| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
I don't know what you mean by "demonstrably religious." Greg Boyle is demonstrably religious as I understand the phase and, speaking as an atheist, I have nothing but respect for the man.
My personal experience, the atheist/believer relationship gained more nuance than you describe in about third grade. If the atheist can't live with the idea of any people at all believing in god ever, or the religious person is such a fundamentalist that they think it's their responsibility to evangelize everyone but those of their own sect, what you describe will happen, but either of those take a very special level of immaturity.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's the Internet, in which case admitting you're religious gets you "irrational" and "irredeemably stupid."
If you haven't noticed, admitting any kind of belief or preference, social, political, religious, whatever is met with derision from those that disagree. If you need proof, look at any comment section of any site ever.
Yes Atheism is a religion, and this thread is it's church.
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
I think the reaction would probably depend on the religion and the religion/sect/individual interpretation on what to do with unbelievers. If someone keeps preaching at me that i need to wear a beanie propeller hat to be saved then at SOME point i would imagine the group is going to boot them. If someone starts going to church on sunday and helping to build houses for the poor I'm sure any real friendship would be fine.
Yes Atheism is a religion, and this thread is it's church."It's" = "it is."
"Its" = possessive.
|
|
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
Define 'demonstrably religious'.
I have had a player pray for faith healing over another player during a session break.
When I ignored a players attempt to get my attention by calling me God, I quipped "just like the real God, I don't answer when called!"
We are still friends.
Unless it's the Internet, in which case admitting you're religious gets you "irrational" and "irredeemably stupid."Just to show some of the ramifications of actually becoming an Atheist, mostly in the US:
Social SuicideI have to say, I've never seen an atheist shun someone for becoming religious (unless you count the over the top holier-than-thou born again types, who really push people away themselves).
If someone is calling you irrational and irredeemably stupid, they are, by definition, NOT shunning you.
|
With every respect to all of you, I sometimes think (some of) you guys don't really read what a poster writes--- you might see the words, but you often respond as though looking for an argument and in a manner that indicates you only keyed-in on certain words or turns of phrase.
I wrote:
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
Now, while I didn't specifically reply to anyone, my post was sequential to several posts talking about relationship dynamics between believers and nonbelievers.
I never said that anyone's (specifically) circle of friends was homogenous in philosophy, nor did I imply that believers and nonbelievers could not get along, so there should be no logical inference on your (any of you) part to think this was the case.
In fact, I established the parameters quite clearly by writing a group of atheists and indicating the likelihood of continued friendship if one became demonstrably, or undeniably (and by implication proselytistically) religious. It was a set-theory example for thought only, not necessarily factually representative.
At any rate, I didn't argue it and offered it as an opinion (indicated by writing I'd imagine).
Apologies to those who found offense.
Unless it's the Internet, in which case admitting you're religious gets you "irrational" and "irredeemably stupid."Just to show some of the ramifications of actually becoming an Atheist, mostly in the US:
Social SuicideI have to say, I've never seen an atheist shun someone for becoming religious (unless you count the over the top holier-than-thou born again types, who really push people away themselves).
Not sure anyone here has said irredeemably stupid. I mean their are some religious folks who certainly seem to be, but I'm pretty sure this is the internet, and no one is saying ALL religious people are irredeemable stupid.
No.
.
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
(Sounds like a Group of Castrated male cattle) to that, I say. Myself, and my two best friends(chris and claire) are all outspoken and atheists, with exactly no time for the claims of supernatural religion between us, yet the fourth member of our gaming group, and our friend mark is a practising theistic neo-pagan. It never, ever comes up, because we don't care what he does in the privacy of his own head, and he doesn't try to enforce the tenets of his religion on us.
I've seen the same in numerous groups of my friends, current and past, with different flavours of theists (of the polite kind).
In fact, I established the parameters quite clearly by writing a group of atheists...
My issue was with your so-called "parameters." Maybe a group like that exists somewhere, but for purposes of useful discussion, they're enough of an outlier that we can ignore them.
Contrast:
"I would imagine that, in a group of all Christians who believe in stoning disobediant children to death, that the group would dissolve if one of the members decided to simply spank instead."
Yeah, the initial conditions are clear. Yeah, they're totally unrealistic. Yeah, they're blatantly and needlessly insulting as well -- when you say "I'm not claiming that anyone here, personally does this, but usually people who identify as X do Y" -- where Y is something generally antisocial and reprehensible and X could include the people you're talking to -- that's an insult.
With every respect to all of you, I sometimes think (some of) you guys don't really read what a poster writes--- you might see the words, but you often respond as though looking for an argument and in a manner that indicates you only keyed-in on certain words or turns of phrase.
I wrote:
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
Now, while I didn't specifically reply to anyone, my post was sequential to several posts talking about relationship dynamics between believers and nonbelievers.
I never said that anyone's (specifically) circle of friends was homogenous in philosophy, nor did I imply that believers and nonbelievers could not get along, so there should be no logical inference on your (any of you) part to think this was the case.
In fact, I established the parameters quite clearly by writing a group of atheists and indicating the likelihood of continued friendship if one became demonstrably, or undeniably (and by implication proselytistically) religious. It was a set-theory example for thought only, not necessarily factually representative.
At any rate, I didn't argue it and offered it as an opinion (indicated by writing I'd imagine).
Apologies to those who found offense.
I hadn't caught up with this post when I posted my response but is reminded me of a point.
(and by implication proselytistic)religious
I don't accept the idea that deep and abiding faith on the part of an individual requires them to become proselytistically religious.
There are major religious and (religious) political figures, who have actively spoken out against proselytiation, and many of the people of faith I have met and respected have never tried to convert anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are actually many priests (let alone other self-identified Christians) who don't hold a belief in God as the central tenet of their Christianity. One of the most well known of these is the group of Anglican vicars called the "Sea of Faith".
That's why I think this whole discussion in these boards is so very, very funny. Because many people on these boards are talking about religion without having any idea what religion is.
If a group of Anglican vicars can be church leaders and yet believe that God is a man-made construct, then, surely, belief in God is not a requirement to be a Christian, let alone a religious person.
[rant]
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.Last I checked, the general definition runs along those line(in fact that is a very generous and broad definition)
Atheism does not match up to that description of religion. I've yet to see anyone suggest that all religion is theistic (which would be a patently ridiculous idea, given you know, the possibility of polytheistic, deistic and and even potentially atheistic religions.)
Almost no one here doesn't get what religion is, and almost no one here is confusing 'religion' with Christianity, or for that matter a specific subspecies of Christianity. In fact some of use have been going out of our way to make that distinction.
Atheism (a single negative belief/lack of a belief) doesn't jel with a single general accepted definition of religion, nor any meaningful specialist definition I have ever come across. To make atheism a religion, one must broaden the meaning of religion to the point of meaninglessness. If memory serves, you have tried to do exactly that before now, with definitions of religion so broad that you could define any aspect of human enquiry as religion. [/rant]
So...question..What is the relevance? No one here to my knowledge is claiming that it is impossible to be both an atheist and religious, only that atheism is not in and of itself a religion. So what is your point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I give up.
2+2=5
Possibly for some exceedingly large values of 2. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Touché.In hindsight that probably came across more snarky than I intended -- my apologies.
No need for apologies Bugleyman. I made a mistake, you called me on it, I conceded the point. We are both grown ups last I checked. I read no snark, even if I had, I wouldn't really have minded.
Or when you change the rules.
?
With every respect to all of you, I sometimes think (some of) you guys don't really read what a poster writes--- you might see the words, but you often respond as though looking for an argument and in a manner that indicates you only keyed-in on certain words or turns of phrase.
I wrote:
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
Now, while I didn't specifically reply to anyone, my post was sequential to several posts talking about relationship dynamics between believers and nonbelievers.
I never said that anyone's (specifically) circle of friends was homogenous in philosophy, nor did I imply that believers and nonbelievers could not get along, so there should be no logical inference on your (any of you) part to think this was the case.
In fact, I established the parameters quite clearly by writing a group of atheists and indicating the likelihood of continued friendship if one became demonstrably, or undeniably (and by implication proselytistically) religious. It was a set-theory example for thought only, not necessarily factually representative.
At any rate, I didn't argue it and offered it as an opinion (indicated by writing I'd imagine).
Apologies to those who found offense.
I wasn't offended, but look, how does your original post (the italicized bit) not raise the issue of relationships dynamics between believers and nonbelievers? Sure someone who tries to either convert all the atheists, or out-argue all the believers at my table is a douchebag, but all that set-theory example establishes is that douchebags are no fun to play with, be they atheist or theist.
If, by "Ultimately it's all the same," you mean to say that atheism should be considered a religion because there are both atheist and religious intolerant douchebags, I think you're doing a disservice to both atheism and religion with your example.
Edit: Ninja'd by Zombie. Again.
Edit: Ninja'd by Zombie. Again.
Yours is better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The persistent confusion of religion with faith in this thread demonstrates that many people in this thread don't know what religion is.
Also, the fact that many atheists are pushing to have things like atheist chaplains demonstrates that there is belief systems and world views as part of atheism.
1)Please give examples.
2)No, it really doesn't. It is ONLY an attempt for an observably persecuted minority to assert equal rights for themselves in a hostile environment. When every religion is catered to in a workplace, the only person who is discriminated against is the atheist. In many workplaces, including the military, the ONLY way the employer will allow these special privileges is participation in religious activities.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
surely, belief in God is not a requirement to be a Christian, let alone a religious person.
While I'd agree with you, I suspect that if you polled self-identified Christians and asked "can a person be a Christian without believing in God?" the results might look something like this:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't base what I take as facts on a poll. If I did, then Joan of Arc would by Noah's wife.
Understood, but it sometimes makes discussion with you unclear, because when you say "Christians," you generally mean "the 0.1% of Christians who see their faith the way I do," rather than "what the Bible says" or "what most self-identified Christians believe."
The persistent confusion of religion with faith in this thread demonstrates that many people in this thread don't know what religion is.
Also, the fact that many atheists are pushing to have things like atheist chaplains demonstrates that there is belief systems and world views as part of atheism.
1. As meatrace puts it. Examples?
2a Logical fallacy, namely:
Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Example
Argument: Billy believes that there are Atheist Chaplins, therefore there are atheist chaplains.
Problem: Billy can be wrong.
Why is it wrong? Atheism is not a set of positive beliefs, it does not conform to the description of a religion, so it cannot have a chaplains as traditionally defined. Also, a person referring to themselves as a atheist chaplain would not be able to perform the function of a chaplain catering to an individuals atheism, atheism has no tenets to support, makes no moral demands, has no ritual, ect, ect, ect. I'm fairly certain that if Bo hadn't decided at 1 am to use me as a chew toy, there would be a whole raft of other logical issues with your statement, but unfortunately I can barely think through the cotten wool right now.
2b They are using 'atheist chaplain' as short hand for something else, likely a secular advisor/councillier or humanist chaplain, because while they do not have theistic religious beliefs, they still have a need for some of the functions that chaplains perform for others.
But that doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just looked it up, your Sea of Faith movement is estimated to have about 2,000 members as of 2004.
There are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world.
Your example accounts for less than 0.00001% of the christian population.
I will counter with the Catholic Church. It has 1.1 billion members. That accounts for 52.3%.
Okay,
1)Please give examples.
I don't believe pastors and priests because as cool and confident as they are, their beliefs are absolutist, unwavering, and have nothing on authority but bronze-age writings that could have been intended as fiction or myth for all we know.
Quote does not demonstrate that the individual is confusing religion with faith. it merely points out the individuals reasons for distrusting one clergy.
Thus, it really becomes a matter of how we define the words 'religion' and 'atheism'. Personally, I prefer;
religion - 'belief in something on faith' atheism - 'belief that there are no divine or supernatural powers at work in the universe'
Not a confusion of traditional definitions, but rather stating a preferred definition. While understanding the difference between, the two, I would happily use his definition(provided I openly stated that was what I was doing) if I wanted to differentiate between supernatural and non-supernatural belief systems. The vast majority of all religions are tied to supernatural claims.
It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being.
Not a confusion. Almost all common usage definitions of religion conform to the description he gives. Since he is explicitly describing common usage, i don't accept he is confusing religion and faith.
In my experience the religious choose not to challenge their perceptions. It's the nature of faith.
Describing his experience of religion, since the religious are overwhelmingly also the faithful, this is not a confusion of religion with faith, but a description of the common state of the religious.
You have any quotes that actually support the idea that people are confusing faith and religion?
1. As meatrace puts it. Examples?Already provided above
You beg the question, then. Who gets to decide what atheism is? You claim that it has no belief system, and yet, at the same time, claim that what somebody else says is its belief system is wrong. What gives you the authority, absent an identified authority on the belief system, that some take on it is wrong?
2a Logical fallacy, namely:Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Example
Argument: Billy believes that there are Atheist Chaplins, therefore there are atheist chaplains.
Problem: Billy can be wrong.Why is it wrong? Atheism is not a set of positive beliefs, it does not conform to the description of a religion, so it cannot have a chaplains as traditionally defined. Also, a person referring to themselves as a atheist chaplain would not be able to perform the function of a chaplain catering to an individuals atheism, atheism has no tenets to support, makes no moral demands, has no ritual, ect, ect, ect. I'm fairly certain that if Bo hadn't decided at 1 am to use me as a chew toy, there would be a whole raft of other logical issues with your statement, but unfortunately I can barely think through the cotten wool right now.
2b They are using 'atheist chaplain' as short hand for something else, likely a secular advisor/councillier or humanist chaplain, because while they do not have theistic religious beliefs, they still have a need for some of the functions that chaplains perform for others.
But that doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.
Actually, I think he said they're wrong for claiming atheism was a belief system.
DD, I have a question for for you: given that you self identify as Christian, would you call theism a religion? It would seem to me that both monotheists and polytheists are theists, and while religions can be classified as either, neither monotheist or polytheist is a religion in and of itself.
Edited to remove snark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You challenge that I say Christianity is is not "what the Bible says". I've made a challenge to everyone on this messageboard to prove that. So far, no one has taken up that challenge.
On the contrary, any number of people have -- both Christians and unbelievers. In response, you have repeatedly used the same nebulous "fruits of the spirit" dodge, which appears to mean "whatever interpretation of the text that DD agrees with." (Please understand that I personally like a lot of your interpretation; what I object to is your assertion that it constitutes the One True Meaning of Christianity, especially inasfar as most self-identified Christians disagree with you.)
I've given many examples of church leaders from multiple denominations who agree with me.
These "many church leaders" remain a vanishingly small minority, however.
--
Look, DD, apparently you've found a personal interpretation of Christianity that works for you, and met and/or read a few "church leaders" who support it as well. My hat's off to you for that -- most people don't get that far. But your view isn't the mainstream view, and can hardly be considered indicative of what "all," "most," or even "a decent proportion of" self-identified Christians actually believe.
You beg the question, then. Who gets to decide what atheism is? You claim that it has no belief system, and yet, at the same time, claim that what somebody else says is its belief system is wrong. What gives you the authority, absent an identified authority on the belief system, that some take on it is wrong?
No one 'gets to decide'. Language doesn't work that way.
It is about consensual usage of word coupled with the history of the word.
The Etymology is pretty well understood, in that is comes form a word that means godless. 'In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods".'
Now, despite your claim, every body does not consider it a belief system, many definitions, both common usage and specialist define atheism as a negative belief, for instance "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"(OED) or "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."(The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.))
Even when it is defined as a positive disbelief, it is a singular belief. There is no reputable source I have yet read that suggests a definition that implies a system of beliefs.
But let us not depend on the definitions. You claim that it is a system of belief. Can you name three, positive beliefs common to the vast majority of atheists, which is not an element of another social grouping which most atheists belong too, such as 'rationalist' What are these beliefs, which make up the 'atheist belief system'
On the contrary, any number of people have -- both Christians and unbelievers. In response, you have repeatedly used the same nebulous "fruits of the spirit" dodge, which appears to mean "whatever interpretation of the text that DD agrees with." (Please understand that I personally like a lot of your interpretation; what I object to is your assertion that it constitutes the One True Meaning of Christianity, especially inasfar as most self-identified Christians disagree with you.)You challenge that I say Christianity is is not "what the Bible says". I've made a challenge to everyone on this messageboard to prove that. So far, no one has taken up that challenge.
Where did he make said challange?
I've given many examples of church leaders from multiple denominations who agree with me.Your "many church leaders" remain a vanishingly small minority, however.
Oh but Kirth, don't you realise? They are real scotsmen!
You challenge that I say Christianity is is not "what the Bible says".
Where did he make said challange?
when you say "Christians," you generally mean "the 0.1% of Christians who see their faith the way I do," rather than "what the Bible says" or "what most self-identified Christians believe."
There ya go. And again, I like a lot of his interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's The One True Faith or anything.
Sorry, I was just having major difficulty reading DD's post at the moment.
With regard 'taking issue with'the one true faith', see my only a real scottsman comment ;)
Oh but Kirth, don't you realise? They are real scotsmen!
[Hem-hem]
Point of order.
I have it on good authority that when Comrade Jeff pulled out the Scotsmen in the Christianity and Homosexuality thread, it got locked.
Why? Because I am a quarter Scottish and I will flag the shiznit out of any of you mo'fos who disparage my fine Highlander paisanos!
Check yourself before you wreck yourself, fool.
Oh but Kirth, don't you realise? They are real scotsmen![Hem-hem]
Point of order.
I have it on good authority that when Comrade Jeff pulled out the Scotsmen in the Christianity and Homosexuality thread, it got locked.
Why? Because I am a quarter Scottish and I will flag the shiznit out of any of you mo'fos who disparage my fine Highlander paisanos!
Check yourself before you wreck yourself, fool.
Yeah, yeah, keep talkin' frenchie...*Dials in his Low orbital ion cannon* ..almost gotta..*I am charging my lazor!!!!!*