Religious Perspectives on Atheism

[Erebus]

I don't really have an opinion on just atheism one way or the other; it's just another way of looking at the world, and it's a very valid one. It's just not one I hold myself.

This really, with one exception...

New Atheism. To me New Atheism seems just as bad as Christianity... well almost as bad.

 

[logician]

I don't think children are atheists at all. Think about it, they believe in higher powers, but they channel them through facets like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. I think humans are born with an inherent draw toward the divine. On a TV show like kid nation the first thing kids start doing when they're allowed to built their own society is making gods for things.

I disagree with this, children mime what they are taught, amd most are taught the same religion of their parents.:sleep:

 

[muichimotsu]

This really, with one exception...

New Atheism. To me New Atheism seems just as bad as Christianity... well almost as bad.

I wouldn't really call it atheism so much as a combination of antitheism and antireligion more than anything. A more extreme form of secularism might be another accurate term. But at the same time it might be better to make the proposition that we make an umbrella term for all systems that do not have God or gods in them for whatever reason, call it nontheism, and then classify them accordingly by degree and nature of each system.

Apatheism for example would be distinct from atheism since atheism could be said to take the God concept more seriously. And then contratheists and antitheists take the God concept or the statement "God exists" more seriously than atheists. And then there are deists and pantheists, which one might be wont to classify as atheistic as Christopher Hitchens does to an extent.

 

[Erebus]

I wouldn't really call it atheism so much as a combination of antitheism and antireligion more than anything.

Hmmm, I'd agree with that.

 

[muichimotsu]

But the difficulty still remains as to how far one can extend the term nontheism. Atheism, apatheism, contratheism, antitheism, ignosticism, igtheism, pantheism, agnosticism, skepticism, secular humanism, Christian atheism (Yes it exists), Jewish atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Laveyan Satanism, and possibly Shinto, though it's doubtful in classification since it skews the boundary of dualism and nondualism with regards to the spirit world and physical world with the kami concept. And there's more I've probably forgotten in that list of classification or are problematic, like deism.

 

[Commoner]

Maybe you are taking things a bit too seriously, I don't know.

If nothing else, belief that God wants Atheists to exist sure beats most manifestations of the belief that God wants us Atheists to accept him...

I don't take issue with that idea, myself. Of course Theists must have some sort of opinion on why Atheists exist. I much prefer that they recognize us as legitimate and real than either of the alternatives.

Nah, I find the idea of atheists being the product of "god's will" - that is, either making us not capable of seeing the "truth" or concealing it from us - pretty objectionable. Doesn't seem like recognizing us as legit at all - if anything, I'd say it's quite condescending.

There is an alternative to needing to have an opinion on it - being honest and admitting that they simply don't know instead of making it up - the single most difficut thing for theists to do when discussing their beliefs, it would seem.

But, yeah, I am taking it too seriously.

 

[Commoner]

This really, with one exception...

New Atheism. To me New Atheism seems just as bad as Christianity... well almost as bad.

"New atheism" is a pejorative term used to describe vocal critique of religion. There is no "new atheism" per se, not in the sense of it being a "kind of atheism" anyway.

But as far as not tolerating religious bs, I'm all for it. Hey, I just might be a "new atheist"...I wonder if we get any discounts...

 

[LuisDantas]

Nah, I find the idea of atheists being the product of "god's will" - that is, either making us not capable of seeing the "truth" or concealing it from us - pretty objectionable. Doesn't seem like recognizing us as legit at all - if anything, I'd say it's quite condescending.

Far as I can tell it is indeed.

But then again, is it even possible for people who literally believe that God created all people not to be either condescending or all-out hostile towards us Atheists?

There is an alternative to needing to have an opinion on it - being honest and admitting that they simply don't know instead of making it up - the single most difficut thing for theists to do when discussing their beliefs, it would seem.

Naturally enough, since the main reason to believe in God is so that they don't harbor doubts.

But, yeah, I am taking it too seriously.

Probably... or maybe not, you have some good points.

 

[Commoner]

But then again, is it even possible for people who literally believe that God created all people not to be either condescending or all-out hostile towards us Atheists?

Hehe, maybe not, but following a false premise to its logical conclusion doesn't get you any points in my book.

No, I really think there are theists who don't pretend as if they understand things they could not possibly understand. Although it might seem there must be something fishy going on if you consider people being created by a god and some of them not believing in a god (or even being aware of one), there are (very rare) theists who do not draw any conclusions from that and are content simply not having all the answers.

 

[dogsgod]

I think if a person is an Atheist it must be god's will. I know that's going to sound silly to some, but let me explain. I think God is in everything, working through everything.

Most people that once believed in Santa Claus no longer do. Why do you suppose that is? Most atheists once believed in God.

 

[Erebus]

But as far as not tolerating religious bs, I'm all for it. Hey, I just might be a "new atheist"...I wonder if we get any discounts...

Each to their own I guess. I'm not a fan of indoctrination and intolerance regardless of whether it's done with good intentions (though that's still debatable.)
Knocking down religious extremists a few pegs is fine with me, but this...

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion.
Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

This is from the top of the website and while I agree that people should be taught to think logically and reasonably, that's a whole different step from indoctrination. New atheism may be the lesser of two evils, but that still makes it an evil...

 

[Commoner]

This is from the top of the website and while I agree that people should be taught to think logically and reasonably, that's a whole different step from indoctrination. New atheism may be the lesser of two evils, but that still makes it an evil...

I'm pretty sure the us of the word "indoctrination" is meant to be ironic. Indoctrination is the opposite of reasoning and logical deduction - therefore "indoctrination of reason" is simply absurd - and is meant to be such, a parody of sorts.

Come on, you can't possibly be trying to convince me you believe this is meant to be literal "indoctrination"? Did you perhaps just miss the point? I mean, I don't blame you, with all the poe's out there, it's certainly possible to confuse the intentionally absurd with the...well, actually absurd. But that's not the case here - if it were, I would certainly agree with you that it's a "no-no".

 

[Erebus]

I'm pretty sure the us of the word "indoctrination" is meant to be ironic. Indoctrination is the opposite of reasoning and logical deduction - therefore "indoctrination of reason" is simply absurd - and is meant to be such, a parody of sorts.

Come on, you can't possibly be trying to convince me you believe this is meant to be literal "indoctrination"? Did you perhaps just miss the point? I mean, I don't blame you, with all the poe's out there, it's certainly possible to confuse the intentionally absurd with the...well, actually absurd. But that's not the case here.

Indoctrination can be of any idea, system, belief etc, it doesn't have to be illogical.

Having said that though... If they are being ironic then yes I did miss it.

 

[Commoner]

Having said that though... If they are being ironic then yes I did miss it.

Then we are, in principle, in complete agreement...

 

[Erebus]

Then we are, in principle, in complete agreement...

Hmmm, I do admire them knocking down Christianity bit by bit, but you have to understand, I'm still one of those with irrational beliefs

 

[Commoner]

Hmmm, I do admire them knocking down Christianity bit by bit, but you have to understand, I'm still one of those with irrational beliefs

Well, I'm sure you would not hold your beliefs, if you actually believed them to be irrational. Whether or not we agree that our reasons for holding specific beliefs are good or bad, we can - I hope - agree that one should have good (valid) reasons for holding them. No?

 

[Erebus]

Well, I'm sure you would not hold your beliefs, if you actually believed them to be irrational. Whether or not we agree that our reasons for holding specific beliefs are good or bad, we can - I hope - agree that one should have good (valid) reasons for holding them. No?

While I do hold that some of my beliefs are irrational from a materialist point of view, they are still useful to me, so I guess from a pragmatic viewpoint they are perfectly rational. I agree completely with you that beliefs should have a valid reason to them, but we may disagree on what counts as "reasonable"

 

[Commoner]

While I do hold that some of my beliefs are irrational from a materialist point of view, they are still useful to me, so I guess from a pragmatic viewpoint they are perfectly rational. I agree completely with you that beliefs should have a valid reason to them, but we may disagree on what counts as "reasonable"

Exactly, that's why I said that we agreed "in principle".

 

[Erebus]

Exactly, that's why I said that we agreed "in principle".

Yep

 

[muichimotsu]

Most people that once believed in Santa Claus no longer do. Why do you suppose that is? Most atheists once believed in God.

Even with the qualifier "most", I would question what kind of concept of God any type of atheist has, since there are so many varieties even of the anthropomorphic variety. We have the unmoved mover of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, we have a transcendent creator who nevertheless leaves creation alone by a vow of noninterference, we have the similar creator who is able to interfere in the material world but does not choose to sacrifice itself for sins, and we have the Christian version of a transcendent creator who chooses to both interfere in creation and sacrifice itself to advance creation in a new fashion. Not to mention child like concepts of divinity that involve polytheistic trends of one sort or another, including polydeist and the obvious polytheist varieties.

So even if one agrees that every atheist probably believed in some kind of anthropomorphic divinity, the nature of that entity or entities is not entirely consistent, which is where the problem of extent of atheism comes in. Do all atheists disbelieve in all transcendent phenomena or only those that are primarily anthropomorphic in nature?