norseamd
Lifer
- Dec 13, 2013
- 13,990
- 180
- 106
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
I found this blog to be an interesting read.....yes its from a blog....
Has Atheism Become a Religion?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/atheism-religion_b_867217.html
Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:
1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.
2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.
3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.
4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)
Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.
While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.
1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.
2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.
Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.
Has Atheism Become a Religion?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/atheism-religion_b_867217.html
Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:
1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.
2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.
3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.
4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)
Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.
While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.
1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.
2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.
Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
PingviN
Golden Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 1,848
- 13
- 81
What a pile of bull. Point number 2 is especially ridiculous. Being agnostic doesn't mean what he thinks it means. Being agnostic only means that you do not know for certain. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning that while they do not believe in God, they cannot prove that God does not exist. You can be an agnostic theist, you can be an agnostic atheist.
Being "not religious" means being a theist (or deist) but not being involved in a specific religion. Meaning they don't identify themselves as Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or Hindu).
Of course people who do not believe in a God will identify themselves as atheists. Takes a special kind of stupid to think anything else. It doesn't mean that they have a special need to identify their lack of belief in a God.
The first two points of why atheism have "faith" is also equally stupid. The very idea of a a "dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses" requires SOME form of evidence or it's just hypothetical nonsense. This is where a religious person needs faith and why an atheist gives the idea little to no attention. The author fails to understand what faith is and what faith isn't.
The third point is... well. Having blind faith is not worthy of respect. Professing faith in a God isn't brave. It's not an act of courage. Neither is professing to be atheistic. I can't explain how much I disdain people who think that their opinion somehow should be accepted or even respected just because it's their opinion. If you're wrong you're going to be told you're wrong. If you can't argue your position you'll be run into the ground by someone who can argue their.
The second you express an opinion you better be ready to argue against someone who disagrees.
Being "not religious" means being a theist (or deist) but not being involved in a specific religion. Meaning they don't identify themselves as Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or Hindu).
Of course people who do not believe in a God will identify themselves as atheists. Takes a special kind of stupid to think anything else. It doesn't mean that they have a special need to identify their lack of belief in a God.
The first two points of why atheism have "faith" is also equally stupid. The very idea of a a "dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses" requires SOME form of evidence or it's just hypothetical nonsense. This is where a religious person needs faith and why an atheist gives the idea little to no attention. The author fails to understand what faith is and what faith isn't.
The third point is... well. Having blind faith is not worthy of respect. Professing faith in a God isn't brave. It's not an act of courage. Neither is professing to be atheistic. I can't explain how much I disdain people who think that their opinion somehow should be accepted or even respected just because it's their opinion. If you're wrong you're going to be told you're wrong. If you can't argue your position you'll be run into the ground by someone who can argue their.
The second you express an opinion you better be ready to argue against someone who disagrees.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Again your personal definition......it actually pains you to think that many people now see Atheism morphing into a "religion"..........
Since when do you make the rules?? Spoken like a true atheist.......opinions are opinions deal with them........
BTW -- I do not feel your pain!!
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Your facts...many other people see atheism morphing or already transformed into the very thing atheist take pride in trying not to be...a religion!
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
Negative again. Many other people think it's a good apologetic for their theistic beliefs to make that claim. Just a silly word game.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
So now you stoop to calling it -- "silly word games"...
Such as your silly question game concerning what the Bible says.........hmmmm.......Check mate!!
PingviN
Golden Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 1,848
- 13
- 81
It pains me when people twist the meaning of a word to fit their agenda. Atheism is not morphing into a religion and it wont morph into a religion because it lacks what makes up a religion.
I don't. Yes, opinions are opinions and I deal with them by arguing against stupid ones. Ones opinion is not sacred, you tool. If you don't want to be questioned, keep your opinion to yourself.
I'm sure you don't. It takes a modicum of intellectual ability to understand why atheism is not a religion. All you do is quote what other [religious] people say, but do not possess the ability to understand why their opinion is lacking.
"The blind leading the blind" has never been more fitting.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
They are silly word games.
As for my Bible questions, they are not. It is clear that what one Christian claims the Bible says does not mesh with what other Christians say it says. That is a big problem, because to truly understand the Bible takes more than just accepting the first explanation someone offers. In fact, it seems impossible to know what it says given the multiple discordant claims of connections to "god" and understandings of the Bible.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
spoken like a true atheist! Your questions and opinions are relevant.....what others think or believe is to be dismissed.....that's ok...your showing your true colors............
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
witeken
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2013
- 3,899
- 193
- 106
Here's a recent debate on science and religion, for those people confusing both: Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett and Massimo Pigliucci · Discuss The Limits Of Science.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
we are not debating science verses religion......
Everybody knows that atheism has been branded the new religion.......and rightly so.....Thank God!!
Three of the most outspoken Evangelists.....oops I meant leaders of the Atheist religious movement --Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett and Massimo Pigliucci
Last edited:
Uhh..no one is confusing science and religion. Secondly, I'm even less interested in watching three advocates of atheism pat each other on the back.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,929
- 2,931
- 136
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
I don't know why is it so hard for atheists to admit that it's becoming more and more Evangelistic.
There is nothing wrong with this. I watched The Unbelievers last night, and that's exactly what they're doing. Krauss and Dawkins went from city to city, one country to another country, promoting their world-view. Channels are popping up as well.
I simply think atheism is changing into a movement, and individual atheists are in denial about this.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
From 1840 onward, Millerism was transformed from an "obscure, regional movement into a national campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism#A_national_movement
It doesn't take movements long to becomes religions, with many denominations..
Just sayin'...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter