and flying reindeers. The fairy tale Santa Claus almost certainly does not exist - I don't know with absolute certainty, but there's no satisfactory evidence that he exists.

Now personally, it doesn't really make much of a difference that Santa Claus is only a metaphor, life goes on. Everyone is happy. But Christianity is not claiming a metaphor of God, but an actual existing God. A God who created our universe, as opposed to some natural process; made us in his image, as opposed to the process of evolution; gave us the commandment that he is the only God we should serve, as opposed to be free thinkers to follow other sources of moral guidance; and who will upon death damn us to eternal hell fire unless we accept Jesus as savior, as oppose to just becoming a decomposing biological heap of nothing. To satisfactorily explain this God as nothing but a metaphor, you'll have to explain the relevant and useful illustrated by each of these points.

McLeanAtheist

You are describing the fundamentalist God -- I'm guessing it's the one that you hear the most about in popular media without having to crack a book yourself. There are many, many christian clergy and lay people who eschew this simplistic version of God.

Also using the terminology "nothing but a metaphor" suggests that you think metaphors are not very important and there is a lot of disagreement about that as well. And your readers don't "have to explain" anything -- you are not the ultimate authority here, though you may perceive yourself as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to hold people to the dictionary's definition of what their faith is. You've set that standard, but many religious people don't check the dictionary to see what they are supposed to believe, so it doesn't matter. It just lets you think that you can dictate how people should think/believe based on your standard of the only reliable source of information about religion -- the dictionary. This is a fundamentalist view.

I can't believe how you can continue to make mistakes after mistakes. I know you think it's okay use words beyond their intended meaning, but do you also have a reading comprehension problem too? I don't particularly care what people believe as long as they are honest about it. I don't care if they believe in Jesus or the flying spaghetti monster, it makes no difference to me. What I am saying is two things: 1) if you think Jesus and God are metaphors, don't call yourself Christian, it's an incorrect usage of the word Christian to describe your religion. If you don't have a fixed belief system for reference, don't call yourself religious, it's again an incorrect usage of the word "religion" to describe your spirituality. 2) If you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then it's more intellectually honest to commit to your beliefs, rather than picking and choosing what parts to believe based on your personal preference - because God didn't make the rules for you to change them, He made the rules for you to follow; even if you don't like a rule, you should have faith that it is the right thing to do.

McLeanAtheist

I can't believe you continue to insist that religious people adhere to your view of what their religion should be. It might help if you looked up "religion" in places other than the dictionary.

I am an atheist, I don't insist anything about other people's religion and what they should practice. They *CLAIM* that they are Christians. They claimed that this is what they believe in, but in practice, not really. I merely pointed out that this is intellectually dishonest. Wait a minute, are you just feeling insulted at a personal level due to this revelation?

McLeanAtheist



McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

NP Here. I am an atheist. My observations, in a historical context, tell me people use religion/Theism to explain away what they don't understand. In every case, as our scientific knowledge expands, we (humans) learn that something more is understood.

Thunder? Caused by the shock wave from the rapid expansion of air cause by the heating effect of lightening.

Lightening? Static discharge.

These are not caused by Thor.

Blood moon? A lunar eclipse where the light refracting around the earth is more red.

What we don't understand is not because of a deity, but because we haven't figured it out yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to think more about the Santa Claus metaphor. Is Santa Claus real? Of course he is. He is me and every other parent who is Santa Claus. Just because he is not the kind of person who can be killed, who has one single body, does not mean he is either a metaphor or that he does not exist. He clearly exists. His actions are entirely predictable. They take the same form everywhere. He is not just a metaphor, as he really delivers the gifts. He is not just parents play acting. Why on earth would parents all over the world play act like this? Even parents who are not Christian do it. It is not just culture. It is not just peer pressure. It is not just not wanting to disappoint your children.

Some things are real even if they are not corporal and even if they were created.

You are conflating the concept of Santa with the Santa as described by fairy tale, these are not the same thing. Sure the concept of Santa is very real, but the the fairy tale Santa Claus is said to live in the north pole and have a team of elves and several flying reindeers, including one with a glowing nose. I have not seen any proof that there is someone who live in the north pole with a team of elves and flying reindeers. The fairy tale Santa Claus almost certainly does not exist - I don't know with absolute certainty, but there's no satisfactory evidence that he exists.

Now personally, it doesn't really make much of a difference that Santa Claus is only a metaphor, life goes on. Everyone is happy. But Christianity is not claiming a metaphor of God, but an actual existing God. A God who created our universe, as opposed to some natural process; made us in his image, as opposed to the process of evolution; gave us the commandment that he is the only God we should serve, as opposed to be free thinkers to follow other sources of moral guidance; and who will upon death damn us to eternal hell fire unless we accept Jesus as savior, as oppose to just becoming a decomposing biological heap of nothing. To satisfactorily explain this God as nothing but a metaphor, you'll have to explain the relevant and useful illustrated by each of these points.

McLeanAtheist

You are describing the fundamentalist God -- I'm guessing it's the one that you hear the most about in popular media without having to crack a book yourself. There are many, many christian clergy and lay people who eschew this simplistic version of God.

Also using the terminology "nothing but a metaphor" suggests that you think metaphors are not very important and there is a lot of disagreement about that as well. And your readers don't "have to explain" anything -- you are not the ultimate authority here, though you may perceive yourself as such.

Fundamentalist or not, it's the God claimed by Christians to exist, not just as a metaphor, but actually exists. Again, there maybe some people out there who thinks God is just a metaphor, but they are in error if they call themselves Christians - I don't care what/how they believe, I'm just pointing out that they are not Christians.

Regarding "nothing but a metaphor", I think metaphors have excellent value as a communication method. But it pales in comparison to the claims of the powers and capabilities of the Christian God.

McLeanAtheist