A case for religion, and against AA.

[sandorski]

Your kidding right....who are the spokespeople for the atheist movement....etc...etc.....sure sounds like a religion to me.....

Are Gun Rights a religion?

 

[norseamd]

I tend to see it more like this:

Atheist Denominations

Secular Humanism
Skeptics Society
Atheist Alliance International


Christian Denominations

Catholics
Protestants
Southern Baptist

exactly what i meant

skeptics are their own subculture in the pseudo-religion of atheism

they even like to air negative vitriol on what are the odds non-religious science stuff

seems they never heard the wise words truth is stranger than fiction

 

[norseamd]

morality has nothing to do with religion

religious folk can have more morality than atheist folk even if their religious beliefs are outlandish or wrong

 

[JD50]

I tend to see it more like this:

Atheist Denominations

Secular Humanism
Skeptics Society
Atheist Alliance International


Christian Denominations

Catholics
Protestants
Southern Baptist

So in your world any group of like minded people make up a religion.

 

[jackstar7]

So in your world any group of like minded people make up a religion.

Yep. Book clubs, bowling leagues, tailgating parties, KKK rallies, it's a pretty broad definition as evidenced by his examples.

Really, too many people aren't taking advantage of tax laws with that definition.

 

[Retro Rob]

So in your world any group of like minded people make up a religion.

Nope, just atheists because they claim to be the complete opposite of religion, which they are clearly not.

Book club members etc, are not anti non-book clubists like atheist groups are anti-religious. I wouldn't consider atheism a religion if they stopped proselytizing their non-belief.

I have yet to see a book club write best-selling books explaining the "Non-book club delusion", or "the end of non-book clubs".

Proselytizing, forming groups for the advancement of atheism, and creating channels to advance their cause makes them indistinguishable from your typical evangelist.

 

[JD50]

Nope, just atheists because they claim to be the complete opposite of religion, which they are clearly not.

Book club members etc, are not anti non-book clubists like atheist groups are anti-religious. I wouldn't consider atheism a religion if they stopped proselytizing their non-belief.

I have yet to see a book club write best-selling books explaining the "Non-book club delusion", or "the end of non-book clubs".

Proselytizing, forming groups for the advancement of atheism, and creating channels to advance their cause makes them indistinguishable from your typical evangelist.

Really? You've never heard of groups that try and get more people to read?

Ok, so in your world, any group of like minded people that encourage others to join their group are a religion?

Edit - Your post is confusing, are you talking about book club members or people that are against books? The former fits your description of religion. As far as the latter, well guess which groups are usually against books and knowledge?

 

[PingviN]

Proselytizing, forming groups for the advancement of atheism, and creating channels to advance their cause makes them indistinguishable from your typical evangelist.

Except for the part where one promotes critical thinking and science and the other promotes religious dogma?

Also what above poster said. Promoting a cause =! religion or even a similarity to religion.

 

[witeken]

Nope, just atheists because they claim to be the complete opposite of religion, which they are clearly not.

Book club members etc, are not anti non-book clubists like atheist groups are anti-religious. I wouldn't consider atheism a religion if they stopped proselytizing their non-belief.

I have yet to see a book club write best-selling books explaining the "Non-book club delusion", or "the end of non-book clubs".

Proselytizing, forming groups for the advancement of atheism, and creating channels to advance their cause makes them indistinguishable from your typical evangelist.

So which is the organization with billions of members representing atheism, where are the buildings where they come together every week, which parents indoctrinate their children that god doesn't exist?

You see books like The God Delusion not because atheism is a religion -- again, it isn't, religion is organized believing, atheism is not believing -- but because religion is a big issue. Religion really is a pain for the world, a remnant from when the world was unintelligent, which encourages to not be critical, indoctrinate your children, accept ridiculous things like the existence of supernatural, causes ignorance and hate for gays and other things and fuss for facts like evolution.

It's no surprise that there are people, like scientists, who want religion to disappear, even besides the question if god really exists.

 

[alzan]

Your kidding right....who are the spokespeople for the atheist movement....etc...etc.....sure sounds like a religion to me.....

Actually I'm not kidding. You and Retro Rob view atheism as a religion. I asked for answers to a few questions among many that define a religion.

If atheism is a religion then surely they have a deity or deities.

So any group that has a spokesperson is a religion? That would make the NRA a religion with Wayne LaPierre as its' spokesperson.

Scientific books and research papers are the scriptures of atheism? Hasn't Rob and others admitted in the past if not in this very thread that science is not the exclusive purview of atheism and that there are indeed theistic scientists?

True, a holy place can be any place deemed so by those involved but most (all) organized religions have their churches/temples/mosques which are considered by their members and clergy as holy places.


Honestly I don't expect a truthful answer to the questions I posted; you and Rob choose to view atheism as a religion in order to (at least in your minds) help you tear down the statements of atheists and agnostics and "win" the argument.

Like I said before, what one thinks or tends to think what constitutes or defines a religion is clouded by one's frame of reference; biases, prejudices and the way our brains are hard-wired to work cloud our perception of reality and fact.

If you're going to make an assertive statement, even if it's just an opinion you should be prepared to backup that statement with evidence; other wise it's just the ramblings of someone who is either willfully or accidentally ill-informed. Your "answers" to my questions suggest that you are the former.

 

[dphantom]

Actually I'm not kidding. You and Retro Rob view atheism as a religion. I asked for answers to a few questions among many that define a religion.

If atheism is a religion then surely they have a deity or deities.

So any group that has a spokesperson is a religion? That would make the NRA a religion with Wayne LaPierre as its' spokesperson.

Scientific books and research papers are the scriptures of atheism? Hasn't Rob and others admitted in the past if not in this very thread that science is not the exclusive purview of atheism and that there are indeed theistic scientists?

True, a holy place can be any place deemed so by those involved but most (all) organized religions have their churches/temples/mosques which are considered by their members and clergy as holy places.


Honestly I don't expect a truthful answer to the questions I posted; you and Rob choose to view atheism as a religion in order to (at least in your minds) help you tear down the statements of atheists and agnostics and "win" the argument.

Like I said before, what one thinks or tends to think what constitutes or defines a religion is clouded by one's frame of reference; biases, prejudices and the way our brains are hard-wired to work cloud our perception of reality and fact.

If you're going to make an assertive statement, even if it's just an opinion you should be prepared to backup that statement with evidence; other wise it's just the ramblings of someone who is either willfully or accidentally ill-informed. Your "answers" to my questions suggest that you are the former.

I think you may be confusing characteristics of some religions with the definition of religion. Certainly religion can be defined as a belief in a god. But there are other definitions of religion that perhaps may apply to our atheists here.

For example: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

So I would suggest that until both sides agree on a definition of religion, continued argument is moot.

 

[Retro Rob]

So which is the organization with billions of members representing atheism, where are the buildings where they come together every week, which parents indoctrinate their children that god doesn't exist?

You see books like The God Delusion not because atheism is a religion -- again, it isn't, religion is organized believing, atheism is not believing -- but because religion is a big issue. Religion really is a pain for the world, a remnant from when the world was unintelligent, which encourages to not be critical, indoctrinate your children, accept ridiculous things like the existence of supernatural, causes ignorance and hate for gays and other things and fuss for facts like evolution.

It's no surprise that there are people, like scientists, who want religion to disappear, even besides the question if god really exists.

Name one scientist who wants religion to disappear, besides the obvious fundamentalist new atheists.

Science is indifferent to the existence of God, and goes about as if he doesn't exists. Science isn't out to destroy belief in God, nor disprove his existence.

If scientists want to make religion vanish, then it's no longer science, and becomes some sort of ideology with fundamentalist views.

 

[alzan]

I think you may be confusing characteristics of some religions with the definition of religion. Certainly religion can be defined as a belief in a god. But there are other definitions of religion that perhaps may apply to our atheists here.

For example: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

So I would suggest that until both sides agree on a definition of religion, continued argument is moot.

There are no "sides", this is a discussion; not a battle or war. Neither I or any other agnostic or atheist have any stake in "winning" converts over to agnosticism or atheism.

There are many things that define a religion. That some of those may define or pertain to other groups does not make those groups religions and their members theists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

[witeken]

Name one scientist who wants religion to disappear, besides the obvious fundamentalist new atheists.

Science is indifferent to the existence of God, and goes about as if he doesn't exists. Science isn't out to destroy belief in God, nor disprove his existence.

Nice straw man.

By the way, science doesn't ignore god. If god existed or if there was any evidence, it would be subject to scientific research.

Science tries to explain the universe, and that wouldn't exclude god if he were real. But religion is real. A scientist could decide to scientifically study why and how religion and many gods came into existence. Fortunately for theists, we can't go to other planets with intelligent life (yet), so we can't really confirm any theories about the existence of religion and say with certainty that god doesn't exists. If we visit many planets with intelligent life and all of those have religion and invented gods, we could say that god doesn't exist. With a straight face.

I think that's very plausible because already here on earth literally all civilizations independently invented religion and gods.

 

[PowerEngineer]

And I thought this thread had run its course... In some ways I guess it has as RR and JY are pretty much just recycling their earlier arguments to confound those of you just discovering this thread. This characterization of non-belief as a belief is a perfect example.

As an agnostic myself, I do think that those zealots who claim to be absolutely certain that no god exists are just as irrational as those who are absolutley certain (like RR and JY) that a god exists. I think it's not unfair to characterize aethistic zealots as holding and promoting an unsubstantiated belief.

On the other hand, there has to be room allowed for rational nonbelief based on the lack of sufficient evidence to warrant belief. When it comes to the many (at least shades of) gods promoted by the many world religion (and the personal interpretations - many evident in this thread), there's no compelling reason to decide that any one of them is actually correct. It logically follows that taking a flyer (on what amounts to blind faith) on any belief about the supernatural seems foolish. This type of nonbelief is fundamentaly different from belief.

To my way of thinking, RR and JY have effectively bought lottery tickets that they both are sure are the "winners" and noone will know with absolute certainty whether either of them are right or wrong until (supposedly) after death. I'm keeping the money for my lottery ticket in my pocket for now.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Name one scientist who wants religion to disappear, besides the obvious fundamentalist new atheists.

Science is indifferent to the existence of God, and goes about as if he doesn't exists. Science isn't out to destroy belief in God, nor disprove his existence.

If scientists want to make religion vanish, then it's no longer science, and becomes some sort of ideology with fundamentalist views.

I generally agree with this, again with the provision that god would be by definition supernatural and therefore outside of what can be explained by science (and god's contribution to the universe is the underlying creation of the rules that science uncovers). On the other hand, a god that supposedly offers explantions through biblical verse in conflict with science is not a god that science can be indifferent to. There are many believers of the latter type of god.

 

[Retro Rob]

I generally agree with this, again with the provision that god would be by definition supernatural and therefore outside of what can be explained by science (and god's contribution to the universe is the underlying creation of the rules that science uncovers). On the other hand, a god that supposedly offers explantions through biblical verse in conflict with science is not a god that science can be indifferent to. There are many believers of the latter type of god.

Well, that's why you disprove the bible. That I have no issues with, but trying to disprove Gods existence when, as you say, he lives outside of the physical world is futile.

Science can only be trusted and objective if it ignores the actual existence of God. Religious texts, yes, those are open to critical review because they're technically falsifiable...God is not.

 

[dphantom]

There are no "sides", this is a discussion; not a battle or war. Neither I or any other agnostic or atheist have any stake in "winning" converts over to agnosticism or atheism.

Of course there are at least two, probably 3-4 "sides" in this discussion. I do not believe I ever said or implied anything about conversion to any point of view.

Your wiki reference is certainly one and a very significant definition of religion. It is not the only definition hence my comment on both groups (since you do not like sides) could try to find agreement.

 

[witeken]

And I thought this thread had run its course... In some ways I guess it has as RR and JY are pretty much just recycling their earlier arguments to confound those of you just discovering this thread. This characterization of non-belief as a belief is a perfect example.

As an agnostic myself, I do think that those zealots who claim to be absolutely certain that no god exists are just as irrational as those who are absolutley certain (like RR and JY) that a god exists. I think it's not unfair to characterize aethistic zealots as holding and promoting an unsubstantiated belief.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to think as agnost that people who are gnostic are irrational? Agnostic means that you don't know (for sure) it you're right about being theistic-atheistic, but you are sure that you can't know, so it seems that you are a gnostic agnostic (a)theist .

I don't agree with that point because there is a definite, true, undeniable answer to the question whether or not god exists, he either does or he doesn't. In my opinion, using science and ignoring opinions will give you the correct answer. (But I'm indeed not absolutely certain, because there isn't yet enough evidence for god's non-existence, but it's very close.)

To my way of thinking, RR and JY have effectively bought lottery tickets that they both are sure are the "winners" and noone will know with absolute certainty whether either of them are right or wrong until (supposedly) after death. I'm keeping the money for my lottery ticket in my pocket for now.

There's no life after dead, which is for me an emotional reason not to believe in god; he will never impact your life even if he exists at this moment (unless he finally decides to do one of his magic tricks ).

 

[PowerEngineer]

Well, that's why you disprove the bible. That I have no issues with, but trying to disprove Gods existence when, as you say, he lives outside of the physical world is futile.

Science can only be trusted and objective if it ignores the actual existence of God. Religious texts, yes, those are open to critical review because they're technically falsifiable...God is not.

I generally agree with this too. It is equally futile to prove (or really provide evidence for) god's existence for the very same reasons. It follows (at least for me) that there's no real basis for believing in any particular version of god that someone else "knows" is true.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to think as agnost that people who are gnostic are irrational? Agnostic means that you don't know (for sure) it you're right about being theistic-atheistic, but you are sure that you can't know, so it seems that you are a gnostic agnostic (a)theist .

I don't agree with that point because there is a definite, true, undeniable answer to the question whether or not god exists, he either does or he doesn't. In my opinion, using science and ignoring opinions will give you the correct answer. (But I'm indeed not absolutely certain, because there isn't yet enough evidence for god's non-existence, but it's very close.)

Yes, I can't be sure that a gnostic hasn't picked the right answer (be it a thesistic or athesistic one). What I haven't seen so far (and suspect is too much to expect) is an explanation from anyone that provides a rational basis for thier selected belief. Lacking that, I think my agnostic position makes sense for me (and probably most other people).

 

[witeken]

I generally agree with this, again with the provision that god would be by definition supernatural and therefore outside of what can be explained by science (and god's contribution to the universe is the underlying creation of the rules that science uncovers).

Well, that's why you disprove the bible. That I have no issues with, but trying to disprove Gods existence when, as you say, he lives outside of the physical world is futile.

Science can only be trusted and objective if it ignores the actual existence of God. Religious texts, yes, those are open to critical review because they're technically falsifiable...God is not.

What does supernatural mean? Did religion discover that god can't be real because nature just operates by the laws of nature, so they invented the 'super'natural? But if something exists, and thus can be found in the natural world, isn't it by definition natural, so the supernatural doesn't exist. Is the supernatural some invention that means that something -- anything, not exclusively god -- can exist without actually existing or needing matter?

That to me sounds like an idea in the head of a person; only real (as a word or words) inside the head of the person. In the case of God, a ridiculous idea of Jesus.

 

[witeken]

Yes, I can't be sure that a gnostic hasn't picked the right answer (be it a thesistic or athesistic one). What I haven't seen so far (and suspect is too much to expect) is an explanation from anyone that provides a rational basis for thier selected belief. Lacking that, I think my agnostic position makes sense for me (and probably most other people).

I could explain mine if you want. My 'believe' (= choice not believe in any god) is based on rational reasons. I also don't have a problem with agnostic atheists. Just like I don't know much about many topics, I am agnostic about those topics, and don't pretend to be gnostic.

 

[Retro Rob]

I generally agree with this too. It is equally futile to prove (or really provide evidence for) god's existence for the very same reasons. It follows (at least for me) that there's no real basis for believing in any particular version of god that someone else "knows" is true.

I think god's existence can be proven, though, by god alone. However, I think circumstantial evidence (ie, seeing footprints on a deserted island) is evidence a being was there at some point, even if that exact being died a million years ago and evidence of its existence is no longer there.

That sort of how I treat evidence for God, FYI, though I know everyone won't agree with that.

 

[alzan]

Of course there are at least two, probably 3-4 "sides" in this discussion. I do not believe I ever said or implied anything about conversion to any point of view.

Your wiki reference is certainly one and a very significant definition of religion. It is not the only definition hence my comment on both groups (since you do not like sides) could try to find agreement.

I didn't say you did; I misspoke.

Implying or mentioning "sides" or even groups can erect mental barriers to any discussion.