I was momentarily afraid that your response might actually cause Leto's head to explode. I didn't think that it would be a good idea for his head to explode, again. That's all.
Dag,
I'll work on that, and get back to you.
Tres,
Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.
And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things. If, of course, it were possible that he really existed.
BTW, in your response, I would ask you not to write off possibilities for no reason other than just to fit your argument. Thanks in advance.
DOG, you're just trolling now, tossing personal insults because you have no more "facts" to give. Glen's own link is a perfect example of vested interests veiled in "logic," which is ironically just the same as more than one person has accused creationist science of being. How apropos.
At least David's logic is making more realistic sense. By the way, David, what do you think of my claim that atheism is a "religion without an institution (yet)?"
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.
And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things. If, of course, it were possible that he really existed.
This is a good point that should not be easily dismissed. A lot of organized religions like to harp on the fact that God is mysterious and unknowable. Some of those same organizations have gotten upset in the past when people make serious, methodical inquiries into things that were previously mysterious or assumed to be a certain way.
The only word that we have that a given religion's God is a certain way, is its own writings. So, in fact, it's logical not to rule out that God could be a prankster, or malicious, or jealous, or given to any other type of personality outside of the stereotypical "full of infinite love and mercy."
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I recall, Loki was something of a trickster. To me, that's one of the interesting things about the old polytheistic religions, they had deities who were good, some who were evil, some who didn't care about humanity, some who enjoyed toying with it, etc.
To me it seems to make more sense that Divinity would have such sides to it, instead of reading like the definition of Lawful Good from the D&D Player's handbook.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and my link is nothing more than an explanation of what it means to be an atheist, from the atheistic perspective.
"Vested interest veiled in logic?" All it does is define terms, from an atheistic perspective.
John, your definitions are all basically copies of the one written by Noah Webster, a Calvinist minister. Atheists reject this definition for the same reason that Black people reject the definition that they are only 3/5 human. It isn't true. It does, however, smell strongly of "vested interest."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and my link is nothing more than an explanation of what it means to be an atheist, from the atheistic perspective.
Which is better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths how? And the "atheist perspective" has a very colorful outlook as far as other religions, at least equal to the accusations against Christianity.
Like I've already said, atheists have to maintain a faith that there is no divine, and that it does the same thing most atheists claim Christianity—not coincidentally usually their former faith—does in spades. There are institutions forming, and Glen's infidel.org, as well as other sites of similar content, are simply another proof that this is happening. Right now, the only viable argument an atheist has that it is not a religion is the lack of an institution, which has been changing drastically over the last 20 years.
This thread is amusing only in that every argument for why atheism is a religion has turned into an argument about Christianity in general or all religions but atheism together. There has been no valid arguments made in this thread about atheism not being a religion, and all DOG has done is fall back into personal insulting when running out of argument (because it's all fun, right?).
Glen, when I registered here three years ago, I registered under an assumed name called "Leto II." I don't post using it any more, and John is my real name (last name beginning with "L"). I sure hope you weren't implying I'm being insincere around here, and I sure hope you aren't being pretentiously superior for using your real name, a habit I would not encourage some to do.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheists reject this definition for the same reason that Black people reject the definition that they are only 3/5 human. It isn't true. It does, however, smell strongly of "vested interest."
Right, because black people aren't less of a person, only those who are fooling themselves to believe in the divine, right? I find it funny that most of those who are self-avowed atheists who posted in this thread have exhibited the same behavior as the "black people are 3/5ths a person" that you are claiming only those who disagree with what you believe are doing.
posted
This is taken from the link that Glenn provided:
quote: Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.
And then the document goes on to further discuss the difference between people who just don't believe and those who put a lot of effort into not believing (the author calls them "weak" and "strong" atheism).
My contention is that if you're a person who is aware that there are organized groups of people with common rites and belief systems who venerate their own divine being, but don't care, and the lack of those beliefs plays no major role in your life, then atheism isn't a religion for you.
In contrast, if you're a very outspoken person who can't wait to tell everyone God doesn't exist and that's the Real Truth, and you are a member of an organized group with meetings and t-shirts, and coffee mugs, who all get together at some point to affirm the non-existence of god as an important point - I can understand calling that kind of atheism a religion.
I think the latter is much less common and represents a vocal minority.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I already addressed this: there are a great deal of people who are self-identifying Christians who belong to no church. Are they not associated with a religion?
Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it not so.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a self-identifying Christian is really a believer of core Christian doctrine, he still can be identified by certain beliefs and behaviors. He has accepted Christ as the savior of mankind, he understands the role of christian scripture and accepts that it comes from a well-defined source held to be holy. He aims to live his life a certain way and abide by certain standards of conduct. When you "opt-in" to being Christian, there is a still a core set of defining beliefs common to all forms of christianity and people with no official affiliation.
A casual atheist has no scripture, no confession of faith, and no religiously inspired ideal lifestyle.
1. No, I wasn't implying any disingenuity, only that I can never figure out how the rest of the people on this board keep track of who each other are. Dog obviously knew who you are, but I didn't.
2. If you look at my original post that you're railing against, I first defined atheism, and then pointed out several religions that incorporate atheism, and/or atheists that consider themselves religious. I'm not claiming that atheism cannot be an element of religion.
3. You still haven't answered my question about theism, which I DO consider disingenuous. What are you trying to avoid?
4. When did I claim that atheists describing our own viewpoint is "better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths?" Chistians are entitled to define their own religion. I never claimed that I was entitled to define Christianity, because I'm not a Christian (not a theistic one, anyway). What I'm saying is that You and Noah Webster have no business telling us atheists what we believe.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.
And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things.
Well, yes, that is possible. Or it is possible that he is perfectly good, and has a perfectly good reason for arranging the "evidence" the way it is - a reason that may not be obvious to us.
I just know that I'm certainly not going to go around judging whether or not God is silly.
I do suspect, though, that a world in which God's existence was obvious to all would not be all that great of a place - or, at least, not a place where people would be very free to act without worrying about God looking over their shoulder.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's "DOG," not "Dog." As far as I know, there is no "Dog."
Tres/Xaos:
Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have. It's not "nasty" judgemental (you know, like me calling God "silly," or Leto/John calling me "an ignorant slut"), but it is still judgemental.
And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.
John/Leto,
I don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.
Yes, I started off a bit trollish. And I was insulting (I do seem to recall telling you to bite me, but it was only that once, and you had posted a nasty response back to me...so there). But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.) You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.
Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.
You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.
Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.
And then we can all get back to work/school/whatever.
posted
I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.
I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.
This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.
One of the key things people are missing (or ignoring) is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. I think Carl Sagan came up with the analogy: If I said that the rings of Saturn were inhabited by tiny purple men, would the burden of proof be on me to prove that they exist, or on a skeptic to prove that they don't? If you say that there is a god, one which cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, or otherwise perceived by any instrument known to man, is the burden of proof upon you to offer evidence of his existence, or is the burden of proof on me to prove that the undetectable being does not exist? It's a ridiculous argument.
One of the books that really influenced me was Food of the Gods - The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution by the late Terence McKenna. He has an interesting theory about the roots of religion and how it was intertwined with human evolution. Some of his thinking is a bit new-agey for me, but I found the concepts he proposed to be very interesting.
Posts: 173 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There has been no valid arguments made in this thread about atheism not being a religion,
Can you argue the non-existence of anything? Is that possible to do?
A possible definition of a religion: A set of core spiritual values, rituals and practices passed down from one generation to the next. As noted, this would include Christians who don't attend or follow any particular church. The fact is, we aren't born knowning the story of Jesus, how it is different than Judaism, how it is similar, what holidays to keep "holy" or whatever. It had to have been taught at some point, either at home or at church or at school (if a religious school) etc. It isn't a state of being that comes naturally (though I think the need/desire to create mystical reasons for why things happen in the world IS natural...one can assume humanity has made a career out of creating (and then later abandoning or destroying) religious beliefs.
Atheism, on the other hand, has no dogma, no creed, no core values, etc. Are people who don't believe in Santa a part of a relgion? The ASantas? Are people who don't believe in extraterrestrials a relgion? Aextraterrestrials? The lack of something cannot really define anything. That is ludicrous. It is an important term, though, especially in the US of A which is desperate to cling to its religion to the point of crossing that line of church and state (another thread, I am sure).
That said, athiests can belong to religions. I am a practicing Unitarian Universalist, as is my family. As a somewhat hazy athiest (leaning towards some sort of agnosticism...getting older? I don't know), I practice weekly gatherings to celebrate life, humanity, community, etc. We have all sorts of rituals that can include folks of all faiths or of no faiths. Does that make athiesm a religion? No, but it shows that religion and anthiesm can go hand in hand. I can only assume that not all people who are a part of religious institutions actually believe in god or the divine.
quote:Can one prove absence? Can one prove randomness?
No, one can't prove absence (at least, I don't think one can). Randomness? Not sure. You would have to ask someone with statistics as a background for that. Not to be rude, but what does randomness have to do with athiesm as a religion? Just curious.
quote:taking up the "proving" core of lotsa logically bitchin' arguments. one can't logically prove absence, nor can one logically prove randomness.
Sounds good to me. It is interesting that so much of this thread has diverged into proving and disproving in terms of god, not religion. I think the proof we are wanting is this: Is Athiesm a relgion? I have seem some interesting legal discussions around it (meaning protections for those who don't believe in a world of people who do) but the scientific discussions have been around proving the existence or non-existence of god, which is really a moot argument for this.
My question would be is when does the belief in ANYTHING make it a religion? As DOG noted, no one has really worked from a consistent definition of the word "religion" and this could easily lead the thread astray. I believe Joss Whedon to be one of the best tv writers. It is not a belief that leads to religious practice, though.
Same goes with non-belief. Do those that don't believe Joss to be a great TV writer fall into the category of religion? Even if there are a lot of them (the lack of great ratings on his shows could point to the existence of a LOT of people who do not believe in his work). Does this large group of non-believers make them a religion?
quote: I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.
I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.
This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.
MoonRabbit, that analogy came from me. At least in my case, I disagree that faith involves believing the impossible. I can't speak for other people. I do view my religious faith as being similar to the light switch idea. Here's why: I believe that as I fulfill my promises to God that He will fulfill His promises to me. I have evidence of this. I do the act, promise is fulfilled. Lightswitch.
Granted, some of those promises I don't expect to be fulfilled right away, so I am not refering to all cases. So because I am describing a lightswitch that may or may not come on right away, it requires a great deal more faith than a physical lightswitch. My point is there is expectation based on experience, but it is much more spiritual (atheist read: emotional) experience than physical.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have.
Is there something wrong with making a judgement about what I think is probably right about God? I mean, I take the Bible and supposedly divinely inspired claims given by Christians as evidence that God is good, as well as the fact that it just seems to me that any all-knowing being would know that being good is good and thus would be good. And I base an opinion or theory on that.
Is there somebody I am imposing this theory on, or something?
quote:And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.
Well, firstly, that's an idea I thought up myself - I've never been taught it or "brought up" to believe it. It just seemed reasonable...
As for why, I would say it is a good thing that people care about things other than pleasing God and the afterlife. I think it is good for people to do good for it's own sake. But I suspect that if we were all truly certain of His existence, we'd spend a whole lot of time just trying to gain His favor.
Ignorance is no prerequisite for free will, but perhaps God recognizes that if he imposes Himself too much into our lives, we will freely choose to be too dependant on Him - like a child might become too dependant on an overbearing parent. I certainly don't know this is the case - but I don't need to. It's only one of many possible explanations of the way things are. And, truthfully, God's motivations for doing things are not the sort of thing I expect to ever find out for sure.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
A debate without a common sense of what are the axioms, what are the boundaries and limitations of logic (see "desperate name calling"), and what is the specified topic, can devolve into sputtering. Eloquent sputtering, but sputtering.
quote:A debate without a common sense of what are the axioms, what are the boundaries and limitations of logic (see "desperate name calling"), and what is the specified topic, can devolve into sputtering. Eloquent sputtering, but sputtering.
Agreed...so what are the axioms and boundaries? I assume they are on what is religion and what constitutes a relgion? And in whose eyes? There are plenty of "faiths" that are ritual-filled, creed-, and spirtually-centered in the US, but not all of them qualify as "religions" in they eyes of the law. While the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, Muslims and so on have the benefits of being considered a religion, you won't find many pagan, polytheistic, or otherwise small faiths getting that recognition. Not sure what this brings to the discussion, but I guess it would help to know what are the boundaries of the "religion" definition? If too broad, just about anything is a religion if more than one person can be described by it ("it" being some descriptor like "enjoys potato salad" or "does not believe in the divine" or...).
It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster.
If I had to start from the top, I'd say there is some question regarding "Is atheism a religion?" That's a pretty simple question with few terms.
quote:from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.
Sevumar, well said. That is definitely how I feel about it, and atheism is not a religion for me. The fact that most atheists are open to new arguments or information is a defining difference from most religions.
Hey, John L, I was wondering where you were. I was just asking Paul if you got banned or something. You know Pete did huh? But I was not involved this time at all. It was him and your friends Ev and Enum. And what's this you and Leto being the same person? That's not true is it? If it is, either you are a great writer or scyzophrentic (sp?).
posted
MoonRabbit, neither I nor the unmaker are what you would call "religious," since I'm agnostic and David is an atheist. Care to make up some motives as to why the two of us are showing how atheism requires faith to believe its basic definition? Or are you just going to continue to use the "you're saying that because you're religious" excuse? I mean, I think atheism is a religion, but as far as I knew, you were saying it isn't, and to call David (unmaker) religious is kind of self-contradictory. Just thought you'd like to know that.
quote:2. If you look at my original post that you're railing against, I first defined atheism, and then pointed out several religions that incorporate atheism, and/or atheists that consider themselves religious. I'm not claiming that atheism cannot be an element of religion.
If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.
quote:3. You still haven't answered my question about theism, which I DO consider disingenuous. What are you trying to avoid?
What are you trying to imply I'm trying to avoid? What theism are you talking about? Christian god? Yes, it's a religion. Polytheistic faith? Also a religion. The "higher consciousnesses" of Eastern thought and philosophy (that I've never seen adequately translated in Western concept)? Once again, self-identified as religions. Spiritualistic/shamanistic/paranormalism? Pretty much all religious. The reason I'm not giving you as direct answer is because there is no single answer, and because you asked a question not to get an answer, but to try to lead me into some semantical trap (I can think of a few). So, before you start accusing me of being disingenuous, perhaps you should be clear on what you're asking of me instead of demanding I answer a question that is obviously leading somewhere. I've been nothing but a straight-shooter here, and if I don't get the same treatment, don't demand I play by any other style. Be straight-forward with what you want an answer to, please.
quote:4. When did I claim that atheists describing our own viewpoint is "better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths?" Chistians are entitled to define their own religion. I never claimed that I was entitled to define Christianity, because I'm not a Christian (not a theistic one, anyway). What I'm saying is that You and Noah Webster have no business telling us atheists what we believe.
You're the one claiming an association, and that association has clear socially defined characteristics. Just because those selfsame characteristics are now used to classify it as a religion in itself is not enough to change the socially acceptable meaning of the word. "Us atheists" is yet another example of showing religious characteristics, by implying a solidarity.
quote: don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.
You're the one posting personal insults and then saying "just kidding!" when called on it. Ask anyone here if I post any different. Perhaps you have a misconception of what you may have thought I am/was. That's your problem.
quote:But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.)
What nerve do you think it struck? I have no faith in any divine being, Christian or otherwise. I have repeatedly posted point/counterpoint replies to just about everything you have said, and you're saying I've ignored or played hurt. You're either being ridiculously facetious or just plain lying. Either way, you're just trolling even more.
quote:You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.
Are you here "representing" atheism? If so, what does David (unmaker) represent? Who made up the rule that one has to belong to a religion to call offensive remarks about it offensive? You basically pulled a "whoops, sorry, I only said that because <insert another ignorant and insulting remark>" when called on it, which is hardly an actual apology. You may as well have said, "I didn't mean to call him a nigger, I meant to say porch monkey."
quote:Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.
No, I have explained why for every time I called you on being dogmatic. In almost every instance with you, it was either a disregard for anything not associated/accepted by general atheist as inferior, or it was statements made with ignorance about the other religions you made the statements about (Jewish science, Islamic science, etc.). The only links I disputed were Eric's (eslain), which I gave counters to and explained how the link did nothing to define his argument, and Glen's links to—surprise, surprise—atheist apologetics. All apologetics are arguments used to hide the dogma of the religion, not a disproof of it being a religion. A spade is a spade is a spade.
quote:Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.
See my first post. I already described what makes atheism a religion: faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof), the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this), a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm. The only argument for atheism not being a religion is the lack of an institution, and there are institutions—web sites, support groups, churches like Humanist churches—that could arguably qualify.
quote:You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.
Right. More insults. Golden.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I already described what makes atheism a religion: faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof), the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this), a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm. The only argument for atheism not being a religion is the lack of an institution, and there are institutions—web sites, support groups, churches like Humanist churches—that could arguably qualify.
This is an interesting definition. I am curious on the "faith" point in your definition. What faith do athiests ascribe to that makes them any different than someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny? Assumption, maybe, but I don't think "faith" describes it. The next two definitions (modern thought and leap of faith points) also don't make sense to me (living with and being almost an athiest...tough to shake those Catholic upbringings). Could you explain? I am wondering, is the reverse true for folks WITH religious faiths? Is the assumption of a 'Leap of Faith' experience coming from the idea that at one time, folks believed in something and now don't shows this 'leap?' Again, to pick on the childhood beliefs, is this like the time when little ones stop believing in Santa? The realization or 'leap of faith' experience when they realize what is really going on? Interestings points. I don't agree with a good hunk of them, but still interesting. In short, I still stand with the "athiesm is not a religion."
quote: It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster
Agreed, a good idea. I can see how this thread quickly derails as though it seems like an easy question ("is athiesm religion?") it really has a lot of definitions. The definition of religion really seems to morph person to person. If the institution definition is put forward, then no, it isn't a religion. There are no "Church of the Eternal Athiest" with mugs, bake sales and car washes. If the Federal definition is put forward, then no, it isn't...I can't claim a tax exempt status for gathering with non-god believing friends to discuss our non-belief in the divine. But when we do as some and start to conclude that the very discussion of athiesm alone makes it a religion, well then I guess it is, but then so is just about any discussion. Dog Grooming websites discuss in detail rituals, beliefs about it (natural cut or styled for shows, perfumed or not, etc.) and so on which by the same definition, makes it a religion. Facetious, I know.
Is it the online discussion about the unprovable make it religion? Then the dog grooming and sexual fetish sites would then not be religous, but as noted, some scientific understandings and ideas aren't all provable...does that make those discussions religious? (Like discussion of how teleportation or time travel might work, for example)
Oy!
Fallow, you bring up an interesting point...putting egos on the line. Why are people doing that? I guess that could be asked about a lot of threads. But still, it is unnerving that so many have gotten so heated up about it. As any parent can tell you, if you want to get off a significantly hot line of discussion, stop that part of the discussion. People saying "I am waiting for your apology" and "yes, but..." statements will only enflame. Move on. Get back to the meat of the discussion as there is plenty of points of view to discuss without a "he said/she said" type argument.
Hey, that should be a thread..."Argument Clinic." Hmmm...
quote: By the way, David, what do you think of my claim that atheism is a "religion without an institution (yet)?"
Well, I would say you're on to something, but it's not quite what you think. AMERICAN progressive atheists are beginning to coalesce into a religion, but the simple fact of being atheist doesn't make one religious, just as the simple fact of believing in god doesn't make one religious, either.
Theism isn't a religion. Saying, "Yeah, I think there's a god" is a statement of faith, but not of religion, because religion requires more than one tenet.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Religion - any identity-defining set of one's most fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, how to understand it, and what one's role should be within it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the definition of religion, I'm going to offer up what I found at dictionary.com, simply because it makes sense and gets at what people imply when they draw the line between Santa, light switches, and belief in the divine.
quote: re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
By this definition, even a religion with no instution at its center has to have a strong core doctrine that members identify with and follow in their own lives. It's more than a statement of "I think x is true (or untrue)." Also implied is a certain level of fervor for the set of beliefs the person identifies with.
The only think that would fit the bill here in terms of atheism is a group of people who strongly identify with a set of atheist beliefs and practices above and beyond "we don't think there's a god" and set aside a certain portion of their lives to affirming their truth and practicing it.
Most atheists simply don't care that much about it for their feelings to get that far. Most people simply won't put a lot of energy into advocating and crusading for something that doesn't have a great deal of personal meaning for them. Disbelief doesn't much lend itself to zealotry.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah, like anyone is going to allow Semanticman ® to dictate definitions to them, Tres
BTW, by your "definition" of falsification, science has no basis for saying anything (like "stars are big balls of gas undergoing extreme nuclear reactions under massive pressure"), because it could all just be GOD and we can't do it in a lab (and even stuff proven in a lab could be work of the DEVIL!!!!).
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. NO
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. NO
The life or condition of a person in a religious order. NO
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. NO
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. YES
I also think that it's pretty self-explanatory.
John L/Leto,
faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof) YES (Because people here have redefined faith as, basically, "believing that anything is true," so I'll give you that one.)
the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this) YES (and you're right--Christian Fundamentalism does not count as a religion, then)
a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," NO (I'll give you the "faith" point, but not the "leap of faith." Enough other people here and elsewhere have made a very good point that not believing in an ill-defined, self-contradicting, unproven, all-powerful entity does not require nearly as much faith as beleiving in one.)
and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm YOU THINK? OF COURSE.
Of course, then Neo-Nazism is a religion, too. So is the belief in Alien contact and extensive anal probing. Crop circles, cow mutilation, NASA man-on-the-moon conspiracies, etc.
Here's a question for you: Do want to weaken the definition of "religion" to the extent that any crackpot scheme can be defined as a religion? Or, is the concept of religion important enough to you that you want to provide it with a more exclusionary definition?
I don't have an answer to that one. It would be like asking a color-blind berson what color to paint the room. But I am asking it as a serious question--it's an important question to be put to anyone claiming to have a definition for anything: Does your definition include the items you want it to include, and exclude the items you want it to exclude?
And the other question I would ask is this: Why do you want to define religion this way?
BTW, I think I've found your sense of humor. The guy in my basement has it. He says you can have it back any time you want it.
quote: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. YES
I think this varies from person to person. I don't identify with any belief in the supernatural or a creator or a god. I'm not a member of any religion. But then again, I don't really care much about it either. It's not a big influence in my life and its role stops at "interesting topic of debate." In my view, that's not a religion.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to pick out a seemingly inconsequential point, but:
quote:Can you argue the non-existence of anything? Is that possible to do?
Yes. It is quite easy to successfully argue the non-existence of the largest prime number. However, as far as I know this kind of non-existence argument only works in formal systems with well-defined rules. Outside of such systems, you're probably correct.
-----
John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.
You've hit the nail on the head here. This gets to the issue of "no atheists in foxholes"
Mike and fil: Regarding atheism (and theism) as part of religion; this is exactly the point I've been trying to arrive at.
Religions all revolve around some kind of belief. But that belief in and of itself does not a religion make.
I said in my original post, there are atheistic religions. I'm only now saying that atheism and theism are merely states of belief, not religions in themselves.
John:
quote: "Us atheists" is yet another example of showing religious characteristics, by implying a solidarity.
So trade unions are religions, because they imply solidarity?
If I exercise religiously, does that make exercise a religion?
If I have "faith" that my daughter will get home before 10:30, does that become a religious belief?
In an attempt to prove that atheism is a religion, you've watered down the definition of religion to the point where it becomes meaningless.
There are different "theisms" only in that there are different gods to believe in. Satanists believe in the Christian God, does that make them Christians?
Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim that they worship the same God, but in different ways. Does this mean that a Muslim is a Jew, and a Jew is a Christian?
quote: it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.
A little freudian slip there. Watch your double negatives.
quote: If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.
Bull. First, my definition of atheism is the version that is accepted by virtually every atheist organization I know of. Second, your definition claims that all atheists assert the nonexistence of God, which simply isn't true.
As far as addressing the other points of my post, you haven't even come close to understanding it, much less addressing it.
quote:
quote: The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.
Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.
Only when regarding the Christian God. You'll notice I mentioned the divine. If you believe there is no divine, then you are atheist, hence:
quote: As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,
You must not understand Buddhism enough to understand that while there is no concept of god like Christians believe, there is indeed a divine existance. You should learn to stop defining everything from strictly Western Christian points of view.
You a funny man.
First: You're accusing an atheist of defining everything from a Western Christian point of view.
Second: By defining atheism by Christian terms, you are "defining everything from a Western Christian point of view" instead of accepting the definition used by atheists.
Third: you say Buddhism is atheistic ONLY compared to the Christian God. How many anthropomorphic Gods have you left out? About 10,000? Typical Christian viewpoint.
(Apologies to any other Christians who may be watching, I don't mean to overgeneralize, only to point out the irony of John's accusing me of a "Typical Christian viewpoint")
You attempt to create a false dichotomy between divine and godlike, while failing to address the issue of my post, namely, the difference between belief and knowledge. Whether you like it or not, we need those terms to be distinct, or there is no way to avoid arguing in circles.
But then, my guess is that this is precisely why you choose to use unfair definitions, because you have no interest in achieving understanding.
[ March 20, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bah, like anyone is going to allow Semanticman ® to dictate definitions to them, Tres
Actually, it seems like if such a person existed, he'd be the guy to turn to in semantic disputes.
quote:BTW, by your "definition" of falsification, science has no basis for saying anything (like "stars are big balls of gas undergoing extreme nuclear reactions under massive pressure"), because it could all just be GOD and we can't do it in a lab (and even stuff proven in a lab could be work of the DEVIL!!!!).
Well, no. It just can't say God didn't do it.
I mean, we can take a ball and drop it a thousand times and then theorize that the ball will drop every time. We can even name that effect gravity. We just can't say God didn't cause it.
quote:BTW, Treso--you're too vague. That's just a belief system. I'd have to answer YES.
Then what's special about certain belief systems that make them religions?
quote:Enough other people here and elsewhere have made a very good point that not believing in an ill-defined, self-contradicting, unproven, all-powerful entity does not require nearly as much faith as beleiving in one.)
Actually, they haven't made the point so much as baldly stated it. And the way you framed the question isn't exactly outcome-neutral.
posted
Glen, you know full well my argument, but in your effort to seem witty, you have to resort to Really Crappy Rhetoric® for no apparent reason other than to try to contradict me. For example:
quote:So trade unions are religions, because they imply solidarity?
If I exercise religiously, does that make exercise a religion?
If I have "faith" that my daughter will get home before 10:30, does that become a religious belief?
In an attempt to prove that atheism is a religion, you've watered down the definition of religion to the point where it becomes meaningless.
Wrong, unless you seriously can't read separate sentences in succession in the same post and actually tie them together to view ideas. You see, any single one of them would not constitute a religion, but the combination of them do. That you don't understand this is your failing. While I'm actuallty sure you understand, since you have no real argument against it, you have to resort to playing dumb. All playing dumb does is make you look dumb, Glen.
quote:There are different "theisms" only in that there are different gods to believe in. Satanists believe in the Christian God, does that make them Christians?
Okay, maybe you really are that ignorant. Satanism has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian God (except to say they are not worshiping the Christian Satan), and in fact rejects all religion but its own outright. Satanism as it exists in the modern world is just humanists who have decided to play rituals to spite Western religion (LaVey, the high priest of the Church of Satan, admitted it openly). I mean, maybe you have something stopping you from finding that out, and maybe I'm just lucky to have actually known members of the church, but I seriously doubt it. Once again, you are living under the misconceptions and influences of Western Christianity, most notably influenced by the early Lutherian Church, that anything not of the Christian faith—meaning religions now called "witchcraft" and the occult—are satanic in origin instead of their own separate faiths. You can learn more here, and get a little more perspective instead of ignorant claims. I guess you really can't be blamed too much for your ignorance, since it's merely a result of Western influence, both directly by claims of the churches and indirectly by film and television.
Bottom line: Satanism does not believe in the same god as Christianity. That is a misconception influenced by the Christian church. Fine job of giving us a direct example of such an influence, Glen.
quote:Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim that they worship the same God, but in different ways. Does this mean that a Muslim is a Jew, and a Jew is a Christian?
Nope, because as far as Christianity is concerned, Jews are not "fulfilled" unless they also worship Christ—making it a different diefication than Christianity—and Muslims are not because they don't accept Jesus as the son of their god. As far as Muslims are concerned, both Christians and Jews are "people of the book" and are equally justified to observe Allah as seems righteous. So, in essence, your ignorant simplification of "the same god" is mistaken, as well as the inclusiveness of belief for all three faiths. For Christianity and Judaism, there are very distinct and huge differences in their godhead that makes their idea of "god" very different from each other, while Islam believes exactly as you are trying to simplify. But I'm sure you already knew this, right? You're just asking these incredibly ignorant questions for... well, why? To imply that if something is similar, it must be the same? Gee, can you point out where I insisted that, and not something specific that you are taking completely out of context?
Once again, that's really crappy rhetoric, Mr Arnold
quote:
quote: it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.
A little freudian slip there. Watch your double negatives.
Ahh, the lamest of all responses when lacking sufficient argument: point out grammar mistakes. Luckily for your pride, I feel no need to go through your posts and point out spelling, grammar, and usage mistakes. Of course, that's because you have flaws in your actual argument itself, so I don't have to mince words in order to find an adequate argument against your ignorance. For example:
quote:
quote: If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.
Bull. First, my definition of atheism is the version that is accepted by virtually every atheist organization I know of. Second, your definition claims that all atheists assert the nonexistence of God, which simply isn't true.
First, your definition of atheism is WRONG. Second, your "version" is accepted as the typical argument by atheist "organizations" (not "churches," though! They aren't a religion!) as direct apologetics for the "atheism is a religion" claim. How funny that these selfsame "organizations" (not churches!) spend so much time in the arguments against Christianity "disproving" the existance of god and the divine.
quote:You a funny man.
When in doubt, hurl personal insults. How impressive.
quote:First: You're accusing an atheist of defining everything from a Western Christian point of view.
If the shoe fits. You sure had no problem using the Western Christian PoV regarding "satanism."
quote:Second: By defining atheism by Christian terms, you are "defining everything from a Western Christian point of view" instead of accepting the definition used by atheists.
Oooh! An "I know you are but what am I?" argument! How creative. Nope, I'm not the one who has made cases against "religion" by always referencing a single god or even the belief in a single god. That's what atheism does. That's what you did when talking about satanism—which I should thank you for showing such a good example of that influenced ignorance. Ironic that in a single post you contradict yourself so cleanly.
quote:Third: you say Buddhism is atheistic ONLY compared to the Christian God.
I never said that. I said it has a belief in the divine, not comparable to Western Judeo-Christianity. Reading is fundemental. Do not mosquote me like this and expect to be taken seriously.
quote:How many anthropomorphic Gods have you left out? About 10,000? Typical Christian viewpoint.
What the hell are you talking about? And I'm not referring to the anthropomorphic gods throughout many Eastern religions—they are not comparable too the Christian concept of God. Since I wasn't saying they were the same—quite the opposite, in fact—you are arguing against something that doesn't exist. You were the one to originally claim Buddhism was atheistic, which it is not, and you were the one to base your assumption on the Western Christian concept of God. And now you're saying "I know you are but what am I?" in response to my pointing that out. That's really freaking lame.
quote:You attempt to create a false dichotomy between divine and godlike, while failing to address the issue of my post, namely, the difference between belief and knowledge.
There is no dichotomy between the divine and the Christian concept of God. The divine covers many different things, only one of which is the Judeo-Christian concept of God. You trying to paint what I say as anything otherwise is your attempt to misquote and take everything I say completely out of context because you have no real argument against what I really say.
I also pointed out that the difference you make between "knowledge" and "bellief" is that you are saying knowledge is superior, and that atheistic knowledge is superior to other religions' beliefs. DOG was a great example of that as well. In case you didn't know it, that's an example of dogma.
quote:Whether you like it or not, we need those terms to be distinct, or there is no way to avoid arguing in circles.
Yeah, especially when the traditionally accepted definitions are unacceptable to you, because the only defense you can give is "I define it differentlty." Gee, if all someone had to do to argue successfully against something is redefine definitions, I guess anyone can feel they are totally correct and everyone else is wrong. Nevermind that such is an example of lack of logical rhetorical tools and critical thinking skill.
quote:But then, my guess is that this is precisely why you choose to use unfair definitions, because you have no interest in achieving understanding.
It's unfair to you because you don't get to adjust it to suit your argument, instead of actually using logic and reasoning to form a concrete argument. Instead, you cry "I define it differently!" and "I know you are but what am I?" in response to what I say. Granted, you say it in a much more long-winded and comprehensive manner, but that is essentially all you have said.
Good show, man. Any more such posts to me won't even be given the credit of a response.
Mike:
quote:John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?
I say I'm talking about apples and fil is talking about oranges, then. Atheism is used as part of some religions, yes, but has been slowly becoming its own religion as well. Consideirng the history of many other religions, this kind of "offshooting" shouldn't be so unbelievable. Just because they believe some of the same things doesn't make them the same, only similar. That's why LDS and JW are similar, but not the same. And discussion of both in terms of Catholicism is not addressing each of them in proper context, only in comparison to Catholicism.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I like the "argument clinic" idea. That's kinda what I was going for in an obtuse way with my "commentator" remarks and lame visuals. I think this kind of discussion might be better done in the context of a "sparring session" rather than the tone it sometimes takes around here.
quote:Religion - any identity-defining set of one's most fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, how to understand it, and what one's role should be within it
Tres, the problem with your definition is that it encompasses every human being on the planet with sentience. Reduce a definition enough, it no longer serves its purpose. Other people agree. In order to function as something that is useful to us, it must reasonably represent the commonly accepted set of religions, and not an excessive number of things commonly not accepted as religion.
John L's apparent definition of religion would have to include any group of people organized under a set of core beliefs, especially if these core beliefs affect their surroundings/interactions with their surroundings. Environmentalists, for example, would be religious under my understanding of his definition. So would Pro-choice activists. And so would Vegans. And Vegetarians. And Democrats. But the problem is that these groups inter-relate. One can be a member of many of these organized belief systems. I'd prefer a definition of religion that would minimize cross-membership. Some religious allow for companion belief to an extent (see Unitarians, maybe Vedanta), but there is a commonly agreed limit. If someone were to tell you that they're a staunch Muslim and Christian and Vajrayana Buddhist, as well as Shinto, you might not take them seriously. This person's definition of 'staunch' would lose its usefulness.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
People saying "I am waiting for your apology" and "yes, but..." statements will only enflame. Move on. Get back to the meat of the discussion as there is plenty of points of view to discuss without a "he said/she said" type argument. 
