Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

[InChrist]

Maybe you should actually try studying Flawlessism before judging it so harshly, because based on everything you've said, you don't understand it at all. And to clarify, Flawlessism is a religion developed through trial and error, it's a religion I've spent years making, it's not something with no thought put into it as you seem to be implying.

For what reason would or should anyone study a made up religion by someone on an online forum?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see why it's necessary to achieve this purpose, and I don't see why it doesn't work at all to achieve that purpose.


Please provide an example of something that counts as worthwhile in this type of scenario.


So? Why do I need to be accomodating to something like that? Why do I owe them such an acknowledgement? What's in it for me to do so?

I want them to accomodate me by not trying to impose their religion on me; that's the only thing that suits me.

If someone who's a flat-earther achieves something worthwhile and attributes it to their belief that the Earth is flat, then I'm specifically and actively going to put the effort to not acknowledge such a thing; that, to me, would be a ridiculous thing to do.


Nope, if anything it enhances clarity of the word.


What is contrary to what, and what are you referring to as "the core issue"?


I'm not thinking in terms of insult and derogation; I'm just thinking "not science", "not useful to me" (doesn't put food on my plate or a roof over my head), etc.


I don't see that this takes into account my context and the substance of my position, which is what matters to me; it only seems to be about a game of semantics and/or quibbling.

Please criticize my arguments or position if you wish to do so, but to me, semantics & quibbling games don't really go anywhere.


Far from it! I certainly do see that religion is a real and very significant thing, and I already demonstrated this when I spoke about the burdens, problems, and atrocities that it has imposed on society. So, such an assertion relies on intellectual dishonesty.

Clearly we are not going to convince each other, if the will to try is even there in the first place.

From my part, I have spent all the effort that I see any sense in using up. You have not convinced me that it was worth the time, so bye.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you should actually try studying Flawlessism before judging it so harshly, because based on everything you've said, you don't understand it at all. And to clarify, Flawlessism is a religion developed through trial and error, it's a religion I've spent years making, it's not something with no thought put into it as you seem to be implying.

Small tip from someone who has been interested in religions for at least 35 years now:

It is a rare and unexpected occasion when anyone understands anyone else's religious beliefs and conceptions.

If you think that it is "harsh" when someone fails to, you are bound to face a lot of disappointment indeed.

 

[Echogem222]

Small tip from someone who has been interested in religions for at least 35 years now:

It is a rare and unexpected occasion when anyone understands anyone else's religious beliefs and conceptions.

If you think that it is "harsh" when someone fails to, you are bound to face a lot of disappointment indeed.

When someone rejects a religious belief without even bothering to understand it, I mean harsh in the sense that it's pointless to be that critical. If someone doesn't have an interest in learning about Flawlessism, fine, they can do that, but saying they know enough to judge it as a waste of time when they don't know it is just fallacious reasoning. I'm honestly getting the feeling that a large majority of people on this site who claim they're old are actually teenagers given their low maturity. I happen to be an adult, and I never bother to mention my age when trying to prove I'm making a reasonable point because I see it as immature. So yes, even you, I suspect are not even above 30 years old.

In other words, if you want to make a point to me, stop mentioning your age, just say what is actually wise or don't. If you truly are as old as you claim, then I find that very sad you feel the need to use your age as you have, after all, why should I trust you that you're actually telling the truth about being interested in religions for at least 35 years now? Why can't you just show that wisdom through your words??

 

[siti]

Here is my understanding of religion:

And here is my understanding of secular religion: A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly, or material, entities.

If you are 18+ years old, then I would be happy if you studied my religion since my religion is restricted to 18+. So assuming you're 18+ go here: | https://www.reddit.com/ [---] r/GoodAndEvilReligion/wiki/index/ | (but remove the [---] part)

OK...started with your "Learning the basics" document...

You state the central idea of your scheme as something like "there exists a flawless good" which, I gather, is the point and/or purpose of life...

You also emphasize the importance of rational thought and critical reason...yes?

So what is the rationale for positing or accepting the existence of this "flawless good"?

Is there any empirical evidence or philosophical argument to support it?

PS - it occurs to me that your "flawless good" is - superficially at least - a bit like Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point...except his idea is founded on his Christian faith...but it boils down to something similar...a kind of "attractor" that "pulls" us towards some kind of ultimate "good" or "unity"...and which "guides" evolution towards that goal...

 

[Echogem222]

OK...started with your "Learning the basics" document...

You state the central idea of your scheme as something like "there exists a flawless good" which, I gather, is the point and/or purpose of life...

You also emphasize the importance of rational thought and critical reason...yes?

So what is the rationale for positing or accepting the existence of this "flawless good"?

Is there any empirical evidence or philosophical argument to support it?

It's about how it affects you. I would argue that most of us would like it to be true that there is some type of point to life which is perfectly good (at least that's how it is for me), however, we can't just blindly believe this to be true, we need a reasonable basis to do so, otherwise, that would affect our sense of judgement for other things. It could cause us to just blindly believe that other things are true, that are not true, and are even harmful for us. In philosophy, views need to be consistent, otherwise, we are inviting inconsistencies elsewhere in our lives. So, the internal structure of Flawlessism needs to be not only consistent, but our belief in it needs to be consistent with how we live our lives wisely. The issue with this is that I'm a limited person, I don't have awareness of everything, so to fix this, Flawlessism needs to be able to evolve through trial and error, but it also needs enough structure to last through that process of evolving through trial and error, so to do that, I made the core faith that a Flawless Good exists, so long as that remains possible, it's possible to continue to evolve Flawlessism even if mistakes are pointed out.

But by simply having hope/faith in there being a Flawless Good which exists, that would then mean other things must be true for that to be true, and that is how the entire structure of Flawlessism takes form from more than simple hope in the Flawless Good, but wisdom in other forms that can help us get through the hardships in life.

In the end, I would summarize the point of Flawlessism having hope in a way which is actually safe since it doesn't require blind belief. I see some other religions as basically being just that at their core, of people wanting to have hope, but feeling like there needs to be some type of trick to it, some type of understanding which needs to be gained. Christians seem to do this by believing that hell exists, that the ones who affect them negatively will be punished one day, that there's an entire structure to life which is why suffering exists, etc. it's this entire structure that allows Christians to feel like they're on the right path (I understand Christianity the best since I was once a Christian for many years, having been indoctrinated into the church when I was born. But it's because of this that I realize that not every Christian is the same, in that, despite seeming the same, some can be very different from each other).

Religions are a lot like buildings, they keep out the rain, and other negative things, causing believers to feel like there's something real to it, but from my perspective this is short sided because they are not willing to go outside of that "building" in order to better understand the world and that building's place in it. Flawlessism isn't like that because it encourages people to go outside of the "building" I have created so they can understand why I built everything the way I did, and possibly be able to point out flaws even I didn't realize.

 

[siti]

It's about how it affects you. I would argue that most of us would like it to be true that there is some type of point to life which is perfectly good (at least that's how it is for me), however, we can't just blindly believe this to be true, we need a reasonable basis to do so, otherwise, that would affect our sense of judgement for other things. It could cause us to just blindly believe that other things are true, that are not true, and are even harmful for us. In philosophy, views need to be consistent, otherwise, we are inviting inconsistencies elsewhere in our lives. So, the internal structure of Flawlessism needs to be not only consistent, but our belief in it needs to be consistent with how we live our lives wisely. The issue with this is that I'm a limited person, I don't have awareness of everything, so to fix this, Flawlessism needs to be able to evolve through trial and error, but it also needs enough structure to last through that process of evolving through trial and error, so to do that, I made the core faith that a Flawless Good exists, so long as that remains possible, it's possible to continue to evolve Flawlessism even if mistakes are pointed out.

But by simply having hope/faith in there being a Flawless Good which exists, that would then mean other things must be true for that to be true, and that is how the entire structure of Flawlessism takes form from more than simple hope in the Flawless Good, but wisdom in other forms that can help us get through the hardships in life.

In the end, I would summarize the point of Flawlessism having hope in a way which is actually safe since it doesn't require blind belief. I see some other religions as basically being just that at their core, of people wanting to have hope, but feeling like there needs to be some type of trick to it, some type of understanding which needs to be gained. Christians seem to do this by believing that hell exists, that the ones who affect them negatively will be punished one day, that there's an entire structure to life which is why suffering exists, etc. it's this entire structure that allows Christians to feel like they're on the right path (I understand Christianity the best since I was once a Christian for many years, having been indoctrinated into the church when I was born. But it's because of this that I realize that not every Christian is the same, in that, despite seeming the same, some can be very different from each other).

Religions are a lot like buildings, they keep out the rain, and other negative things, causing believers to feel like there's something real to it, but from my perspective this is short sided because they are not willing to go outside of that "building" in order to better understand the world and that building's place in it. Flawlessism isn't like that because it encourages people to go outside of the "building" I have created so they can understand why I built everything the way I did, and possibly be able to point out flaws even I didn't realize.

OK...but all that boils down to: it would be nice to think that life has a good and positive purpose...

Well yes I suppose it would be nice...but I see no compelling evidence to suggest that it is so...unless...

...unless we ourselves make it so...which is essentially a statement of secular humanism... it's up to us to ďecide/ determine what is "good" and then do our best to make that happen.

 

[LuisDantas]

When someone rejects a religious belief without even bothering to understand it, I mean harsh in the sense that it's pointless to be that critical.

If you say so. I would call it unremarkable instead of harsh, though. Rejecting beliefs is not being critical; it is lacking interest.

If someone doesn't have an interest in learning about Flawlessism, fine, they can do that, but saying they know enough to judge it as a waste of time when they don't know it is just fallacious reasoning. I'm honestly getting the feeling that a large majority of people on this site who claim they're old are actually teenagers given their low maturity. I happen to be an adult, and I never bother to mention my age when trying to prove I'm making a reasonable point because I see it as immature. So yes, even you, I suspect are not even above 30 years old.

And we all will use that piece of info to gauge your own level of maturity and wisdom, even if we might not consciously decide to.

In other words, if you want to make a point to me, stop mentioning your age, just say what is actually wise or don't. If you truly are as old as you claim, then I find that very sad you feel the need to use your age as you have, after all, why should I trust you that you're actually telling the truth about being interested in religions for at least 35 years now? Why can't you just show that wisdom through your words??

Oh, okay. Bye. Be well.

 

[Echogem222]

OK...but all that boils down to: it would be nice to think that life has a good and positive purpose...

Well yes I suppose it would be nice...but I see no compelling evidence to suggest that it is so...unless...

...unless we ourselves make it so...which is essentially a statement of secular humanism... it's up to us to ďecide/ determine what is "good" and then do our best to make that happen.

No, it's not the same since I'm saying that there exists a flawless good that helps us to become better people, to have hope. Yes, they are similar, but still different. If you studied the first book of Flawlessism, you'd realize that logic requires faith to believe in, that it's not something which can be known as true since our awareness may not have the effect we think it does, meaning that everything we think we understand through our "awareness" could be something completely different. This justifies having faith since even logic requires faith.

 

[F1fan]

When someone rejects a religious belief without even bothering to understand it,

It's your religion and you have the duty to be comprehensible to others. Thus far you have many basic claims, and no real coherent explanation. Your word useage is problematic and confusing. That's on you to correct.

I mean harsh in the sense that it's pointless to be that critical. If someone doesn't have an interest in learning about Flawlessism, fine, they can do that, but saying they know enough to judge it as a waste of time when they don't know it is just fallacious reasoning. I'm honestly getting the feeling that a large majority of people on this site who claim they're old are actually teenagers given their low maturity. I happen to be an adult, and I never bother to mention my age when trying to prove I'm making a reasonable point because I see it as immature. So yes, even you, I suspect are not even above 30 years old.

A bit ironic since you are getting quite testy with critics.

In other words, if you want to make a point to me, stop mentioning your age, just say what is actually wise or don't. If you truly are as old as you claim, then I find that very sad you feel the need to use your age as you have, after all, why should I trust you that you're actually telling the truth about being interested in religions for at least 35 years now? Why can't you just show that wisdom through your words??

You typed a lot of words, and nothing that helps anyone understand your religion. That's a red flag.

 

[Link]

"Higher value" seems to serve the purpose nicely, and without the baggage that comes with the word "god".

The problem that I see is that relying on such vague, ill defined concepts such as "god" and "worship" just isn't helpful.

Do you understand that many of us associate the word "god" with attributes and qualities (such as a conscious will) that just aren't necessarily a part of what one might value most?

Also, I think that you may be engaging in a bit of circular thought. You are taking for granted that everyone has some god to explain why we atheists are not "real" atheists.

And, if I understood you correctly, you are also saying that everyone engages in worship of their own god or gods even if they have no idea nor intention of doing that. Is that correct?

It's not vague, it's just not complicated and atheists don't feel all too special through this definition. The latter is why academics have made it too complicated now. Why does a word exist for every type of valuing except the highest now? It seems some serious work has been made to complicate the definition.

And yes, the last statement is correct.

 

[F1fan]

It's about how it affects you. I would argue that most of us would like it to be true that there is some type of point to life which is perfectly good (at least that's how it is for me), however, we can't just blindly believe this to be true, we need a reasonable basis to do so, otherwise, that would affect our sense of judgement for other things. It could cause us to just blindly believe that other things are true, that are not true, and are even harmful for us. In philosophy, views need to be consistent, otherwise, we are inviting inconsistencies elsewhere in our lives. So, the internal structure of Flawlessism needs to be not only consistent, but our belief in it needs to be consistent with how we live our lives wisely. The issue with this is that I'm a limited person, I don't have awareness of everything, so to fix this, Flawlessism needs to be able to evolve through trial and error, but it also needs enough structure to last through that process of evolving through trial and error, so to do that, I made the core faith that a Flawless Good exists, so long as that remains possible, it's possible to continue to evolve Flawlessism even if mistakes are pointed out.

But by simply having hope/faith in there being a Flawless Good which exists, that would then mean other things must be true for that to be true, and that is how the entire structure of Flawlessism takes form from more than simple hope in the Flawless Good, but wisdom in other forms that can help us get through the hardships in life.

In the end, I would summarize the point of Flawlessism having hope in a way which is actually safe since it doesn't require blind belief. I see some other religions as basically being just that at their core, of people wanting to have hope, but feeling like there needs to be some type of trick to it, some type of understanding which needs to be gained. Christians seem to do this by believing that hell exists, that the ones who affect them negatively will be punished one day, that there's an entire structure to life which is why suffering exists, etc. it's this entire structure that allows Christians to feel like they're on the right path (I understand Christianity the best since I was once a Christian for many years, having been indoctrinated into the church when I was born. But it's because of this that I realize that not every Christian is the same, in that, despite seeming the same, some can be very different from each other).

Religions are a lot like buildings, they keep out the rain, and other negative things, causing believers to feel like there's something real to it, but from my perspective this is short sided because they are not willing to go outside of that "building" in order to better understand the world and that building's place in it. Flawlessism isn't like that because it encourages people to go outside of the "building" I have created so they can understand why I built everything the way I did, and possibly be able to point out flaws even I didn't realize.

Good job.

Like what @siti stated this is all nice affirmation, but it still requires an assumption of there being a Flawless good, and why would anyone need to make this assumption to go on navigating life? What you describe as an inherent good in human behavior is better explained as an evolved moral function that is an advantage to most all social organisms.

And a futher thing is that if this Flawless good exists and accounts for good behavior, what accounts for bad behavior? Is there a Flawless bad? This sets up the typical motif of religions with their good versus evil scenarios. The "good" in religions are typically God, and God's middlemen.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's not the same since I'm saying that there exists a flawless good that helps us to become better people, to have hope.

How does this Flawless good differ from conscience? How does it exist independently of minds that are naturally inclined to doing good?

Could it be this Flawless good is just an evolved trait, and one that not all allow or naturally have? Let's admit that human brains and psychology is not a uniform and stable phenomenon. About 1 in every 24 people are born sociopaths, and it is a brain defect that prevents them from feeling empathy. They aren't moral people, but they can learn to mimick morality and follow social rules to avoid punishment. Many sociopaths excel in big business because they can easily make pro-business decisions that are harmful to workers and society.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm an atheist and a Taoist. I consider myself a religious atheist.

 

[Link]

I'm an atheist and a Taoist. I consider myself a religious atheist.

From what I've read of the Tao I see a lot of similarity between verses of Quran about why there can't be many gods with heaven and earth being corrupted/in havoc. I think Tao is Monotheistic and I think once upon a time a revelation from God. That's just my perception though.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not vague, it's just not complicated and atheists don't feel all too special through this definition. The latter is why academics have made it too complicated now. Why does a word exist for every type of valuing except the highest now? It seems some serious work has been made to complicate the definition.

And yes, the last statement is correct.

I sincerely don't understand what exactly you think of atheists and atheism, although I will tell you that we tend not to think of ourselves as "special". I assume that most of us dearly wish there were more of us. It really looks like there is some form of fantasy involved in what you conceive as being atheists.

Also, it seems that you find religion somewhat more "unavoidable", for lack of a better word, than I do.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm an atheist and a Taoist. I consider myself a religious atheist.

It is really unremarkable, IMO.

 

[Link]

I sincerely don't understand what exactly you think of atheists and atheism, although I will tell you that we tend not to think of ourselves as "special". I assume that most of us dearly wish there were more of us. It really looks like there is some form of fantasy involved in what you conceive as being atheists.

Also, it seems that you find religion somewhat more "unavoidable", for lack of a better word, than I do.

Religion is over-complicated in definition that academics can't even agree on one.

Per Quran, everyone has a religion, including people who do not believe in supernatural.

You can be your own leader and create your own religion and that is simply what most atheists do. They choose their morals rather chaotically and some of well thought, but a lot not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good job.

Like what @siti stated this is all nice affirmation, but it still requires an assumption of there being a Flawless good, and why would anyone need to make this assumption to go on navigating life? What you describe as an inherent good in human behavior is better explained as an evolved moral function that is an advantage to most all social organisms.

And a futher thing is that if this Flawless good exists and accounts for good behavior, what accounts for bad behavior? Is there a Flawless bad? This sets up the typical motif of religions with their good versus evil scenarios. The "good" in religions are typically God, and God's middlemen.

This talk of "flawless good" reminds me of Aquinas' statements that he calls "God" the supreme, pure forms of certain virtues.

Perhaps of some ideal forms from ancient greek thought as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion is over-complicated in definition that academics can't even agree on one.

Per Quran, everyone has a religion, including people who do not believe in supernatural.

You can be your own leader and create your own religion and that is simply what most atheists do. They choose their morals rather chaotically and some of well thought, but a lot not.

I was with you until the last sentence this time.

I guess I have a lot more faith in spontaneous moral discernment and a lot less faith in the moral validity (and utility) of scriptures than you do.