Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not making more of atheism though. Using a term like New Atheist no more applies to atheism in general than the Young Turks applies to the youth in Istanbul.

Atheists get annoyed at people misusing the term atheist, which does happen and is fair enough. My point was about people still getting miffed when it is perfectly clear from context and usage that the user is not talking about atheism in general, but a easily identifiable sub-group of atheists.

We're not going to agree on this, and we don't need to. You completely have the right to use Atheism and atheism to mean two different things. But I have the right to be miffed. As soon as somebody makes atheism mean more than mere atheism, it gets just a little harder for me to explain to some people my philosophical position. You can disagree, and say that's not the case, and that's fair enough. But my argument was never that 'atheism vs Atheism as a distinction' is wrong. It's that, as an atheist, I don't like atheism being used to mean more than (in my mind) it does.

To be clear, I don't like the term New Atheist. I don't care if it's atheists or theists using the term. I know what is meant, and it conveys meaning. But I don't like it.
I also don't like our more racist and conservative political party in Australia constantly using the Australian flag as a backdrop and calling themselves OneNation either. It doesn't have to be wrong, in any sense, for me to find it unsettling and miff-worthy.
Whilst I respect your opinion on this, and understand your point, we don't share a common view.

That's okay. At least we can articulate our reasoning to each other. One the list of 'things that **** me off', terms like New Atheism come in at about 47821 on the list. I still listened to Christopher Hitchens, for example, for all that I didn't always agree with him. I still read some of Sam Harris' stuff, for all that I disagree with him regularly. But there it is.

 

[Augustus]

It creates a phantom, a distraction. It misleads people into mistaking the current rise in awareness of atheism with an ideology - which is all the more grave a mistake because the original so-called New Atheists are not even very homogeneous in ideological tendencies.

New Atheists are pretty homogeneous in the areas of belief that are relevant to the New Atheist ideology. Of course they have many differences in the totality of their overall worldview, but that is true of almost any group of people we tag together.

Loose grouping of people around similar traits is imperfect, but essential for understanding and relating to the society we live in.

But perhaps most mistaken of all is the very idea behind the use of the name. That of a "new movement" with "leaders". It is a full lie, but an attractive one for those craving convenient targets for their fear and hate.

The term is imperfect, but does the job better than alternatives. I often even use it in quotation marks because of this, but the important thing is that it works. People recognise and relate it to a concrete reality which is the most important thing in conveying meaning.

As to whether it is new, this says it pretty well. It's from a review of a book called The New Atheism: "There is nothing new - and everything new - about the New Atheism... We have surpassed the critical mass of evidence and reasoning where the time has come for atheists to step forward - and they are indeed stepping forward confidently - to occupy the intellectual and moral high ground that is their rightful place. What is truly 'new' about atheism is that the world, after too many centuries of giving religion a free rein, is now prepared to see and embrace the positive wisdom of doubt. A freethinker like Stenger is no longer perceived as the lone, angry 'village atheist' living on the desperate fringe of society. The religious right can no longer smear atheists as 'strident, angry, aggressive, and negative.' Victor Stenger, with his affirming, incisive and illuminating observations, shows us that there is truly grandeur in taking a stand ,for something precious: science and reason." --Dan Barker, author of Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. Co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

As to whether it has 'leaders', of course it does. Not formal leaders who issue commands and directives, but opinion leaders. On certain topics, New Atheists are very predictable in their responses with arguments that take the almost exact form as those made by 'celebrity atheists' which demonstrates this. Any formal or informal ideological group has opinion leaders and New Atheism is no different in that regard.

You are also (again) making the error that the term is pejorative and its use is driven by theists who hate atheists. It's just a neutral term. The idea behind the term is to identify a group of people, it is not commentary on their views.

"Easily identifiable" is the troublesome part.

You are the only person who seems to have any problem with this issue. Most people find it pretty straightforward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would depend on what you mean by equals and nonsensical.

I'm going by the normal definition: "A equals B" means that A is equivalent and identical to B, and that B equals A.

Are you using the word in some other way?

But can't really argue that it strikes you that way. At one point (when I was agnostic), I would've said same/similar thing.

... but now that you're a theist, you've given up on the idea that love, life, and God are all separate concepts with their own nuances? I'm not sure how the one thing follows from the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists get annoyed at people misusing the term atheist, which does happen and is fair enough. My point was about people still getting miffed when it is perfectly clear from context and usage that the user is not talking about atheism in general, but a easily identifiable sub-group of atheists.

You're right in one respect: religious atheists are easy to identify. You're wrong in claiming that they're a single group.

There are plenty of religious atheists. We call them "non-theistic Buddhists", "non-theistic Quakers", "atheist UUs", etc.

... but there is no religion called "Atheism".

 

[Willamena]

In relationship to my atheism the only thing i really have faith in are the logical absolutes.

I am more than happy to discuss rationally, openly and honestly how the logical absolutes are flawed if you would like.

I'd be interested in that topic, albeit in another thread.

 

[Augustus]

You're right in one respect: religious atheists are easy to identify. You're wrong in claiming that they're a single group.

There are plenty of religious atheists. We call them "non-theistic Buddhists", "non-theistic Quakers", "atheist UUs", etc.

... but there is no religion called "Atheism".

I really hope you replied to me by accident here

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really hope you replied to me by accident here

Why?

 

[Augustus]

Why?

Because that's the only reason I could think of for why your reply had absolutely no connection to the text you quoted or views I have expressed.

I genuinely assumed that you meant to quote someone else.

 

[Segev Moran]

My spiritual self, would simply and rhetorically ask: what if this Entity that is beyond our (rather ambiguous) natural existence is within our Being, here and now? What if that ability is within you now, and always has been, always will be?

 

[Segev Moran]

Not sure I agree with how you are using "know"

When I say Know, I Mean based on the observations we can make we come to an assumption of outcomes.
So I can say I Know that if you heat glass to ~1500c, It will melt..
How do I know it works? millions of experiments and observations...
I Know that the temperature changes the molecular structure of the glass thus changing its density and stability.

Now, I Could say that the temperature changes the molecular level of the glass because thats how God made it...
That means, that I don't know why it works as it does but I do know it works and I can map some of the process...
Same goes for Nature and God for example..






And thus far you aren't describing how things work. You have pointed out what is working and how long (very roughly speaking) it'll appear to work. I think you could guesstimate how long to a more narrow reference point, which is, from what we know well well well beyond plausible existence of humanity. Thus our estimates on such things are based on a knowledge that if sticking strictly to the physical is not very likely to ever by observed by us. But hey, it could be. We could pretend like it for sure might be. And we can even make believe that to be knowledge.

IMO, you actually changed the goal posts a bit with what you wrote here. So, I'll go back and quote what you previously said:



So, you don't accept science or nature as that which can break the knowledge of what we have about what is working (while also dying), but do think if there is a god, it is an Entity that is beyond our natural existence. To me, that is science. Not only science, but is not observable in our 'natural existence' and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that broke from 'knowledge' we had of old. Understood (I would say well understood) to be incomplete in its current scope, so what other breaks (revolutions) it might provide are not known to our current natural existence. I added Nature, cause well, "beyond our natural existence" is, IMO, just vague enough to say Nature (with a capital N) may deliver into our collective experience, that which is significant enough break away from our current understandings. Such that, "natural existence" itself would plausibly need some serious updating to make sense going forward.

My spiritual self, would simply and rhetorically ask: what if this Entity that is beyond our (rather ambiguous) natural existence is within our Being, here and now? What if that ability is within you now, and always has been, always will be?[/QUOTE]

 

[Segev Moran]

My spiritual self, would simply and rhetorically ask: what if this Entity that is beyond our (rather ambiguous) natural existence is within our Being, here and now? What if that ability is within you now, and always has been, always will be?

and I will ask, What if it is Not?

 

[ArtieE]

We have surpassed the critical mass of evidence and reasoning where the time has come for atheists to step forward - and they are indeed stepping forward confidently - to occupy the intellectual and moral high ground that is their rightful place. What is truly 'new' about atheism is that the world, after too many centuries of giving religion a free rein, is now prepared to see and embrace the positive wisdom of doubt. A freethinker like Stenger is no longer perceived as the lone, angry 'village atheist' living on the desperate fringe of society. The religious right can no longer smear atheists as 'strident, angry, aggressive, and negative.' Victor Stenger, with his affirming, incisive and illuminating observations, shows us that there is truly grandeur in taking a stand ,for something precious: science and reason." --Dan Barker, author of Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. Co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

I know some Christians who are in the same situation as a lot of atheists. People who go to church once in a while and maybe pray before they eat or something but otherwise keep a very low profile. I can imagine how they cringe every time the Westboro Baptist Church or snake handlers or pedophile Catholic priests are in the news.

 

[ArtieE]

You're right in one respect: religious atheists are easy to identify. You're wrong in claiming that they're a single group.

There are plenty of religious atheists. We call them "non-theistic Buddhists", "non-theistic Quakers", "atheist UUs", etc.

... but there is no religion called "Atheism".

Don't forget the Raelians and the secular Jews.

 

[Segev Moran]

If my beliefs are that you are extension of God, could you claim truth (or non-truth) to that?

Of course not. I Don't really know. I Can only assume you really believe it.

If my belief is that 2 plus 2 does actually equal 4, could you claim truth (or falsehood) to that?

Of course... as 2 and 4 are a representation of a number of elements (in that example).. and 2 represents a certain amount and four represents a certain amount, and I know that every time you take 2 and 2 more, it always without an exception adds up to the same amount of elements that is represented by the symbol 4... I can say that this is a 100% chance that this statement is true.
What i cannot prove as truth, is the fact that in your eyes and my eyes, the symbols 2 and 4 represent the same number of elements.
As humans(most ) follow a set of predefined symbols to represent a specific amount of items (in the whole world, the meaning of 2 is the same (It might be represented in a different symbol but for the sake of the answer...)
meaning that it can be stated that 2+2=4 is a true statement.
If in any time, the symbol will represent something else, then it is already a whole different truth.

If my belief is that atheism is no different than agnosticism, could you claim truth (or lies) to that?

You can believe it.. yet it is not true
Just like the number 2, the word Agnostic represents a specific concept.
Once you claim Agnostics and Atheist are the same, then one of them is irrelevant..
If you say that Red is the same as Blue, why would you need to define Red?
So as far as you are concerned, there are no Atheists...?
I Can say that Theist and Deist is the same..
Even if i say thousand times a day.. it is not true!
Theism represents something and Deism represents something else.
they both have shared ideas (That there is a God) yet the deist is a whole other idea of this God.
Same goes for Atheist and Agnostic... These are two different things that might share same ideas (The fact that they don't know or claim to know if there is a God)

 

[Segev Moran]

I just realized that that depends on which god one is talking about. If we were looking for Zeus that would be true. But the Christian God is said to be omnipresent which means he must exist everywhere, in every atom and molecule. He must be everything. So a person calling himself a Christian is really a pantheist or a panentheist or something and part God. A rock would be part God.

Yep... but that is also something one cannot disprove.
I Can say everything in the universe have an exact replica in another dimension that is outside out ability to discover...
There is no way for anyone to disprove it.
I can just the same say that the universe is actually a blood cell of another being..
You can't really disprove that also

 

[Quintessence]

Why should small a atheists (in your terms) be happy to have some sort of ideological position described using the exact same word? You can do it, for sure. And your intention here makes sense to me. But the original comment I responded to was from @Augustus around not understanding why atheists got miffed at this. From my position, it's pretty obvious. You don't have to agree, and you can think it's silly, but I reserve the right to be miffed. Making more of atheism than it is seems counter-productive on many levels, regardless of who is doing it.

You, of all people here, should have some empathy for that, if not agreement.

Oh, don't misunderstand - I do sympathize. My general approach to language is to accept all usages of a term, whether I personally like those usages or not, and whether I personally use those meanings or not. Whether you or I like it or not, there are people out there who attach far more to the term "atheism" than simply a reaction to (or absence of) various types of theism. People do the same thing for the word "theism" - 9 times out of 10 people attach classical monotheist stuff to it that excludes other types of theism. Does this drive me nuts? Of course it does. But it's how people use the word, and I just have to deal with it. Just like I have to deal with (IMHO) stupid usages of the word "pagan" and with usages of the term "atheism" that don't make much sense to me. I deal with it by accepting that these usages are out there, and that they've got merit whether I happen to like them or not. Basically, I am not interested in being the guy who treats dictionaries and definitions like holy books. I observe and catalog any usages I come across.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see how that adds anything to this discussion.

Well, it references a post that answered exactly what you were asking and I get tired of repeating myself, I guess.

Thanks for your explanation of how you view "worship." I suppose I asked because non-theistic religions might not have this thing called "worship" depending on how you see it. Not sure how you regard religions that could be described as non-theistic, but it seems like you might still consider something like non-theistic Buddhist meditation a sort of 'worship?'

In any case, you say you were using your own definition. What definition were you using?

I did? I don't remember saying that. But the progress of this thread has gotten lost on me. I was hoping to leave it alone from now on, to be honest.

The more you try to describe my beliefs and views, the more it becomes apparent that you really don't know what I believe.

What? Where have I been describing your views and beliefs? I'm pretty confident I've done no such thing. I talk about my perspectives. The entire paragraph this quote was a response to was my perspective on things. If you have chosen to take it personally, I don't know what to say. I can't stop you from doing that, but please I understand I describe my perspectives.

There is a divide between "religious" and "not religious"; it's based on people's intent and the tenets of all the religions out there. Any given activity can be "religious" at one point and "not religious" at another point depending on who is doing it and why.

I can see doing that way, but I generally do not consider "intentions" when I approach understanding the world. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that I can never know what someone intends. I can, however, observe people's behaviors or what they do. Plus, there's no small truth to the notion that intentions are meaningless in the face of tangible outcomes and effects.

 

[Koldo]

I would estimate a few thousand, probably under 10,000. Again, estimating conservatively. I do think if explained better than the sound bite form I'm (currently) running with, it would be substantially higher, but not sure I have the long form explanation in me currently. I'd like to believe I do.

The notion that everyone experiences God, I think would find higher agreement than the notion that intellectually everyone is a theist of something, but might depend on how each is explained, or elaborated upon.

I rest my case.

 

[viole]

That would also be a faith assertion.

If you mean by "we" all of everyone, well such clear definitions don't exist. Doesn't exist for "science." Sure, I can provide for you definition of science, and for spiritual as well. You (and everyone in this thread) may agree on those definitions. Only 7 billion more people to check with to see if there is any discrepancies in that understanding. I've been on science forums where the obvious question (like here with God) is asked (repeatedly): "what is science?" And I've seen that go on for dozens of pages as it is abundantly clear that the way the term is defined is not clear. It perhaps has basic understandings that many agree on, but clear definition? Nope. Same with "reality" or "truth" or "objective" or "life" or "love" or need I go on?

How can requesting a definition of something, be a faith assertion? As long as spiritual things are not clearly and unambiguously defined, talking of their acting on the physical Universe has so much meaning as saying that it could be that jggngnggngfytjynt acts on the Universe, as well.

So, what is a spiritual being, exactly?

I know it's not. Is your solid evidence physical or something only consciousness can relate to via abstract correlations?

With solid evidence, I mean inescapable proof. For numbers are pretty well defined, unlike your spirits. And I am bit surprised of your claim to know something that is provably false. Well, maybe not so surprised

The way to see that is quite simple. Call your number U = 0.9999999999..... .

1) Do you agree that U = 0.9 + 0.09999999999999........?
2) Do you agree that U/10 is also 0.0999999999999......?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

I'm going by the normal definition: "A equals B" means that A is equivalent and identical to B, and that B equals A.

Are you using the word in some other way?

Not sure, would wish to explore it further. Equals to me generally means "is." For observationally "A" is not identical to "B." I think you meant "equivalent or identical" and am parsing because "equivalent" is what is I see being explored.

... but now that you're a theist, you've given up on the idea that love, life, and God are all separate concepts with their own nuances?

Not quite, intellectually I can understand nuances, but question those or at times doubt they are in fact separate concepts. In general, how distinctions work (in my mind) fascinates me. At times, I intentionally avoid distinctions and find it works rationally. Other times, I'll hone in on distinctions to help explain (to myself and possibly others) apparent differences and plausible similarities.