Atheism as a Religion

[McBell]

I would very much like to see you provide some form of reasoning behind this other than your specific belief.

As would I.

 

[McBell]

The infant is not yet conscious of itself as a separate entity. The "default position" at birth is a kind of oceanic awareness in which the self has not yet differentiated itself from the cosmos; there is no separation between the inside and outside, subject and object, body and environment. It's a state of primal paradise before the Fall into self-awareness. "Belief" in God is irrelevant because God and Self are not yet differentiated.

Therefore the infant does not believe in a deity.
Thus by definition of the word atheist (lack of belief or disbelief in a deity) it is an atheist.
Thus by definition of the word theist (belief in one or more deities) it is NOT a theist.

 

[Wolke]

Therefore the infant does not believe in a deity.
Thus by definition of the word atheist (lack of belief or disbelief in a deity) it is an atheist.
Thus by definition of the word theist (belief in one or more deities) it is NOT a theist.

I'm not interested in playing semantic games.

OK, an infant is "not a theist" in the same sense that a dog or a rock is "not a theist". The infant has no concept of God in the same way that it has no concept of space or time, which are nonetheless within its consciousness.

But this is pure silliness and has nothing to do with the substance of the discussion.

 

[fantome profane]

No one ever tells a holocaust denier that they just need to have faith that the holocaust happened. No one says it is so obvious that everyone just instinctively knows it in the back of their mind. No, we show them the evidence, the physical evidence, the historical evidence, the personal testimonies.

The comparason of holocaust deniers to atheists or agnostic atheists is just extreme absurdity.

 

[McBell]

I'm not interested in playing these childish semantic games.

I understand, you want to talk about the atheists that fit inside your narrow preferred definition of the word atheist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do they doubt? Is it really because of a lack of evidence, as they claim? Should we take their word for it? Or is the existence of God something that is so obvious that everyone knows it in the back of his mind even if he will not admit it to himself? Is not the real reason for doubting the existence of God a positive belief in a materialist philosophy which is incompatible with theism? (To say nothing of unconscious and irrational reasons.)

I think it's that way because nothing has actually come forth outside of human opinion that lays claim for a creator. The crux imo is complexity in wake of our capacity to think and understand. Doubts come about on what is established so far on what we cannot
yet understand fully, and paradoxically affirmation of a creator goes along the same lines.

In other words, one seems based on what is known already suggesting x, and the other is suggesting there is more than meets the eye and establishing y. Unless something transpires, the strongest case seems more grounded with x as opposed to y by way of establishment.

 

[Wolke]

No one ever tells a holocaust denier that they just need to have faith that the holocaust happened. No one says it is so obvious that everyone just instinctively knows it in the back of their mind. No, we show them the evidence, the physical evidence, the historical evidence, the personal testimonies.

The comparason of holocaust deniers to atheists or agnostic atheists is just extreme absurdity.

You're missing the point entirely.

I understand, you want to talk about the atheists that fit inside your narrow preferred definition of the word atheist.

Reducing everything to semantics (a common tactic of obscurantists and dishonest debaters) never gets us anywhere. I've defined atheism as disbelief in the existence of God. This is not some unusual or exotic definition of the word. I'm sure you'd like to argue over the definition of 'atheism' for another 11 pages (I've seen it happen a thousand times) without making any progress in your understanding of my arguments, but I will not take part in such a discussion.

 

[McBell]

Reducing everything to semantics (a common tactic of obscurantists and dishonest debaters) never gets us anywhere. I've defined atheism as disbelief in the existence of God. This is not some unusual or exotic definition of the word. I'm sure you would argue over the definition for another 11 pages without making any progress in your understanding of my arguments.

I understand that your argument requires ignoring definitions of atheist that would hurt your argument.

Though I do find your blatant hypocrisy amusing.
Especially given you most likely have no clue about it.

 

[fantome profane]

You're missing the point entirely.

Are you getting my point?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not interested in playing semantic games.

OK, an infant is "not a theist" in the same sense that a dog or a rock is "not a theist". The infant has no concept of God in the same way that it has no concept of space or time, which are nonetheless within its consciousness.

But this is pure silliness and has nothing to do with the substanc-go. e of the discussion.

Actually i don't think so. This suggests the brain needs information, and is thus prone to GI - GO. This seems a valid enough starting point.


.

 

[Wolke]

I understand that your argument requires ignoring definitions of atheist that would hurt your argument.

Though I do find your blatant hypocrisy amusing.
Especially given you most likely have no clue about it.

Yes, "disbelief in the existence of God" is some highly esoteric and unconventional definition that no one has ever heard of.

Anyway, I am not going to make any further responses to obvious trolling. I am discussing this in order to come to a better understanding of the issue at hand, not in the spirit of one-upmanship. I am only going to respond to serious and sincere posts from now on.

 

[McBell]

I am only going to respond to serious posts from now on.

Good idea.

I shall await for you to make one.

 

[Blackdog22]

I find that people adopt a sceptical posture merely because it gives them a better footing in an argument

Im surprised to hear a religious person say that. Why do you think skeptics have an edge?

not because it reflects their true beliefs.

Thats a rather big assumption. What makes you think that my true belief isn't being skeptical of things that are deserving of skepticism?

Holocaust deniers often say that they don't deny the Holocaust, but merely doubt the extermination story because in their mind there is no evidence for it. Like atheists, they claim that the burden of proof is on the "believers" to supply the evidence. But clearly, though they adopt a sceptical posture, their position is actually based on positive beliefs or attitudes (antisemitic conspiracy theories).

The holocaust is backed up by tons of historical evidence including the Nuremberg trial as well as millions of documents, some of which are in our own archives right now as well as Germany's. I see no relationship between the holocaust and Xenu (since you didn't name any specific God).

In the case of atheism, the positive belief system is usually some form of materialism, usually combined with a belief in positivism or scientism.

I don't know many atheists, including Hitchens, that claim "Nothing exists besides what we see", but there is no reason to believe otherwise(Doesnt mean that belief is right). If you want to open yourself to believing in tons of things we have no evidence for then go right ahead.

There is often mingled with this an element of wishful thinking (attenuation of the sense of guilt, relinquishment of moral duties and responsibilities, the desire to be in control, fear of the afterlife, etc.).

There is often an element of fear, along with a false sense of being wronged, a thirst for seeing people be tortured, and a self centered nature that followers of (insert religion) have.

Can you please not make 100 assumptions about what you think. There is no evidence, thats it. The same reason you don't believe in Zeus is the same reason I don't follow your God. Its that simple. If you have ever not believed in something that had no proof, like say Santa, then you already understand the Atheist.

 

[Wolke]

Im surprised to hear a religious person say that. Why do you think skeptics have an edge?

Life is not a debating society.

Thats a rather big assumption. What makes you think that my true belief isn't being skeptical of things that are deserving of skepticism?

Because you refuse to see. If scientists want to know if Jupiter has a moon, they look through a telescope. If you want to know whether God exists, you follow the steps and instructions to attain enlightenment. Arguing about it will not get you anywhere. Not following religious practices, while denying the existence of God, or depreciating those who believe in God, is like refusing to look through the telescope. The fact that you refuse to look through the telescope suggests to me that your scepticism is insincere.

The holocaust is backed up by tons of historical evidence

Exactly.

I don't know many atheists, including Hitchens, that claim "Nothing exists besides what we see", but there is no reason to believe otherwise(Doesnt mean that belief is right).

Who are you quoting?

If you want to open yourself to believing in tons of things we have no evidence for then go right ahead.

I don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

There is often an element of fear, along with a false sense of being wronged, a thirst for seeing people be tortured, and a self centered nature that followers of (insert religion) have.

Thus behaving contrary to the dictates of their own religion.

There is no evidence, thats it.

There is no evidence that anything exists outside of your mind.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, but I suspect this is a case of refusing to look through the telescope.

The same reason you don't believe in Zeus is the same reason I don't follow your God.

Then you should deny your own existence.

Its that simple. If you have ever not believed in something that had no proof, like say Santa, then you already understand the Atheist.

I understand the atheist mentality perfectly well. I was an atheist until one year ago, in fact. As a former atheist, I was expecting better arguments from you.

 

[outhouse]

I didn't imply that materialism and atheism are logically or necessarily related to each other. I am talking about popular atheism as represented by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. These individuals disbelieve in the existence of God because they are true believers in conventional materialism. In their mind, materialism has done away with God. I am not suggesting that the connection between materialism and atheism is based on sound philosophical reasoning. One can certainly be an idealist and an atheist (John McTaggart), or a materialist and a theist (Peter van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker). However, the materialist worldview is a kind of modern myth that exhibits all the hallmarks of religion, and insofar as atheism presupposes a materialist worldview, it implies a positive belief.

I'm trying to follow but I just don't. Materialism doesn't have anything to do with anything here.


I'm a atheist because I love theology. And if you study religion you see a pattern of men creating and defining deities at will, combine that with no evidence what so ever, and I don't see a place for a deity in the real world outside of imagination and fantasy.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Understand there's a difference between religion (a gathered set of beliefs), philosophy (a belief or strategy of life), and theological stance (the stance on a god).

Next, understand that usually words that end in "theist" are a theological stance.

Next, realize that theological stances are used in religions and are co-existing with philosophy, they are a small part of religions and are a parallel part of philosophy.

Finally, connect the dots. Atheism is a theological view. There's many philosophies that can be placed behind it, in fact thousands of them. The most common ones? Materialism, skepticism, scientism, and/or humanism.

Most atheists are Secular Humanists, which is a religion gathering the philosophies of humanism, skepticism, materialism, scientism, freethinking, and often times utilitarianism. It uses the theological view of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion, you're mixing it up with the commons. Dig that?

 

[Wolke]

I'm trying to follow but I just don't. Materialism doesn't have anything to do with anything here.

I guess you aren't familiar with the writings of atheists. I can't really help you with that. I was an atheist for 15 years. I am quite familiar with atheist literature and what atheists actually believe, thank you.

And if you study religion you see a pattern of men creating and defining deities at will,

The various interpretations of God are interesting and sometimes profound. But the substance of religion can be distinguished from the accidents by which it is apprehended; that substance has a universal, not a denominational or cultural, significance. It is the common property of all sentient beings. All religions are one.

The reason for religious differences is that no direct description of mystical consciousness can ever be possible. It must always be symbolic. Individuals in different cultures will come up with different symbols, different artistic representations, to suggest the experience of mystical illumination. When Jesus experienced the unity of his Self with the divine ground of being, he only had biblical theology to fall back upon. So he said he was the Son of God, the messiah. A Buddhist or Hindu having the same experience would put it differently. But the experience itself is the same. Underneath the surface differences of myth and symbol, there is an underlying unity. This is difficult to appreciate if you only understand religion on the level of dogma, myth and symbol, rather than from direct experience of the Divine.

Theology is just a surface translation of Reality into a diagram that can be understood by the finite mind. But the Absolute is transcendent to thought. Theological concepts do not apply to the Absolute, for concepts are simply definitions of multiplicity, and the Absolute is an undifferentiated and distinctionless Unity.

combine that with no evidence what so ever, .

"Knowledge is a function of being." If you were interested in the evidence for the existence of God, you would be a practitioner of empirical religion. As I said earlier: If scientists want to know if Jupiter has a moon, they look through a telescope. If you want to know if God exists, you follow the steps to attain Enlightenment, such as the practice of meditation, yoga, shamanism, etc. Not following these practices, while denying the existence of God, or depreciating those who believe in God, is exactly the same as refusing to look through the telescope.

and I don't see a place for a deity in the real world outside of imagination and fantasy

I don't see any reason to suppose that you exist outside of my mind. I think you have no understanding of reality. You are imagining Deity to be something standing above, or separate from, ordinary reality. That is ignorance.

 

[Blackdog22]

After reading your responses to my post Wolke I can't make sense of most of what you said and I am not sure what position it is that you are arguing from or if you are a poe.

What happened to you exactly that made you reconsider your atheist worldview (which I highly doubt you had) into such an extreme polar opposite. Your logic speaks to either a completely altered mindset or a mindset that was never atheist to begin with.

I would also ask if you believe that Xenu is a real God and why or why not.

 

[Wolke]

After reading your responses to my post Wolke I can't make sense of most of what you said and I am not sure what position it is that you are arguing from or if you are a poe.

What happened to you exactly that made you reconsider your atheist worldview (which I highly doubt you had) into such an extreme polar opposite.

I would also ask if you believe that Xenu is a real God and why or why not.

I only became interested in mysticism after having a spontaneous mystical experience. Prior to that experience I was an atheist and a materialist. This and subsequent mystical and visionary experiences prompted me to re-examine some of the theological and philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which I had previously rejected due to my materialist presuppositions regarding the nature of reality.

 

[Looncall]

I only became interested in mysticism after having a spontaneous experience of cosmic consciousness - the sense of complete fundamental timeless unity with everything in the cosmos, forever and ever. That experience really jarred my mind. Prior to that experience I was an atheist and a materialist. I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell,and other atheist thinkers and philosophers. I was also very active in the atheist and freethinker online community.

My first religious experience was a negative one. Instead of blessedness and holiness, my first experience involved this overwhelming sense of entrapment and cosmic annihilation. In retrospect, I think I was not willing to surrender myself to God. And you have to surrender yourself completely. You don't get to hold on to your ordinary individuality as you merge with the divine mind. As Eckhart said, in order for God to get in, the creature must get out. The creature is everything you thought you knew about yourself. That all gets flushed down the toilet. Once the creature was out, I was prepared to have a true mystical experience, which happened a few months afterwards and was overwhelmingly positive. I have also had visionary experiences in which all of cosmological history from the Big Bang to the birth of Christ was represented to me in the form of a single image. I don't know what to make of visionary experiences, and I am careful to distinguish them from mystical experiences, but they are difficult to explain in terms of the materialist or physicalist paradigm.

These and other religious experiences prompted me to re-examine some of the theological and philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which I had previously rejected due to my materialist presuppositions regarding the nature of reality.

What evidence do you have that your experiences were not merely mental?

"Psychotic episodes, therefore god." is not convincing.