[quote]Sloth wrote:
But you’re using a religious sentiment!!! You are making a value judgment for atheism, that it doesn’t make. [/quote]yep
Are you focusing on Varq’s view, or… Varq’s view of atheism’s view?
If you are not hyper conscious of which one you are dealing with at any given time, it tends to get extremely confusing
Remember, Varq’s view is that atheism doesn’t really exist. So it only makes sense that Varq’s view of atheism’s view is an impossible… “idealization”, so to speak
[quote]
Somehow we’ve ended up describing a real atheist/secularist as a necessarily pacifistic, apolitical, celibate, ascetic. [/quote] make sense now?
Atheism doesn’t depend on Varq’s, or my own, view. It exists wherever a disbelief in a deity exists. There are no other requirements for atheism. An atheist can chase every last penny if he wants. His passion for acquiring money, women, land, power, or even control of how resources are distributed do not make him a theist and/or religious individual. Violence, hierarchy, dna spreading, hoarding resources, enforcing how resources are distributed can all be secular actions. If humanity lost the higher functions that makes religious thought even possible, he’d still be killing, still be courting mates, taking mates from others, hoarding resources that money just stands in for (food, water, territory). He’d still probably find strength in numbers. A hierarchy would still emerge. Distribution of one way or another would be enforced. All secular.
Broccoli just doesn’t cut the mustard. Same as our local alleged cutter of mustard , and self appointed beacon of light and clarity - Karado.
But his posts are rather entertaining.
Even if they are becoming rather predictable and repetitive…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Broccoli just doesn’t cut the mustard. Same as our local alleged cutter of mustard , and self appointed beacon of light and clarity - Karado.
But his posts are rather entertaining.
Even if they are becoming rather predictable and repetitive…[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Broccoli just doesn’t cut the mustard. Same as our local alleged cutter of mustard , and self appointed beacon of light and clarity - Karado.
But his posts are rather entertaining.
Even if they are becoming rather predictable and repetitive…[/quote]
He has a vital role to play in T-Nation society. [/quote]
With none of the self awareness shown in the clip.
And garnished with lashings of delusion plus a big helping of self importance, to boot.
Not to mention the constant speaking in the third person, which is creepy as fuck.
Now that this thread has died down a bit, I was hoping to come back to this.
Can someone put this into a sports analogy for me?
A lot fo the religious discussion is well and above over my head, and this is one of those things.
Thanks. [/quote]
The Catholic Church is the NFL.
The Protestants broke away from the NFL to form the AFL. The two leagues battled for a while, until the AFL was absorbed for the most part by the NFL.
Today the NFL is monolithic and well-established, but still faces competition from the more-recently formed AFC, which includes some of the teams that originally comprised the old AFL.
There are fierce rivalries, and the fans are all rabidly convinced that their team is the best, but it’s all the same game.
The only thing the fans can agree on is that their game is far superior to rugby (Judaism), soccer (Islam), cricket (Hinduism) and tennis (Buddhism), and that people who don’t really give a shit about sports (atheists) must be fucking weird.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Atheism doesn’t depend on Varq’s, or my own, view. [/quote] Fair enough, under one condition - this statement should include everybody
Including atheists
[quote]
It exists wherever a disbelief in a deity exists. [/quote]
I’m not so sure…
How would you consider Buddhism then?
2 separate questions… is it atheism?
Is it a religion?
[quote]
There are no other requirements for atheism. An atheist can chase every last penny if he wants. His passion for acquiring money, women, land, power, or even control of how resources are distributed do not make him a theist and/or religious individual. Violence, hierarchy, dna spreading, hoarding resources, enforcing how resources are distributed can all be secular actions. If humanity lost the higher functions that makes religious thought even possible, he’d still be killing, still be courting mates, taking mates from others, hoarding resources that money just stands in for (food, water, territory). He’d still probably find strength in numbers. A hierarchy would still emerge. Distribution of one way or another would be enforced. All secular.
[/quote]I should say that I’m not sure that I agree with Varq completely on the thing about their being no such things as atheists
Humans have hearts/souls tho. Your argument here is about how they would act without them. Seems irrelevant
Take away the soul and its no longer human. When the human pursues these with all of their heart tho, it seems reasonable to me to call it a religion. Especially if formalized, put into a culture (or subculture)… I’m gonna finish with “etc.” since my views are not fully formed and I feel more belongs tho I can’t think it
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
As an aside, I get a chuckle whenever I see our brave Christian Soldiers sporting patches and T-shirts with the English word “infidel” and the Arabic word kafir on them. An infidel, of course, is literally “a person without faith”, or in this case, without religion. The wearer obviously wishes to advertise that he or she is not Muslim, but it is ironic that this is the word, in Latin and English, that has always been used to refer to Muslims and Jews (or anyone else outside canon law) by Christians, typically in the context of “death to the infidel!”
As for kafir, it has been translated “infidel” in English, but its actual meaning is “idolator”. The first enemies of the Muslims were not Christians and Jews, but rather the polytheistic idol worshippers in the Arabian peninsula.
So anyone who wears “infidel” or kafir in their shirt or on a patch is declaring that they are either without religion, or else they worship idols. [/quote]Mostly yea
I don’t know about ‘idolater’ being the perfect translation, but that’s pretty much how it would be understood back in the day it was written
[quote]
As a further aside, what are we to make of the U.S. Marine who wears an “Infidel” T-shirt over his “Semper Fidelis” tattoo? [/quote] They probably don’t know much about it, so I wouldn’t make much of it.
I wouldn’t apply what I’m about to say to the example above - but I could see such a description being used to describe the followers of “The Antichrist”/Dajjal.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Flamer, did you ever see the debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs Minister of Parliament Anne Widdecombe and Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan? It’s an hour long but worth watching.
I think it was kind of an unfair matchup, because the Catholic Church could definitely have fielded far better advocates than the shrill, historically myopic bozos that were up on the stage, but Hitch and Fry were in top form.
What I would have liked to see, though is a matchup between Hitch and Fry on one side, and Father Reginald Foster and Father George Coyne on the other. That would be a good fight.
I can picture Brother Chris and maybe Sloth at sixty or seventy becoming something like these guys. [/quote]
Yeah, Hitchens get his ass handed to him in this video:
[quote]Karado wrote:
"The Vatican has published everything about Fatima to prove it is a miracle.‘’
By whose law does one follow that just because something cannot be scientifically
explained it’s automatically from the GOOD side of the Supernatural?
[/quote]
Why don’t you start your own thread about this so that you can be ignored there. I won’t discuss it with you, because you are dishonest and pretty much a jerk and it’s impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you about sensitive topics.
I will gladly discuss these and other topics with cleared, well educated and reasoned individuals who have no agenda other than a mutual understanding for another’s point of view. You are not that. Have you been able to demonstrate in the past you are capable of understanding and reason, then I would not have stonewalled you. Even Flamer, who is one clearly pissed off individual, has a modicum of reason to him.
