posted
Sigh ... this thread had such potential. I'm enjoying thinking about the original post. It's taking me some time to decide how I'd react, though. It's a very disturbing scenario.
I've heard "atheism is a religion" before. I think atheists tend to defend their beliefs the way religious people defend theirs, and atheists tend to get as passionate about it as religionists do, but that doesn't make atheism a religion. It makes it a Cause. Like prohibition, or slavery. Its adherents have many similarities to religious adherents, but for the purposes of this thread, I couldn't consider atheism a religion.
So is there any chance we could respond to the OP now?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So is there any chance we could respond to the OP now?
Fine. I would be arrested for going to Mass the Sunday after this law was enacted and face whatever punishment they decided to impose.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
I contend that aliens who saw the public manifestation of religion as the cause of strife and pain and who also believed in a God who accepted any path to him might very well attempt to impose such a rule.
I take "path to him" to mean "path to belief in him," which doesn't make sense to me in this context. What do you mean by "path to him?"
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I understand your contention, then. Do you mean that the aliens would essentially be practicing reverse psychology on a massive scale? I'm not sure how effective it would be.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I don't really have time to explain right now. I'm talking about aliens who think belief in God is good but public manifestation of that belief is bad (likely due to conflicts caused by it).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Enough that I acutely feel its absence in my life.
I don't really have an answer to the what-if scenario; I'd fight to resist control, but not specifically over religious materials.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay. I still don't understand, but I'll mull it over.
I think I can see what Dag means, perhaps I can help. Or maybe I am way off, and Dag can tell me so when he has time .
Say there is a society of aliens who believe in God. In their religion, they believe that God who truly is merciful, and everyone goes to heaven, whether they believe in Him or not.
This alien species, seeing how much the earth religions have divided us and caused us harm, decides to take away all our belief in God, in order to prevent this strife.
They are okay with doing this, even though they are theists themselves, because they believe that no matter what humans do, they will all recieve the same rewards in the afterlife.
The scenario would also work if they believed that humans lack a soul, and so believe in God but also believe that humans are not going to be getting spiritual rewards no matter what they do.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion?
Taoists have a formalized belief system and even a form of clergy. They're religious, whereas atheists are not.
Not necessarily Tom. Some Daoists have formalized their belief system and have temples, priests, rituals, etc. Many others do not- and would argue that such things are not required to be a Daoist. I think our own MrSquicky is of the second variety.
A quick Google search of atheists and churches turned up links of some atheists who form churches.
Some of the definitions of religions have been a bit Western-centric.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many others do not- and would argue that such things are not required to be a Daoist. I think our own MrSquicky is of the second variety.
I call such people "philosophical Taoists," and reject the idea that they belong to an associated religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The organized part of the Daoist religion has a lot to do with its integration with the Chinese folk religion.
The unorganized still have many views about the world that are shared with other Daoists. There are some central tenets that, if not held, would cast doubt on one's status as a Daoist.
What about a philisophical Daoist that believes the Dao is God? Would he be philosophical Daoist because he does not associate himself with the organized portions of Daoism? Would he be religious Daoist because he believes in the 'supernatural' (although his belief would be perfectly natural to him)? Would he not even be Daoist anymore because he attempts to define what the Dao is? What if several people who are Daoists think like him, that the Dao is God-but fail to organize...is that a religion?
So is it a question of organized religion vs. not organized? Is it like cheiros keeps suggesting that the primary difference between religion and philosophy is the presence of the 'supernatural?'
Sorry, lots of questions, not a lot of answers. Sometimes, atheism strikes me as similar to Daoism.
BTW Tom, what you said about philosphical and religious Daoists is true, there are even different names for them in Chinese. However, I don't think it completely resolves all my questions.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a friendly remider that, for many of us, religion is not primarily about what happens after we die.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I could accurately say that I need the religion I subscribe to to the point that I do not think I could be really happy without it.
I liked Dag's answer to the OP.
I accept it as a possibility that without my religion I might have made choices that would have culminated in an earlier death.
I have difficulty calling the idea of atheism a religion in of itself as nobody calls "Theism" a religion. It is simply a concept or docterine, certainly not large enough to form an entire belief system off of.
For me, Atheism is an idea. Were somebody to create an organized form of atheism that sought to explain the nature of the universe, divise a system of behavior or morality, explain the origin s of humanity and discuss their potential as well as their destiny, I would fell comfortable calling them a school of philosophy for sure. If somebody called them a religion then, I would probably would not tell them they were wrong.
Applying that to Atheism.
(There is no God(s)) = Atheism ≠ religion ---- The Universe = X,Y,and Z , God is not a feature of this universe = Atheism = religion
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, a few hours away and all these replies to read. Great!
As noted before, just a few replies related directly to the first post, and even fewer answered the original question. But that’s ok, a few digressions are good. There is a “law” that says: The more digressions, the greater the probability to stumble back on the original topic.
The whole “atheism is (a) religion” debate is interesting, but I think it might go on forever, without actually answering the original question… Oh, and to add to that debate, I’d personally define atheism as a religious … disbelief. And for those who consider that this issue is important, in the context of this thread, let’s go back to the “what if scenario”:
quote:… they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased.
Note that I used special emphasis on the material expression of religions. The temples, churches … etc are instances of such expressions. What are the material expressions (i.e. symbols) of atheism/atheists? If the aliens found some, they destroyed them all. The note in the OP explains a bit more: not every reference to religion was destroyed. The history of the Earth includes the history of the religious beliefs, which is by no means “a religious symbol” in and by itself. So the ideologies are not eliminated, the “interdiction” is on the public manifestations.
I’d like to add that (for me) the “religious beliefs” of the aliens (i.e. theists vs. atheists) are irrelevant for the original question. Also, the “real” motive of the “interdiction” is irrelevant. Even more, the nature (i.e. benevolent vs. hostile) of their “regime” regarding other topics is not an issue. But if you like to give an answer depending on more hypotheses, go ahead. (Some already did )
I tried to make the context as neutral as possible, and asked for the personal effect that this improbable situation would produce on you. Think outside the box, for you
A.
PS: I’ll come back not only with my personal answer to the question in the OP, but also with replies to those who have and/or will answer it too.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could live without temples and churches. I could live without crosses and jewelry and little fishes on the back of cars.
I don't know if I could live without religious texts. They are the meat of the religion, the source for my beliefs and the way I live my life. And there are certain ordinances that I feel are ... necessary to my happiness.
I don't know to what extent I'd go to preserve those things, though. I'd definitely be subversive ... hiding my scriptures and continuing to pray and observe and teach within my family. I probably should be willing to die to preserve my freedom to observe my religion ... but when it comes down to it, one big reason I love my religion is because of how it affects my family, and to lose family members - or to lose my own life and leave my kids without a mother - I don't know if I could do it. I like to think that I could. I don't know.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: to find out that an unimaginably more advanced alien race conquered the Earth (before anyone could say or do anything about it). You find out that they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased.
(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." -Gospel of Thomas
The idols are unnecessary; they are a means to an end.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To respond to the OP (since the atheism-as-religion debate interests me not a whit), I'd say, "Guess the Hellenists are back," and do what we did the last time around.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the truly religious (I'm not among them), I guess it would be like the Whos in Whoville still having their Christmas.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, Atheism is no more a religion than the belief that Magic, Pink Unicorns do not live on earth is a religion.
In the OP's scenario, I would sit back and watch to see what changed. My guess is that more bad things would be eliminated than good.
The good things about religions, the hope, the good acts, the fellowship, the teaching of positive thoughts and behaviors, can all succeed quite well without religion.
One of the worst aspects of religion, the creation of unbreakable boundries, such that those not within the religious group are subject to different rules, treatment, and understood worth, would hopefully be more difficult to maintain without the outward trappings.
I'm sure that people could find other reasons to look down upon others, hate them, refuse to understand them, kill them, and so on, but at least in non-religious cases, there's more hope that people will use their common sense instead of blindly following what they consider to be infallible truth.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
When I say that I’m an atheist I mean it like an equivalent of “non-Christian” and “non-Muslim” and “non-Buddhist” etc. So what I’m saying is that I don’t believe in any of the “known religions”, because the description of their deities does not convince me, having seen the “proofs” offered. [Note: I see ethics as a part of philosophy and independent of religion.] So maybe, I ought to call myself an egotheist, but that might confuse even more those that didn’t see the related thread a while ago. [I’ll provide a link if needed.]
Therefore, as an atheist/egotheist, the “invasion” would affect me next to not at all, and that is because my personal system of beliefs doesn’t use/need any material symbols. Yet the knowledge about the known religions is still something that I value greatly, and the little fraction that I posses of it, helps me “put the Universe into perspective”. So “my luck” is that I need religion (i.e. its history) but choose not to profess any of the particular rites.
A.
[edit to add irrelevant remark: this was my 500th post ]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would fight back even though I personally have no religious expression. [ … later on …] Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
Ok. And how would you specifically fight back/oppose them?
[joke] Would you subscribe to a religion and begin professing it in public just “to prove your point”? Or will you plan to assassinate all the aliens, one by one, when they least expect it ? … [/joke]
posted
Looking back, there were more than just a few answers relating to the original question. On the first page, there were TomDavidson,KarlEd and Eduardo St. Elmo. The rest of the first page and the second one entirely concern the “atheism is (a) religion” debate. Worthy for a mention is twinky who used a reference to the OP, without answering the questions there. Then this third page brought more answers from Dagonee, Demonstrocity, BlackBlade, JennaDean, Cavalier, rivka and MightyCow. What theamazeeaz said is more an “outside opinion” than a personal answer, but that’s ok too.
Thank you all
At this point, I would like to ask (you all) a question inspired by this:
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: [...] but when it comes down to it, one big reason I love my religion is because of how it affects my family, and to lose family members - or to lose my own life and leave my kids without a mother - I don't know if I could do it. […]
In the case that you profess a (given) religion, how important is it for you to transfer it (the particular faith) to your children?
Rereading this question I realized that is a bit discriminatory ... So for the non theists, there is this version of it: How important is it for you to transfer your “lack of faith” to your children?
posted
It isn't important at all that I impart my "lack of faith" (so to speak) to my children*. The most important thing I'd encourage my children to be is true to themselves. If they feel drawn to a religion, I'd support them and encourage them to be faithful to their beliefs. The one thing that frustrates me to no end are the people who rely on other people's beliefs and just go through the motions (or worse don't even go through the motions). On the other hand, I'd also encourage them, if they followed my "unbelief", to not rely on my unbelief, but learn to make their own decisions and find out things for themselves.
[* Not actually having children myself, you should read "those with whom I have influence" here.]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ahh!! They are on my tail!!
I am big. It's the text boxes that got small.
Neither rivka (to the best of my knowledge) nor I have alts. I made one with three posts on a joke thread, but that's it.
So you're still comfortably ahead.
Good point. (And I have a few alts, but I don't think any of them have more than a dozen posts. Combined, fewer than 50, I'd guess.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I ever have children, my goal in regards to religion would be to teach them to think for themselves and question what others proclaim to them. If they come to the honest belief that a religion is right for them, I would support their choice.
If they tried to convert me though, they'd better be able to support themselves, because I'm kicking them out Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the case that you profess a (given) religion, how important is it for you to transfer it (the particular faith) to your children?
Very, very, very important. Sometimes that's the only thing that gets me out of bed to go to church on Sundays.
But you can't transfer faith, see. You can transfer knowledge, and a set of rules; but you can't give someone faith. So it is my goal to transfer that knowledge in such a way that when my children have questions and doubts (and they will), they will know how to find the answers. I want them to see the happiness I have from living this religion. I want the safety and freedom for them that growing up with this set of rules will provide. I want them to have experiences as they grow that will help them recognize the divine influence in their lives, so they will recognize truth when they find it. I want them to have a good experience with religion, so they will not turn away from it in their search for truth and happiness.
And of course I really, really hope they're led to the same religion I've found. But it has to be their choice.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
I agree, but it doesn't answer the question. I don't need religion at all. It seems to me that the scenario makes dealing with the issue of the aliens more important than the actual question: "How much to you NEED religion?"
How about this:
How would you react if you woke up one morning and all vestiges of religion were simply missing? No churches, no holy books, and everyone you asked just looked at you blankly? (but your memory is intact?)
Now (for me) this gets to the issue of the relationship between atheism and religion. Namely, whether someone's atheism has an importance unto itself, or if it's merely a reaction to the existence of religion.
Because I'd freak. There wouldn't be anyone to blame, or resist, but the sudden disappearance of religion would create a void in my life that I couldn't understand. I'd probably go around assuming that religious people were playing a joke on me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Rereading this question I realized that is a bit discriminatory ... So for the non theists, there is this version of it: How important is it for you to transfer your “lack of faith” to your children?
For me it was slightly saddening to realize that God didn't exist. I see religion as something that does have a purpose beyond a poor excuse to kill other people.
Also, children have different reactions to growing up outside of faith. Some look at organized religion skeptically, not sure that there is a God or not, but grateful that they are sleeping in on Sundays, and don't care to press the issue internally. Others feel separated from a community- especially if a majority of kids go to one particular church. This can even happen if they are minority faith as well. For some not relgious, that eventually leads them looking for relgion.
I don't think I'd mind terribly if that happened. My parents aren't atheists, so it would be payback. I just hope they would pick a nice, mainstream religion, as opposed to a cult or some scam, or anything that involves them telling me I'm going to hell if I don't repent. Having grown-up in a brand of local Catholicism where people sat in the back, Palm Sunday meant palm-origami, and no one actually took CCD seriously, I have this little radar of what is actually healthy with religion, and what isn't. My kids won't have seen the other side.
I made my confirmation for my grandmother, who may or may not live to see my children (I would have to have some in the next 10 years). She would be shrewd enough to figure out if I didn't baptize my kids.
I think it would all boil down to what my husband wants. I'd like to marry another atheist, but if Mr. Right enjoys vacation bible school, then I'll do what he wants.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
Tom, would your opinion change if the aliens, rather than obliterating outward religious expression, did something like this:
They land and claim a relatively un-used chunk of land, say Antarctica, or the Sahara, or the Moon, and set up an alien country. They invite any Earthlings to join them, and offer their technology to any Earth peoples who "show themselves worthy" of the advanced technology by ridding themselves of the "superstitions" of outward religiousity.
What if this alien country prospered beyond anything heretofore conceived by humans and slowly began to buy up land, increasing their borders, but never forcing anyone to change their ways within their own communities. They just simply refuse to deal with the "superstitious".
Would you see them as a force that needed resisting? Would you see them as "enemies of liberty"? I wonder how many religious people would hold onto their religion and for how long with an observably bona-fide offer of peace, prosperity, and advanced civilization dangling in front of them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: It seems to me that the scenario makes dealing with the issue of the aliens more important than the actual question: "How much to you NEED religion?"
How about this:
How would you react if you woke up one morning and all vestiges of religion were simply missing? No churches, no holy books, and everyone you asked just looked at you blankly? (but your memory is intact?)
I “had to” have some “oppressive aliens” in my scenario, because the idea of “no public religious manifestations” is so unnatural that it cannot happen “by itself”. Fighting oppression is one human instinct that might be even deeper than the religious one. TomDavidson seems to prove that I couldn’t avoid that.
As for your version of the scenario, there is a significant difference: My scenario it is not about “wiping out the religious memories” of others, while keeping yours. Knowing that the others have their own religious beliefs, but not being able to “assist” (publicly) their rites, nor being able to “share” your rites with the others, this is the scenario all about.
I see your scenario much like a “Matrix” version where you discover that either your “reality” is not actually what you thought it was [i.e. Neo walking among the habitants of Sion], or all the others were “plugged in” while you are the Neo [i.e. walking on the streets of “New York”] Either way, all you can rely on are your own memories and the “inner conflict” would be to begin “converting” all the others to “the truth” (according to your memory). I mean, here it is “you against the world”, and you have to wonder if what you remember “has to be applied” to all or not.
---
Note that in my scenario, the aliens don’t bring a “solution” to the “Does <insert deity here> exist?” debate. That is still to be decided at an individual level. But once you decided for yourself, you cannot “convert” the others, using rites and “traditions” (i.e. “everybody does it, so you have to do it too” kind of arguments). Yet, knowledge is available and can still be shared.
posted
In answer to the original post: I don't need religion at all or the outward expression of religion. But, I will fight for anyone to believe as they wish. I will not fight for all outward expressions of religion.
Example: I will not fight for Warren Jeff's religious expression to marry young teenage girls to men against their will. There is a reason why the law will not support him in that as well. I will not support an Islamic terrorist's right to express his religion by becoming a suicide bomber.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the outward expression of religion is necessary. However, religion itself is, because it allows one to develop an understanding of what things are meaningful, what things are not, and why. Without that, I'd think anyone would either have to be very innocent or very lost.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
However, I don't agree with Arthur C. Clarke. He thought that having aliens show up would get rid of religion completely. It wouldn't, anymore than evolution did. In fact, the rise of the evangelicals and fundamentalism in America came AFTER evolution appeared and threatened the traditional religious ideas about the our origins. I think rites, beliefs, and the other parts of religion are part of something that human beings generally need.
If the rites are not organized religion, they are replaced by something else. People want to be moral people - if it isn't going to confession every week or refusing to eat pork, it's recycling or eating only chickens who have run free. I don't think the question of how we would react is a valid question, because I'm not convinced that those impulses towards community, rites, and a code to follow that assures us we are moral beings could be eliminated.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if this alien country prospered beyond anything heretofore conceived by humans and slowly began to buy up land, increasing their borders, but never forcing anyone to change their ways within their own communities. They just simply refuse to deal with the "superstitious".
What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
It's something I've often wondered about. If a religious group sets up a theocracy in a previously uninhabited place and enforces religious based rule - must attend church, no work on the holy day, lots of morality laws, etc.?
Everyone originally subject to such laws was a volunteer. But what about people who change their mind later or who are born into the community after its founding. Would it be a "good" government that enforced its established religious rules on such a country, or would it be an oppressive one?
it seems that our culture does not judge such societies favorably.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think almost 100% of united orders (Shakers, Oneida, the Mormon ones) failed when the next generation arrived, for precisely that reason.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
That's a good question. In my fantasy* scenario I imagine such a conversion would be treated as a socio-pathic disorder (albeit perhaps a minor one) depending on what form the "conversion" took. I think that logically such a conversion would be relatively rare. (How many Muslims spontaneously convert to Christianity today, all by themselves with no established Christian support structure within reach?) I imagine, though, that if someone did "convert" and felt the need to practice outwardly their new-found religion then they'd be escorted to the border and given to whatever compatible state would take them. (Certainly any Christian group would be willing to take Christian refugees, right?)
quote:it seems that our culture does not judge such societies favorably.
To the degree that you and I share a culture, yes, that's true. However, I wonder how many Christians, in their heart of hearts, believe this is just an arrangement of convenience until such time as their particular brand of Christianity (presumably headed by a returned Jesus) has enough power to do the same thing our hypothetical aliens would do, namely remove the "wicked" from among themselves.
[*"fantasy" here meaning "idle musing in my head", as opposed to "desirable story I tell myself".]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, I wonder how many Christians, in their heart of hearts, believe this is just an arrangement of convenience until such time as their particular brand of Christianity (presumably headed by a returned Jesus) has enough power to do the same thing our hypothetical aliens would do, namely remove the "wicked" from among themselves.
Dear Lord, I hope very few!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
