I actually miss this thread.... what is wrong with me?
Nothing is wrong with you -- it had the potential until trolled into oblivion.
*puts on his troll mask and emerges from beneath a bridge*
YOU FOOLZ! ATHESIM IS THE MOST RELIGOUSYOUS OF RELIGIONS! ONLY A PERSON OF STRONG FAITH COULD EVER NOT BELIEVES IN THE GODZ!!!!!!
BEGIN THE BATTLE ONCE MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I actually miss this thread.... what is wrong with me?Nothing is wrong with you -- it had the potential until trolled into oblivion.
Okay, in the hope of re-starting the thread in a semi-sensible manner.
Why is it that a certain subset of the religious seem so hell bent on making atheism a religion?
I actually miss this thread.... what is wrong with me?Nothing is wrong with you -- it had the potential until trolled into oblivion.Okay, in the hope of re-starting the thread in a semi-sensible manner.
Why is it that a certain subset of the religious seem so hell bent on making atheism a religion?
My honest opinion (just that, no flame war please) is that then all the legal attempts to enforce the separation of church and state become arguable as favoring a religion, and the whole process get stymied.
My honest opinion (just that, no flame war please) is that then all the legal attempts to enforce the separation of church and state become arguable as favoring a religion, and the whole process get stymied.
Well put. I'd also add that it's a more general attempt to shift the burden of proof. If Atheism is just another religion, then surely atheists must "prove" that god doesn't exist, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the faithful that I talk to refuse to accept that it's humanly possible to not believe in their God -- they believe, therefore everyone must. Therefore, in their minds, so-called "atheists" are actually an evil cult of people who hate God and pretend not to believe in him in order to spite him.
I hear this a lot. I wish I were making it up.
A lot of the faithful that I talk to refuse to accept that it's humanly possible to not believe in their God -- they believe, therefore everyone must. Therefore, in their minds, so-called "atheists" are actually an evil cult of people who hate God and pretend not to believe in him in order to spite him.
I hear this a lot. I wish I were making it up.
The utter lack of critical thinking capacity required to hold that opinion is staggering. Is it so hard to look around and realize the vast majority of people who have ever lived have never heard of your god? Can these people not count?
A lot of the faithful that I talk to refuse to accept that it's humanly possible to not believe in their God -- they believe, therefore everyone must. Therefore, in their minds, so-called "atheists" are actually an evil cult of people who hate God and pretend not to believe in him in order to spite him.
I hear this a lot. I wish I were making it up.
The utter lack of critical thinking capacity required to hold that opinion is staggering. Is it so hard to look around and realize the vast majority of people who have ever lived have never heard of your god? Can these people not count?
That's covered in the, "Everyone knows God in their heart" line they like to spew afterward -- in my opinion it's a variation of "no true scotsman" because they then define "knowing God" as the desire to do good or even just simply 'love'.
It's then given a follow up to, "just wait until the end times when god has left this world and then all the good and love go with him and you'll see!"
And always accompanied with the "since all our morals come from God, atheists are all evil, immoral people unless they copy Christians."
Why is it that a certain subset of the religious seem so hell bent on making atheism a religion?
Because religions admittedly rely on faith. Religions see faith as not only a neccesity, but a virtue.
Reason and evidence have proven so effective at discovering how the world works that faith is often seen as useless, if not outright silly.
If atheism is a conclusion based on facts, reason, and evidence then its a superior conclusion. Apologists simply can't allow this, so there's a two part strategy.
First is to paint atheism as a faith. "It takes more faith to be an atheist" or "You can't KNOW there's no such thing as a God"
Recently there's been a trend in apologetics to take this even further. Since science itself isn't showing God, there must be something wrong with science. The trick is to embrace epistemic nihilism. Philosophically science never proves or disproves anything. This makes any idea, no matter how well evidenced, faith. This means that taking evolution, the heliocentric model for the solar system are a choice just as arbitrary as the trinity or the virgin birth. That makes them equally valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
How is "all atheists are evil and immoral" not a smear? How is "atheism leads to nazism" not a smear? And if we say we're really tried of hearing them, then we're the ones who are biased and hateful? Maybe "we people" are getting "uppity" because we're tired of being spit upon by you people?
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
Ermm... example please?
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
It may hurt to listen to the perspective of an atheist, I'll grant you that. But you know what, my own Mother has made jokes about atheism, laughingly describing it as a disease.
Suggesting who is more vitriolic in tone may help keep the discussion civil, but doesn't help the argument at all.
And what do you mean, "you people"? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We aren't Islam.
You're biased against religions too.
Kind of a loaded question, ZN, if you're trying to avoid trolling.
I don't really see it as loaded, and it certainly isn't my aim to cause another fight. I am genuinely interested in knowing why it is that certain groups of religious people, mostly, but not exclusively monotheists from the Abrahamic faiths, seem to have a 'need' for atheism to be a religion. I'm not even sure i understand why that question would start a fight or summon the trolls.
My honest opinion (just that, no flame war please) is that then all the legal attempts to enforce the separation of church and state become arguable as favoring a religion, and the whole process get stymied.Well put. I'd also add that it's a more general attempt to shift the burden of proof. If Atheism is just another religion, then surely atheists must "prove" that god doesn't exist, right?
It wouldn't logically shift the burden of proof. God remains the ultimate celestial teapot.
I guess I could be used to obfuscate the issue though, to many people don't get why disbelieve is the logical starting point to begin with, and just claiming 'atheism is a faith' could maybe add confusion, but are their not better ways to achieve that?
I'm not even sure i understand why that question would start a fight or summon the trolls.
Successful Troll can safely say fellow troll brothers use any pretense.
A lot of the faithful that I talk to refuse to accept that it's humanly possible to not believe in their God -- they believe, therefore everyone must. Therefore, in their minds, so-called "atheists" are actually an evil cult of people who hate God and pretend not to believe in him in order to spite him.
I hear this a lot. I wish I were making it up.
I've never heard it in person, but I have seen it on video and message boards often enough.
I'm not even sure i understand why that question would start a fight or summon the trolls.Successful Troll can safely say fellow troll brothers use any pretense.
Very true, thank you for pointing that out. I promise you one free feeding for pointing that out, but not snacks in this thread, okay?
And always accompanied with the "since all our morals come from God, atheists are all evil, immoral people unless they copy Christians."
It's particularly, well, fun at a distance, frustrating if you're too close to it, when you find that these people are the ones who don't realize that Yahweh, Jehovah and Allah are all the same dude, I mean deity.
In answer to Zombie, I find that the atheism is a faith crowd are conflating atheism and science, hoping that they can get the process taught in science class declared a religious one. I don't know if you live in the US, but the fundamentalist christian phenomenon is as much a political movement as anything else and (fabian strategy) it's being carried out in elections for local school boards rather than national office.
I don't, but I am well aware of the various heads of that hydra, from the battle at the school board level to the threat of Dominionist movement.
But I don't know, that explanation doesn't seem parsimonious explanation.
Might it just be an issue not understanding what a religion is, and what atheism is? I mean DD seemed unable to grasp the difference despite lots of pages of many people trying to drive the difference home, might it just be that issue, writ large?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the smear on all sides of the issue is not from atheists smearing religious people or religious people smearing atheists, but from small-minded people smearing people who are different from them. Sadly, it happens in both communities. Atheists in this thread have stood up and said that being religious doesn't necessarily make you stupid and irrational. I'll stand up and say that being atheist doesn't make you immoral. I've known plenty of highly principled atheists; I've also known some reprehensible religious folks. Nor am I calling out atheists as pinnacles of virtue and suggesting all religious people are terrible hypocrites--we're all human, and in any group you will find both people of integrity and people of reproach.
Very true, thank you for pointing that out. I promise you one free feeding for pointing that out, but not snacks in this thread, okay?I'm not even sure i understand why that question would start a fight or summon the trolls.Successful Troll can safely say fellow troll brothers use any pretense.
Successful Troll is full from gorging on monk threads, but thanks friendly poster for kind thoughts.
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
HUH?
The only belief I "smeared" was the demonstrably false belief that it's impossible to not believe in god. How did you get from there to "all religious people?"
I'm sorry, but I can only conclude you're not taking the time to understand what you're reading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real kicker is the fact they get upset they can't replicate miracles or something to provide some actual proof (without relying on cons).
Regarding the burden of proof.
Great video.
Regarding the burden of proof.
that is a great video
Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know. Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year-old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
A quote from an interview of my personal favorite atheist of all time. Another awesome quote from DNA:
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
The first part isn't exactly true, but the second part is.
There are three arguments in favour of religion. 1) It's true. 2) It's useful. 3) Atheism is a religion too. Please tell me if you find any others. I always figured that religious people used this third argument because they feel that something being a religion isn't as "good" or "proper" or "valid" as, say, the scientific method. Yes, I know it sounds weird, but these people can't be immune to how people talk about religion either. It's regarded as fluffy, nebulous and "soft". Trying to paint atheism in that way would by some thinking be a victory for them, you know, "well, you're not that hot either". As I see it, it's more a way to admit their stuff is not up to snuff, even if they like to pretend otherwise.
I'm not saying you're wrong Sissyl, but "valid" is the only word of the three that scientists use in the process of their inquiry. "Good" belongs in religious studies, while "proper" is the purview of deportment.
Given that there are concepts such as theistic evolution out there, I think the majority of people who want to consider atheism as a religion have a political agenda. Or at least the majority of people you see doing so in the media; cocktail party conversation may well be the defensiveness you describe. I don't care what anyone talks about at a cocktail party, but reserve the right to find another conversation.
There are three arguments in favour of religion. 1) It's true. 2) It's useful. 3) Atheism is a religion too. Please tell me if you find any others.
I don't think #3 is an argument in favor of religion; I think ti is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I have seen #2 used before, but I believe most most are interested in truth, not social utility.
As for #1, I'd say that is the conclusion of the majority of arguments, not the argument itself.
There are three arguments in favour of religion. 1) It's true. 2) It's useful. 3) Atheism is a religion too. Please tell me if you find any others.I don't think #3 is an argument in favor of religion; I think ti is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I have seen #2 used before, but I believe most most are interested in truth, not social utility.
As for #1, I'd say that is the conclusion of the majority of arguments, not the argument itself.
We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.
[We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.
There is wisdom encoded in religious tradition, to be sure. And I'm all for preserving that wisdom, but not if doing so means we're stuck denying the evidence.
In any case, that sounds like a very interesting book...thank you. I don't suppose you know if it is available in a Kindle edition? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are three arguments in favour of religion. 1) It's true. 2) It's useful. 3) Atheism is a religion too. Please tell me if you find any others.I don't think #3 is an argument in favor of religion; I think ti is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I have seen #2 used before, but I believe most most are interested in truth, not social utility.
As for #1, I'd say that is the conclusion of the majority of arguments, not the argument itself.
I don't. I've heard the argument often enough explicitly stated in terms of "I don't care if it's true" to believe that they're sincere about it. It's pretty disturbing.
We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.
I've yet to read a word from the man that convinces me he's anything more than a skilled self-promoter, but I'll bite. What does de Botton think we're lost and what are those deep human truths and wisdom in religion?
Until I hear some, I remain in the group of people who enthusiastically want to dump religion wholesale.
We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.I've yet to read a word from the man that convinces me he's anything more than a skilled self-promoter, but I'll bite. What does de Botton think we're lost and what are those deep human truths and wisdom in religion?
Until I hear some, I remain in the group of people who enthusiastically want to dump religion wholesale.
I think what Jocund was saying is that here in the US church vs state is an issue, whereas it's not in Europe and other first world nations, but don't quote me.
I'm not sure we can dump religion wholesale; people will always come up with some sort of belief system. I just think it shouldn't be taught in science or civics class.
Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who think we should ban school prayer while teaching comparative religion.
I'm not sure we can dump religion wholesale; people will always come up with some sort of belief system. I just think it shouldn't be taught in science or civics class.
Why not? Those are the obvious places for it.
Why not? Those are the obvious places for it.
I'm not sure we can dump religion wholesale; people will always come up with some sort of belief system. I just think it shouldn't be taught in science or civics class.
You sure, Sam? I always figured it belonged in history class. [/rimshot]
You sure, Sam? I always figured it belonged in history class. [/rimshot]Why not? Those are the obvious places for it.
I'm not sure we can dump religion wholesale; people will always come up with some sort of belief system. I just think it shouldn't be taught in science or civics class.
I know, I know. :)
But seriously I think it would be wonderful to have a science curriculum include a lot more bits on thinking like a scientist. The lessons could cover stuff like this. The skills are most obviously applicable in science, but they transfer to everything.
Yeah, I'd be fine with a science class that taught the Socratic Method. Caveat Emptor: back when Socrates invented his method, there was no distinction between art, philosophy and science. I just don't think religion should own the education process. And certainly not any particular religion with an agenda.
(I may have issues, but I'm really pretty user-friendly.)
Yeah, I'd be fine with a science class that taught the Socratic Method. Caveat Emptor: back when Socrates invented his method, there was no distinction between art, philosophy and science. I just don't think religion should own the education process. And certainly not any particular religion with an agenda.
(I may have issues, but I'm really pretty user-friendly.)
The socratic method is great for debating and has some nice knock-on effects in teaching thinking skills, but I'm actually advocating a full-on instruction in rationality. That would include things like recognizing anti-epistemology (cognitive and rhetorical tricks used to shelter bad ideas and positions from scrutiny) and working to purge it. But it's a dream. The first time a teacher got up and said there was no place for faith in your worldview, the lawsuits would fly.
So you're saying we have Critical Thinking 101, where faith can't be evidence? That does sound awesome, but don't hold your breath.
(My grade school teacher was an Austrian national, and she gave me lots of crazy ideas.)
So you're saying we have Critical Thinking 101, where faith can't be evidence? That does sound awesome, but don't hold your breath.
(My grade school teacher was an Austrian national, and she gave me lots of crazy ideas.)
Exactly. Not that I'm picking on faith specifically; it's just the most popular form of anti-epistemology. I'd also love to see good statistics education, which I admit I don't have either, for largely the same reason.
We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.I've yet to read a word from the man that convinces me he's anything more than a skilled self-promoter, but I'll bite. What does de Botton think we're lost and what are those deep human truths and wisdom in religion?
Until I hear some, I remain in the group of people who enthusiastically want to dump religion wholesale.
Here's one persons take on it, who also happens to be my favorite atheist, Douglas Adams. It's an excerpt from an extemporaneous speech he gave, about 3/4's the way through. I recommend reading the whole speech if you're interested, he gives a case for why an artificial god exists.
The one I have in mind at the moment is one that describes the culture and economy of Bali, which is a small, very crowded island that subsists on rice. Now, rice is an incredibly efficient food and you can grow an awful lot in a relatively small space, but it’s hugely labour intensive and requires a lot of very, very precise co-operation amongst the people there, particularly when you have a large population on a small island needing to bring its harvest in. People now looking at the way in which rice agriculture works in Bali are rather puzzled by it because it is intensely religious. The society of Bali is such that religion permeates every single aspect of it and everybody in that culture is very, very carefully defined in terms of who they are, what their status is and what their role in life is. It’s all defined by the church; they have very peculiar calendars and a very peculiar set of customs and rituals, which are precisely defined and, oddly enough, they are fantastically good at being very, very productive with their rice harvest. In the 70s, people came in and noticed that the rice harvest was determined by the temple calendar. It seemed to be totally nonsensical, so they said, ‘Get rid of all this, we can help you make your rice harvest much, much more productive than even you’re, very successfully, doing at the moment. Use these pesticides, use this calendar, do this, that and the other’. So they started and for two or three years the rice production went up enormously, but the whole predator/prey/pest balance went completely out of kilter. Very shortly, the rice harvest plummeted again and the Balinese said, ‘Screw it, we’re going back to the temple calendar!’ and they reinstated what was there before and it all worked again absolutely perfectly. It’s all very well to say that basing the rice harvest on something as irrational and meaningless as a religion is stupid—they should be able to work it out more logically than that, but they might just as well say to us, ‘Your culture and society works on the basis of money and that’s a fiction, so why don’t you get rid of it and just co-operate with each other’—we know it’s not going to work!
One of the greatest values of religion that has a much broader application, is to teach and pass on cultural values. Religion is usually much easier to understand than science for lay people, which includes children. Children often don't believe in the religion right away, but cultural reinforcement makes it very easy for children to follow as they "fake it until they make it". A fictional narrative that uses similes and metaphors is easier for the human brain to grasp and understand than legal documents or scientific journals.
An example of this to me comes straight from Buddhism, but this story is usually thrown in as an after thought, but from an atheist perspective, I think it's one of the most important religious stories to examine.
After Brahma Sahampati’s visit, the Buddha was on his way from Bodh Gaya to Varanasi when he met an ascetic who was impressed by his radiant appearance. The ascetic said, "What is it that you have discovered?" and the Buddha responded: "I am the perfectly enlightened one, the Arahant, the Buddha."
I like to consider this his first sermon. It was a failure because the man listening thought the Buddha had been practising too hard and was overestimating himself. If somebody said those words to us, I’m sure we would react similarly. What would you do if I said, "I am the perfectly enlightened one"?
Actually, the Buddha’s statement was a very accurate, precise teaching. It is the perfect teaching, but people cannot understand it. They tend to misunderstand and to think it comes from an ego because people are always interpreting everything from their egos. "I am the perfectly enlightened one" may sound like an egotistical statement, but isn’t it really purely transcendent? That statement: "I am the Buddha, the perfectly enlightened one" is interesting to contemplate because it connects the use of "I am" with superlative attainments or realisations. In any case, the result of the Buddha’s first teaching was that the listener could not understand it and walked away.
The Buddha tried to use simple, clear and concise language, but it failed. The listener couldn't hear the truth of the statement, because his own thinking process was clouded by the gunk accumulated over a life time. The simple statement didn't speak to anything or inspire.
The second time the Buddha tried to teach, he added demons, pits of hell, armies of millions of beings, the earth and sky shattering before him... all this glitz and glam. Suddenly his way of teaching people to live a better life caught on. People could understand what he was saying, they would get drawn in by one aspect or another of the story and would then have an opportunity to try and absorb the rest of it.
If you talk to any adult who was child during the 60's and now works in anything to do with any sort of space program, and to a lesser extent nearly any other technical engineering field, they'll probably tell you they were inspired by the moon landing. The inspirational effect of this event is diminishing and is nearly gone by this point though.
Simple relatable stories that both inspire and pass on cultural values are important. The most powerful and sustainable vehicles that we currently possess for those values is religion.
So we're down to science in Bali, which as an accident of history is transmitted with a bunch of religious gunk that could be removed without doing any harm at all and would have the added benefit of getting rid of all the usual pathologies inherent in religion and Buddha finding a more effective way to wow the rubes? That's seriously it?
The first I've already treated, but I want to zero in on the Buddha one a bit more. There's literally not a single thing in that story that I care to see propagated to even a single human being that ever lived. Better it be forgotten, along with all history's other "enlightened" hucksters and their equally irrelevant gibberish. At least food actually matters.
Simple relatable stories that both inspire and pass on cultural values are important. The most powerful and sustainable vehicles that we currently possess for those values is religion.
If the values are important, they're important enough to pass along the right way instead of breeding pathological thought habits into vulnerable children. Children are natural, if informal, empiricists and reasoners. You want to destroy that and then hope everything works out for the best even though it never has at any prior time in history and only by encouraging empiricism and rationality has any real progress been made.
I'll pass.