Religion and Atheism

[Salvador]

*blinks*

*blinks again*

I liked watching Barbara Eden blink in I dream of Jeannie.

Barbara Eden has hardly aged over the course of 50 years.

 

[Terry Sampson]

... Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.....

Yeah, ... my stereotype of atheists includes that opinion, so I'll agree with you there.

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.

Whoa! Your term "phony narrative" just pressed one of my "hot buttons." It's a variant of Donald and the Right-wing's "fake news" pejorative term used to shape the narrative that follows. Gimme a second to recover my senses.

1. ... this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!'
   
2. 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.
3. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief.
4. [Atheism] is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

re: #1. I'll agree with you there.
re: #2. I agree that there's been a concerted effort for a good many years to construct and hone that dichotomy. Just how "true" or "false" that dichotomy is, as you're finding out, is debatable. Who's responsible for "the attempt"? Well, I just know it wasn't me! But you can be sure of this: when we find the buggers, there's going to be a hanging.
re: #3. Sam Harris the neuroscientist, Richard Dawkins the ethologist and evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hawkins the "word-master", and a few more notables that I can't think of right now, sure give atheism an air of legitimacy, don't you think? Oh wait, ... legitimacy is what you're denying, isn't it? that atheism has more legitimacy than theism, right?
re: #4. I can agree to your claim that atheism is one feature of an atheist's worldview. Should each and every one of each person's opinions be explicit and grounded in "empirical science"? I suppose. It'd be great if we could all get to the Big Rock Candy Mountain in our lifetimes, too, but from what I can tell, a lot of folks have a long ways to go. Do you see it yet? I've heard of it, but I sure haven't seen it yet.

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.

Yep, ... removing atheism from protected status certainly would be grounds for "denying access" ... and hangings, I suspect, ... IF lawmakers could get away with defining theism narrowly, under the law, as a "positive religious belief in a deity". So, is it your opinion that getting atheists to agree to be classified as a "religion" would actually serve them better by strengthening their right not to be hung on sight and that you're only trying to help atheists by making the "circle of protection" large enough to include them? 'Cause if you think reclassification would serve atheists better and if you're just trying to help them, ... then you're a really nice guy.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists?

I don't know.
I do remember, though, ... back in the mid 1950s, when I was about 7 or 8, living with my elderly stepmother in Oklahoma City. Mom was in her early 60s, a devout Christian, and ... a Deaf person with a substantial lack of familiarity with academic stuff. About that time, our preacher took up railing against evolution. And I remember her telling me, maybe after church: "There are people who say we are animals. I'm not an animal."

Why was Mom so upset over what is currently a commonplace proposal taught in public schools throughout the U.S? Because, as she told me then, "The Hearing treat us (the Deaf) like animals. I am not an animal."

From where I sit, your desire to call "atheism" a religion is somewhat similar, by analogy, to an evolutionist calling my Mom an animal. It wouldn't offend me personally, if one called me an animal, because I know that I am an animal. But that sure offended her. And, as you well know, calling atheism a religion can really stir up a hornet's nest.

I suggest that you leave the heathen alone and keep your theory to yourself. You're not going to get anything but "stings" by sharing that opinion. Of course, if you like to mess with hornets, by all means, .... knock yourself out.

I wouldn't mind, though, watching you screw around with the bigger buggers, ... in mainstream science, just to see how long it takes for them to ban and block you. Now, mainstream science is very much a religion, .... advanced, to be sure, but a religion none the less.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Atheism is definitely not a religion. And etymology be damned. A religion provides an explanation for how eternal life of a worthwhile nature is indeed possible. Atheism does not come close to doing this. However, an atheistic religion IS possible to construct along these lines.

I think you may have misunderstood me, or you're possibly agreeing with me?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hmm.. very interesting response. Is it common to go off on ad hom rants, here? I suspect i could not reply in kind, without infraction.

But i will leave you to both the straw man caricature of my points, and the ad hom derision.

I don't really see anything to reply to, in a rational manner.

Excuses. Plain and simple.

How on earth did I "strawman" your points? Knocking down your notion that atheism is only protected under the first amendment if it is a "religion" was ridiculously easy. I didn't need a "straw man" of any kind. Do you know what it means to actually straw man another's position?

Also easy was pointing out your sloppy tactic of trying to cast "atheism" as something very much like your own worldview. With as much as you seem to dislike atheism, why would you ever do this? Seriously... just think about it. And if you care at all for the (supposed) sanctity of your position, STOP.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Is not believing in stamps, a belief?

Opinions and beliefs is the issue, not activities.

How is atheism NOT a religious/philosophical belief? Isn't denying the existence of God, just another belief about God?

Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Christianity
Wiccan
Atheism
Rastafarian

Are these not all beliefs about the nature of the universe? Should not atheism receive protection and acknowledgment as a 'religious' belief?

Atheism isn't denying the existence of god.

It IS asking for PROOF anytime someone says "god is real"

I realize this is likely too subtle for some-- but it's important.

Thus? ATHEISM IS NOT PHILOSOPHY.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I see it as a very simple descriptor.

God
No God

Those are the possibilities. Either position is a belief. The 'God' possibility has more options, or subheadings, but they are all matters of belief.

How does 'culture' change the meaning of 'atheism?' How else can you define, 'no God'?

FALSE. The first is belief.

The second? Is not.

Once again: You project a Straw Man.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It just seems to be an elitist definition, to call atheism, 'science!', and theism, 'religious!'

Nobody who is honest, does that-- calling "atheism" ==> "science".

Science is 100% indifferent to both atheist and theism.

There are, as it turns out, atheists who do not accept science....

AND?

The vast majority of theists DO accept science!

So, once again? Logical Fallacy by you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are days, I wish it were not human nature to be arrogant. This is one of those days. Most days, I think it's kind of cute that an ape thinks it knows anything.

Actually, an ape knows many things. It knows what plants are good to eat, and which ones aren't. It knows which plants are going to make it feel better when it's sick. It knows how to behave within the social hierarchy of the group, in order to get along, and how to gain allies by altruistic acts like grooming others, offering food. It even knows how to use tools, such as long sticks to get nutrition dense termites out of the ground and into the tummy.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes. Why is one philosophical belief dismissed with a demeaning label, 'Religion!', while another skates off unhindered by any negative connotations?

Bad philosophy is quite deserving of derision. That's how it works in the Community Of Ideas.

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

No can do?

Well.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't see 'Christians!' as having an exclusive on 'ugly behaviour'. Its a human thing, imo, and seems to cross over all ideological boundaries..

Of course you don't. Alabama's recent anti-women hate-law notwithstanding.

And the near-total opposition to Marriage Equality coming from Evangelicals...

But you don't see either of those as "ugly"... right?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is idiotic. The first amendment in no way protects only "religious" rights, and I am pretty sure you are aware of this - which makes the above point in your argument entirely dishonest. If so, way to go with the lying, Mr. "Biblical Christian!" And if not, accept my apologies - and also let me drop some advice that you maybe go read the thing you're referencing?


I have also been puzzled for quite some time - why the constant attempts to pull atheism closer to your own brand of philosophy/world-view? If we stand in opposition, then why are you effectively making the statement: "Well, if we're wrong, then atheism is just as wrong!" This is basically what you're doing, and I assure you, no atheist I have ever seen/heard/read has ever said anything like this about religious views. And it's because it makes no sense. You're basically marrying yourself to the ideals of the opposition, and as I implied, tacitly admitting you are wrong. Does that sound like a smart move to make in an argument/debate? To me it always appears as one of the most self-defeating possible statements theists can make, hands down.

Well stated! Especially your second paragraph.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Maybe.. but that seems a stretch, to escape a terrifying term..

LMAO! IT's not terrifying. It's ... insulting.

If atheists were actually terrified of your mythical "god"? They'd not be atheist.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Dang.
You don't know much about atheism.

Chairman Mao and @Revoltingest are both atheists. But about all they have in common is penises.
Tom

pssst: Mao was a Spiritualist, and likely not an actual atheist... as Mao seemed to believe in ancestor-gods...

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it's akin to a racial bigot insisting that his bloodline must never be tainted by the blood of those they consider inferior.

On the other hand, I do not think atheism is a religion. However, I think it can be, and occasionally is practiced religiously. The difference being that religions are not theologies, they are a set of tools and behaviors that people use to live according to their chosen theology. Therefor, atheism could be considered a theology, but not necessarily a religion, unless it is 'practiced' religiously.

Again, how would that work?

What woud the "practice of atheism" even be?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Homogeneity of belief:

There is no God.

Why insert snide remarks about what i know or don't know? Why is that necessary?

Because you are projecting a Straw Man, here--

"there is no god" is a POSITIVE CLAIM.

Atheism can be "prove your positive god-claim"

If you cannot prove god? It is myth, by default.

Thus-- atheism is far from homogeneous!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

..ok. thanks for sharing your opinions (which seem highly 'religious' to me).
Everybody gotta believe something..

Not really. Not having beliefs is the only road to sanity... and has a long proven track record of discovering actual reality.

In contrast to belief-- which discovered nothing in it's entire existence...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists hold "religious type" beliefs, and religious people hold religious beliefs..

Would you be so kind as to provide a couple or maybe several examples of "religious type" beliefs that atheists hold, that you find equivalent to the religious beliefs that religious people hold? (I won't try to define what you might mean by "religious type belief," as that's what I'm hoping you'll do in providing examples.)

 

[blü 2]

Maybe.. but that seems a stretch, to escape a terrifying term.

I'd be happy to not use it at all, but i find it flung as a pejorative at theists constantly.

I would prefer, 'philosophical opinions', and let that cover everything.

Why the need to pigeonhole theists as 'religious!' while exempting atheists from the horrors of the term?

I've had a related thought ─ that in accusing atheists of being 'religious', some of the accusers are trying to insult them by pulling them down to their own level ─ a peculiar kind of attack.

But perhaps the answer to your question is found back in the times when belief was much more prevalent, and believers, particularly but not only of the right, gave them dang unbelievers their own special pigeonhole ─ and often enough still do. (I think it's one of the pigeon-holes on the board marked 'The Damned'.)

 

[Jim]

@usfan As I understand it now, the whole point of this thread for you is to complain about the behavior of people who continually denounce Christians and Christianity without ever seeing anything wrong with anything they’re doing; and to debate about that endlessly, without any aim or purpose other than to pass the time away and have some people to talk to. Am I missing something? Is there any other aim or purpose in this for you?

 

[Jim]

@usfan The issue that concerns me in relation to what you’re saying is endless gossiping, complaining and fault-finding, without any constructive aim or purpose, and what you’re doing in this thread looks to me like part of that problem.