Atheism as a religion

[Protector]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrAAbJNhqQg

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I would say that another thing that characterizes "religion" as opposed to philosophy is that a religion, whether personal or that of a group is authoritarian, some individual or group of individuals is taken as having the ultimate answers, to question these people and their works is heresy and all matters are referred to their words as represented in their books.

 

Marxism is an excellent example of this. It is basically an evangelical atheism and the "Religion of Humanity" founded by Auguste Comte is another example. This is organized "religious" atheism, but on the other extreme one finds people who set up their own private religions with one or more authorities to whom one appeals to justify ones beliefs and actions. Here on the Tao Bums this is how you get the "Tao Te Ching" fundamentalists arguing about the text of "Lao Tzu" like a bunch of Medieval Scholastics. The fact that this is not recognized as being basically "religious" is funny in its own way, that it is confused with philosophy is rather more tragic.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

But not having thought of it or been exposed to it, one cannot reject it.

 

My tea cup doesn't believe in anything, as far as I know. I wouldn't call it an atheist.

 

An atheist by definition believes that there is no God. By calling oneself atheist, one is asserting a positive disbelief, which itself is a belief. Otherwise, one would do better to call oneself agnostic or freethinker, or any number of other terms...

 

Points that I was thinking of making. The proper beginning philosophical position would be agnosticism, beyond that the whole matter becomes too complex to deal with on a forum like this.

[Owledge]

 

An atheist by definition believes that there is no God. By calling oneself atheist, one is asserting a positive disbelief, which itself is a belief. Otherwise, one would do better to call oneself agnostic or freethinker, or any number of other terms...

@Protector, too

This is what REALLY vexes Atheists* (or should we rather call them "antitheists" for better clarity?), the claim that disbelief is a belief, because it points at the truth that a fanatic mind in denial doesn't want to see. Agnosticism is about non-belief: "I don't know whether God exists." Atheism is often about belief: "I believe God does not exist". It should not be. The term itself doesn't necessarily imply it, but the people who get really worked up and arrogant about said claim are usually the ones who are guilty of its accusation.

Furthermore, an objection to a multi-faceted interpretation of the term "atheist" is a double standard when coming from those who use "religion" in very much the same way. For example, statements like "Religion is the bane of the world; caused so much suffering" is very fuzzy, because there are all kinds of religions (e.g. buddhism), so this would kinda potentially insultingly exclude non-Western ones, and religion does not equal a worldly corrupt organization using its label for their own goals.

Rabid atheists love to apply double-standards, because they severely lack self-awareness and are not at all about the search for truth, which is a disgrace when brought into connection with science.

 

*) a.k.a. self-proclaimed organized "skeptics", those who often are actually not skeptical at all, but rigid non-believers.

[Protector]

The only statement atheism makes is that there is no god. it's not an answer to anything except for, "is there a god?"

It's like a hammer that tears things down and doesn't put anything in its place.

Just because an organization is secular

 

1. Secularity (adjective form secular, from Latin saecularis meaning"worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.

it doesn't mean it came up with its ideas out of atheism

"Hey, there's not god."

"Well, that's one thing less to worry about"

"What do we do now?"

"Let's think of something"

That something won't come from atheism because atheism is not a religion or a philosophy. It just means that the organization didn't put god into its equation.

 

Atheism is simple, no god around. There's no need to make up some straw-man argument about atheism by adding a capital letter "A" and adding a whole bunch of unrelated things to classify it as something completely undesirable and then attack the said straw-man.

Just because you've met some annoying atheist online, it doesn't mean you've squared off against the true face of atheism. It comes in all shapes and sizes, plus the classic American anti-theist who's tired of listening to every damn Christian tell them that they're going to hell. If you don't like it and it doesn't apply to you, then stay out of the crossfire.

 

May the force be with you. RAmen

 

[Marblehead]

But not having thought of it or been exposed to it, one cannot reject it.

 

My tea cup doesn't believe in anything, as far as I know. I wouldn't call it an atheist.

 

An atheist by definition believes that there is no God. By calling oneself atheist, one is asserting a positive disbelief, which itself is a belief. Otherwise, one would do better to call oneself agnostic or freethinker, or any number of other terms...

We are speaking from different pages of the book.

 

Your definition does not fit me.

 

I state factually that there are no gods, no Tooth Fairy, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny. Nothing supernatural exists. That is not a belief. That is a fact as well as I can understand the universe.

 

I believe I am taking a break right now after doing some work at the fish ponds. But this really is not a belief because it is a fact. A fact needs no support of a belief.

[Marblehead]

Points that I was thinking of making. The proper beginning philosophical position would be agnosticism, beyond that the whole matter becomes too complex to deal with on a forum like this.

But even this is pushing the envelope because one must have first conceptualized the idea of a god before even saying that you don't know if there is a god.

 

The proper beginning is ignorance and then we create our illusions and delusions.

[Marblehead]

 

Rabid atheists love to apply double-standards, because they severely lack self-awareness and are not at all about the search for truth, which is a disgrace when brought into connection with science.

 

*) a.k.a. self-proclaimed organized "skeptics", those who often are actually not skeptical at all, but rigid non-believers.

Totally on the contrary. The "rabid Atheists" are those who are pissed off at people who try to force their religion donw the throat of the Atheist.

 

And, it are the Atheists who are being realists and the religious people who are the delusioned. The Atheists are aware of reality but the religious, especially men, who are looking for their 72 virgins when the get to that place of delusion called heaven.

 

And so, no one has yet to find one single bit of proof that there are any gods but yet there are millions of people who believe, on faith alone, based solely on what someone else has told them, without taking the first step to even question the validity of the assertion. This is so far from science it is ridiculous.

 

And I have never applied double standards to this entire concept. All I have ever asked is that someone show me one piece of verifiable proof that there is a god or even an Easter Bunny. So far I have a no-show.

 

If I believe I can fly and jump off a one hundred foot cliff I am going to fuckin' die, not fly. There is a fact for you.

[iain]

Hello,

Atheists are indoctrinated with ideas other than those of God or Gods. No indoctrination is possible with out words, what does that make God ... Mathematics.

Now who believes in God?

Edited October 11, 2014 by iain

[dust]

Atheism is simple, no god around. There's no need to make up some straw-man argument about atheism by adding a capital letter "A" and adding a whole bunch of unrelated things to classify it as something completely undesirable and then attack the said straw-man.

 

It's not that we're creating something that doesn't exist. There are people who call themselves atheists who vehemently disbelieve the existence of anything they can't "see" and are fundamentally dedicated to the eradication of religion, theism, etc. We are calling them Atheists because they don't simply lack belief in God and call it a day -- they make youtube videos about how much they hate religion and how much better atheism is than anything else.

 

Those people exist. I wouldn't say that this Atheism is a religion by traditional standards, but it's pretty close in its approach much of the time.

 

 

 

Just because you've met some annoying atheist online, it doesn't mean you've squared off against the true face of atheism. It comes in all shapes and sizes, plus the classic American anti-theist who's tired of listening to every damn Christian tell them that they're going to hell. If you don't like it and it doesn't apply to you, then stay out of the crossfire.

 

I cannot respect a person who believes that I am going to hell for not believing in God and does nothing about it. It is their responsibility to try and convince me. And mine to shut them down... but not permanently. People like this will always exist. You're proof of that.

[dust]

 

If I believe I can fly and jump off a one hundred foot cliff I am going to fuckin' die, not fly. There is a fact for you.

 

I've always wondered about this. If someone thinks they can fly, why not just...fly..?

 

I can't think of a single animal or machine that needs to get to a great height before it can beat its wings or turn engines on...

[iain]

Hello dustybeijing,

I fully agree with you, this is where I think the important step is to teach people about the nature of the self, spirituality.
That they are in reality being dogmatic in their belief, and that this is a spiritual issue.

To be aware that others may be more sensitive to certain aspects of "perceived reality"; this is another spiritual issue.
Just as some of us are better at calculation others have intuition giving creative ideas.
Neither is better or right or wrong; but these concepts are all spiritual ...

Religion is a family heirloom.

Edited October 11, 2014 by iain

[dust]

teach people about the nature of the self, spirituality.

That they are in reality being dogmatic in their belief, and that this is a spiritual issue.

 

Nice. Yes, the nature of the self.

 

 

 

To be aware that others may be more sensitive to certain aspects of "perceived reality"; this is another spiritual issue.

Just as some of us are better at calculation others have intuition giving creative ideas.

Neither is better or right or wrong; but these concepts are all spiritual ...

 

Where were you earlier? I could've used this in the other thread!

[iain]

Where were you earlier? I could've used this in the other thread!

 

Oh, probably over in the Astrology thread; its my favorite subject, proof enough for me of the nature of "that".

 

Perception of reality as a function of the self, seems to be surprisingly irrelevant to most "atheists" as such relativity is often ascribed to the deity "Einstein"; a concept deemed too complicated for mortals ...

 

Nice to meet you.

 

Edited October 11, 2014 by iain

[Owledge]

 

Atheism is simple, no god around. There's no need to make up some straw-man argument about atheism by adding a capital letter "A" and adding a whole bunch of unrelated things to classify it as something completely undesirable and then attack the said straw-man.

This straw man rhetoric is very familar, and not in a good way. It's an easy and habitual cop-out among people who put great faith in their basic rational capacities, in lack of better words right now. Try not to use it, because the baggage that comes with it seems to affect you, too, because it's obviously not making up a straw man argument, since it's fact that atheism is in praxis often used WITH a lot of connotation, and that's what we're adressing in the discussion. The stuff that actually happens in context to the word. If this is a straw man, then we didn't build it, we're in fact trying to burn it.

 

 

We are speaking from different pages of the book.

 

Your definition does not fit me.

 

I state factually that there are no gods, no Tooth Fairy, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny. Nothing supernatural exists. That is not a belief. That is a fact as well as I can understand the universe.

 

I believe I am taking a break right now after doing some work at the fish ponds. But this really is not a belief because it is a fact. A fact needs no support of a belief.

You cannot tell apart fact from belief now, and if this is not just for demonstration, it would be worrying. You can only factually state your non-belief about the supernatural, but you cannot factually state that nothing supernatural exists; not only based on logical principles, but also because there's good empirical evidence that they in fact do exist (Bruno Gröning being a prime example).

[C T]

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who once said that conventional people become livid at those who opt to depart from convention simply because they see that choice as some sort of criticism against them (those who vehemently argue for conventions)? Almost like the critics back in the days of the Wright brothers when they merely heard of their intention to experiment with the theory of a flying machine. Just that expressed intention alone was enough to rile them, not to mention when the actual experiments began.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

. . . The proper beginning philosophical position would be agnosticism, beyond that the whole matter becomes too complex to deal with on a forum like this.

 

I said the I said "the proper beginning philosophical position",

 

But even this is pushing the envelope because one must have first conceptualized the idea of a god before even saying that you don't know if there is a god.

 

The proper beginning is ignorance and then we create our illusions and delusions. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Babies start out ignorant, philosophers start out perplexed. The perplexity arises from the competing truth claims with which he/she is presented. Working one's way through these in a rigorous and rational manner is the task which the philosopher then sets for themselves. This is achieved by self examination, why do I believe this, why don't I believe that, what are the logical consequences of my believing such and such, what must I presuppose in order to believe that, and the same for not believing this or that.

 

Philosophy is an activity, not a belief system. It may result in a certain set of beliefs being taken as more likely true than another, but the philosopher will know why they believe that and is open to the possibility that they could be mistaken, by the same token they should have reached a level of certainty about what they profess to believe that it stands out in a real contrast to what they consider unlikely, very unlikely, well-nigh impossible, to things that are impossible. The domain of genuinely impossible things is almost exclusively limited to mathematics. When you get into the nature of "reality", you are in a sea of conjectures related to certain propositions about the world, that suddenly becomes very complex. More complex then I have time to enter into here.

[Marblehead]

Hello,

 

Atheists are indoctrinated with ideas other than those of God or Gods. No indoctrination is possible with out words, what does that make God ... Mathematics.

 

Now who believes in God?

Nope. That's no even close enough to seriously consider.

[Marblehead]

I've always wondered about this. If someone thinks they can fly, why not just...fly..?

 

I can't think of a single animal or machine that needs to get to a great height before it can beat its wings or turn engines on...

But, but, you don't have wings, do you? How are you going to flap something that doesn't exist?

[Marblehead]

Where were you earlier? I could've used this in the other thread!

Well, don't lose it. I'm sure there will be other opportunities to use it.

[Marblehead]

Perception of reality as a function of the self, seems to be surprisingly irrelevant to most "atheists" as such relativity is often ascribed to the deity "Einstein"; a concept deemed too complicated for mortals ...

 

Cute. I knew about Relativity's sister shortly after being born. He name is "Cause and Effect".

[iain]

Nope. That's no even close enough to seriously consider.

Terribly sorry, I did not understand your reply at all; was this perhaps an exam question?

[Marblehead]

You cannot tell apart fact from belief now, and if this is not just for demonstration, it would be worrying. You can only factually state your non-belief about the supernatural, but you cannot factually state that nothing supernatural exists; not only based on logical principles, but also because there's good empirical evidence that they in fact do exist (Bruno Gröning being a prime example).

Strongly disagree. Of course I can say that it is a fact that nothing supernatural exists. And I just basically said it again. If it isn't natural it doesn't exist. Period. In other words, if it can't happen it won't happen. That is a fact.

 

Of course I can tell the difference between fact and belief. A fact is agreed to by "everyone" who make the observation. If "everyone" does not agree then either it is not a fact or there are those who do not understand the question or cannot formulate an answer.

 

Point to a tree and everyone will agree that it is a tree. Point to the heavens and say "There's God" and you would be lucky to get one person to see the nothing that you are pointing at.

 

And aliens exist too. Right? They exist because someone else made up the idea in their mind and you were insecure and needed to believe in something so you accepted aliens as your security. And then the two of you started giving the aliens all sorts of super powers.

[Marblehead]

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell ...

I'm not sure it was Bert but it sounds reasonable.

[Marblehead]

 

Babies start out ignorant, philosophers start out perplexed.

Well, you did pretty darned well with that post.