age-limit to joining religons???

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

In fact atheism doesn't put forward any beliefs at all, it isn't a belief system

Just thinking out loud here... a belief is simply a belief. Not overly different to an opinion perhaps.

But a 'belief system' is, what, a series of beliefs related to one subject?
Or does there need to be some sort of positive projection, or adherence to them to make them a system?

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

In fact atheism doesn't put forward any beliefs at all

Well I would think that atheism puts forward the belief in the theory that the universe was not designed/ made by anthing with intelligence and also that it may have existed forever or was created naturally by an unknown occurance.
Either the universe was made one way or the other(well simply speaking...), they believe in that way. There is a difference between not believing in the gods as people picture them and the ones people believe in to the fact that there may be a god. These days, there are just two main factors about the creation of the universe that religiously minded people think about, a god or no god. To me it makes just as much sense that our universe was just created as for it not to have been created, we just can't know. There is no prove that it was created however and we have no reason to think this but similarly there is no evidence on the other side. Even though atheists may not put forward a definite 'i believe in this' theory they are still putting forward a belief. To believe that there isn't aliens in the rest of the universe is putting forward a belief similarily. It may be a belief in 'nothing' but it is putting forward a belief.

The Athiest wrote:

Just thinking out loud here... a belief is simply a belief. Not overly different to an opinion perhaps.

But a 'belief system' is, what, a series of beliefs related to one subject?
Or does there need to be some sort of positive projection, or adherence to them to make them a system?

I would hold it as something that is believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
I think there is a fairly common 'belief sytem' with atheists and they are certainly a group of people so I would say that yes, they have a belief system.
They are putting forward beliefs in the negative but that is still belief to me.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Just thinking out loud here... a belief is simply a belief. Not overly different to an opinion perhaps.

But a 'belief system' is, what, a series of beliefs related to one subject?
Or does there need to be some sort of positive projection, or adherence to them to make them a system?

A belief system is a series of foundations for forming further beliefs. So the belief system for Chrsitianity would start of with "there is a god" .. "god is all powerful" "god should be worshiped" .. "god created you" .. etc etc ... these form the foundations for more complicated beliefs, building up until you get up to more specific ideas like the Pope, or Saints etc .. it also branches out to moral issues, like killing is wrong etc.

All these beliefs work together, and to a large part don't contradict or nullify each other (you don't have "god is evil" thrown in there), so they can be seen as system of beliefs.

Atheism has none of this .. there is no beliefs that form the basis of atheism ... and before anyone says it not believing in god(s) is not a belief in itself, it is an absence of a belief.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

Atheism has none of this .. there is no beliefs that form the basis of atheism ... and before anyone says it not believing in god(s) is not a belief in itself, it is an absence of a belief.

According to one of the three main definitions of belief in the dictionary, you are incorrect. In fact they said something quite similar to what I said above.

I would hold it as something that is believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

This applies to negative belief as well, meaning that not believing in something is still a belief.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Even though atheists may not put forward a definite 'i believe in this' theory they are still putting forward a belief.

They are but they are not putting forward the Atheist belief, they are putting forward a personal belief. My belief about the universe is not the "atheist" belief it is the Wicknight belief.

You can say "Christians believe X Y Z" because following the belief system of Christianity is what makes you a christian. The same can't be said of atheist. The phrase "Atheists believe X Y Z" is pointless because it is not a belief in "Atheism" that makes you an atheist, it is the lack of belief in other religions.

Not sure if I am explain this right .. and example would be little Timmy who doesn't want to play Soccer or Rugby after school. It is possible to say that Timmy doesn't like soccer or rugby, but what Timmy is doing after school is not defined as not-playing-soccer or not-playing-rugby just because everyone else is playing one of the sports. It is defined as what ever he is doing, be it fishing, playing video games, going to the cinema, having a smoke behind the bike shed etc etc.

To define atheism as a belief there isn't a God is missing the point, in the same was as it would be to define what little Timmy is doing as not playing soccer. We only initally think like this because so many people come from some form of religious society. So if everyone else is playing soccer they might just think "what ever timmy is doing he isn't playing soccer right now" and proceed to simply label Timmy as not playing soccer.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

They are but they are not putting forward the Atheist belief, they are putting forward a personal belief. My belief about the universe is not the "atheist" belief it is the Wicknight belief.

It does not have to 'the atheist belief' as it can be held by just one person within atheism and still be put forward as an atheist belief.


going on from the definition of belief is the definition of tenet,

An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person.

amongst other things.

You are looking as a belief system within the confines of christianity and particular religions.
Then it is fair to say that there is more for timmy to do then to play football or not play football.
When it comes to a wider, more meaningful approach, it is different.
There are only the two views of which you spoke, timmy not playing soccer or timmy playing soccer.a god existing or no god existing with regards the wider picture.There are only those two may theories to put it simply.
No two people believing in a god in general would have the exact same belief(even within an organised religion) and similarly no two atheists would have the exact same beliefs. So although you may say it is your wicknight belief, everybody has their own version. The people whom believe in a god all believe different things and they are defined by you to have a belief system, but likewise atheists all have the idea that there is no god and in fact may have closer beliefs to their brethren than those that believe in a god because of the varying types of gods that people could believe in opposed to the one type of non god.
A belief system can be held by just one person within atheism and be put forward as an atheist belief system. They are all very similar beliefs and could be put forward generally under one 'atheism belief'.
this is the same as with somebody believing in a religion like christianity.
No two people have the same exact belief about their christian god but it is similar yet they can put it forward under 'the christian belief'
you say you have the wicknight belief and that is correct,not the atheist belief but on the flipside a christian could say that they have their own belief, their belief may not be the same as all other christians beliefs(due to interpretation of texts and lore etc) but still, they can say they are under the christian belief system as it has the founding principle of their being a god.In terms of the universe it is simpler because it is not 'which' god exists or doesn't exist it is whether 'a' god exists or does not.the options become only two and so to define timmy as not playing soccer would make perfect sense.

robindch

> [The Atheist] When I did history in school our teacher spared no blushes
> when describing events throughout history that were done
> in the name of Religion.

Didn't happen where I was

> Religion was 45 minutes of stuff you didn't need to know for exams.

Yeah, that certainly did happen -- did *anyone* in the country take RE seriously?

But it's missing the point a bit. To put it another way: as nobody seems to mind having RE classes, would everybody also be in favour of having some politician giving 45-minute classes once or twice a week, discussing politics, but also telling everybody that his party's the right one, and that you can't be a decent person unless you join his gang?

As I said, it's the lack of balance which bugs me more than the fact that the classes exist in the first place.

That's one of the reasons why I think that the Educate Together schools are so important (and so popular too, if my nieces' struggles to get into them are anything to go by).

> I don't know what they taught in your religion class, Robin,
> but it certainly didn't indoctrinate you the way you fear they
> might innocent minds.

I spent six years in a generally excellent liberal monastic school, but the teaching of religion was the one area where they really didn't tell the whole story at all (hardly surprising) and for a good while, I really did believe what they told me. It was only afterwards that I found out that some of them didn't really believe much of it themselves, and were only keeping up the side, as it were...

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You are looking as a belief system within the confines of christianity and particular religions.

No I'm not, I am saying people who define Atheism as a belief system are, which is missing the point.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

There are only the two views of which you spoke, timmy not playing soccer or timmy playing soccer.a god existing or no god existing with regards the wider picture.

Again you missed the point I was making, in fact I was making the exact opposite point, that there are a million views (other things timmy could be doing) and that we shouldn't define what Timmy is doing because it is the opposite of playing football (just as what ever belief an Atheist have is not simply defined as "not believing in God")

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No two people believing in a god in general would have the exact same belief(even within an organised religion) and similarly no two atheists would have the exact same beliefs. So although you may say it is your wicknight belief, everybody has their own version.

Well that is true, but teh Catholic belief system, or the Islamic belief system is ridgid and well defined. You could say you have creative freedom when playing soccer but you still play on a rectangle pitch within the rules defined. Or to put it another way, an external person can easily saw "that person is playing soccer", just like "that person is a Catholic" .. but if you saw timmy playing cards with himself you wouldn't say "that person is not playing soccer or rugby"

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Likewise atheists all have the idea that there is no god and in fact may have closer beliefs to their brethren than those that believe in a god because of the varying types of gods that people could believe in opposed to the one type of non god.

But that is my whole point, not believing in God is not a belief system in itself, just like not playing soccer is not "doing something", it is not doing something. What you are actually doing instead of playing soccer defines what you are currently doing. It is only the people who play soccer all the time that would say "Umm, timmy isn't playing soccer"

Atheism is a term given to define people who don't believe in a god and don't follow a religion. This term is, in my opinion, wrongly used as a form of religion itself.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

A belief system can be held by just one person within atheism and be put forward as an atheist belief system.

Not really, that wouldn't make much sense. My ideas about the universe can be completely different another atheists. There are not necessarily common beliefs between Atheists, just like if Timmy and Johnny are both not playing soccer that tells you nothing about what they actually are doing. One could be at the cinema the other could be on a ship in the Atlantic. By both aren't playing soccer or rugby, but that is where the commonality ends.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No two people have the same exact belief about their christian god but it is similar yet they can put it forward under 'the christian belief'

That is because christianity is a belief system with certain common belief foundations. Atheism isn't .. not in the slightest.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

you say you have the wicknight belief and that is correct,not the atheist belief but on the flipside a christian could say that they have their own belief, their belief may not be the same as all other christians beliefs(due to interpretation of texts and lore etc) but still, they can say they are under the christian belief system as it has the founding principle of their being a god.

The basic foundation of the Christian belief system is that Christ was the son of God, that he was alive and that his teachings should be followed, and that his teaching are in the bible. If you don't agree with this foundation you are not a Christian. This would be the same as saying soccer must be played on a rectangular pitch with 2 goals and you must follow these simple rules. If you don't you are not playing soccer.

There is no structure defined in Atheism. The only thing that defines someone as an atheist is that they don't believe in a God, and really that is a pretty weak definition anyway. I tend to say I am not religious instead of saying I am an Atheist because the way the word is structured implies it is a belief system in of itself.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

In terms of the universe it is simpler because it is not 'which' god exists or doesn't exist it is whether 'a' god exists or does not.the options become only two and so to define timmy as not playing soccer would make perfect sense.

Only if you are emerging out of the heavly religious-a-fide world (ie a world were everyone plays soccer (christianity say) or rugby (Islam say) and it is hard to imagine doing anything else. Because it is hard to imagine we tend to group doing anything else together as in "not playing soccer or rugby" or "not playing a sport" ... in reality there are a million and one other things to do with your time than play sport. In reality there are an infinate diversity of ideas and beliefs taht don't fall into the realm of modern religions. We just don't think about it that way because religion is so wound up in modern life that someone who doesn't believe in the basis of most religions (there is a God) is the except that would be classified as just another group inside the set of religions. In fact they are not part of the set at all, and there are infinate other sets outside of the "religion" set.

Stephen

The Atheist wrote:

When I did history in school our teacher spared no blushes when describing events throughout history that were done in the name of Religion.

Certainly not where I was. It was all pro-catholic propaganda. Other religions didn't get a mention, except in transition year, where the religion teacher was a substitute - in my leaving cert years I had this cranky ould christian brother for religion, who would get hilariously annoyed and angry whenever anyone questioned the one-sided sh1te he spent every class distributing.

Edit: oops, didn't notice you said when you did history, not religion - definately history was a bit more balanced but still it wasn't fully straight about it all.

I also recall learning about Evolution in history class. We also has a "civics" class where society issues were discussed. Religion was 45 minutes of stuff you didn't need to know for exams.

Never did that either. Most of the junior cert history course that I can remember (didn't do it at leaving level) was religious based up until they got to things like the easter rising, world wars, etc. All those hours wasted studying the typical beehive hut of some ancient monks, and so on, followed by stuff about the reformation (which was actually impressively honest for a catholic school, since they mentioned the utter corruption of the church at the time and the formation of various flavours of protestant christianity).

Also, laughably, the aforementioned christian brother insisted on giving christmas/summer exams on his subject, which, since it counted for absolutely nothing, nobody studied -- once more, adding to his rage.

I don't know what they taught in your religion class, Robin, but it certainly didn't indoctrinate you the way you fear they might innocent minds.

I wouldn't say it indoctrinated me... it tried to.

A parent's right to raise their children in their religion is a whole different hornets' nest. Might be best stick to the state/church area rather than a tricky tangent...

Yeah, I think a parent has the right to raise their child in whatever faith they want, but they should also respect the child's wishes once the child reaches a reasonable age. My ma still won't respect my choice to be an atheist (and I'm now 23), and whenever any of the usual catholic festivals roll around I get lots of lovely lectures about it.

Woo, longest post i've made on this site in quite a while :v: .

nesf

Stephen wrote:

I wouldn't say it indoctrinated me... it tried to.

You know, nearly everyone I've talked to who had a similar experience to you has said the same. It seems, in my experience, that such teaching just alienates people.

samb

Stephen wrote:

Yeah, I think a parent has the right to raise their child in whatever faith they want, but they should also respect the child's wishes once the child reaches a reasonable age. .

I think that we should leave state funded schools to teaching things that we can all agree on such as maths, irish, english etc.. Parents can tell their kids whatever they like but I would recommend they DON'T teach their kids anything uncertain UNTIL they are of a reasonable age. At a reasonable age if you disagree with them and they don't respect that, then they have a problem.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

a lot of points and I have a lot of studying to be doing

I think we are just talking about two different ideas and they are getting muddled. Ignore the fact that any religions exist at all, kapoot, they are gone because atheism extends beyond them.
I am saying that the universe was either created by something we would deem a 'god' or it was not. The two theories that exist. Either one may have happened. Now, to say that there is millions of things timmy could be doing instead of soccer is not true. If you are not believing in creation then there is only the one other belief. You can define it as believing in a god or believing in no god because there are only two options and whenever you say one the other will spring to mind. In essence you are saying both things in the obne sentence. You can define it as one line or the other and it will make sense to the person you are talking to because tehre are only two options.
If there are only two options, it is my opinion that you can define either one, even the negative one- because thare are but two options.
If you still disagree then that is your opinion, fair enough.

MsMolko

Something like confirmation should be left until the said person knows about other religions and their practices etc. It doesn't seem fair to set an age limit as people mature at different rates, but you should at least wait until the confirmee is of an age where sensible decisions are to be made. I've limited my point to confirmation but I think it's the same with anything really.

samb

Tar aldarion
No two people believing in a god in general would have the exact same belief(even within an organised religion) and similarly no two atheists would have the exact same beliefs. So although you may say it is your wicknight belief, everybody has their own version. The people whom believe in a god all believe different things and they are defined by you to have a belief system, but likewise atheists all have the idea that there is no god and in fact may have closer beliefs to their brethren than those that believe in a god because of the varying types of gods that people could believe in opposed to the one type of non god.
A belief system can be held by just one person within atheism and be put forward as an atheist belief system. They are all very similar beliefs and could be put forward generally under one 'atheism belief'.
this is the same as with somebody believing in a religion like christianity.
No two people have the same exact belief about their christian god but it is similar yet they can put it forward under 'the christian belief'
you say you have the wicknight belief and that is correct,not the atheist belief but on the flipside a christian could say that they have their own belief, their belief may not be the same as all other christians beliefs(due to interpretation of texts and lore etc) but still, they can say they are under the christian belief system as it has the founding principle of their being a god.In terms of the universe it is simpler because it is not 'which' god exists or doesn't exist it is whether 'a' god exists or does not.the options become only two and so to define timmy as not playing soccer would make perfect sense

This is very interesting. What is says to me is that Religion does not really exist at all. Since every human on the planet has their own unique beliefs. Religions are just artificail names given to groups of people to try and characterise thier believes.
Religions with rules such as catholism do however try to impose a belief system but it is impossibe.