Knowledge about religions

[Estheria Quintessimo]

I do not believe in anything supernatural.

I have been accused, from time to time, by christians,... I am an bad counter partner, in any religious discussion, because I do not know the bible as t hey do.

Seriously?

So to point out the stupidity of the Bible,... I would need to have actually read the bible? Really? Why?

So as an absolute none believer, I would need to have the knowledge of all religions then.

You notice the flaw in this?

If I as an atheist do not know the text of a religion,... I am lazy and not worth talking too, according to them.

I wonder how many people of a certain religion actually know the religious text of all the hundereds religions of the opposition side.

There being so many religions,... around the world... I wonder how much my accuser knows about the other relioiojns.

 

[Prolescum]

If you're going to have a discussion about rugby, it's better that you have at least a cursory understanding of the game.

If you've never read the Bible, how can you say with any degree of certainty that it's a pile of hokey waffle, themes pilfered from earlier religions, and utterly ridiculous characters? You don't have to have read it, but then in a discussion, you're coming from the position of ignorance; that's never a good thing I'm my view.

 

[Inferno]

There are two ways to counter that:
1) Take a philosophical standpoint. Point out that the various arguments (prime mover, first cause, teleological argument, ontological argument, etc.) have all failed. Also point out that the existence needs to be proven, not the nonexistence.

2) Actually read the Bible. "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -Isaac Asimov

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Knowing about the stuff in deep is an advantage in a discussion. However I understand your feeling, "why should you fill your head with crap just to be able to argue how crap it is?". You don't have to, there are ways to counter baloney without knowing all the details of the baloney.
However this isn't a simple thing to do, most people try to do this sort of thing and get told to "fuck off and come back when they have learned something about it", and rightfully so. Even tough you don't have to know everything about it, you have to know something, and that something not only must be solid, it must be a deal breaker. To argue you have to use that knowledge as a common ground, use a very methodical reasoning that everyone would be hard-pressed not to agree, and then show that it is a deal breaker.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

Knowing about the stuff in deep is an advantage in a discussion. However I understand your feeling, "why should you fill your head with crap just to be able to argue how crap it is?". You don't have to, there are ways to counter baloney without knowing all the details of the baloney.
However this isn't a simple thing to do, most people try to do this sort of thing and get told to "fuck off and come back when they have learned something about it", and rightfully so. Even tough you don't have to know everything about it, you have to know something, and that something not only must be solid, it must be a deal breaker. Argue you have to use that knowledge as a common ground, use a very methodical reasoning that everyone would be hard-pressed not to agree and then show that it is a deal breaker.

...
If I am told to FUCK OFF... it is an obvious weakness on their side.

 

[Frenger]

...
If I am told to FUCK OFF... it is an obvious weakness on their side.

Not always, if I was debating someone on Quantum mechanics, I would be expected to know something about it, if I didn't, I would expect to be told to fuck off.

As Inferno said earlier, you can do a pretty good job at knocking the philosophical points in the bible (prime mover, morality and the like) but to have a debate on the validity of the Bible, you should have read it, at least once.

I am sometimes told that "A fool has said in their heart there is no God", which is a quote from the Bible. It always fills me with utter joy to be able to say "Matthew 5:22 - He who calls a man a fool, shall surely go to Hell". If I hadn't read the Bible, nuggets of pleasure like this wouldn't happen.

I wouldn't say you are unable to criticise some of the central tenants of the Bible, but as Prole said, without an understanding of it, you are arguing from ignorant place.

 

[Inferno]

I am sometimes told that "A fool has said in their heart there is no God", which is a quote from the Bible. It always fills me with utter joy to be able to say "Matthew 5:22 - He who calls a man a fool, shall surely go to Hell". If I hadn't read the Bible, nuggets of pleasure like this wouldn't happen.

I did not know that! Copied in my quote-book for hilarity.

 

[Epiquinn]

If you're going to have a discussion about rugby, it's better that you have at least a cursory understanding of the game.

If you've never read the Bible, how can you say with any degree of certainty that it's a pile of hokey waffle, themes pilfered from earlier religions, and utterly ridiculous characters? You don't have to have read it, but then in a discussion, you're coming from the position of ignorance; that's never a good thing I'm my view.

From a skeptical point of view, ignorance is just as a good a position as any other. You can still ask the proponent of a certain belief to present evidence or construct arguments for their claims.

 

[Frenger]

I am sometimes told that "A fool has said in their heart there is no God", which is a quote from the Bible. It always fills me with utter joy to be able to say "Matthew 5:22 - He who calls a man a fool, shall surely go to Hell". If I hadn't read the Bible, nuggets of pleasure like this wouldn't happen.

I did not know that! Copied in my quote-book for hilarity.

It's even more fun online as you can add the word "oops" before it.

You know, be really condescending like

 

[Prolescum]

If you're going to have a discussion about rugby, it's better that you have at least a cursory understanding of the game.

If you've never read the Bible, how can you say with any degree of certainty that it's a pile of hokey waffle, themes pilfered from earlier religions, and utterly ridiculous characters? You don't have to have read it, but then in a discussion, you're coming from the position of ignorance; that's never a good thing I'm my view.

From a skeptical point of view, ignorance is just as a good a position as any other. You can still ask the proponent of a certain belief to present evidence or construct arguments for their claims.

That's certainly true. However, as I'm sure you know, those claims don't generally rely on evidence or well-constructed arguments... which moves that discussion from the how (the world is supposed to work according to a particular system of belief) to the why (someone has faith in whichever suite of texts), and to discuss the why, one would be wise to have at least a basic understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

I understand the points provided. But is there not an inherit flaw in this?

So we talk..... Bible... Thora... Quran.... Mahabharata... to name some major religious text.

Would I first need to be knowledgable on all these text to a deep level,... if I want to defend my Atheism? I do not think so. ... Ofcourse it would help.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the Supernatural. Besides that I think science holds the answers. So besides being an Atheist, I happen to be an Darwinist too.... and a Hubble-ist... Hawkenist..... etcetera. I know that which I put my trust in,... may sometimes be known to be flawed and be corrected upon.

My convictions do not allow the acceptance of religious text.

So... now I go to Japan... and stumble on the one Japanese person, who still things his or her Emperor is a God....
Or... I go to Denmark... and stumble on followers of Wodan...
Or... I go Africa... Where I meet some one who just burned a 75 year old innocent woman for being a witch, in a ditch.

I would need to be able to to interact with all these people,... and tell them of my thruth.

I need a way to interact with them, and tell them about my Atheism, without the base of their individual religious knowledge,.. as I can simply not know all the details of all religions.

Too say it more frankly,.... How many religious persons think you will meet that understand and know all the finer details of your Atheistic way of life? ... I bet ... not many.

It goes two ways.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Would I first need to be knowledgable on all these text to a deep level,... if I want to defend my Atheism?

No, You don't need to know. See above.

 

[Frenger]

I understand the points provided. But is there not an inherit flaw in this?

So we talk..... Bible... Thora... Quran.... Mahabharata... to name some major religious text.

Would I first need to be knowledgable on all these text to a deep level,... if I want to defend my Atheism? I do not think so. ... Ofcourse it would help.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or gods, and all that means is that gods are not included in the things you believe in. In that respect, no, you don't need to defend anything, the burden of proof lies with your theistic converser.

What has been pointed out, however, is that you can't claim the bible as a ridiculous book if you haven't read it. On what grounds do you suggest it's ridiculous? Do you know when it was written and by whom? Do you understand the context in which it was written? Is it meant to be taken literally, or is their a more subtle undertone that does require careful study, a point that may be lost on those that dismiss it as stupid right off the bat?

I'm talking specifically about the bible here, but it works for all these texts. You can say you don't agree with the main premise, that of a supernatural being which created the Universe (although not all doctrines put forward this view) and you can maybe put forward some scientific reasons to support this view, or perhaps philisophical (depending on your background).

In other words, I wouldn't take someone's opinion on evolution seriously if they didn't understand even the most basic principles, and I can fully understand why a theist (for example a bible believing theist) wouldn't take an unbelievers opinion seriously if they had no understanding of scripture.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the Supernatural. Besides that I think science holds the answers. So besides being an Atheist, I happen to be an Darwinist too.... and a Hubble-ist... Hawkenist..... etcetera. I know that which I put my trust in,... may sometimes be known to be flawed and be corrected upon.

I'm not sure I know what any of those things are, except of course "atheist" (little 'a' dearest). I guess I understand your point, but to play devils advocate, why do you think science holds all the answers? Can you justify that position?

My convictions do not allow the acceptance of religious text.

So... now I go to Japan... and stumble on the one Japanese person, who still things his or her Emperor is a God....
Or... I go to Denmark... and stumble on followers of Wodan...
Or... I go Africa... Where I meet some one who just burned a 75 year old innocent woman for being a witch, in a ditch.

I would need to be able to to interact with all these people,... and tell them of my thruth.

Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims. Personally, if I were to meet these people, I would listen to what they have to say, cultural exchanges should be enjoyed always.

I need a way to interact with them, and tell them about my Atheism, without the base of their individual religious knowledge,.. as I can simply not know all the details of all religions.

You don't need to, as has been pointed out. Atheism isn't something to be defended, it just simply is.

Too say it more frankly,.... How many religious persons think you will meet that understand and know all the finer details of your Atheistic way of life? ... I bet ... not many.

It goes two ways.

There is no "atheistic" (little 'a' again, dear) way of life. I know for a fact Inferno is an atheist, Laurens is an atheist, Austra and Prole and MGK are atheists, but our ways of living are probably very different. We may agree on somethings, and we may disagree on others.

The point is, you reject the theistic claims which you know of, and this alone accounts for your atheism.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

I understand the points provided. But is there not an inherit flaw in this?

So we talk..... Bible... Thora... Quran.... Mahabharata... to name some major religious text.

Would I first need to be knowledgable on all these text to a deep level,... if I want to defend my Atheism? I do not think so. ... Ofcourse it would help.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or gods, and all that means is that gods are not included in the things you believe in. In that respect, no, you don't need to defend anything, the burden of proof lies with your theistic converser.

What has been pointed out, however, is that you can't claim the bible as a ridiculous book if you haven't read it. On what grounds do you suggest it's ridiculous? Do you know when it was written and by whom? Do you understand the context in which it was written? Is it meant to be taken literally, or is their a more subtle undertone that does require careful study, a point that may be lost on those that dismiss it as stupid right off the bat?

I'm talking specifically about the bible here, but it works for all these texts. You can say you don't agree with the main premise, that of a supernatural being which created the Universe (although not all doctrines put forward this view) and you can maybe put forward some scientific reasons to support this view, or perhaps philisophical (depending on your background).

In other words, I wouldn't take someone's opinion on evolution seriously if they didn't understand even the most basic principles, and I can fully understand why a theist (for example a bible believing theist) wouldn't take an unbelievers opinion seriously if they had no understanding of scripture.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the Supernatural. Besides that I think science holds the answers. So besides being an Atheist, I happen to be an Darwinist too.... and a Hubble-ist... Hawkenist..... etcetera. I know that which I put my trust in,... may sometimes be known to be flawed and be corrected upon.

I'm not sure I know what any of those things are, except of course "atheist" (little 'a' dearest). I guess I understand your point, but to play devils advocate, why do you think science holds all the answers? Can you justify that position?

My convictions do not allow the acceptance of religious text.

So... now I go to Japan... and stumble on the one Japanese person, who still things his or her Emperor is a God....
Or... I go to Denmark... and stumble on followers of Wodan...
Or... I go Africa... Where I meet some one who just burned a 75 year old innocent woman for being a witch, in a ditch.

I would need to be able to to interact with all these people,... and tell them of my thruth.

Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims. Personally, if I were to meet these people, I would listen to what they have to say, cultural exchanges should be enjoyed always.

I need a way to interact with them, and tell them about my Atheism, without the base of their individual religious knowledge,.. as I can simply not know all the details of all religions.

You don't need to, as has been pointed out. Atheism isn't something to be defended, it just simply is.

Too say it more frankly,.... How many religious persons think you will meet that understand and know all the finer details of your Atheistic way of life? ... I bet ... not many.

It goes two ways.

There is no "atheistic" (little 'a' again, dear) way of life. I know for a fact Inferno is an atheist, Laurens is an atheist, Austra and Prole and MGK are atheists, but our ways of living are probably very different. We may agree on somethings, and we may disagree on others.

The point is, you reject the theistic claims which you know of, and this alone accounts for your atheism.

It looks like to me,... you condone slavery to much.,.. and you lack the feel for Atheism. Your interpretation gives this overall TV feeling.

'Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims'... really?

So... provide your thruth.... I am ALL ears.

... If not .. STFU... !!!

 

[Visaki]

It looks like to me,... you condone slavery to much.,.. and you lack the feel for Atheism. Your interpretation gives this overall TV feeling.

'Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims'... really?

So... provide your thruth.... I am ALL ears.

... If not .. STFU... !!!

Yes, atheism is really, at it's core, just a rejection of theistic claims. It isn't a claim that there is no god(s), it is not a claim to know the truth about anything. If you wish to mean something more with "atheism" you must spesify this to avoid confusion.

If you're looking for the truth, I think you might have some to the wrong place. We mostly just have discussion, arguments and nitpicking. Including about what truth is and if it can exist.

 

[Prolescum]

It looks like to me,... you condone slavery to much.,.. and you lack the feel for Atheism. Your interpretation gives this overall TV feeling.

It looks to me,... like you condone stupidity too much,... and you lack the wherewithal to understand something as simple as atheism (lower case 'a'). Your interpretation gives this overall pahahahahahahahahahaha-risible-gibberish feeling.

'Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims'... really?

Yes really.

Literally.

Check any dictionary you like, break the word into its constituents...

That this seems incredulous to you shows me that either your English reading skills are shoddy or you simply aren't putting any thought into your stated position.
Either way it makes sense as to why you aren't interested in putting in the effort to read a bible.

So... provide your thruth.... I am ALL ears.

... If not .. STFU... !!!

Telling people their ideas are shit or dumb is one thing, telling them to shut the fuck up is not on.

Consider this a polite warning and don't do it again. This isn't Gaia Online.

 

[Frenger]

It looks like to me,... you condone slavery to much.,.. and you lack the feel for Atheism.

Your feel for atheism (little 'a' deary) is based on a misguided attempt to make it into an identity, it's not. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or gods. Your pointless extrapolation stems( I believe) from an inability to understand a dictionary.

Your interpretation gives this overall TV feeling.

My interpretation is based on dictionary definitions and etymology. What's yours based on?

'Atheism isn't really a truth claim, it's a rejection of theistic claims'... really?

Yes, really. But thanks for asking

So... provide your thruth.... I am ALL ears.

Atheist

... If not .. STFU... !!!

Your faux aggression is cute, but it does nothing to support your ignorance.

 

[australopithecus]

Wow. Really? This the same guy who got defensive when I failed to reply to his first post seriously?

As has been said, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims; ie, gods exist. If you want to define yourself by things you don't believe in, if you want to make that your identity, then good luck to you. You want truth claims? Join a philosophy club.

The rest of us atheists will just do whatever we were doing 5 minutes ago.

 

[Engelbert]

Yes, atheism is really, at it's core, just a rejection of theistic claims. It isn't a claim that there is no god(s), it is not a claim to know the truth about anything. If you wish to mean something more with "atheism" you must spesify this to avoid confusion.

Hi there Visaki.

There is much confusion, or at least conflict over the nature of the definition of atheism, especially in comment sections under 'The Atheist Experience' videos on youtube who tend to promote the more inclusive definition. Traditionally atheism was defined as a positive position of disbelief; a claim that God does not exist (not necessarily a gnostic claim, but a positive claim). This is a step up from simply a lack of belief in any Gods, though some might see it as subtle.

The definition that you and many others tend to promote for atheist is a relatively new addendum. Antony Flew is responsible for the redefining or the attempts to redefine atheism in the 1970's. Many people are unaware of this event and some people, even some atheists, reject his attempts to redefine the word. Some prefer not to water down their position on God in such a manner and so reject it, whilst others have noted that it might have been (or serve as) a politically based move to relieve the atheist of some of his burden of proof since an abstention from belief or positive claims carries no burden needed to be proved, or perhaps it is even a simple attempt to enlarge the demographic.

Given Antony Flew's redefinitions, which have certainly not been accepted universally at this point, there is confusion over the issue. Since language evolves, perhaps one day Flew's definitions will become standard, but until that day, we should at least understand why there are sometimes problems over this issue. My preference would be the traditional set up in which negative atheism is more commonly known as agnosticism.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm

 

[australopithecus]

But agnosticism deals only with knowledge, not belief. I don't know that there are no gods, so you're right, I am agnostic. Still, I hold no belief that gods exist, so I am an atheist. Simply saying "I'm agnostic" to define my negative position only defines half of it.