Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

[Echogem222]

I see religion on terms of a set of beliefs and practices that have a major connection with the supernatural. It is possible to believe in the supernatural without believing in any gods. Therefore, it is possible to be religious and atheist. This particular mix, however, is fairly... unusual.

As for your religion, I simply didn't understand what it is all about. Therefore, I find myself unable to provide further input.

I was keeping it vague as to just express how it can be atheist and non-secular, but still be a religion, the reason for this is because Flawlessism is a religion restricted to 18+.

 

[Echogem222]

I see, do you have a reference to Satanism being secular?

Here is a link explaining Satanism being secular: FAQ

As for which part of that page explains that, it's here: DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
Answer:

• No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
  
  +++
  And by the definition of secular religions which is as follows: 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.
  +++
  Thus, yes, Satanism is a secular religion.
  
  
  
  

 

[Nakosis]

I would say so, yes. But "non-secular religion" is either a confused term or a pleonasm.

Nevertheless, the very concept of "secular religion" may be of doubtful validity, as it may be a simple oxymoron.
Secular religions

 

[Nakosis]

Here is a link explaining Satanism being secular: FAQ

As for which part of that page explains that, it's here: DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
Answer:

• No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
  
  +++
  And by the definition of secular religions which is as follows: 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.
  +++
  Thus, yes, Satanism is a secular religion.
  

Ok, then a religion which doesn't promotes superstitious beliefs.
So are you saying Flawlessism promotes superstitious beliefs?

In which case, nothing preventing a atheist from being superstitious.
Though I'd think they might find themselves holding conflicting ideas.

 

[Koldo]

I was keeping it vague as to just express how it can be atheist and non-secular, but still be a religion,

I don't know if I agree or disagree with that because I barely understood anything related to your religion.

the reason for this is because Flawlessism is a religion restricted to 18+.

Huh?

 

[Altfish]

That's not how you debate someone, if debating meant stating your subjective opinion with zero evidence, no one would convince anyone of anything. And you're not just saying your opinion, because you are stating that I am not an atheist. If you're going to make that claim, then you need to provide evidence.

You said I'm still in the realm of a supernatural controlling mind, ok, explain why.

I don't care , carry on.

 

[Echogem222]

Ok, then a religion which doesn't promotes superstitious beliefs.
So are you saying Flawlessism promotes superstitious beliefs?

In which case, nothing preventing a atheist from being superstitious.
Though I'd think they might find themselves holding conflicting ideas.

No, not superstitious, but supernatural, as in non-natural. That is very, very different.

 

[Echogem222]

I don't know if I agree or disagree with that because I barely understood anything related to your religion.



Huh?

I've explained enough. If you have a question about what I have already explained, then please ask. But if you're going to ask me more about my religion, not about how a religion can be non-secular and atheist, then I will refuse.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I would say so, yes. But "non-secular religion" is either a confused term or a pleonasm.

What's a pleonasm?

 

[LuisDantas]

What's a pleonasm?

A linguistic flourish characterized by redundancy or excess.

 

[Echogem222]

I would say so, yes. But "non-secular religion" is either a confused term or a pleonasm.

I'm simply being more specific so people understand that I do not mean secular religion since my religion is atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm simply being more specific so people understand that I do not mean secular religion since my religion is atheist.

Admitedly, the concepts are ill defined and often badly abused... but I am just not seeing the logic in there.

It is probably no coincidence that I also insist that atheism does not exclude religion - as a matter of fact, I think that atheism greatly boosts religion proper. But it is clear that you and I are not using very compatible understandings for either "religion" or "atheism".

 

[F1fan]

I'm making this thread because I'm an atheist who believes in a non-secular religion called Flawlessism. The way this is done is that Flawlessism teaches that all of reality is everything we can comprehend even just a little, meaning that even infinity is within reality because we can understand it goes on forever.

"Non-secular" means religious. Secular means not religious. So to say "non-secular religion" is redundant.

But the cause of reality is not within reality, therefore the cause of reality can't be defined as singular, plural, or even infinite in any way, preventing it from being labeled as God, Gods, etc. even if it were to interact with us in this world using an avatar of sorts or something like that, as that would just be part of something which is outside of our comprehension.

Why can't the cause of reality be part of reality? Theists will claim what you claim, and tend to do so since there are no gods known to exist, nor any observed mechanisms that suggest a supernatural cause.

And as for why it can't be logically argued that there exists anything greater than this "greater than reality" is because it is "greater than infinite" in every way, so for there to be something greater than it, and greater than what is greater than it, etc. would be a set of infinity, and even if you were to cut it off and do less than that, it would still be a set of numbers, which is something we can comprehend.

Or reality can be all there is, and no "greater" is necessary. What makes you think a "greater than reality" exists?

This, however, does not imply that we can actually comprehend what is greater than reality, but we are instead understanding the limitations of our reality.

It's likely the "greater" doesn't exist as you imply it does. So that means there's no need to try to comprehend whatever you think it is.

As for why I'm making this a poll, is because this is a debate thread, therefore if you object to my religion being Atheist, then explain why after voting so the people joining in know what's going on before debating (you can change your vote if you end up changing your mind later).

Your "greater" sounds like God. Changing the word doesn't change what you are describing.

Edit: As for how all of reality came to be, before reality existed it was a non-cause, but once reality took enough form, it became a cause (only within reality though).

Why assume there was a time when reality didn't exist? Why assume it was caused?

 

[Echogem222]

Why assume there was a time when reality didn't exist? Why assume it was caused?

It gets rid of the infinite regress issue:

The infinite regress issue in philosophy, particularly in the context of the beginning of everything, is a profound problem that deals with the chain of causation and the origin of the universe. It emerges from the notion that every event or existence must have a cause, leading to an endless sequence of questions about the cause of each cause. This line of reasoning, applied to the cosmos, suggests that if every event needs a precursor, then the universe's beginning must also be caused by something else. This in turn would require a cause for that cause, and so on, potentially extending back infinitely in time.

 

[F1fan]

It gets rid of the infinite regress issue:

The infinite regress issue in philosophy, particularly in the context of the beginning of everything, is a profound problem that deals with the chain of causation and the origin of the universe. It emerges from the notion that every event or existence must have a cause, leading to an endless sequence of questions about the cause of each cause. This line of reasoning, applied to the cosmos, suggests that if every event needs a precursor, then the universe's beginning must also be caused by something else. This in turn would require a cause for that cause, and so on, potentially extending back infinitely in time.

It's easier to just assume energy has always existed in one form or another. The infinite regression is only a problem for those who believe there was a first cause. It's a religious problem, because believers need to believe in a creator. Atheists don't.

So you claim to be an atheist, but have a problem that only affects theists. What's up? It's like a virgin with a venereal disease, something's fishy.

 

[Echogem222]

It's easier to just assume energy has always existed in one form or another. The infinite regression is only a problem for those who believe there was a first cause. It's a religious problem, because believers need to believe in a creator. Atheists don't.

So you claim to be an atheist, but have a problem that only affects theists. What's up? It's like a virgin with a venereal disease, something's fishy.

Huh?? For atheists, the infinite regress problem can manifest in various forms. One common argument is the infinite regress of explanations. If we explain the existence of the universe by the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang? If we say natural laws caused it, what caused those laws? This can lead to an infinite chain of explanations, which may seem unsatisfactory or incomplete.

Another aspect for atheists is the problem of explaining the origins of morality, meaning, or purpose without appealing to a transcendent source. If there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe, how do we find meaning in our lives? This can lead to existential questions and a search for alternative frameworks for understanding the world.

 

[F1fan]

Huh?? For atheists, the infinite regress problem can manifest in various forms. One common argument is the infinite regress of explanations. If we explain the existence of the universe by the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang?

And there are plausible explanations.

If we say natural laws caused it, what caused those laws?

Why assume the laws were caused? That is the trap of infinite regression.

This can lead to an infinite chain of explanations, which may seem unsatisfactory or incomplete.

There is no problem with chains of cause and effect. The problem of infinite regression is where did energy come from. And as you asked, where did the laws come from. Why assume theye didn't always exist, as that solves the dilemma of a first cause.

Another aspect for atheists is the problem of explaining the origins of morality, meaning, or purpose without appealing to a transcendent source.

These tend to be claims made by theists. Atheists can defer to science and how it explains morality as an evolutionary trait common in most animals. And meaning and purpose? What makes those controversial? These originate in human minds.

If there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe, how do we find meaning in our lives?

Viktor Fankl talked about this in his book Man's Search For Meaning. Simply put humans find meaning by setting goals worthy of themselves.

And I find it arrogant that humans would even consider there to be an ultimate purpose in the universe because the claims tend to be anthrocentric. The earth must be the center of the universe, and the human the most important element.

Do you think there needs to be an ultimate purpose? If so, why? How does it make a difference if there was no such purpose?

This can lead to existential questions and a search for alternative frameworks for understanding the world.

Like what? I don't really relate to such problems. I've been an athlete most of my life and I find meaning in sport. Could it be many folks are just lazy and not very motivated to do meaningful things in their lives, and they seek external validation?

 

[Echogem222]

And there are plausible explanations.

Why assume the laws were caused? That is the trap of infinite regression.

It's not a trap, it's an issue. In philosophy you need to be consistent with your views. If you argued that there is no cause of all other causes, then you're essentially using the same argument many theists use to prove their God, Gods, etc. and that is by saying that there was simply a first cause, and that's it. There, problem solved. But when you make this exception, you then have to wonder why you don't use this same reasoning for other things. Like saying there are no causes of causes ever, there's just 1 cause of why, let's say, people exist as they do. People are born from their parents, there's nothing else we need to know... but if we did that, then people would have never discovered evolution, and so many other things.

These tend to be claims made by theists. Atheists can defer to science and how it explains morality as an evolutionary trait common in most animals. And meaning and purpose? What makes those controversial? These originate in human minds.

Please do your own research before jumping to conclusions like this.

Like what? I don't really relate to such problems. I've been an athlete most of my life and I find meaning in sport. Could it be many folks are just lazy and not very motivated to do meaningful things in their lives, and they seek external validation?

Wow, that's very judgmental, and poorly thought out. You know what, I'm just going to stop debating with you as it would seem that your views are too shallow to make this worthwhile to me. The way I see it, you need to do a lot of research into philosophy instead of acting like you know enough to debate with it, or you could just not do that, and simply stop pretending that you know what you're doing.

 

[F1fan]

It's not a trap, it's an issue.

Of course it's a trap if you decide it's an issue. There is no solution to it.

In philosophy you need to be consistent with your views.

The advantage of philosophy is being able to make up whatever you like. It's not science. It doesn't have to follow facts or standards.

If you argued that there is no cause of all other causes, then you're essentially using the same argument many theists use to prove their God, Gods, etc. and that is by saying that there was simply a first cause, and that's it.

"No cause" is a "First cause"? How does that work? Where in logic does A = Not A?

There, problem solved. But when you make this exception, you then have to wonder why you don't use this same reasoning for other things. Like saying there are no causes of causes ever, there's just 1 cause of why, let's say, people exist as they do. People are born from their parents, there's nothing else we need to know... but if we did that, then people would have never discovered evolution, and so many other things.

None of this is what I said or suggested. What I suggest is an infinite lineage of energy and the laws of physics doing their thing. No beginning, and no end. We humans occupy a shsort segment of time in this interation of energy, and we can answer many questions, but also very skilled at confusing ourselves. We get greedy for answers, and foolish to think we have solutions that lack evidence. It's ok to admit "I don't know."

Please do your own research before jumping to conclusions like this.

Yeah, only been pondering this stuff since 1996. I was naive and idealistic once, too.

Wow, that's very judgmental, and poorly thought out.

Oh the irony.

You know what, I'm just going to stop debating with you as it would seem that your views are too shallow to make this worthwhile to me. The way I see it, you need to do a lot of research into philosophy instead of acting like you know enough to debate with it, or you could just not do that, and simply stop pretending that you know what you're doing.

If only you had answers. It's easier to run away.

I have the advantage of not asking questions that have no answers. They are traps. I hope you can learn this one day.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

A linguistic flourish characterized by redundancy or excess.

Oh