Anti-monotheism as a religion

[Jim]

I don't understand how belief in the scientific methodologies for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith.

That isn’t what I’m calling “blind faith.”

 

[LuisDantas]

But I would need to think they were liars in the first place wouldn't I?

Yes. Do you think that we are lying?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What I’m thinking of are feminist and gender factions, and identity atheism. There might be others.

I'd be interested in how you define 'identity atheism'.

 

[Jim]

Of all the posts I’ve read so far, this one wins first prize.

So you're saying adopting things that are known to be true/factual/actual over fiction is decidedly a bad thing, right?

No.

I am anti-monotheistic. I am also anti-theistic. I pretty much eschew all belief in the supernatural and god-concepts equally. All of it. Doesn't matter if you believe in one god, many gods, or that real-life objects are gods - its all garbage in my opinion. I also don't adhere strictly to science in any sense. Those findings of science that are of obvious import and so well describe or shed light on the workings of life/the-universe/everything are awesome... but I do not put full trust in "science" or anything of a scientific nature necessarily - except perhaps the scientific method itself. All personages, groups, experimentation of variable result - all of that is up in the air, as far as I am concerned. I don't trust it, I don't necessarily distrust it. "Needs further review" is basically my stance.

I love it.

I don't accept the idea that others try to foist on positions like mine. Calling them "a religion" - as if this is supposed to make me stop in my tracks and do a 180. Ridiculous. I don't like religion - so you call what I do "religion" to try and get under my skin.

Help yourself to your unfalsifiable presumptions about my motives and intentions, but that is not what I think was my reason for bringing this up for discussion.

Well guess what? It being pretty much known that people like you don't like me or my behavior with respect to theism... to put what I do on par with your precious "religion" should actually be an insult to yourself. So here you are... self-deprecating by calling atheists' behaviors "religion." If we're so terrible, and our "religion" is so terrible then it is ONLY ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF "RELIGION," isn't it? Another point to be damned upon? Way to go out on a limb defending your precious beliefs.

Given your false premises about me and my motives, that’s brilliant.

 

[Jim]

...definition of monotheism?

If your definition, is that there is only one god,
Or, is it
Worship of one god, other gods may, or do, exist

Are you asking me? I’m not saying anything about monotheism. What I mean by “anti-monotheism” is animosities and hostilities against religions that people call “monotheistic,” and their followers. Incidentally, I think it’s misleading to call them “monotheistic.”

 

[Cacotopia]

Yes. Do you think that we are lying?

I can't prove that you are or are not, So I will say neither.

 

[Jim]

I'd be interested in how you define 'identity atheism'.

I already answered that question.

ETA: On second thought, I think I’ll answer that question any time that it’s asked. By “identity atheism” I mean a kind of identity that’s formally defined as not having any belief in any god or gods, which flies banners of science, skepticism and free thinking, but which only uses them as excuses and camouflage for continually maligning monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

 

[Cacotopia]

I already answered that question.

ETA: On second thought, I think I’ll answer that question any time that it’s asked. By “identity atheism” I mean a kind of identity that’s formally defined as not having any belief in any god or gods, which flies banners of science, skepticism and free thinking, but which only uses them as excuses and camouflage for continually maligning monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

Kind of like the sword disguised as a shield theists use to persecute others based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ideology, practice, and whatever else you can think of?

Yes we bash religion. We don't deny it. But we also won't murder you for your choice in faith either, or deny you a job, or treat you as a second class citizen.

 

[Jim]

Kind of like the sword disguised as a shield theists use to persecute others based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ideology, practice, and whatever else you can think of?

Yes.

 

[Cacotopia]

Yes.

except we don't persecute you on those principles, secular society is pushing for curbing that kind of behavior and many Christians I know view that as persecution. When they are now looked at with disdain for persecuting people. Gee, who would'a thought that was a good idea. Bunch o' theists fighting for their right to treat other people poorly because they aren't living how they think others should live, that they don't live themselves.

Lo there will stand a few atheists with the audacity to mock those theists in their hypocrisy.

 

[Milton Platt]

(update)
Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “science worship.” It’s a religion that has grown up around science, substituting “science” in the place of “God.”
(previous updates)
Currently I’m calling the religion I’m discussing here “scientianity.” It means everything that anyone calls “science” or “scientific.” Suggestions for a better name are welcome.
(end updates)

I have a new view of anti-monotheistic identity factions, including identity atheism, as denominations of a religion that substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” factional versions of history in the place of religious lore, reports of academic research in the place of scriptures, and academic and professional institutions in the place of religious ones. It has all the worst features that are associated with other religions. For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,” without any independent research or critical examination; and contempt for anyone who doesn’t.

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

What is "identity atheism"?

 

[Milton Platt]

That isn’t what I’m calling “blind faith.”

You said "For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,”.
What if their trusted sources are scientists?

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't understand how belief in God and the Spititual cause for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith. It is in fact based upon rigorous personal search, verified by observation and by most importantly by Gods Manifestations. One does not have to recreate every Message of God in the history of mankind to know the information is sound.

Regards Tony

One does however have to demonstrate that the god exists and that the messages, however many and of whatever kind they may be are actually from said god. That, sir, has never been done.

 

[Jim]

You said "For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,”.
What if their trusted sources are scientists?

You’re changing the goal posts.

 

[Milton Platt]

You’re changing the goal posts.

How? Aren't people capable of reading scientific papers, or speaking to scientists? Some folks do get their information from questionable sources, if that was what you were saying. Popular magazines are famous for click bait headlines and reinterpretation, misrepresentation, and sometimes just plain incorrect reporting.

 

[Jim]

I don't understand how belief in the scientific methodologies for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith.

That isn’t what I’m calling “blind faith.”

What if their trusted sources are scientists?

 

[Milton Platt]

something happened, there, Jim....the quotes are showing but not the responses from you.

 

[Jim]

What is "identity atheism"?

By “identity atheism” I mean a kind of identity that’s formally defined as not having any belief in any god or gods, which flies banners of science, skepticism and free thinking, but which only uses them as excuses and camouflage for continually maligning monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

 

[Jim]

something happened, there, Jim....the quotes are showing but not the responses from you.

You said:
“I don't understand how belief in the scientific methodologies for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith.”

I said:
“That isn’t what I’m calling ‘blind faith.’”

You said:
“What if their trusted sources are scientists?”

That is an example of what I’m calling “blind faith,” and part of the religion that I’m now calling “faith in science.”

 

[Jim]

Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “science worship.” I’ve updated the OP accordingly.