Burqa bans are examples of what? The refusal to tolerate religious imposition of sharia's law? Religion flatly denies people rights, it doesn't give them more.

Then make religious imposition on anyone other than your children illegal (I'm sure it already is in some way)... Obviously, this isn't all about irreligion, but just recently during the election debates Hollande was backing up Sarkozy (in fact, claiming he had been more laic in the past) on a halal meat ban in schools. Laity is meant to allow people to do whatever they want, not prohibit them from doing anything but being religious; all it is is thinly disguised xenophobia.

About the burqa/niqab issue: how does this pose a security risk that a down coat would not? Obviously when it comes to taking ID pictures and such when the face is needed to be seen, the woman has to comply or do without the service, but it makes no sense to legislate on these unwritten rules; there are non-legal consequences to breaking them, and they are unwritten as well: if you refuse to integrate yourself within a society, it's going to suck whether it's legislated against or not... The state has nothing to do with this.

He's not a dictionary, nice appeal though - it's a quote that refers to gnostic atheism, please refine your understanding of these terms before trying to argue with me. It'll save us both time and effort that could be more productively spent. For your information, calling an argument pathetic doesn't make it pathetic - showing it is, does.

 

 

If you can't pull out a dictionary and show me you're right, then we can disregard your argument (see hitchen's razor).

 

Sure thing bud

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnostic%20atheism

If you can get yourself to type "agnostic" and "atheist" you'll get to my point (and Sagan's).

 

But yeah, you're really smart. Smarter than me. Smarter than Sagan. Smarter than Merriam Webster.

Sure thing bud

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnostic%20atheism

 

If you take another noun and modify it with an adjective, you'll probably find that it also doesn't exist, namely because the dictionary doesn't offer a definition for everything. "Gigantic toes" is a good example.

 

Gnosticism and atheism do exist in the dictionary separately, though Merriam doesn't seem to have the appropriate definition for the former.

Oh god, just give it up already.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/agnostic

athe·ist

noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

 

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheist

¹ag·nos·tic

noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

 

Probably my favourite part of the argument where the two of you tooled around and changed the definition of gnostic

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosticism

gnos·ti·cism

noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

Definition of GNOSTICISM

: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

Gnosticism and atheism do exist in the dictionary separately, though Merriam doesn't seem to have the appropriate definition for the former.

 

Here's a tip: don't use wikipedia as a direct source.

 

I like the part where you make it sound like Merriam-W made the mistake, and not you.

 

This is just one case where atheists are just as bad as theists. Too much blind faith on your idiotic propaganda websites.

The problem here is the use of gnostic atheism as a term is not widespread, but is more of a contemporary term used to describe a mode of religion.

 

Given that there has been no actual formality in recognizing gnostic atheism as the appropriate term, it's really no surprise that a dictionary would not cite it as a definition.

 

All that aside, gnostic atheism is a very nice term given that gnostic would make sense to be the opposite of agnostic. It is true that Gnosticism is in fact a Christian sect, but the word it self can be traced to the latin root gnosis, which means knowledge. In the way that agnostic means we cannot have knowledge of or actually prove something, gnostic in this sense would mean that we could. The similarity in terms makes it a very convenient term. Other similar terms would be strong atheism, positive atheism, or explicit atheism. See here.

 

It is also important to distinguish the popular use of a term and it's strict meaning. Agnosticism, at its heart, simply means that one cannot know a particular thing. You will find this definition everywhere, including Merriam, as a definition. Oxford, Encyclopedia Britannica, and of course, Wikipedia, are similar in this regard.

 

I never understood people who thought attacking Wikipedia specifically was a particularly effective stance.

Do you know you're using about.com as a source? That's how desperate you are.

Do you know you're using about.com as a source? That's how desperate you are.

 

This is not an argument.

What argument? Argument is already over. You're just making up crap now to try and save face.

Well not really. I really see no problem with About.com or any of my sources to be perfectly honest, yet you seem so hinged on it.

Well not really. I really see no problem with About.com or any of my sources to be perfectly honest, yet you seem so hinged on it.

 

About.com is a blog site. Might as well link Wikipedia and get it over with. Anyway, it's obvious you got nothing else. This is probably my last post. Now I remember why I hate going into religious threads.

Both Wikipedia and About use credible references, which is why I never saw the point of attacking sources in general without specifically pointing out actual specific flaws with the articles.

 

Here's a neato reference used by Wikipedia. There's also this book that they pull some stuff from.

 

Since you're committed to only closing the argument with ad hominem and other fallacious tactics, it would appear fortunate that you have claimed to have made your probable last post; I guess the rest of the thread can continue without further obstruction and with a clearer definition on terms.

What argument? Argument is already over. You're just making up crap now to try and save face.

In debate, we call this a 'non-argument'. In other words, you haven't provided anything to convince us that your position is of any strength, only vile rhetoric that could be reasonably called malicious. It's interesting to see this pattern emerge from you.

 

Gnosticism and atheism do exist in the dictionary separately, though Merriam doesn't seem to have the appropriate definition for the former.

 

Here's a tip: don't use wikipedia as a direct source.

 

I like the part where you make it sound like Merriam-W made the mistake, and not you.

 

This is just one case where atheists are just as bad as theists. Too much blind faith on your idiotic propaganda websites.

 

If Wikipedia's sources are credible, then what argument do you have? Is it unreasonably implausible to claim that their definitions is appropriate?

 

I don't see your point, which seems to be emerging as rather consistent throughout this entire thread.

I'm borderline atheist although everyone around me is religious. I live in the Midwest/bible belt. My parents never pushed church on me, which I'm thankful for. Although they are unaware of my non beliefs. I just don't see the point in god/gods.

 

There's an amazing song called I will not say the lords prayer, by the wonder years. You guys should give it a listen.

Curious question - would a theist want to try on atheistic ideas for a week? If not, why refuse?

 

EDIT - scrap that, the discussion won't be very enlightening either way. Here's a better question: why is it so hard for theists, especially Christians, to leave their religion? - especially if they want to.

Who says that it's so hard?

It could be demonstrated by answering one question: what's the Islamic and Christian penalty for apostasy?

It could be demonstrated by answering one question: what's the Islamic and Christian penalty for apostasy?

 

Well with christianity I haven't heard of any direct penalties for apostasy, though there's the somewhat widespread belief that they will be punished by not getting access to heaven after dying. Since they wouldn't believe that, it's not keeping them from leaving the religion though.

 

Of course, there will be exceptions to that as well (I assume the pressure from society will be a lot higher if you live in an area with a lot of people of your old faith around you)

 

 

I'm not sure how Islam handles these things.

I ask this because the Islamic penalty is very clear. If the country is ruled by the religion of Islam (i.e. Sharia's Law), then leaving the blind faith of Islam equates to execution.

 

It's quite similar in the Biblical verses, although it's more muddled with the newer derivatives of Christianity sects that cherry-pick verses and chapters to accept/deny, as if to justify their shortcomings. Here's a verse or two that can be easily Googled.

 

Christianity

 

2 Chronicles 15:13

 

But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-11

 

“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. ...

 

Islam

 

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

 

Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

It's the same discussion again, fundamentalism vs. moderate religion.

 

I don't know what you want to hear. You bring up the same discussion that has led nowhere just a few pages ago. What's your goal?

The point is to illustrate the oppressive movement of religion, how it propagates itself in such an unsavory manner, the damage it does to our intellectual potential as a species, and how it inhibits free speech, etc.

 

I really don't see the point in trying to distinguish moderates from fundamentalism. It both operates on the same principles, but with the false belief that the religious beliefs are 'justified' (ironic how the leap of faith gets harder that the religious feel the need to 'prove' god now). It doesn't matter, as long as religion is there, fundamentalism is there. I'm attacking religion as a whole, you're completely missing the point when you bring up the phrase 'We're not fundamentalists'.

 

I guess what I was trying to do in a few posts above was a very simple goal: show what's wrong with religion by exposing why it's difficult to leave. It's easy to agree that people subscribe to religion because their social networks all effectively force it among them, and that the uncritical mind of a child can be effectively forced to believe anything with the right psychological nudges (or, in this case, jabs).

 

It's useful to understand why atheism, or irreligion is a growing 'movement' recently, on a global annual scale of the millions.

Yeah as long as there will be religion, there will be fundamentalists. As long as there are atheists, you will have those attacking others for believing in a god. As long as there are those fighting for animal rights, you will have peta. You can't blame an entire movement for a radical part of it. That doesn't mean closing your eyes to it. You have to address why that happens, and try to work against it. But religion is not bad because there is fundamentalism.

Atheism as a concept is not responsible for anti-theism, or even anti-religion. It's funnier still when you realize that theists tend to be strongly anti-religion/theistic, they just don't apply it equally to all religions.

 

I find this claim particularly striking though:

>Religion is not bad because there is fundamentalism.

 

If that's your assertion, then how so? I'd argue that by simply providing the platform of religious motivation, with deliberately ambiguous scripture is already a recipe for disaster, which in turn, makes it a bad thing.

Atheism as a concept is not responsible for anti-theism, or even anti-religion. It's funnier still when you realize that theists tend to be strongly anti-religion/theistic, they just don't apply it equally to all religions.

 

I find this claim particularly striking though:

>Religion is not bad because there is fundamentalism.

 

If that's your assertion, then how so? I'd argue that by simply providing the platform of religious motivation, with deliberately ambiguous scripture is already a recipe for disaster, which in turn, makes it a bad thing.

 

If religion is responsible for fundamentalism, then atheism is just as responsible for anti-theism.

 

Just regard the other example I provided (maybe taking it out of the hugely subjective theism part will do better). Are animal rights activist responsible for some extreme actions of groups like Peta?