Worse Than A Fundie? An Atheist Snob

[DPDarkPrimus]

Perhaps "zealous" would be a better term.

[Axiomatic]

Actually, one does not need to be a Theist to be a member of a religion, because there are atheistic religions. There is more to religion than "Christianity with new names so you don't get sued".

For an example, Buddhism can be considered an atheistic religion, since it does not require any gods to function. While some offshoots do worship gods, one of the Buddha's teachings was that gods can't help you. Only you can save yourself. Since the Buddha himself is not a god, that means that it is perfectly possible to be both a Buddhist and an Atheist.

Another example would be LaVeyan Satanism.

Don't say religion is defined by worship of a god, because it's not.

[Oskuro]

I've always considered one of the basic elements of religious belief to be faith.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Emphasis mine, on what I feel is the basis of faith, that you adhere to a principle just because, with no need for proof or justification.

From that rationale, a person can accept proof of the existence of God, but does not need to have faith in Him.

For example, a scientific-minded person might conclude that certain Horse has more or less chances of winning a race because of its traits, while some other person might have faith in the horse because it is named Lucky. If Lucky eventually wins, that doesn't mean the scientific-minded person will then blindly believe the same Horse will always win, it will just confirm that it is possible, nothing more, nothing less.


This is all my opinion, of course, but to me, the important bit about the religious issue is not whether you believe or not in the actual myths of a given religion, but in how such beliefs affect your life and that of others around you. The problem with religious bigots is the moral code they try to impose, not the fact that they believe or not in fairy tales.


With the discussion at hand I feel in a similar manner. It's not important why you don't believe in a deity, what is important is what you make of it. A zealot is a zealot, no matter the sign.

[Omeganian]

This arguing can go on forever, and it will be nothing but a disagreement about definitions of "religion". Like the tree and squirrel paradox.

[Axiomatic]

The what now?

[darthbob88]

The what now?

I think I might know what the tree and squirrel paradox is. A squirrel sits on a stump, while a hunter walks around the stump. The squirrel does not trust the hunter, and turns to make sure that it's always facing the hunter. The question is, does the hunter walk around the squirrel?

The paradox is one of semantics. One argument is that, if the hunter had actually walked around the squirrel, he should have seen the squirrel's back. Since he does not, he did not. On the other hand, the hunter has walked around the stump, on which the squirrel sat, and from that we may conclude that he did in fact walk around the squirrel.

[Darth Wong]

This arguing can go on forever, and it will be nothing but a disagreement about definitions of "religion". Like the tree and squirrel paradox.

Quibbling over word definitions is really beside the point. The point is that atheism is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on empirical data and the principle of logical parsimony. Religion (based on the mainstream ones such as Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, etc) is not. There is no conceivable logical foundation of such religions. Every attempt to produce one is invariably shown to be a fallacy or misrepresentation of some kind.

Even if one clung to the argument that atheism fit the definition of religion, then it would be the only religion which actually has a logical basis.

[Omeganian]

The what now?

I think I might know what the tree and squirrel paradox is. A squirrel sits on a stump, while a hunter walks around the stump. The squirrel does not trust the hunter, and turns to make sure that it's always facing the hunter. The question is, does the hunter walk around the squirrel?

The paradox is one of semantics. One argument is that, if the hunter had actually walked around the squirrel, he should have seen the squirrel's back. Since he does not, he did not. On the other hand, the hunter has walked around the stump, on which the squirrel sat, and from that we may conclude that he did in fact walk around the squirrel.

Well, I heard it about the squirrel actually hiding behind the stump, but yes, that's the one.

[Kanastrous]

The what now?

I think I might know what the tree and squirrel paradox is. A squirrel sits on a stump, while a hunter walks around the stump. The squirrel does not trust the hunter, and turns to make sure that it's always facing the hunter. The question is, does the hunter walk around the squirrel?

This does not impress me as being much of a paradox.

After all, the moon orbits the earth, and we only see one face of the moon - it being tidally locked - but we still know what's going around what. No stump required, even.

The point being that rotations-about-their-axes and relative positions in space between two bodies, have zero to do with one another and can be considered separately.

[Darth Wong]

The what now?

I think I might know what the tree and squirrel paradox is. A squirrel sits on a stump, while a hunter walks around the stump. The squirrel does not trust the hunter, and turns to make sure that it's always facing the hunter. The question is, does the hunter walk around the squirrel?

The paradox is one of semantics. One argument is that, if the hunter had actually walked around the squirrel, he should have seen the squirrel's back. Since he does not, he did not. On the other hand, the hunter has walked around the stump, on which the squirrel sat, and from that we may conclude that he did in fact walk around the squirrel.

How is that a paradox? That's just semantic nitpicking over the contextual meaning of the word "around".

People who say bullshit like that remind me of the sort of insufferable smart-ass who would answer a question like "what is the most powerful weapon ever created by man" with "the printing press" instead of "the hydrogen bomb".

[Omeganian]

The what now?

I think I might know what the tree and squirrel paradox is. A squirrel sits on a stump, while a hunter walks around the stump. The squirrel does not trust the hunter, and turns to make sure that it's always facing the hunter. The question is, does the hunter walk around the squirrel?

The paradox is one of semantics. One argument is that, if the hunter had actually walked around the squirrel, he should have seen the squirrel's back. Since he does not, he did not. On the other hand, the hunter has walked around the stump, on which the squirrel sat, and from that we may conclude that he did in fact walk around the squirrel.

How is that a paradox? That's just semantic nitpicking over the contextual meaning of the word "around".

People who say bullshit like that remind me of the sort of insufferable smart-ass who would answer a question like "what is the most powerful weapon ever created by man" with "the printing press" instead of "the hydrogen bomb".

Well, first of all, the classic version is not with the squirrel standing on the stump - the squirrel is moving around the stump, always on the side opposite to the hunter. Second, I'm not sure myself if paradox is the proper word (an argument can be better). And lastly, I saw this in three different books, and only one was actually about paradoxes (the one by Martin Gardner).

P.S. The most powerful weapon ever created was the cannon on Aurora. A single blank shot caused seventy years of devastation.

[Darth Onasi]

P.S. The most powerful weapon ever created was the cannon on Aurora. A single blank shot caused seventy years of devastation.

Are you being satirical? Because that's not power, that's effect. And that's assuming the damn cannon started anything, which it didn't. It was a component in the revolution.