Mythicists: Promoting religious agendas?

[outhouse]

I never said "all" atheists are like Carrier. There are indeed plenty of honest atheists out there that would never stoop to such dishonest tactics.

I think I provided enough evidence that proves Carrier is using 'mythicism' as a stalking horse to promote his religious agenda, i.e. atheism. Of course he is motivated to make money for his effort as well.

If we expect honest Christians to denounce dishonest Christian televangelists, so should honest atheists denounce dishonest evangelatheists.

Fair enough?

John T

Absolutely

I dislike very much witnessing biased atheism.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi John T,

I am not quite getting the logic here. How does not believing in God make one religious or part of a religion?

If I don't pray to Allah, does that make me religious?
If I don't collect butterflies, does that make me a collector?
If I don't play tennis, does that me an athlete?
If I don't play the piano, does that make me a musician?
If I don't believe in unicorns, does that make me a believer in mythical creatures?
If I don't teach a college course in Philosophy, does that make me a college Philosophy Teacher?

Religion is a category of certain activities. I cannot understand how not doing those activities which fall under the category of religion makes a religious person.

I am curious because this logic seems to violate one of Aristotle's Laws of Non-Contradiction: the Law of the Excluded Middle:

From Wikipedia

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

The law is also known as the law (or principle) of the excluded third, in Latin principium tertii exclusi. Yet another Latin designation for this law is tertium non datur: "no third (possibility) is given".

The earliest known formulation is Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction, first proposed in On Interpretation,[1] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false

Proposition: Believing in God is Religious
Contrary Proposition: Not believing in God is Religious.
If one of these propositions is true, then the other must be false.

Thus: either the first proposition is true and Believing in God is Religious, in which case not believing in God is not religious, or
the second proposition is true and Not Believing in God is Religious, in which case believing in God is not religious.

It seems you either have to tell us which proposition is true, making the other false, or if you assert both are true, you have to reject/violate Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I'm sorry if atheists don't believe atheism is a religion but that is simply a delusion.

JT

unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Your no true Scotsman fallacy is noted.



Not believing in mythology does not make one religious.

I'm sorry you missed the irony with my play on words.
Carrier was giving a lecture he titled: "Are Christians Delusional?". Yet, it was he who was the deluded one, using his own criteria. Do you see the irony now?


1. Actually, you incorrectly used the term: 'no true Scotsman fallacy'. That is a fallacy of presumption. For self-correction on what 'no true Scotsman' really means, please see:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/

2. Also, you made a similar mistake under fallacy of ambiguity with; "Not believing in mythology does not make one religious". That is to say, you made a 'straw-man' argument. See also:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/

Let me guess, you didn't even bother to watch the Carrier video I linked?
John T

[ficino]

John T says that he is not an inerrantist, holding as he does that biblical Inerrancy is a modern misconception of scripture. But his comments over some months now reveal him to be what strikes me as a "high view of scripture" ideologue. It doesn't surprise me that he expends a lot of effort to shoehorn those who disagree with him into the category of ideologue.

John, if you'd like to cut out the disparaging rhetoric and the heavy reliance on assertion and engage in the sort of textual analysis that these forums aim to promote, that would be very welcome.

[John T]

John T says that he is not an inerrantist, holding as he does that biblical Inerrancy is a modern misconception of scripture. But his comments over some months now reveal him to be what strikes me as a "high view of scripture" ideologue. It doesn't surprise me that he expends a lot of effort to shoehorn those who disagree with him into the category of ideologue.

John, if you'd like to cut out the disparaging rhetoric and the heavy reliance on assertion and engage in the sort of textual analysis that these forums aim to promote, that would be very welcome.

What is the topic of the O.P.?
Geeze, give me a break!

Did you bother to look at any of the links I provided to back up my claims?

As far as textual analysis, that is why I joined the forum. I hoped this was a forum for both 'high and low criticism'.

Also, I would be happy to explain how atheism is a religion. However, I have been told that doing so is considered offensive/confrontational and would get my post yanked and possibly banned. Yet, there are a lot of people here that do little more than Christian bashing and/or promoting atheism.

Do you not see it?

Now, I'm pretty much done with exposing Carrier and his hidden agenda and look very much to getting back to textual criticism. After all, that is why I joined the forum.

There are some very knowledgeable people here that I can learn a lot from.



Respectfully,
John T

[ficino]

Now, I'm pretty much done with exposing Carrier and his hidden agenda and look very much to getting back to textual criticism. After all, that is why I joined the forum.

There are some very knowledgeable people here that I can learn a lot from.



Respectfully,
John T

I Look forward to it, John.

Cordially, F

[Sheshbazzar]

Old sneaky snake has now slithered away, rather than remaining to defend what he knows is indefensible.

[John T]

Jay posted:

Proposition: Believing in God is Religious.
Contrary Proposition: Not believing in God is Religious.
If one of these propositions is true, then the other must be false.

Thus: either the first proposition is true and Believing in God is Religious, in which case not believing in God is not religious, or
the second proposition is true and Not Believing in God is Religious, in which case believing in God is not religious.

It seems you either have to tell us which proposition is true, making the other false, or if you assert both are true, you have to reject/violate Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

*****************

Of course I never made such a false proposition.

I'm not calling you dishonest, just simply that you must be confused by all the unfounded rhetoric hurled against me.

Still, I will take up your misunderstanding of Analytics and retort: Buddhism is a religion but do Buddhists believe in God?

Do you see your error now?

Best wishes,

JT

P.S. How are you doing on disproving the Kalam Cosmological argument?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... -oppy.html

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi John T.

Believing in God is only one of numerous activities that characterize a religion. For example, going to a church and praying is a religious activity even if you pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or sacrificing animals in a temple can be considered a religious activity.
One cannot say that Buddhism is a religion because Buddhist do not believe in God. Their non-belief in God does not make them religious. It is the other religious activities that Buddhists do that makes it a religion. For example, worship of sacred/supernatural places, along with periodic ceremonies of ancestor worship is a religious activity that most Buddhists do. It is for doing this and other clearly religious activities that Buddhism is regarded as a religion. Their non-belief in a God does not qualify them as part of a religion. Their other activities do.

Atheists may participate as individuals in religious activities, but their rejection of God is a non-religious activity. As a group, atheists do not participate in any religious ceremonies and atheism is not a religion. The stretching of the word "religion" to include atheists is sophistry of the Humpty Dumpty Kind:

There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

From "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Jay posted:

Proposition: Believing in God is Religious.
Contrary Proposition: Not believing in God is Religious.
If one of these propositions is true, then the other must be false.

Thus: either the first proposition is true and Believing in God is Religious, in which case not believing in God is not religious, or
the second proposition is true and Not Believing in God is Religious, in which case believing in God is not religious.

It seems you either have to tell us which proposition is true, making the other false, or if you assert both are true, you have to reject/violate Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

*****************

Of course I never made such a false proposition.

I'm not calling you dishonest, just simply that you must be confused by all the unfounded rhetoric hurled against me.

Still, I will take up your misunderstanding of Analytics and retort: Buddhism is a religion but do Buddhists believe in God?

Do you see your error now?

Best wishes,

JT

P.S. How are you doing on disproving the Kalam Cosmological argument?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... -oppy.html

[John T]

@Jay,

I think I got it now: The definition of religion is what Jay says it is and dittos on the three laws of thought by Aristotle.

Still, if you don't mind, I will stick with standard definitions and the rules of logic.

Buddhism: a religion of Asia teaching that by right thinking and self-denial one achieves nirvana...Webster

"If we assign names as well as pictures to objects, the right assignment of them we may call truth, and the wrong assignment of them falsehood...There may also be a wrong or inappropriate assignment of verbs, and if of names and verbs then of the sentences, which are made up of them."...Socrates.

Best wishes,

JT

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi John T,

I think you missed the point of my quote, which was that saying atheists are religious is like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty saying "words mean what I want them to mean".

There is a generally shared understanding of words and "I" or "you" cannot simply rewrite that understanding for our convenience.

Buddhism is a religion not because "I" or "you" say so, but because of the practices of Buddhists:

Buddhist Rituals & Practices (from http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/practices.htm)

Buddhism incorporates a variety of rituals and practices, which are intended to aid in the journey to enlightenment and bring blessings on oneself and others. While some activities are unique to certain expressions of Buddhism, there are others that are found in most of the popular forms of the belief system.

For example, the practice of meditation is central to nearly all forms of Buddhism, and it derives directly from the Buddha’s experiences and teachings. Meditation is is the central focus of Zen Buddhism and the only way to liberation in Theravada Buddhism. (Comparison Chart: Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism)

In addition to meditation, the Mahayana schools of Buddhism have developed a variety of other ritual and devotional practices, many of which were inspired or influenced by the existing religious cultures of India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, and Tibet.
Common Buddhist Practices:
Meditation

Meditation in Buddhism refers to mental concentration and mindfulness.
Mantras

Mantras refers to sacred sounds.
Mudras

Mudras are symbolic hand gestures.
Prayer Wheels

Prayer wheels assist in reciting mantras with the turn of a wheel.
Buddhism Symbols

These are used in nearly all expressions of Buddhism.

Atheists do not, as atheists, follow any of these religious practices -- meditation, mantras, mudras, prayers or pray wheels.
Buddhists do them and that makes them religious and Buddhism a religion.

Now do you believe Atheists are religious because they simply do not believe in God (in which case we are back to Aristotle's laws of contradiction), or do you believe atheism is a religion because of its practices? What are its religious practices?

Regarding Socrates/Plato's correspondence theory of truth, I have no problem with it, except for the usual caveats generally involving its simplicity, do you?

@Jay,

I think I got it now: The definition of religion is what Jay says it is and dittos on the three laws of thought by Aristotle.

Still, if you don't mind, I will stick with standard definitions and the rules of logic.

Buddhism: a religion of Asia teaching that by right thinking and self-denial one achieves nirvana...Webster

"If we assign names as well as pictures to objects, the right assignment of them we may call truth, and the wrong assignment of them falsehood...There may also be a wrong or inappropriate assignment of verbs, and if of names and verbs then of the sentences, which are made up of them."...Socrates.

Best wishes,

JT