Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
yukimura: i dont find that argument to be compelling.
it seems to me that the only folk who claim atheism is a religion are themselves religious one way or another and so seem to be motivated by an inability to imagine the world as ordered differently from themselves. from this follows a compulsion to assimilate a category like atheism into itself, as a mirror image of itself, a religion without this god character.
well, it isnt.
there's no movement.
there's no organization.
there's no ritual. no liturgy.
no shared committments to anything.
there is no community.
there are just people who use the word to situate themselves in certain types of conversations, which unfold within particular contexts (like this.)
|
This would almost seem like an arguement if those things you were describing were essential aspects of religion, which they aren't. Your "tone" strikes me as being much less interested in the logic of the issue, and much more interested in simply proving your point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
atheism is a noun.
that's all.
|
I find this arguement to be lacking. You've simply stated your point of view, just as you did in the previous post, which I accidentally skipped for reading willravel's posts, which were intelligent, well thought out arguements. I have enjoyed them thoroughly.
I guess the true root of our disagreement now is that "There is no god." only really qualifies as a doctrine if you assume the existence of a god. If not, then it would not. It is in some ways, as roachboy said, that we lack the true ability to see the matter from each other's perspective, try as we might. The issue is located at the very root of our understanding of everything.
Sorry it took so long for me to get back, I've only got certain times of day where I get the opportunity to log in.