Religion and Atheism

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do consider 'atheism' to be a valid and growing worldview, or belief about the nature of the universe...just like any other..

Then you maintain a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. There is no doctrine, there is no encompassing "worldview" - all atheists can be different in every other aspect of their lives. The ONLY thing they share is disbelief in god(s). We only grow in numbers as people come to the realization that the belief systems that rely on "supernatural" intervention hold no real promise of ever manifesting their more extraordinary aspects in reality. My words are not just "polemic" - while I don't try to convince people to "be atheist", I do try to get them to realize that by supporting theism of almost any color, they're standing on an empty box - no hope of having a valid basis or rational justification for many of their requisite beliefs. All arguments for theism are nothing more than mental constructions - very flimsy mental constructions that are as much excuses and make-believe as they are argumentative. I am of the opinion that religion's days are numbered, and I can't help myself but to try and help it along. It's part of who I am and want to continue to be.

Your other accusations are either projections, or designed for polemy. I do not 'hate atheists!', as you accuse. The discussion is about terminology and definitions. It says more about you, your reactions and indignation toward me, personally. This is a concept, and vilifying me is just an ad hominem fallacy.

I didn't say you "hate atheists," but you do seem to very much dislike their views on god. This much I don't feel you can honestly deny. Why else would you say they have no protections under the first amendment unless they adopt "religious" status? That's you trying to rankle atheists by comparing their fervor in denouncing belief with the very thing they are denouncing - and in doing so (as I have already stated), only admitting your own fault in holding your own religious views. Why else would you parade out blatantly incorrect information except to try and rile up atheists? Can you even answer this question?

 

[blü 2]

Perfect example.

By me including 'atheism' as a religious belief, is insulting to you, because you see the term as a pejorative, for insult purposes.

I think religion is misconceived, but I'm not insulted to be called religious, more irritated. (And anyway I'm not technically an atheist.) It's irritating, not insulting, the way Obama must have felt when people kept saying he was born in Kenya ─ he wasn't born in Kenya, but to be called a Kenyan isn't an insult, and atheism isn't a religion ─ has none of the characteristics of a religion ─ but to be called religious isn't an insult ─ except in the eyes of some religious folk, apparently.

 

[PureX]

I think religion is misconceived, but I'm not insulted to be called religious, more irritated. (And anyway I'm not technically an atheist.) It's irritating, not insulting, the way Obama must have felt when people kept saying he was born in Kenya ─ he wasn't born in Kenya, but to be called a Kenyan isn't an insult, and atheism isn't a religion ─ has none of the characteristics of a religion ─ but to be called religious isn't an insult ─ except in the eyes of some religious folk, apparently.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

It appears that you want to be dishonest. Requiring that people define the terms that they use is more than reasonable. The only reason not to is so that one can lie by using equivocation fallacies. The only reason that a discussion with me would not be productive is because I would force you to be honest.

 

[PureX]

Then you maintain a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. There is no doctrine, there is no encompassing "worldview" - all atheists can be different in every other aspect of their lives. The ONLY thing they share is disbelief in god(s).

Which is, of course, their "doctrine".

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". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

 

[LuisDantas]

One might spend hours on the internet trying to convince theists of the 'righteousness' of atheism. One might practice the idea in their mind of the superiority atheism through their belief in 'scientism', and then reflect this in their relations with other people. One might choose to avoid known or outspoken theists in their social interactions. Religions are collections of ideals and behaviors that people use to define, hold onto, and maintain their theological positions. That gods do not exist IS a theological position. And can therefor be held onto and maintained "religiously".

That is a very generous take on "practice". I don't think it can be made legitimate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Can call them metaphorical truths: things which are not actually true, yet which it can benefit us to act as if they were true (religious tenets often fall into this category).

The idea we belong to and have a responsibility towards "Humanity" for example (which exists largely a legacy of monotheism). It's as preposterous an idea as assuming monkeys belong to a collective Simianity and have responsibilities which derive from this.

Human exceptionalism, such as the ideas being human gives you specific rights that cannot be denied you is obviously a religious type belief (as well as a religious one).

The idea of progress, virtue ethics, diversity and equal rights, nationalism, etc. basically any ideology you can think of from racial supremacism, marxist communism, to Secular Humanism relies on such beliefs.

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.

And yet, I think there is justification for all of those beliefs -- justification that is not based in the assumption of a deity or deities. The first and most important of those justifications is that humans evolved as a social species, that is, we are a group of animals belonging to the same species, and consisting of individuals beyond those in a family unit, who perform specific tasks, spend distinctly more time together, and interact much more within the group than with members of the same species outside of that group. A social animal is defined as any animal species that typically forms into societies. That evolutionary path obviously involves some inbuilt behaviours, behaviours that recognize our dependence on others in our society, or even beyond it. And those behaviours, rather than being "religious," i.e. held often because there's just no better model, at least appear to be based in nature.

And in fact, monkeys that have evolved to live in social groupings do indeed have "responsibilities" within the group, and behave accordingly. Sometimes, in fact, I think we can dispense with the notion that there is something very different between "knowing" and instinctive behaviour.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which is, of course, their "doctrine".

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". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

Okay, I want you to think of something else -- something which is not a "god" by any definition that you choose to use -- which cannot be detected, but which you still surmise must exist.

 

[columbus]

I am not sure about @columbus , but the beliefs I have I can support with objective evidence. I have not seen the theistic having the ability to do that.

Exactly.
I have beliefs that are well supported by objective, empirical, evidence. That's knowledge.
I also have beliefs that are not. I believe them because I prefer to believe them. That's faith.

I don't expect anyone else to share my preferences, so I don't expect anyone else to share my Faith based beliefs. Nor do I see much reason to even talk about.
They're only important to me.
Tom

 

[usfan]

Okay, I want you to think of something else -- something which is not a "god" by any definition that you choose to use -- which cannot be detected, but which you still surmise must exist.

Good idea! Something abstract, that cannot be examined empirically, but only inferred.

How about, 'Time'?

Space would also work, and even consciousness. There are lots of things we believe, inferred from our experiences, education, and reasoning processes, but have no empirical, objective presence.

I think. Therefore i am..

 

[usfan]

Add to that,..

I thought, therefore i was..

I can't remember, therefore I never existed..

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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?

I call this, "One of these things is not like the other....". What deities do Atheist's worship? What literature do atheists consider as divine? What is the religious hierarchy of Atheism? Where do atheists go to worship? What are the precepts and tenets of Atheism?

As asked by another poster, what is your definition of religion? The Supreme Court recognized Atheism Secularism, humanists, through its rulings as a religion, only in the context of protecting their 1st Amendments rights. If over-zealous believers didn't try to make everyone think the same way they did, the Supreme Court would not have had to expand its definition of religion.

Is your evidence that Atheism is a religion, totally based on the reaction you receive from atheists and non-believers? A reaction that you incite by playing semantics games? What if someone told you that you were religious, and you were not? What if they said you were delusional, and you weren't? You are surreptitiously telling people that don't believe in a supreme deity that their lack of belief is not only a belief, but is also a religion. How is this proof of your claim? Based on the history of religious intolerance, it would be an insult to even call basketball religious. So please, If you want to believe in the supernatural, miracles, Gods, everlasting life, the Devil, then that is your right. I simply don't, unless you can provide some evidence. I didn't think so.

 

[blü 2]

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.

But what is the 'ideology' of atheism? Lack of belief that gods exist? Is lack of belief that unicorns exist an 'ideology'? Was the lack of belief that the Higgs boson existed an ideology? Is lack of belief that Russell's teapot is in orbit out there beyond Jupiter an ideology? I'd have said no in all cases.

Humanism may be an ideology ─ a big tent, that one ─ but humanism isn't atheism. Most deists were humanists. for example, and I dare say still are.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why do some atheist bristle at THEIR opinions being just another religious/philosophical opinion? Why the need or desire to be on some higher existential plane, above the mundane beliefs of ordinary humans?

My opinions are based on facts, data, evidence, reason, and logic. They are not based on religious/philosophical opinions. I asked you why the need to conflate A-theism with Religion/Theism? My motives and desires are totally irrelevant, on any planes of existence. You are certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own logic.

Clearly it is reasonable to ask that you define religion, since you are claiming that Atheism is also a religion. Or, is this an unreasonable request? Are "militant" atheists, also anti-theists? Or is there any difference?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is always easy to label an opposing ideology as "bad philosophy!', but since atheism isn't a philosophy, it can't be bad, can it?

So label the opposition, 'Bad!', then pour out the derision. ..seems like a repition of history, to me...

I gave TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES where christianity is bad philosophy.

I note you 100% IGNORE THOSE EXAMPLES. Why?

And you did not give any counter-examples to support your own FALSE statements...

Why?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Umm.. everyone? Have you read the thread? None of the militant atheists consider their beliefs to be, 'religious', and most are indignant for them to be included in that descriptor.

I have no beliefs. Not how YOU mean "belief".

What now? You are deliberately bearing false witness? Or you simply refuse to read?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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?

So YOU say. Who died and put YOU in charge of All Beliefs?

Seriously. Stop pushing false agenda.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There is 'no reliable evidence!' for ANY religio/philosophical beliefs..

100% false. Proof, you ask? OUTCOME OF SUCCESS.

IF you make a PREDICTION based on a HYPOTHESIS? And you TEST THE OUTCOME?

And it matches the PREDICTION?

You have PROOF-- reliable evidence.

Evidence which is more than good enough for anyone-- or ought to be.

Can you do the same with RELIGION? No. Absolutely not.

That whole "god works in mysterious, malicious and breathtakingly indifferent ways" and stuff.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

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.

 

[Jim]

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