[002]
IraTheSquire
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
According to dictionary.com, \
to:
According to dictionary.com, \\\"atheism\\\" is defined as:
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It seems what is happening here is that MajinGojira is using the second definition, while 75.23.208.214 (whoever that is) is taking the first definition.
Using the second definition, obviously atheism can\\\'t cause anything. Really, if I just don\\\'t believe in a god, there\\\'s nothing there to tell me to \\\"do this\\\" or \\\"do that\\\". However, for some atheists atheism means that the lack of divine beings is a <i>doctrine</i>, which means that atheism will automatically include ideas \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must make sure that everyone else is also an atheist\\\", or even more extreme \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must destroy religion, even if that means that I must put all the religious people in gas chambers\\\". To be honest, myself I don\\\'t like calling the latter \\\"atheists\\\" atheists, but instead I call them \\\"anti-theists\\\", people who thinks that religion has to be evil (regardless of peaceful religions such as Buddhism. Yes, I know that Buddhists are not all nice people, but I have yet to encounter a Buddhist text that says \\\"all non-Buddhists/homosexuals/etc are evil and must be exterminated\\\". Buddhist going bad != Buddhist following their actual doctrine). I doubt that \\\"EX-TER-MI-NATE ALL RELIGION!\\\" is meant to be a part of atheism, according to its strictest definition.
This is actually kind of worrying. Atheism is supposed to be free of any doctrine, including \\\"I must destroy religion at all costs\\\" or \\\"I must make sure that other people are atheists as well\\\". By having any kind of doctrine (which are supposed to be anti-theistic) attached to atheism atheism risks becoming nothing more than just another religion.
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It seems what is happening here is that MajinGojira is using the second definition, while 75.23.208.214 (whoever that is) is taking the first definition.
Using the second definition, obviously atheism can\\\'t cause anything. Really, if I just don\\\'t believe in a god, there\\\'s nothing there to tell me to \\\"do this\\\" or \\\"do that\\\". However, for some atheists atheism means that the lack of divine beings is a <i>doctrine</i>, which means that atheism will automatically include ideas \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must make sure that everyone else is also an atheist\\\", or even more extreme \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must destroy religion, even if that means that I must put all the religious people in gas chambers\\\". To be honest, myself I don\\\'t like calling the latter \\\"atheists\\\" atheists, but instead I call them \\\"anti-theists\\\", people who thinks that religion has to be evil (regardless of peaceful religions such as Buddhism. Yes, I know that Buddhists are not all nice people, but I have yet to encounter a Buddhist text that says \\\"all non-Buddhists/homosexuals/etc are evil and must be exterminated\\\". Buddhist going bad != Buddhist following their actual doctrine). I doubt that \\\"EX-TER-MI-NATE ALL RELIGION!\\\" is meant to be a part of atheism, according to its strictest definition.
This is actually kind of worrying. Atheism is supposed to be free of any doctrine, including \\\"I must destroy religion at all costs\\\" or \\\"I must make sure that other people are atheists as well\\\". By having any kind of doctrine (which are supposed to be anti-theistic) attached to atheism atheism risks becoming nothing more than just another religion.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
According to dictionary.com, \
to:
According to dictionary.com, \\\"atheism\\\" is defined as:
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It seems what is happening here is that MajinGojira is using the second definition, while 75.23.208.214 (whoever that is) is taking the first definition.
Using the second definition, obviously atheism can\\\'t cause anything. Really, if I just don\\\'t believe in a god, there\\\'s nothing there to tell me to \\\"do this\\\" or \\\"do that\\\". However, for some atheists atheism means that the lack of divine beings is a <i>doctrine</i>, which means that atheism will automatically include ideas \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must make sure that everyone else is also an atheist\\\", or even more extreme \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must destroy religion, even if that means that I must put all the religious people in gas chambers\\\". To be honest, myself I don\\\'t like calling the latter \\\"atheists\\\" atheists, but instead I call them \\\"anti-theists\\\", people who thinks that religion has to be evil (regardless of peaceful religions such as Buddhism. Yes, I know that Buddhists are not all nice people, but I have yet to encounter a Buddhist text that says \\\"all non-Buddhists/homosexuals/etc are evil and must be exterminated\\\". Buddhist going bad != Buddhist following their actual doctrine). I doubt that \\\"EX-TER-MI-NATE ALL RELIGION!\\\" is meant to be a part of atheism, according to its strictest definition.
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It seems what is happening here is that MajinGojira is using the second definition, while 75.23.208.214 (whoever that is) is taking the first definition.
Using the second definition, obviously atheism can\\\'t cause anything. Really, if I just don\\\'t believe in a god, there\\\'s nothing there to tell me to \\\"do this\\\" or \\\"do that\\\". However, for some atheists atheism means that the lack of divine beings is a <i>doctrine</i>, which means that atheism will automatically include ideas \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must make sure that everyone else is also an atheist\\\", or even more extreme \\\"I\\\'m an atheist, therefore I must destroy religion, even if that means that I must put all the religious people in gas chambers\\\". To be honest, myself I don\\\'t like calling the latter \\\"atheists\\\" atheists, but instead I call them \\\"anti-theists\\\", people who thinks that religion has to be evil (regardless of peaceful religions such as Buddhism. Yes, I know that Buddhists are not all nice people, but I have yet to encounter a Buddhist text that says \\\"all non-Buddhists/homosexuals/etc are evil and must be exterminated\\\". Buddhist going bad != Buddhist following their actual doctrine). I doubt that \\\"EX-TER-MI-NATE ALL RELIGION!\\\" is meant to be a part of atheism, according to its strictest definition.
