All religions are dangerous?

[_antishock8]

Hey Canucklehead.

All due respect - I don't believe I've 'conflated' anything. I wasn't talking about atheism 'in general'.

Of course atheism doesn't assuredly lead to nihilism.
...but what stops me - as an atheist - from embracing that ideology?

From where I'm standing, it'd looks a tad difficult for a religious person to be a nihilist. But an atheist certainly could...

An atheist can be a minimalist, an exhibitionist, or a nihilist. It's up to him. However, there's nothing in Atheism that dictates anything to anyone about anything other than the atheist is a non-theist. That's it.

Benny Hinn is a nihilist, by the way.

[_Ren]

An atheist can be a minimalist, an exhibitionist, or a nihilist. It's up to him

...or her! :D
But anyway, exactly. I haven't said anything else.
I am an atheist. But I am not a nihilist. And I already knew that was a perfectly valid position... ;)

Can a religious person be a 'nihilist'?

However, there's nothing in Atheism that dictates anything to anyone about anything other than the atheist is a non-theist.

Agreed.
For example, there is nothing in atheism that dictates that a person should give a damn about anybody else but themselves...

Benny Hinn is a nihilist, by the way.

Yeah - I've heard that. I don't agree with nihilism, but if there is living proof that it doesn't inherently lead to being a 'monster' then - well, there ya go...

EDIT: We are talking about the same 'Benny Hill' right? Because if we are, you really should have said that he 'was' a nihilist.
He died in 1992 I believe...

[_GoodK]

An atheist can be a minimalist, an exhibitionist, or a nihilist. It's up to him

...or her! :D
But anyway, exactly. I haven't said anything else.
I am an atheist. But I am not a nihilist. And I already knew that was a perfectly valid position... ;)

Can a religious person be a 'nihilist'?

However, there's nothing in Atheism that dictates anything to anyone about anything other than the atheist is a non-theist.

Agreed.
For example, there is nothing in atheism that dictates that a person should give a damn about anybody else but themselves...

Benny Hinn is a nihilist, by the way.

Yeah - I've heard that. I don't agree with nihilism, but if there is living proof that it doesn't inherently lead to being a 'monster' then - well, there ya go...

EDIT: We are talking about the same 'Benny Hill' right? Because if we are, you really should have said that he 'was' a nihilist.
He died in 1992 I believe...

After reading your posts ren, it's clear that while we both seem to be non-believers, my view on atheism is much different from yours. I don't think to myself, "As an atheist..." nor do I think of my beliefs as atheist, nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways.

Replace the word atheist with non-racist.

"As a non-racist, I am free to justify anything."


You can get rid of the first half of that sentence, and just say that you (like anyone else) are free to justify any action with anything else.

[_GoodK]

An atheist can be a minimalist, an exhibitionist, or a nihilist. It's up to him

...or her! :D
But anyway, exactly. I haven't said anything else.
I am an atheist. But I am not a nihilist. And I already knew that was a perfectly valid position... ;)

Can a religious person be a 'nihilist'?

However, there's nothing in Atheism that dictates anything to anyone about anything other than the atheist is a non-theist.

Agreed.
For example, there is nothing in atheism that dictates that a person should give a damn about anybody else but themselves...

Benny Hinn is a nihilist, by the way.

Yeah - I've heard that. I don't agree with nihilism, but if there is living proof that it doesn't inherently lead to being a 'monster' then - well, there ya go...

EDIT: We are talking about the same 'Benny Hill' right? Because if we are, you really should have said that he 'was' a nihilist.
He died in 1992 I believe...

After reading your posts ren, it's clear that while we both seem to be non-believers, my view on atheism is much different from yours. I don't think to myself, "As an atheist..." nor do I think of my beliefs as atheist, nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways.

Replace the word atheist with non-racist.

"As a non-racist, I am free to justify anything."


You can get rid of the first half of that sentence, and just say that you (like anyone else) are free to justify any action with anything else.

[_Ren]

I don't think to myself, "As an atheist..." nor do I think of my beliefs as atheist, nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways.

I don't go around saying 'As an atheist, I think' this or that normally either.

But the fact remains that I AM an atheist. And the fact remains that being an atheist provides the logical 'possibility' of being a nihilist, whereas it normally wouldn't make sense to say that a religious person could be.

Do you disagree?

nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways

I don't believe there is such a thing as 'atheist ways' in a sensible, practical sense either. But I do believe that there are people who can be accurately catagorised as 'atheists'.

My beliefs aren't 'determined' by atheism, but the fact that I am an atheist does create 'logical boundaries' within which 'realm of possibility' those beliefs should sensibly lie.

Replace the word atheist with non-racist.

"As a non-racist, I am free to justify anything."

If you are trying to use the statement in the same context I was (i.e. in regards to moral action), that doesn't really work.
As a non-racist, you wouldn't be justified in behaving in racist ways.

You can get rid of the first half of that sentence, and just say that you (like anyone else) are free to justify any action with anything else.

If a Christian were to say 'I don't believe in loving my neighbour', they'd have trouble justifying that belief against the clear pronouncement in the New Testament to the contrary.
As an 'atheist' (and I know that word troubles you, but I'm using it legitimately), I can say 'I don't believe in loving my neighbour' without having to justify it against my world-view.

TO CLARIFY: I'm not suggesting that I wouldn't believe in loving my neighbour just because I am an atheist.
What I'm saying is that if I did choose to hold that belief (for whatever reason), I would have no need to justify it against my world-view. Because I am an atheist. However, a Christian WOULD have to...

[_Ren]

Look - what I'm trying to get at here is:

You can play the "A religious person might do this" game if you like.
Just be aware that that game can be played both ways...

I don't see the point personally. I don't see what it proves.
But if you wanna play it - no probs. I'll just step aside and let you get on with it...

[_GoodK]

Look - what I'm trying to get at here is:

You can play the "A religious person might do this" game if you like.
Just be aware that that game can be played both ways...

I don't see the point personally. I don't see what it proves.
But if you wanna play it - no probs. I'll just step aside and let you get on with it...

I don't know if you are talking to me here, but I'll respond anyways and say I don't see the point in speculating about what a religious person might do either. But how then would one support the claim that all religions are dangerous? Maybe a better game to play would be - a religious person has done this, or someone has done this in the name of religion, or religion in general is inclined to do this. I try and stay away from blanket statements, but saying all religion is dangerous isn't too outlandish, and arguing that other belief systems are equally dangerous (which I think you are doing?) is not a rebuttal.

I don't think to myself, "As an atheist..." nor do I think of my beliefs as atheist, nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways.

I don't go around saying 'As an atheist, I think' this or that normally either.

But the fact remains that I AM an atheist. And the fact remains that being an atheist provides the logical 'possibility' of being a nihilist, whereas it normally wouldn't make sense to say that a religious person could be.

Do you disagree?

Of course I do. I am an atheist as much as I am a non-astrologer. Or non-superstitious. Atheist is too broad, yet too unambigous, for the term to be useful. All it does is provide you with a label which theists can attack, and enables people who assert that atheism is a belief system or is something that has to be taken on faith (Rick Warren said in a Newsweek article a while agothat he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist).

I stronly disagree that being an atheist provides a logical possibility of being a nihilst.
You will need to help me by demonstrating: how a simple lack of belief in any mythical Gods that are currently on offer now leads to any sort of nihilism.
I believe "atheism" (the way I understand it) is much, much different than nihlism, while one is a lack of belief, and the other is a belief.
"Atheists" do not typically just disbelieve a claim unless there is a lack of evidence or reason to support said claim.
"Atheism" does not have a single thing to say about morality. Being an "atheist" does not diminish a sense of purpose in life at all, unless of course you thought your sole purpose in life had to do with some sort of supernatural God.

nor do I think of people that behave in atheist ways

I don't believe there is such a thing as 'atheist ways' in a sensible, practical sense either. But I do believe that there are people who can be accurately catagorised as 'atheists'.

A lot of people strongly believe that there are people that can accurately be catagorized as anti-mormons. The term may work, but technically it's a silly word to use. Like saying you are an aThorist.

My beliefs aren't 'determined' by atheism, but the fact that I am an atheist does create 'logical boundaries' within which 'realm of possibility' those beliefs should sensibly lie.

That must mean your definition of atheism is much more detailed than just a rejection of the claim that there is a God.

Replace the word atheist with non-racist.

"As a non-racist, I am free to justify anything."

If you are trying to use the statement in the same context I was (I.e. in regards to moral action), that doesn't really work.
As a non-racist, you wouldn't be justified in behaving in racist ways.

Feel free to use non-astrologer instead then. But I think atheism - a rejection of a specific belief system or multiple specific belief systems - contains the same principles behind being a non-racist. A non-racist rejects being a racist. An atheist rejects being religious. No more, no less. non-racist is a dumb word to use, and so is atheist (I'm not saying YOU are dumb for using it, just to be clear).

You can get rid of the first half of that sentence, and just say that you (like anyone else) are free to justify any action with anything else.

If a Christian were to say 'I don't believe in loving my neighbour', they'd have trouble justifying that belief against the clear pronouncement in the New Testament to the contrary.

No, again I stronly disagree. Christians are constantly justifying their beliefs against what is clearly pronounced in the Bible - check out this thread from a while back (http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=4750) and see how many times people here argued that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, that Genesis doesn't really mean that God created the Earth in 6 days when it says it, that when the Bible says the whole Earth was flooded, it really means just a small town was flooded, and plenty of other gibberish that is contrary to what the Bible says.

As an 'atheist' (and I know that word troubles you, but I'm using it legitimately), I can say 'I don't believe in loving my neighbour' without having to justify it against my world-view.

Yup, I hate the word :)
You can also say you don't believe in loving your neighbour without having to justify it against your non-racist world-view. Or your anti-good luck charms world view.

[_Ren]

No, again I stronly disagree. Christians are constantly justifying beliefs that are clearly pronounced in the Bible - check out this thread from a while back (http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=4750) and see how many times people here argued that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, that Genesis doesn't really mean that God created the Earth in 6 days when it says it, that when the Bible says the whole Earth was flooded, it really means just a small town was flooded, and plenty of other gibberish that is contrary to what the Bible says.

Ok - you got me here :) I got this one slightly wrong...
I shouldn't have said 'They'd have trouble' justifying it.
What I should have said was 'They'd have to justify it somehow'...

They might consider it a sensible, easy justification. We may deny it's a decent justification - and find it weird that they even attempt it. But they will have to make 'some kind' of justification. Whereas the atheist is under no such pressure.

I don't know if you are talking to me here

It wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was aimed at anybody who wants to pursue this line of argument... Sorry - should have been more clear.

but I'll respond anyways and say I don't see the point in speculating about what a religious person might do either. But how then would one support the claim that all religions are dangerous?

*shrug* Donno. I can't see the truth of it, so I'm having trouble seeing how such a notion can be defended...

But how then would one support the claim that all religions are dangerous? Maybe a better game to play would be - a religious person has done this, or someone has done this in the name of religion, or religion in general is inclined to do this.

But we can't say an 'atheist' has done this, or an 'atheist' has done that. Right?
...cos that's 'against the rules'?

I try and stay away from blanket statements, but saying all religion is dangerous isn't too outlandish

I wouldn't use the word outlandish. it obviously seems to be a fairly popular view in this 'Dawkins' era we live in.
I would say - however - that it is a STRONG claim, that requires a robust defense. The fact that:

a. Religions cover a HUGE area of ground
b. No attempt is made to inspect any kind of 'subset'

...makes it a very strong claim.

and arguing that other belief systems are equally dangerous (which I think you are doing?) is not a rebuttal.

If the conclusion is going to be

'Religion is dangerous:

...and so are New York horse-rides through the city...
...and so is the Milennium dome...
...and so is hard contact sport with no logical point...

Then fine. But I don't want to live in that 'Vulcan' world. I want to live here on Earth thanks.

My only 'point' in those kind of conversations has been to work out what standard of 'danger' we are actually dealing with here. It seems to be pretty 'whack' to me thus far...

Of course I do. I am an atheist as much as I am a non-astrologer. Or non-superstitious. Atheist is too broad, yet too unambigous, for the term to be useful. All it does is provide you with a label which theists can attack, and enables people who assert that atheism is a belief system or is something that has to be taken on faith

I'm trying to understand your point here.
Are you trying to suggest that the word 'atheist' literally doesn't make sense to use at all?

...in what context is it 'correct' to use the word - in your mind? Otherwise - shall we just take it out of the dictionary?

...in terms of my question "Do you disagree?" - I was really refering to this specific question:

"it normally wouldn't make sense to say that a religious person could be [a nihilist]"

My question is - if a religious person were to declare themselves a 'nihilist', would you see that as a combination that actually works?

I stronly disagree that being an atheist provides a logical possibility of being a nihilst.

Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist - in fact - CANNOT be a nihilist?!

...there must be some misunderstanding here - surely. Do you really mean that?

You will need to help me by demonstrating: how a simple lack of belief in any mythical Gods that are currently on offer now leads to any sort of nihilism

Well, being an atheist is relavent because it clearly points towards fulfilling one of the basic requirements to BE a nihilist (The one I have highlighted)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

* there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
* a "true morality" does not exist, and
* objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

I believe "atheism" (the way I understand it) is much, much different than nihlism

Of course ahteism is different to nihilism. I am not claiming that they are one in the same thing!

"Atheism" does not have a single thing to say about morality.

Agreed. Why do you beleive I'm claiming this?
I'm claiming only that atheists can have a thing or two to say about morality.

Being an "atheist" does not diminish a sense of purpose in life at all

It doesn't have to. It certainly don't feel it does for me. But it also fulfills a basic requirement of 'nihilism'. And an atheist could hold a 'nihilistic' view if they wanted to. I'm not saying an atheist WILL be a nihilist. I'm saying that they COULD be.

A lot of people strongly believe that there are people that can accurately be catagorized as anti-mormons. The term may work, but technically it's a silly word to use.

I personally can't see why it's so hard to catagorise an 'atheist'. I really don't see why it should be as contentious as the 'anti-Mormon' nonsense.

That must mean your definition of atheism is much more detailed than just a rejection of the claim that there is a God.

No - it isn't.

Example: "I believe in the principle of 'Love your neighbour' as a divine commandment"
As an atheist, that belief is outside my 'range of belief'. How can I be an atheist and beleive that? I can believe in 'loving my neighbour', but I can't beleive it as a 'divine commandment'.

Feel free to use non-astrologer instead then.

Hmmm - ok. I guess that makes more sense...

[_Ren]

Gosh darn duplicate!

Yeah. The board seems to be taking a HECK of a long time to submit posts these days...

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????

Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl

OMG! He said it in the post where he was talking to me!!!!!!!!!

*smacks forehead* Yes, I think I am on my own........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uYEM2osYQ

Again, where does he say that you made personal attacks? Quote it...just the line or two or whatever where he claims that you made personal attacks. What you showed me said this:

JAK:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

That doesn't say that you made a personal attack, Moniker.