Religion
Related: About this forumso the GD thread got locked, but atheism as a religion?
Fine, lets go for it...
Cristina already started, or tried to start some of the ground rules---Please help because as she notes this isn't really easy to do-
GreenRanger
(20 posts)Here are the definitions according to Merriam-Websters dictionary
Atheism: the disbelief of a deity.
Deity: the rank or essential nature of a god
Religion: a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: Archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Atheism is the disbelief of a Deity (god,) and Religion is based on the belief of something. So I don't see how Atheism fits as a religion, or why anyone would want to have it as a religion.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is as much a statement of faith as the Nicene Creed.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Not having a set of religious attitudes or beliefs is not a set of religious attitudes or beliefs.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Atheism is a lack of beliefs in gods, based on lack of evidence that a rational person would accept. How many atheists can you point us to that will assert unequivocally "There are absolutely no gods of any kind, anywhere, ever"?
Go to it. Prove instead of lie for change.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Also, I NEVER lie. Oh, I know, you want, oh so desperately, to believe that Dawkins never said "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse", even after I gave a source for him saying it. So you attempt to slander me by calling me a liar.
But the simple truth is that when atheists claim that there is no God, this is a statement of religious belief. Atheists try to tart it up by saying "denying religious belief is not a religious belief", but that simply is not true.
OK, if saying "there is no God" is not a statement of belief, what is it?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Are you seriously giving more weight to not believing in a god than to not believing in the tooth fairy?
Or is not believing in your god just offensive to you?
I suppose you could twist that around to say it is some sort of religion, but in the case of atheism, all I see is an attempt to make atheism some sort of "religion" and then the next step is to say oh, we are not so different, we are both religious.
I give equal weight to:
There is no god
There are no mermaids
There are no unicorns
There is no tooth fairy
There is no Easter bunny
So - I have five religions?
Oh, and whatever Dawkins said is not relevant to my way of thinking - because atheists are not really an organized group, we don't have rules about everybody's way to live and we don't get tax-exempt status - because any sort of atheist group is about as religious as a mermaid-denier group or a golf group - no deities involved.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You NEVER provided a link to that quote, and we both know it. But hey, prove me wrong. Shut me up. Give us the link and prove you're not a double liar. Or link to the post where you gave the link.
Come on...everyone's watching..and when you fail to give the link, even more people will know you're a liar.
And now you're inventing new quotes..it should be a clue to you when you have to lie continually to make your misbegotten case.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Come on, Stretch...everyone here is waiting...and they know know you'd shove this down my throat if you could...but you can't...
Tick tock....
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)No problem...we're not going anywhere.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Attempt to make it as irrational as their beliefs are. YMMV.
That thread in GD is full of examples.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Most of all though we must have a collection plate, atheism can hardly be considered a proper religion with no collection plate.
It's cheaper and less effort just to sleep in on Sundays.
I'll believe atheism is a religion when I see millionaire huckster atheists in thousand dollar suits on TV begging for dollars not to pray for you.
Send me ten dollars today or Satan's gonna take me home and I'm gonna pray that The Prince of Darkness takes you too.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Anyway, one could accuse Richard Dawkins of being such a type. He seems to be making a very nice living as an atheist. Penn Gillette has written books and articles supporting atheism and has been paid for doing so.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)not a very good style of argument.. ad hominem.. but keep it up.. i for one really appreciate the help making the point that some believers are absolutely bigoted against atheists and will do and say anything, make up any lie, and attack anyone with the most vile and hypocritical verbal spew to keep us on the sidelines.
more to the point.. who reads dawkins or.. heh.. penn gillette?! hey i know they wrote books but who reads that crap? i for one have never read *any* book about atheism. i not only do not acknowledge dawkins, hitches, harris, pz or anyone else to be movement 'leaders'. fact is the first time i heard about any of these dudes it was from unhinged internet *theists* attacking them ad hominem style.
difficult for sheep to understand i know, but most atheists neither have nor desire a shepherd.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)your suggestion that the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris "dudes" write crap, or come from the unhinged internet. These individuals are extraordinarily intelligent and uncommonly articulate. They don't consider themselves shepherds and those who read them aren't sheep. But they speak for me, an atheist, to a far greater extent than you do.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)and wasn't referring to atheist readers of their works as sheep, or to them as shepherds, but if you reread my post you'll notice i'm implying without stating it outright that one does not need any of these authors -- whatever the merits of their works i have not read them -- to reach an atheist conclusion. one can get their from first principles all alone just as easily. contrast this to true believers of various fundy stripes who live and die by their shepherds' words.
IOW your resentment is misplaced in the case.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)who needs to re-read your post.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)vis a vis the AAI (Atheist Alliance International). Why the need for an organization that believes in nothing--might there be some sheeple among the non believers? Might there also be an un-pope? Seems to me there is a need for a sense of community among atheists. I am not critical just curious.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)getting together to discuss issues of mutual concern with the sheep-like behavior of religious people being told what to think, what to believe and how to act. Silly to think that, wouldn't you agree?
Is your "curiosity" satisfied now?
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)"issues of mutual concern" is acceptable practice--lame!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"acceptable practice".
And did you come here thinking you'd just trash-talk some atheists with your horseshit? Not being critical...just curious.
Back to the pasture with you...BAAAAAAAAAAA!
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)question--why do people who are non-believers have need for a community of non-believers? Sure I am not the first to ask the question--community for a negative premise! Why are you so uncomfortable with my question--and why so unpleasant?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that started with BAAAAA BAAAAAAA, so forgive me if I take you for nothing but a troll. And you got your answer, and responded with more snark, so you do the math.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)believe I was responding to a post other than your's with the baaaas. I was surprised that there were organizations specifically for atheists. I do not care if one is a person of religion, an agnostic, an atheist, etc. I would never dare try to impose my beliefs on a fellow human being. I am vehemently opposed to that sort of hubris. To eliminate any person from my friends and colleagues for the aforementioned reasons would be hypocritical and self-defeating. I firmly believe that knowledge is good and ignorance is evil. I respect your right to be an atheist and would hope that you would respect those who are members of a religion.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)THAT is why we have atheist groups.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But I respect your right to believe absolutely anything that makes your brain happy and content, and even your right to post snide and snarky responses here. But don't start whining and playing at phony conciliation when you get back as good as you gave. Sheeple? Un-pope? Yeah, right...you were just curious. But if you'd like to continue to play intellectual pinata, I'm game. Like I said, we snack on people like you here...
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)Thought I told you I was responding to another's post. Not in to intellectual pinata on the subject of religion or lack thereof--pointless and a waste of my time. Obvious to me, you deem yourself the Defender of the Forum while employing the sophmoric technique of bullying to fulfill your role. "We snack on people like you here"--pathetic!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The truth...in whatever way possible for one person...yes. And as I said, if you wade in with snark and snideness here from the very start, don't expect to be met with patience and acceptance, especially when your snark is so far from the truth.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
look it up.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The sacrament will take place Saturday evening at the pub.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)
The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a personal god, they nevertheless believe in a force in the universe greater than we are. They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted. They find the Grand Canyon not just arresting but breathtakingly and eerily wonderful. They are not simply interested in the latest discoveries about the vast universe but enthralled by them. These are not, for them, just a matter of immediate sensuous and otherwise inexplicable response. They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/?pagination=false
On Edit: to be clear about this, atheism is not a religion, however a religion without god, an atheistic religion, is possible.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)of an atheistic religion.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)its ridiculous to even have this discussion.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)...that they try to turn it into the easiest thing to attack.
I don't blame them, really. But it is kinda sad.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)For one thing, the innate pomposity of many atheists is an obvious target.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But you stay classy and innately pompous free, ok?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Obviously.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)to make some theists happy
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I don't understand why many atheists keep denying this obvious fact. Atheist "proofs" of the non-existence of God are just as flawed as any of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Maybe you should try and listen to what is actually being said instead of hearing what you want to.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Some atheists here are nattering that atheism is not a religion. In fact, as I said -- and you did not bother responding to -- to say "there is no God" is every bit as much a statement of faith as saying "there is a God". How about responding to that instead of blowing it off?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your response.
Above, you natter on about how atheism is easy to attack, an demonstrate that by attacking atheists, not atheism. Lets review, shall we?
For one thing, the innate pomposity of many atheists is an obvious target.
Seems more like projection from where I stand.
How about you practice controlling "innate pomposity" before accusing others.
On a side note, why didn't you use your deep knowledge of "the league of militant atheists" in the other thread about militant atheists? It was the perfect time, and you didn't bring it out this time.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)where do i sign up?
just kidding, I've lost my religion long ago, and funny thing is, have not missed it yet.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rbixby
(1,140 posts)unless it serves your own pomposity.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)You seem to have a problem with some basics of logic. The burden of proof isn't on atheists.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Or just a sign of enlightenment in a 9 year old? Is saying "There is no good reason to believe in a god" an act of faith? Because that's what most atheists say.
And please, point us to even one of these "proofs" offered up by atheists that no gods whatsoever exist anywhere. Oh, right...you can't and won't..been here before.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you can't possibly believe what you're saying, but are trying VERY hard to convince yourself, because your brain can't adapt to the alternative.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)We have fun with your type here...
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Even without proof. And belief in anything without hard evidence, without proof, is FAITH. And as some have proven in this thread alone, they enjoy mocking and excoriating people who do believe in God, much like Christians used to mock Muslims (and some backward knuckledraggers still do even today).
But in order to at least get an inkling why Theists believe Atheism is a religion in their own right, you'll need to know all definitions for the word Religion - and it doesn't only refer to deity worship, as you can see below.
Defintion of Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Full disclosure: I'm a secular Christian. I believe in God (Yahweh), in Jesus (Y'shua), that we don't go to Heaven, and there's no such thing as the Catholic's depiction of Hell. But if an Atheist mocks me (Hey! Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?) I shrug and go "Meh". You have your religion and I have mine. Respect each other's choices in that.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)I base my "beliefs" on scientific fact. If I want to know how something was made, I read a journal. If scientists don't yet know how something was created, I look at the possible theories and natural explanations.
It's easier to accept things were created naturally through evolution than from some invisible magic sky man snapping his fingers and suddenly everything is here.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and that all things are created by some Big Bang theory, or what have you. But even though there is flimsy scientific evidence a Big Bang ever happened, or that there isn't a god, it's wholly accepted by most Atheists as 100% truth . . . and that takes faith.
And as an aside, as a secular Christian, I don't believe the "sky man snapping his fingers and suddenly everything is here" theory, either. That's just stupid and wrong reading of the Scriptures because we can see for ourselves in nature that all things have evolved to what they are today, and will continue to evolve to become what they'll become tomorrow.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)If there is good and enough evidence supporting a theory, I don't need faith. The evidence is there. I don't need faith to know that my computer is in front of me.
Telling a scientist their theories are nothing but faith is ludicrous.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And I've given you enough proof that I do. That example of yours is simplistic and a weak argument to support your opinion in this discussion. Gravity, for example, hasn't been proven by science, either (if it ever will), but I'm pretty sure that if you stand on a cliff's edge looking down without a parachute, you have faith that gravity is pretty durn real, won't you?
As for your opinion that if there's good and enough evidence supporting a theory, you don't need faith, well yeah, actually you do. Otherwise you'll just have to have faith that that particular theory is in fact, factual, and that would be in opposition with how you approach whether or not God exists.
And just an aside, being an atheist doesn't absolve you from being respectful toward other people and their chosen faith just because they don't share yours.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is that you either fail to comprehend the different meanings and senses of the word "faith" (or have dishonestly chosen to conflate them to make your argument) and that you do not understand what "proven" means in a scientific context.
But go ahead....show that I'm wrong. Demonstrate to us that you understand what you claim to.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)/fāTH/
Noun
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I comprehend the different meanings of the word "faith" just fine, thanks.
But I also know Atheists are as fanatical about their religion as any Muslim or Christian, but they're loathed to admit it. But just to let you in on a little secret . . . no one is fooled by any atheist proclaiming and acting as if they're not part of their own brand of religion or are any more enlightened than, what they perceive to be, the "misled masses" that choose to believe in god(s). Science may never be able to prove a supreme god exists, but that goes for gravity as well. If one is willing to believe the Law of Gravity, based on the effects of it, then one should be just as open to willing to believe there can be a supreme god, because we see the effects of that around us, too.
Gravity as a law: there's an abundance of evidence of the effects of gravity, but gravity itself, although recategorized as a law rather than a theory, is still scientifically unproven.
As a conclusion, gravity has NOT been proven in terms of science needing to find PHYSICAL evidence of existence before it becomes "real." So in a sense, based on an atheist's need for hard evidence (which atheists need in order to "believe" anything) you can say, "In the name of science, gravity is fake because it has no physical existence", couldn't you?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Faith" in the religious sense means an unshakeable belief in things in the absence of evidence, or even in the face of contradictory evidence.
"Faith" in the sense of confidence in someone or something based on actual evidence of past events or performance (e.g. "Faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, or "faith" that someone will do a good job on an assigned task) is something quite different.
Thanks for showing that you don't understand the distinction at all.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Faith means you will accept that something is true because someone or something said it's true. You don't question what was said and just accept it.
Science is NOT faith. You don't understand that. Science questions everything and seeks out explanations why something is. You CANNOT have faith that gravity works because it DOES work. You WILL fall off the cliff if you don't have proper equipment.
Theories are supported by mountains of evidence and observations that can repeated over and over again. There is NO need to have faith because you KNOW an experiment will produce the same results over and over again. You don't understand that.
These are concepts I understood in high school. Gah.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Okay, I've done some searching and I was wrong about gravity being a theory. In fact, it's a law, hence the Law of Gravity, but it's still no different than a belief that there's an almighty god. NEITHER ARE PROVEN BY SCIENCE, which means you have to have faith that there is such a thing as gravity because you see the effects of it when you fall off a cliff.
Mathematicians and physicists have created formulas that project the behavior of gravity, but all have still been reluctant to produce any physical evidence that gravity really exists. It has ONLY been proven that things are affected by gravity, and that's why it had been recategorized from theory to law. The problem with science is that it relies ONLY on physical evidence.
However, you can also attribute the same rules to "proving" that there is an unseen almighty god - through the effects of one around you, for example, the mysteries of the human brain, and the many writings of a supreme being among all ancient people all across the globe.
Look, if you DON'T WANT to believe in god, just say so, and stop hiding behind "well, if it ain't supported by good and enough evidence, it ain't true". This rigid position is in direct opposition to your willingness to believe that gravity is real although there's no scientific evidence to support it, and you base this belief solely on the effects that gravity produces.
And next time, just tell me upfront what your personal definition of faith is. It would save us both headaches from banging our heads against brick walls.
Here are the two official definitions of the word:
faith
/fāTH/
Noun
1: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. {As you do in, for example, gravity}
2: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)It cannot be a law unless mountains and mountains of evidence support it.
Science is not faith-based. Geez.
You don't get it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I've made that pretty clear in my post when I explained the difference between proving the effects produced by gravity and proving gravity itself.
But I guess you'll stick to your guns no matter what I post. That's fine. More power to you.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)No evidence, yet it's a law?
Those scientists are real dumbasses.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Or are kneejerk reactions your preferred thing?
As I've made abundantly clear, it's been recategorized from the Theory of Gravity to the Law of Gravity because of the effects of gravity, but again and slowly, gravity itself has not yet been proven by science.
Now stop trying to get the last (snarky) word. It's becoming pathetic.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Once you understand basic science, we'll be able to have this conversation again.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)With maths, you have theorems which can be proven true with no doubt. They have been, and will be, true forever. Man does not create them, but discovers them.
With physics, you have theories which are the best way of describing how the universe behaves, until a better theory comes along. They are an imperfect creation of man.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)makes you feel better. But it is so evidently preposterous to anyone with a critical facility that there is no there, there.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)This statement illustrates you don't have a great understanding or knowledge of current Cosmology.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)and enjoy the show.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)a belief in Science. The pragmatic idea that we are only about what we can know for sure through the senses. This belief approaches the fervor and faith of a religion these days--a natural outgrowth of the pressures of the 20th century. The speaker in the film does make good points about why it makes sense to be anti-religion. Atheism is a critical stance toward religion. But it is still a belief system.
I see no problem with atheists organizing as a group around a belief. Atheists have been much maligned in our culture and deserve respect. These are skeptical people. Traditional religions may have damaged them personally or they may see the hypocrisy in religions that support wars and inhumanity. At any rate they do not believe in worshipping gods. I submit that Science (& Nature) is their "god" in the sense of a positive force. Atheists in general have definite moral and ethical principles, I have observed, and I know a lot of them (surrounded by scientists). I have no problem with atheists as a visible group. I think it's good for EVERYONE to have a philosophical support group in this difficult earthly existence. This is no threat to any other organized religions. They should be welcomed, not cast out as lost souls. Diffrent strokes...tolerance...
Personal disclaimer--I am not an atheist, not even an agnostic. I'm a definite believer in higher powers, afterlife, no death (just transformation), spiritual beings, the power of faith (or prayer whatever word you give), the possibility of enlightenment, creative change, heart opening--all that. I even like the Hindu multiplicity of gods, where there's a spiritual guide for everybody (and incorporates women and elephants into the symbolic hierarchy). The traditions and music of the old Christianity (that simple kind that was mixed with paganism) I find beautiful and inspiring. I love chants in any language or belief (and almost all religious traditions incorporate chanting) ETc Etc ---------However...I am not aligned with any organized religion because I prefer to be open to all, but tied to none. One thing I know as a (lay) psychologist--people NEED beliefs to get by. No positive beliefs--you get depressed and die. So I submit that atheism IS a life-affirming belief. It is a positive belief in Science and empirical knowledge--ie. that what is before us, all that we experience--is all that we can know. Must have reality-based hardcore evidence. I don't know, maybe if the monster meteor hits...
Anyway I guess you could say I've created my own belief system, cobbled together over the years, that makes sense to me. Wanna join my religion?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)We had enough of that steaming pile from our dearly departed, and it is just as big a crock coming from you.
And wow...atheists deserve respect and should be "welcomed"?? How very big of you. Welcomed WHERE, exactly? Into YOUR big wonderful tent, which is the only place to be?
Could you possibly be any more condescending?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I'm surrounded by atheist science heads and I say that for some --it does have a lot to do with empirical thinking as opposed to magical thinking (or whatever you want to call religion). Not that all atheists are scientists or anything as stupid as that.
Yes I see a lot of atheists who are disrespected. All the time. That has bad ramifications. Profoundly bad ramifications. It concerns me. It is a bad sign that people feel compelled to fight so hard for any reasonable beliefs, atheism being a reasonable belief. I also understand how it feels to be trashed by fundies constantly. Although I'm neither an atheist nor religious, I get the point that atheists are making these days. I am being supportive but you're not wanting to feel that. That's OK--it's a common symptom of being abused. Lashing out.
WELCOMED WHERE EXACTLY?
What I mean when I say welcomed--"welcomed into the whole pantheon of human beliefs and belief systems," --not welcomed into Religion. (I said I am not religious myself, but I guess you didn't get that part, because you didn't really read before vomiting).
I'm not in the mood for a little battle on this. I said my piece and you said yours.
Go kick a puppy or something.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)As in "Not that all atheists are scientists or anything as stupid as that"?
You mean that kind of denigrating bullshit that you seem to toss off as if it's the most natural thing in the world? While you type it on a computer and send it through an Internet that wouldn't exist if it weren't for all those stupid fucking scientists?
If you ever bother to understand atheism instead of just condescending to it and mischaracterizing it, then maybe anything you say will be worth a damn. Right now, it isn't.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and appreciate. Sheesh get a grip. U too mean. Not a good evangelist for your cause, whatever it is.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)assuming atheism has "causes" and "beliefs". It doesn't. The only cause I have here is the truth, and since you seem to take great pleasure in shitting all over it, yeah, I'll keep saying what I'm saying.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You sure have a lot more to say. But since you seem incapable of engaging on anything substantive regarding your claims, you're hard to take seriously..
And I sense you're one of those who needs the last word, so by all means have it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)cease & desist
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'm like, okay snooper, it's just the internet
"The pragmatic idea that we are only about what we can know for sure through the senses."
"I see no problem with atheists organizing as a group around a belief."
I'm pretty sure if you got 100 atheists in a room, they would organize according to profession and hobby/interests. So if you want to call the group of six that are all into muscle cars as having a belief system. I'm all for it
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--you don't like that definition, what's yours?
Everybody has a belief system, even atheists. The atheists I know agree with this. Why don't you? (Serious question, not sarcastic).
Actually I wouldn't mind seeing atheists organizing as a group (some do, actually).* Maybe you prefer "ethical humanist" or something? I'm not sure of the terms. The people I know don't make a big deal about this.
So go ahead, define yourself. I don't have time for anything long-winded. What's a quick definition of atheism & how is atheism a positive thing for you? All beliefs are a way of coping with this weird existence. (Serious question).
I come from the psychological perspective (not the religious)
Thanks for being polite unlike some.
*Edit to say--the reason I wouldn't mind seeing atheists organized as a group with a similar belief is for solidarity and to push back against what I see as as a hostile environment for atheists coming from the fundy and other small-minded religious groups. If you don't see that is necessary please say so.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..of atheism specifically and morals/ethics generally into religious terminology. a 'belief system' in the context of religion implies 'religious beliefs' rather than generic beliefs. ex, i believe i'll be able to pay rent this month is a mundane, not religious belief.
since atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods, ie, lack of religious belief, it doesn't constitute a belief system in a religious frame. that's what i mean about reframing.
this isn't to say that atheists don't have morals and ethics which i think you were trying to say, without intending to sound condescending, using the terms that you are familiar with in a religious frame of reference. that, however, is somewhat a separate bag for most atheists.
lack of belief in the supernatural is one thing. common empathy for fellow human beings is quite another, and unrelated to religious belief (on edit.. or the lack thereof).
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)experience first hand because I don't know any "offended" atheists. The ones I know don't care what anybody thinks. But I take your point that you feel misunderstood and I guess it gets exhausting especially in light of the growing religious fundyism out there--which concerns me also. When you are fighting against misconceptions and stereotypes it is wearying --and why should you have to fight anyway?
Atheism is a reasonable choice, stance, belief--whatever term you like (I really don't care much about semantics--pick a word). But I maintain that atheism is still a set of beliefs, if not a system. It is a mental construct. It's how you respond to this crazy world we live in and make sense of it. So I see it as positive--for you and for many. No reason to be defensive or even to defend it, although I think there is more opposition than ever. So it seems that some solidarity might be beneficial. I don't know.
Would it be possible to reframe atheism as something more positive, I ask respectfully. Something not absolute, just a reasonable option? We don't live in a one size fits all culture. It is not good that any group would feel piled on--I am all for freedom of belief and expression. There's so much animosity. Scorn between the religious and the atheist is only one arena, but it's perhaps an important one, more important than people realize. I'm actually idealistic enough to think the two groups can coexist with respect for each. But I wish that atheists could accept that their position is a philosophy and not define it only in negatives re religions (all religions have bad stuff--I'm not defending religions either). I guess I see agnostic as more of just a secularist and an atheist as more oppositional, an anti-stance. It's all in the realm of beliefs IMO because who the hell really knows?
I'm putting these thoughts out and you can chop my head off if I goof up. I'm too wishy washy myself, to go with any one belief or stance--wouldn't work for me. So I can honestly say I see both sides. I'm neither an atheist nor religious. I don't do definitions or affiliations very easily.
Anyway thanx for reply.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)but in general if we reframe atheism.. first of all we have to get everyone on board with the reframing and that's always.. idealistic. second if we were to reframe atheism as a philosophy or set of beliefs it wouldn't be atheism anymore. a-theism is inherently a negative position. it's a very simple thing, not complex at all, and anyone who stops believing just sort of by default is an atheist. it's not an ideological position. it's a default position. if there were no religions ('Imagine' that said John) there would be no atheism.
if we reframed it, then we would necessarily have to exclude from the set of 'atheists' those whose atheism wasn't positive in some sense. that is, those who didn't share 'our' ideological position would be excluded. then it wouldn't be atheism anymore. it would be atheism-plus that philosophy or those ideals.
and that's fine. we have atheism+ and i for one support the movement, but even among the atheist+ crowd atheism is still understood to be this one simple thing.. this default position.. PLUS progressive secular humanism and social justice. ethics and morality don't flow from our lack of religious belief, but from our common humanity and empathy for the plight of the underdog and sufferer.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--I think atheism has benefits for the atheist. It's not just Nihilism--ie. don't know, don't care." Athiesm is a clear decision to reject any and all notions of the metaphysical and live well anyway. That is not a default position--that is a way of life, a point of view, a bold perspective. It is one solution to the age old questions of existence. A solution to the questions of right and wrong, a personal set of ethics suited to some people and not others. Unless you want everyone to stop wondering "what IS this place?" which I don't think is possible, you have to see it as a conscious choice to go through this experience we call life without answers. Actually I think atheism might feel different to different people--we're all stuck in our own little perspectives in the end. So I don't see a need to reframe it unilaterally except to agree that it can have positive benefits for adherents. I see atheism as close in philosophy to Taoism, though without the teachings. Wordless acceptance of what is. It is life-affirming in the sense that if you could not affirm life (ie. "our common humanity and empathy" , psychologically speaking, you would die.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..when considered as a concept rather than a worldview. i think that's a conversation that's been had before without any real resolution, and i kinda doubt that any resolution is to be had. my nemesis/bff put it well.. 'philosophy is an endlessly debatable topic'. *any* endlessly debatable topic.
generally we aren't talking about teh abstract concept of atheism however, but the personal worldview.. in many ways a different animal. a cosmos sans imperative values, to borrow kant's term, is not just ethically neutral, it's downright hostile to civilization. indeed i think much of the fear motivating a godless cosmos as a concept is rooted in socialized fear of anarchy. from plato to hobbes the 'republic' and 'leviathan'.. the utopia.. is built in contradistinction to anachy. it is better to be ruled by a tyrant, to paraphrase hobbes, than to live by tooth-and-claw.
is the universe moral or amoral? are there universal imperative laws governing human behavior or are they all contingent on social context? these are great questions and the concept of atheism seems to answer with an implied 'amoral' and 'contingent'.
this places the burden of creating social order, harmony, justice.. the whole shebang.. on us. we can't rely on the cosmos to force us to do the right thing, either as individuals or as a species. it's up to us to create order in this chaos, each and every day.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The elites making money off the lower class--isn't that the root of the fear of anarchy?
We can't know if the universe is moral or amoral--anthropomorphic fallacy--whether you are a believer in religion or science. Morality in humans is practical for survival. Cultural evolution.
I think a person can agree with not relying on the cosmos or a religious tradition to dictate morality, but still have a perspective that allows for spirituality. A spirituality that is neither theist nor atheist.
But I'm very aware that this is my head--not everybody's. Some people want the structure and commitment of religious affiliation
and I don't argue with that. Obviously some religions are more positive than others. But religions always have an impact on social and political events, even with separation of church & state.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)that's what "binds" us in our everyday transactions with one another.
A LOT of humans believe in mystical things up in the air and in the lawn mower engine. A good chunk of us don't. We don't need to organize into groups or clicks because of those facts LOL.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)you say that nobody needs to organize into religious groups nor into atheist groups. The very nature of a religious group is coming together however--a feeling of everyone being part of something bigger. So what substitutes for that? I don't think I'd want it to become Nationalism (any more than it is already)....
Are you saying that atheists don't need groups or than nobody does? Nobody should need solidarity on the basis of core beliefs about "existence" (to make the concept short). Sorry, not trying to be obtuse. I'm a slow thinker.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Folks gather because they believe in the same religion and want/need/share the same message-
Atheists don't need to do that "gather" thing due to a non-belief in some diety. If I want to be part of something bigger I'll just go to the park with my daughter and explain how magnets work- Isn't the fact that you are made of stardust billions of years old "big" enough?
I guess for some people they may need this-
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I watched it--yeah I wish more people would see the magic in nature --maybe they wouldn't torture the earth so much. But OK I think there are different mindsets. Your type of mind has come to this conclusion, by living awhile, by surviving a bad religious experience, or by just feeling this is right for you--whatever, however. The physical world is it, OK. But other types of minds are not the same--they bond
more with traditions and teachings, ways of "right living," confirming positive rituals (we hope they're no longer sacrificing children on the altar, maybe chickens). They gravitate to groups for the contemplation of let's just say "the unseen," the mystery. And you find people turning to religions particularly after experiencing trauma. Gives them solace. Works for them. Different coping mechanisms. Because we're all just coping with what we find here.
Here's a question, how do you feel about meditation--like done purposefully--with the purpose of achieving some form of change or ultimate enlightenment? Just that, no dogma, no words.
Would that be a no go?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a lack of belief in gods. Is that a hard concept?
Do you even understand the difference between atheism and anti-theism? Or that there IS a difference? Do you understand that atheism is simply one small facet of skeptical thinking and that science doesn't stem from it?
Thought not.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and unalterable atheistic beliefs of the "good" atheists that you know? Please, enlighten us about the "belief system" of atheists...
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Religion has beliefs. Science has ideas that can be tested and changed as needed.
Some people want to create a false equivalency to imply that the two are the same. They are not.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Science is based on evidence, experimentation, and observation. It just IS. It can be seen, proven.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)semantics isn't my thing. "Science explains things, not mysticism." That is a belief, a mental construct that sustains you. It is not Nihilism.
In which case you'd be suicidal all the time.
But have it your way. It boils down to picking at words.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)New Age, postmodernist woo-woo. "Science is just a construct" "science is just another belief system"
You wouldn't be reading this if any of that were true...
Apophis
(1,407 posts)You're able to read this because of science. Your microwave is made from science. Convection oven? Science.
It's more than just semantics. You can see, touch, taste, feel, and smell science. It positively exists. No need for a belief in something that absolutely exists.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Dogma and anti-dogma
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)... Karl Marx --- "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... a protest against real suffering... it is the opium of the people... the illusory sun which revolves around man for as long as he does not evolve around himself" ...
... Paul Tillich --- "Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of life" ...
... Cunningham, et al --- "Religion signifies those ways of viewing the world which refer to (1) a notion of sacred reality (2) made manifest in human experience (3) in such a way as to produce long-lasting ways of thinking, feeling, and acting (4) with respect to problems of ordering and understanding existence" ...
http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)The word theism exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism ... ?
... The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus There is one and only one God would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be ...
... let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him Philo) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully. This of course assumes that, unlike Huxley, he does not wish to use ism words at all. Gilbert Ryle once wrote an article against, though not absolutely against, ism words ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)By Austin Dacey
... the persecution of Alexander Aan comes in the context of broader trends of increasing religious intolerance in Indonesia which has victimized minority Ahmadiyya Muslims, Shia, Christians, Buddhists. Indonesias Minister of Religious Affairs has recently called Shia Islam a heresy and publicly backed provincial bans on the Ahmadiyya, who consider themselves Muslims but differ from mainstream Islam on the finality of the Prophet.
Viewed in this context, atheists conversations on the internet should be seen as one end of a continuum of manifestations of conscience, exercises of the capacity to grapple with ultimate questions of meaning, value, and morality. From a moral perspective, there is an important symmetry between the attitude of the believer who reserves special reverence for a deity, saint, or prophet, and the attitude of the secularist who asserts that every person is equally holy. Neither of these beliefs is uniquely deserving of being labeled a spiritual commitment, relegating the other to mere speech against that commitment. Alexander Aan has no less moral ground to claim that monotheism insults his sense of what is and what is not sacred ...
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6012/_religious_freedom__for_atheists/
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..as this thread proves, progress is slow. religious privilege makes it very hard for believers to see why the things they say are condescending and insulting. why must humans be 'holy' or values be 'sacred'. always teh religious insist on reframing everything in their own simplistic goo-goo-gah-gah.
poo. atheism now is political not theological so the reframing is just music to our ears. if they knew how incompetent it makes our debating partners appear.. then the fundies wouldn't keep engaging in these very public debates.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)It's not a religion. If, by some definition it is--so what? What is the point. If Jethro made it in the video, I couldn't stand to watch long enough to hear it.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)She has been on the internet for a long time and is an atheist. She his well thought out in her "defense" of atheism and her criticism of religion.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)in the sense of a belief system about a god. But it is a belief system about the universe that in many ways fills the same place in people's lives and minds as religion. William James's "Varieties of Religious Experience" related accounts of individuals converting to atheism that ran the gamut of emotions as people converting at a camp meeting.
Many atheists seem to think that their belief system is based entirely on fact and does not require faith or belief in anything more than science. Or for that matter, even that belief in the scientific method is a type of belief.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)or an incarnation of it. let's see how long it lasts..
not long is my guess.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576037
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... try to get you to come to their meetings?
... try to help you "save your soul"?
... try to get you to let them in so they can read to you from their book?
... ask if you have a personal relationship with Jesus or some one / some thing else?
Me either.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and the process is pretty similar, IMHO. Proselytizing is proselytizing, regardless of the subject.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)where atheists on DU have invaded your privacy to try to convert you.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)as you often do.
It isn't about the invasion of privacy, it is about the attempt to convert, which is what many active atheists, including you, attempt to do on the Religion forum every day.
Otherwise, you would be content to hang out in the atheists forum. But there is no action there ....
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You were asked if anyone had ever "knocked on your door" to try to convert you. You said "only on DU". It's the knocking on the door that's the invasion of privacy, as you well know. So your response was a lie, since no one has ever invaded your privacy here. It's a public forum, and you only read the things you choose to. If you'd rather read only fawning agreement and not opposing viewpoints, you're free to stay in the safety of Interfaith.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)There is no invasion of privacy. That is a myth. To answer that knock is a choice, of course, by someone willing to be open to the person at their door.
As I said, the effort to convert is alive and active in the Religion forum, and every single thing I've said in this thread is true.
and you know it is true.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You from an eternity in hell?
And they came on your property to do so?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and they got into my face to do it, even if it was only electronically.
Same mechanism, different, yes, belief, as much as you hate that word.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The internet is a PUBLIC PLACE ... P U B L I C.
No atheist is going to come onto YOUR PROPERTY and try to engage you trying to get you to join them.
Religious people will. Their leaders will. Their members will.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Just a walkin' and a talkin' on my private property computer screen.
Get off of my property!
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)The irony is as sweet as wet fuzzy puppy kisses.