atheism is a (religious position)

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just giving the basic evidence - not the detailed sort and variances.

Yeah, even evidence has a limit as a human behavior. So if you claim that you can do everything as for the basic using only evidence, you are no different than some religious people in effect.
The use God and some other people use objective reason, logic and evidence as for the basic.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, even evidence has a limit as a human behavior. So if you claim that you can do everything as for the basic using only evidence, you are no different than some religious people in effect.
The use God and some other people use objective reason, logic and evidence as for the basic.

Ya, really helpful.

 

[blü 2]

That is not awareness.

It's awareness of possible danger. Why else would we have evolved to have such responses?

That is your bias ... insisting that all phenomena comes from physicality and therefor physicality defines all phenomena.

It's not a 'bias'. It's the result of enquiry into the subject matter. If it were merely a bias, perhaps you'd be able to refute it with more than just your opinion.

But in fact some phenomena are transcendent of physicality. Especially those that we call "metaphysical", like consciousness, and self-determination.

Who are the 'we' who think biological processes such as consciousness and the brain's decision-making processes are 'metaphysical'? That's not a word I associate with the reports from people who actually study the brain processes involved in those matters.

They may be enabled by physicality, but they have evolved beyond it, to become a realm of possibility and will of it's own. That's the realm to which morality belongs.

If that were the case, you'd be able to present evidence for it, instead of merely claims. You'd be able to demonstrate what this phenomenon you call the will is, the manner in which it exists, and the process by which it makes decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think all this happens independently of the brain, that wonderfully complex piece of biology one of which we each get for free.

To save time, I'll state in advance that I don't believe in magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality.

 

[PureX]

It's awareness of possible danger. Why else would we have evolved to have such responses?

Plants can "follow" the sun across the sky, but they are not aware of the sun, or the sky, or of their doing so. Cells expand or contract from the sun's warmth, and cause the plant to bend toward it. We see this and impose our idea of awareness on the plant. But it remains unaware.

Humans have all the same biological mechanisms for perceiving the world around us any other of the complex life forms on Earth and yet we have these amazingly powerful imaginations that offer us alternative views of reality that no other life forms have. And therefor the ability to alter our reality to meet the preferred alternatives. And we have no idea why this is so.

What we do know is that however this happened, it has raised us up and into a new realm of existence that includes many possibilities that didn't exist before. Cognitive self/other awareness coupled with a powerful imagination has created a new 'metaphysical reality'. Its still physical, but it's something more, now. Its "sentient".

It's not a 'bias'. It's the result of enquiry into the subject matter. If it were merely a bias, perhaps you'd be able to refute it with more than just your opinion.

Who are the 'we' who think biological processes such as consciousness and the brain's decision-making processes are 'metaphysical'? That's not a word I associate with the reports from people who actually study the brain processes involved in those matters.

If that were the case, you'd be able to present evidence for it, instead of merely claims. You'd be able to demonstrate what this phenomenon you call the will is, the manner in which it exists, and the process by which it makes decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think all this happens independently of the brain, that wonderfully complex piece of biology one of which we each get for free.

To save time, I'll state in advance that I don't believe in magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality.

Of course it's a bias. Whenever we formulate an idea of what the world is and how it works we have created a paradigm through which we determine the validity of any new information, or any alternative view. Especially when we have become "believers". And that's clearly a bias. Become obvious when we find ourselves rejecting any other view of things based on the intent of defending and maintaining our current one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

This view is contradictory trying to narrow a definition to suit ones comfort zone or agenda. It is often the case for believers and non-believers to consider their religion, church not a religion such as some churches in Christianity like JW, which claims it is not a church. When I visited Israel I found it common for Jews to claim Judaism is not a religion.

By definition a religion may refer to a broad set of beliefs that may have variations of belief, such as Christianity, Buddhism and Islam and of course Atheism.

 

[DNB]

The supernatural has nothing to do with love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity or etcetera. As Edward FitzGerald's Omar put it ─

The revelations of devout and learn'd​

Who rose before us and as prophets burned​

Were all but stories, which, awoke from sleep​

They told their comrades, and to sleep returned,​

Because in fact, the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary / purely conceptual, and has no more or less influence on human behavior than the imaginary / purely conceptual can have.

I've already drawn your attention to the role of identified biochemicals in human thinking and conduct. I've pointed out that 'lust' is associated, both in males and females, with testosterone, and with adrenaline. Love in the various senses of human bonding is associated with oxytocin. You need to get to understand about evolution, and where scientific and medical research is up to regarding human biology and psychology, and what research has shown to date about the structure of the human brain, the relationship of its particular areas to particular functions, and the interplay between those areas ─ and also the constant interaction of the brain with the body's hormonal system.

I speak as an interested amateur, but a great deal of hard information is out there. You could start with Wikipedia's article on the brain or you could look around for something more basic.

So, which came first, the chemical inclination, or the heart's love for a particular type of woman (I'm talking of virtue, not of body type), because not all men love the same type of woman?
Which came first, the propensity due to chemical biology, or the desires of one's heart, that make some people love jazz and others rock?
Why do some parents love their children, and others don't or not as much? Biology or wisdom?

 

[DNB]

In your eyes perhaps, but any with some knowledge of human history, biology, neurology, and psychology will know that we have enough baggage from our past (as to what goes on in our heads regarding emotions and thoughts, etc.) as to this often interfering with any rational or reasonable behaviour. And such being a rather better explanation than your rather simplistic one.

Where did the baggage come from?

 

[blü 2]

So, which came first, the chemical inclination, or the heart's love for a particular type of woman (I'm talking of virtue, not of body type), because not all men love the same type of woman?
Which came first, the propensity due to chemical biology, or the desires of one's heart, that make some people love jazz and others rock?
Why do some parents love their children, and others don't or not as much? Biology or wisdom?

It all comes from the body. This is where you'd be much better informed if you had a look at the research on the way the brain is a great biochemical and bioelectrical machine both in its operation and in its interactions with the hormones of the body, in many cases being the agent of their release and the degree of that release ─ think of the difference between a mild fright and a great jolt of a fright. How the brain works is one of the most interesting frontiers of scientific research.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Where did the baggage come from?

Evolution. Which is why we are not so different from other life, even if you have to insist we are because otherwise your cosy religious belief might have to be altered.

 

[blü 2]

Plants can "follow" the sun across the sky, but they are not aware of the sun, or the sky, or of their doing so. Cells expand or contract from the sun's warmth, and cause the plant to bend toward it. We see this and impose our idea of awareness on the plant. But it remains unaware.

If there's a sense in which plants are aware, I don't know what it is. There are however sets of evolved behaviors that plants have that for their survival and breeding that if you weren't clued on evolution would be hard to explain ─ as history shows. The point is, the same is true of us, except that we're aware, and we have a sense of self, a place to stand (as it were) while we scan the world outside and see whether the fire's gone out, the sabertooth is coming, or it's a good day for fishing.

And therefor the ability to alter our reality to meet the preferred alternatives. And we have no idea why this is so.

We don't alter our reality ─ that's the entire universe external to us ─ but we're accustomed to altering things and situations in it, which we can do not least because we have bigger, more complex brains, and language, and evolved cooperative instincts and skills.

Of course it's a bias. Whenever we formulate an idea of what the world is and how it works we have created a paradigm through which we determine the validity of any new information, or any alternative view.

My paradigm is to test the truth of any important statement by checking it against objective reality, the world external to the self ─ is it accurate or not?

Especially when we have become "believers". And that's clearly a bias. Become obvious when we find ourselves rejecting any other view of things based on the intent of defending and maintaining our current one.

I'd be delighted if you could show me the supernatural, but that's a contradiction in terms, since once you showed it to me, I'd know it was natural. The only manner in which the supernatural exists is the same manner in which all imaginary things exist ─ as ideas, concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.

 

[DNB]

It all comes from the body. This is where you'd be much better informed if you had a look at the research on the way the brain is a great biochemical and bioelectrical machine both in its operation and in its interactions with the hormones of the body, in many cases being the agent of their release and the degree of that release ─ think of the difference between a mild fright and a great jolt of a fright. How the brain works is one of the most interesting frontiers of scientific research.

Some people do not like others at first, but learn to afterwards. Same with many other dispositions of affection.
People can be won over by one's character, or eventually repulsed by their behaviour.
These are not chemical inclinations, it is a person's wisdom assessing the issue.
Show me a Donald Trump lover, and I'll show you an immature and depraved person. You, on the other hand, cannot predict their chemistry based on that same information.

 

[DNB]

Evolution. Which is why we are not so different from other life, even if you have to insist we are because otherwise your cosy religious belief might have to be altered.

Does a lion, whale or spider have baggage also?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ya, really helpful.

Some many feelings.

 

[lukethethird]

This view is contradictory trying to narrow a definition to suit ones comfort zone or agenda. It is often the case for believers and non-believers to consider their religion, church not a religion such as some churches in Christianity like JW, which claims it is not a church. When I visited Israel I found it common for Jews to claim Judaism is not a religion.

By definition a religion may refer to a broad set of beliefs that may have variations of belief, such as Christianity, Buddhism and Islam and of course Atheism.

You view atheism as a religion? Do you understand what a religion actually is?

 

[Audie]

You view atheism as a religion? Do you understand what a religion actually is?

Or else hasn't a clue what atheism is.

 

[shunyadragon]

You view atheism as a religion? Do you understand what a religion actually is?

A religion can belief in any ;belief system regardless of whether they believe in God(s) or not. Various sects of Buddhism particularly Zen do not believe in God(s). Though a number of churches and other sects of religions that are obvious religions or churches claim that they ar not religions or churches.

 

[shunyadragon]

Or else hasn't a clue what atheism is.

A religion can belief in any ;belief system regardless of whether they believe in God(s) or not. Various sects of Buddhism particularly Zen do not believe in God(s). Though a number of churches and other sects of religions that are obvious religions or churches claim that they ar not religions or churches.

Yes Zen Buddhists are mostly atheists.

 

[lukethethird]

A religion can belief in any ;belief system regarrlbess of whether they believe in God(s). Various sects of Buddhism particularly Xen do not believe in God(s).

That is a very narrow category of atheism, one that in no way describes atheism in a broader sense, in the broader sense of what atheism actually is, you contradict yourself by calling atheism a religion which is why I question your knowledge of religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a very narrow category of atheism, one that in no way describes atheism in a broader sense, in the broader sense of what atheism actually is, you contradict yourself by calling atheism a religion which is why I question your knowledge of religion.

Nit a narrow definition at all; Ib fact my view considers a very broad diversity of atheists, as there us a broad diversity of beliefs in any religion, such ae the diversity of sects in Christianity some denying they are religions.

A religion can belief in any ;belief system regardless of whether they believe in God(s) or not. Various sects of Buddhism particularly Zen
do not believe in God(s). Though a number of churches and other seocts of religions that are obvious religions or churches claim that they ar not religions or churches.

Yes Zen Buddhists are mostly atheists.

 

[blü 2]

Some people do not like others at first, but learn to afterwards. Same with many other dispositions of affection.

Same with dogs, and with dogs-people. So what?

People can be won over by one's character, or eventually repulsed by their behaviour.

Same with chimps. Same with just about all the social animals I can think of.

These are not chemical inclinations, it is a person's wisdom assessing the issue.

Wisdom doesn't reside in an imaginary universe. It arises (if it arises at all) in individual brains, operating biochemically and bioelectrically as they've evolved to operate, and influenced by the genetics and life experiences of the individual. That's why you can alter your own or someone else's behavior and mental function and even compromise their personal morality with alcohol, marijuana and the zoo of 'recreational' drugs, anesthetics, concussion, disease, starvation, anoxia, electroshock ─ all purely physical ─ as well as persuasion, seduction, threats, shaming, and other more direct things in the psychological realm.

Move along, folks, nothing immaterial to see here.