Religion and Atheism

[PureX]

I truly hope that you're being tongue-in-cheek, because that's a poor list. You seem to think that just because you can't define something to some sort of exactitude, it can be said not to exist to be "detectable," which is nonsense.

I suspect you are playing very fast and loose with the term "exist". Because all of the things on my list, including 'existence', itself, is an idea-set, derived from the combination of our experience and imagination. None of them are substantial, or materially (objectively) verifiable. They are all, in fact 'opinions about reality' (metaphysically extant), rather than a 'reality without opinion' (physically extant). Just as "God" is an idea-set: an 'opinion about reality' (metaphysically extant), rather then a 'reality without opinion' (physically extant).

People "detect" love, beauty, honour (I'm Canadian), justice, compassion and such all the time. They feel it, and your feelings are detectors. In fact, your ability to feel is among the most wonderful things about you. Your feelings are the expressed outputs of the algorithms that make you the entity that you are. Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century) calls emotions "biochemical algorithms that are vital for the survival and reproduction of all mammals." And as such, they are just as real as stripes on a zebra. Note, however, that they don't always express the same way, but close study will show you that each zebra's stripes are also unique.

That sounds like a lot of pseudo-scientific jargon for "let's pretend metaphysical reality isn't really metaphysical by pretending that we've figured it all out when we really haven't a clue".

Pi, certainly exists.

Only as a conceptualization of our experience. Pretty much the same way that "God" exists to those who use the concept.

You think it doesn't just because nobody can compute its last decimal place? Of course they can't, because Pi doesn't HAVE a last decimal place. And yet, we can describe Pi perfectly accurately. It is the ratio of the circumference of any circle, divided by its diameter.

Idea sets justify themselves all the time. Ask any theist, they can give you a whole complex network of idea sets verifying their belief that God exists.

How on earth can you imagine that zero cannot be "detected." Zero is the number of cookies still on the plate after the dog spots them and eats them all.

You can't detect what isn't there. "Zero" is being derived from what you remember being there, before now, or from what you think ought to be there, but isn't. "Zero" is a conception of reality, not a reality in itself. Very much like "God" is for the theist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't read minds, so, yes, I have to read their behaviors.

That is quite besides the point, however. What "appears" to be by a superficial (and frankly biased and lazy) examination is hardly grounds to establish that some group should be treated as "religious" against every other single indication.

 

[osgart]

I suppose atheism can get quite religious when they desire to convert everybody to it. Otherwise its noneso religious.

 

[columbus]

To be more specific, their "doctrine" is that if any gods existed, they (the atheists) would be able to detect this existence to the degree of it being "proven" to them. And since this has not occurred, they surmise, then, that no gods exist unless and until it is proven to them, to their satisfaction, that one or more gods does exist. This IS a "worldview".

It's also unusual, even amongst atheists. What you're describing here is "hard" or "strong" atheism, while the large majority are of the Nontheists are more of the "soft", or "agnostic", variety.

This common error is why I prefer the term "non-theist". "Atheist" is so often mistaken to only refer to the hard atheists, when there aren't very many of them. Hard atheists are not representative of all non-theists.

Tom

 

[wandering peacefully]

I get it. Atheists don't want their beliefs to be labeled, 'Religious!' That term is exclusively for theistic beliefs.

I acknowledged that earlier:


I disagree, however, for these reasons:

1. The Supreme Court has ruled atheism to be a religion, for protection under the first amendment.
2. The gallup poll has a poll about religious beliefs every so often, and 'atheism' is always an option.
3. Religious forums and threads are packed with hordes of proactive atheists, zealously defending their worldview, and attacking the competition.
4. The obvious religio/philosophical nature of atheism, as a belief about the Big Question.

Evidence that the term 'religious' has become a pejorative:
1. The indignation expressed by some atheists for their beliefs to be called, 'religious!', exemplified in this thread alone.
2. The accusation that i am insulting atheists, for using a term that they consider demeaning. Also many examples here.
3. The disdain directed at 'religious' people, from the more militant atheists.

It is quite common, in the human experience, to use language to target ideological enemies, and demean or stereotype them as a group. I see this happening with the term, 'Religious!', which renders it useless as a descriptor. It has become a term of derision, to lump ideological enemies into a broad streotype.

This is, unfortunately, a precursor for increasing religious bigotry, historically. It is an Orwellian redefinition of words, to demean a worldview or ideology that is considered, 'dangerous!', or to make them a scapegoat for current social ills. The last century had gruesome examples of genocide, and it began the same way.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~George Santayana

The only person insulting religion in this thread so far is um, you.

Get over it, atheists lack belief in the stories you tell about God/s. We don't need your club and don't want to join but you are always welcome to our non-club.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Well, ... and in the eyes of all those atheists that find being called "religious" insulting. I don't think theists call atheists "religious" to insult them. I think they do it to make all other ideologies "equal" to their own. And I think that's exactly why so many atheists resent the implication: because they believe their atheist ideology is not equal to theism, but is superior.

It has not anything to do with superiority. The ONLY people who describe it as such are theists.

Not believing a magic fairy lives under my pillow is not superior thinking. It is plain old common sense based on available data. People don't "choose " to be an atheist . It just doesn't make sense therefore, is likely not true.

 

[leov]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

Religion something that is being passed along from earlier iterations of human consciousness. Something similar to bicameral mind shifting into introspective mind. We are losing early human sensitivity to spiritual origin that took a different arrangement some 3-4 thousand years ago and mostly faded by now. Not equally among people. Developed nations are leading in that loss due stronger materialistic achievements. Modern spirituality need s more training and seldom come naturally developed.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

How can an atheist have an opinion about the nature of what they conclude is a non-existent God? They would be better served to wonder what distinguishes man from all other known species.

What sets man apart is the rational "soul". It is behind the drive in man to find out the why of things he observes in the physicality of life. In so doing he is enabled to harness life's processes for his own purposes. For example it is not man's "natural" ability to fly as do birds yet man found a way to fly in airplanes. Man observed lightening and found a way to come up with discovering the use of "electricity" to provide light in cities and as a means of communication, and for many other uses. Yet scientific discoveries can either be used for constructive or destructive ends.

Science is mute when it comes to the right and wrong of things; moral vs. amoral, love vs. hate, or justice vs. injustice. Only in the realm of religion or spiritual philosophy are such concepts explored, concepts which goes beyond the mere physicality of existence.

Philosophy may be divided into two categories; spiritual and material. The philosophy of Socrates is an example of a spiritual philosophy whereas the philosophy of Marx and Engels, Communism, is an example of a material philosophy.

Religion may be divided into two categories or lines; that line from Abraham and that line from Krishna, Buddha and Zoroaster, both lines of which I consider valid and from God. On the other hand, I seem to remember it may have been Abraham who had three daughters; one of which prodigy came Krishna, Buddha and Zoroaster; one of which prodigy came Jesus stemming from Jesse, and one of which prodigy came Mohammad. As I recall, Baha’u’llah, founder of the Baha’i Faith, has a lineage which can be traced back to King David through a Persian King. At least in the line of religion from Abraham progenitor is considered an important principle insofar as prophecies are concerned.

What I would emphasize about the Baha’i Faith is its principle of the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, and the oneness of mankind. Its Founder claims to have come in fulfillment of all the religions of the past, and that its Revelation from God is not the last, and finally, that progressive Revelations from God through Prophets, or Manifestations of Goad, at intervals of about a thousand years, will continue to occur in accordance to the circumstances of mankind.

Mohammad is known as the “Seal of the Prophets” because He brought to a close the “Prophetic Cycle”, or the “Cycle inaugurated by Adam”. The Baha’i Faith, on the other hand, has inaugurated a new “Cycle of Fulfillment” to last no less than 500,000 years. As I recall, there has been many religious Cycles in the history of mankind even before Adam.

 

[usfan]

you do not debate, in the Traditional Meaning of the word.

You pretty much just preach, change the subject, and preach some more--

-- worse, you seem to try to dictate what other people think --- as if you were a god or something.

I'll leave you with the same message:
ROFL!
Ok. I get it. I can see that 'debating' with you will not be productive. Thanks for the brief encounter.

 

[usfan]

@usfan Do you have any aim or purpose in this thread? If so, what is it?

What is your purpose for posting, in any thread?

Do you suspect some dark agenda, or conspiracy, from my pathetic posts?

 

[ecco]

Here's a challenge: Disprove ALL atheists for ALL TIME: Have your god show us up and say, "Hi!"

Alternatively, I can have no gods not show up and not say "Hi".



I think I just disproved theism.

 

[ecco]

Again, how would that work?

What woud the "practice of atheism" even be?

I've been practicing atheism so long, I've become an expert in knowing there are no gods.

 

[ecco]

I'll leave you with the same message:
ROFL!
Ok. I get it. I can see that 'debating' with you will not be productive. Thanks for the brief encounter.

Do you end up like that quite often?

 

[ecco]

Beliefs that make us more than animals simply pursuing narrow biological interests. The things that irreligious people use to replace religious beliefs in constructing their worldviews.

All ideologies and pretty much all ideological tenets are 'religious type' beliefs, things which are not actually true, yet we act as if they are.

Nah.

 

[osgart]

Anything a person takes to heart becomes a reality, imaginary or not.

That is why belief is important. Some beliefs transcend reality and are much better to live then mere reality. A belief grounded in livableness can be a good thing. Yanno, follow that dream, as the song goes.

 

[ecco]

the intense reaction over a generic descriptor.

Actually, the "intense reaction" is to your misuse of the generally accepted usage of a common word compounded by your insistence that your usage is correct. As I've already pointed out to you, the generally accepted usage of "religion" is...

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

To counter that, you found a Merriam Webster definition where the fourth usage did not include God, gods, supernatural or other such word.

 

[ecco]

Here is a set of beliefs, about the nature of the universe:

One God
Many gods
No God
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Wiccan
Christianity
Atheism

What would you call this list? Philosophical opinions? Religious beliefs?

How is this list NOT a list of religious beliefs? Why the outrage, at being included in a descriptive term?

It is a list of beliefs. More specifically, it is a list of beliefs about gods/religions.

"Many gods" is not a religion.
"One God" is not a religion.
"No God" is not a religion.
"Atheism" is not a religion.

 

[ecco]

How can an atheist have an opinion about the nature of what they conclude is a non-existent God?

We can certainly have well founded "opinions" on the origins of non-existent gods/God/faries/pixies et. al. They all are the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism is a term dependent on culture and dominant religion. It has virtually no meaning outside of a larger context.

Well, that's a relief, for a minute there I thought it was going to become a religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Umm.. everyone? Have you read the thread?

Can you quote a single poster saying that?

None of the militant atheists consider their beliefs to be, 'religious', and most are indignant for them to be included in that descriptor.

Because "atheism" doesn't accurately fit the descriptor of "religious", and it is very common that atheists - who often regard religion as detrimental in some fashion - encounter the argument that "atheism is a religion", and feel equating the two is an attempt to render their position functionally equal to a religious position without having to actually address the possible difference in merits between the positions.

Why is 'religious!' considered a pejorative by so many of the more militant atheists? Why are they so offended that their beliefs would be included in a set of 'religious' beliefs?

It's not than it is pejorative or offensive, per se, so much as it is an often encountered device that attempts to equate their position to another without sufficient justification.

I find it very curious, is all.. the intense reaction over a generic descriptor.

I would say its a reaction borne of frustration rather than any underlying psychology, really. Atheists tend to encounter said arguments a lot on these forums, and it can be very frustrating to have to deal with the same arguments again and again. Imagine constantly having the explain extremely basic facts and distinctions about your religious beliefs in almost any debate on the subject, because people constantly make unfounded assumptions about it. It can get very tiring.