Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism CAN BE no more than a "Lack of Belief in God or god's"...in that case it wouldn't be a "religion" definitively.
But from what I observe (especially on this forum) it is more along the lines of a complete "Belief in a Lack of God or god's"...and a very, very, very, ARDUOUSLY HELD complete "Belief in a Lack" at that...and in that case it then falls within the definition of "religion".
So mordant, now you can admit it. As YOU said: "... which, if true, would in fact qualify things like golf as a religion. All you have to do is be intensely focused on an interest, and voilà , it's a religion!" So...Atheism can be (and certainly is for many) a "religion"!!
This again? It is a metaphoric use of the word. It is a valid way to use the word, but it in no way implies equivalence between religion as the service or worship of a God. Once again, a metaphor is when you compare two things that are by definition not the same, to highlight the commonalities.
This isn't just about religion, this is about language. Metaphor permeates our language, our thinking. For example, you use the phrase "a very, very, very, ARDUOUSLY HELD complete "Belief in a Lack"..." but there the word held is being used metaphorically. There is no direct equivalence between gripping something in your hand and believing an idea. Likewise, religion as a focused interest in something is no the same as service and devotion to a god.
But, my despair at your torturous use of language aside, I think you made the same point the OP made. There is no good reason to assert that religion or the lack therof makes one a more or less moral person. Thus it is frustrating to consistently hear that non-believers can't be good people, or that someone who does something horrible must be an atheist, or the assertion that we are all just waiting until the concentration camps are ready and then we will round the Christians up. It just isn't so, but the human need to have a "Them" to oppose, and the unquestionable nature of religious dogma make us a very convenient "Them".
This again? It is a metaphoric use of the word. It is a valid way to use the word, but it in no way implies equivalence between religion as the service or worship of a God. Once again, a metaphor is when you compare two things that are by definition not the same, to highlight the commonalities.
This isn't just about religion, this is about language. Metaphor permeates our language, our thinking. For example, you use the phrase "a very, very, very, ARDUOUSLY HELD complete "Belief in a Lack"..." but there the word held is being used metaphorically. There is no direct equivalence between gripping something in your hand and believing an idea. Likewise, religion as a focused interest in something is no the same as service and devotion to a god.
But, my despair at your torturous use of language aside, I think you made the same point the OP made. There is no good reason to assert that religion or the lack therof makes one a more or less moral person. Thus it is frustrating to consistently hear that non-believers can't be good people, or that someone who does something horrible must be an atheist, or the assertion that we are all just waiting until the concentration camps are ready and then we will round the Christians up. It just isn't so, but the human need to have a "Them" to oppose, and the unquestionable nature of religious dogma make us a very convenient "Them".
-NoCapo
The only "this again?" factor to it...is your grasping at straws AGAIN and trying to claim the definitions of every word that upsets your argument and causes your "Godophobia" to flair up, is a "metaphor" for the cherry-picked part of the definition that fits your argument. The opposite has even been argued on this forum...that religious Deities are "metaphors" for GOD.
This is a common tactic used by Fundies of all stripes. It goes along with your "*Them* to oppose" concept you note. Fundies typically have such a strong bias and prejudice toward the other side...they can't tolerate any association what-so-ever. You just fail to see that you are a Fundie...and that controls your thinking. OH, WAIT!...I'm sure you think "fundamentalism" can only define religious bias.
You need to get hip to the fact that the different definitions of "God", "Religion", etc stand on their own and are not "metaphors" for the other definitions.
"God" can identify something other than a religious Deity...without being a "metaphor" for religious Deities. "Religion" defines things other than those theologically based.
I know you don't like this, but that doesn't change it.
All people of all beliefs, theological persuasions, or nonbelief can be good or bad. Of course, that is entirely dependent upon each ones subjective morality, and our arbitrary determination of what is "good" and what is "bad".
For some it's "not believing in any god-claim, and that is all it is".
OTOH...for most of the Atheists on this board: It's a FERVENT belief that god-claims are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and *the biggest/worst threat to humanity*, etc, etc, etc.
You don't get on web forums and spent major portions of your time posting thousands upon thousands of posts touting the virtues of something...form organized groups to promote it...and arduously rally against opposing views...if it is not a "religion" to you. Within the broad definition of "religion", of course.
Dig this: If someone has put up, let's say, 12,000 posts...at a conservative estimate of 15 min per post...that is THREE THOUSAND HOURS!
That's a BIG slice of precious life...by ANY standard.
An average year at a "full time" job is 2000 hours (40hrs X 50 weeks). So a 12,000 post count equates to A YEAR AND A HALF of a FULL TIME JOB!
NOW...who is gonna spend THAT kinda time to discuss something they claim they don't even believe to exist...or...as a method to try to help "thwart theological oppression"?
You can't sell either one of those bills of goods.
People that are self-professed proponents of intellect and deductive reasoning cannot sensibly lay claim to those "excuses" for investing time and effort of that incredible magnitude...and be seen as forthright and genuine. There has to be some other purpose or motivation for being here...barring some OCD issues.
SO...what else could it be?
My first choice-- As I've said many times: Enjoy busting on people, and this is a good way to do it.
OR
Something else compels the kind of "devotion" that would constrain someone to put in what is considered 7 to 10 percent of an ENTIRE CAREER worth of time.
I mean, MAN! How much more "religious" about something can ya get?!!
I actually don't have an issue with any of that...the issue I have, is with the, "What?!! Who, me?!! I'm Atheist, and that is nothing more than non-belief in Deities!", proclamations.
If you want to make a religion out of your worldview, preach it incessantly, and slam/bash all other views...you can do that...what I and others may think of that aside. But don't try to feign mere disconnection to the opposing concept...by disingenuously presenting a very narrow definition of the label given to your views.
If you are going to come to the table and play cards--Make your call...Bet your hand...and then lay it out on the table for everyone to see. If you win the pot--you win the pot...if you don't--you don't. But don't show up to play every day for years upon years...and then claim not to hold an intense and arduously focused (read: religiously held) interest in it. That just lowers the value of your stock and reveals a less than forthright claim.
Atheism is simply about non-belief. The rest of your post is about the personalities of each atheist, being as different as the personalities of theists. Sure, some of us rail against the injustices which are imposed by theists, just as many theists stridently impose those injustices. One cannot strongly hold such a conviction without wanting to take it to the next step of publicly exposing the injustices with the goal of seeing them undone, much of which can be accomplished by posting on forums and raising awareness of these injustices, i.e. the number of states that prohibit non-Christians (not simply atheists) from holding public office. If this isn't something to fight for, post about, and/or become actively engaged, what is?
I'm not sure what you would consider a reasonable amount of effort to correct injustices, but regardless, these types of individuals have the right to call themselves atheists without having to accept the "religious" adjective.
'It is because of this monolithic structure that religion can be dangerous'
And I'd like to suggest that maybe those of the atheistic persuasion are getting off the hook her when it comes perceiving whether or not a belief is 'dangerous'.
It is evident the atheism has not made the extensive inroads as certain religions when we look at the development of modern civilization. Today it is not monolithic as religion but rather an amorphous concoction of individualized opinion. Thus it is logical for atheists to band together and organize and be 'evangelists' for the cause. As you say you want to be heard. It I just don't your arguments appear to be compelling.
I will agree there has been rumblings in the 'no-gods' direction but it just appears to me if the belief was anything 'good' it would have superseded monolithic religion in grabbing those proverbial 'hearts and minds'. I think the 'no gods' line should be doing better.
Really I've been wondering that you guys at bottom are just mad that the damn religious thing is still hanging around. Even in the face of sometimes going against the 'moral' grain.
The more it hangs around the angrier you get!
Atheism is simply about non-belief. The rest of your post is about the personalities of each atheist, being as different as the personalities of theists. Sure, some of us rail against the injustices which are imposed by theists, just as many theists stridently impose those injustices. One cannot strongly hold such a conviction without wanting to take it to the next step of publicly exposing the injustices with the goal of seeing them undone, much of which can be accomplished by posting on forums and raising awareness of these injustices, i.e. the number of states that prohibit non-Christians (not simply atheists) from holding public office. If this isn't something to fight for, post about, and/or become actively engaged, what is?
I'm not sure what you would consider a reasonable amount of effort to correct injustices, but regardless, these types of individuals have the right to call themselves atheists without having to accept the "religious" adjective.
I'm neither religious or Atheist.
It is not just about "Belief" or "Nonbelief"...If a person that embraces theology or a Atheist is sufficiently perfervid as to their views in that regard...they are no different "religiously" IMO.
'It is because of this monolithic structure that religion can be dangerous'
but it just appears to me if the belief was anything 'good' it would have superseded monolithic religion in grabbing those proverbial 'hearts and minds'. I think the 'no gods' line should be doing better.
Really I've been wondering that you guys at bottom are just mad that the damn religious thing is still hanging around. Even in the face of sometimes going against the 'moral' grain.
The more it hangs around the angrier you get!
Perhaps it has a lot more to do with the fact that being responsible for yourself and knowing this life is the only chance you're going to get is a harder sell all around.
'It is because of this monolithic structure that religion can be dangerous'
And I'd like to suggest that maybe those of the atheistic persuasion are getting off the hook her when it comes perceiving whether or not a belief is 'dangerous'.
I think I am as well equipped to evaluate an idea as anyone. How can you or anyone not look at religion and see that it is essentially a massive force multiplier? I am not saying religion is itself bad, or evil, or wrong, but it is to other motivating issues like political belief or national identity as a tank is to a rifle. It can be used powerfully to alleviate human suffering, but just as easily cause it. It is this potential for harm that causes me to call it dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
I will agree there has been rumblings in the 'no-gods' direction but it just appears to me if the belief was anything 'good' it would have superseded monolithic religion in grabbing those proverbial 'hearts and minds'. I think the 'no gods' line should be doing better.
And this illustrates my point about the power of religion. Atheism simply has observation, reason, and logical parsimony. At best it can remove some of the fear and guilt associated with religious doctrine, but religion promises "Peace that passes understanding", blessings, joy, community, safety, an identity, a sense of belonging, a code of conduct, way to set ones self apart from the rest of the "world". The fact that is is not based on evidence, that far too often it requires tremendous logical twisting and rationalizing does not matter.
If a person invested themselves in a car purchase the same way they do religion, we would tend to think they were off their rocker. They would only learn about cars from the owners manual for their model, any other kind of car would be a "false car", They would only associate with people who owned other cars in an attempt to get them to switch. They would feel that the wicked people who only walked or rode bikes were trying to destroy them, and they will get theirs eventually. Sounds crazy right?
This is the power of religion, the leverage. It allows us a rationalization for making decisions in a way that if applied to anything else would be seen as odd at best. At its best, it gives people a reason to forgo self interest and help others, to have hope in the face of trying circumstances. At its worst, it lets otherwise kind, loving people slaughter men, women, and children in cold blood with no crisis of conscience, it allows people to view themselves as godly while beating their slaves or their wives.
Religion used in the service of humanity is no threat to me, although I do still boggle at the irrationality of it. But history tells us clearly that religion can clearly motivate or justify the horrific things. What is more, the good from religion tends to be personal, individuals acting in accordance with their faith, while the atrocities tend to be systemic, and thus larger and more easily noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
Really I've been wondering that you guys at bottom are just mad that the damn religious thing is still hanging around. Even in the face of sometimes going against the 'moral' grain.
The more it hangs around the angrier you get!
Nope. I really don't care what you believe. I personally am not interested in everyone being an atheist, or pushing religion out. I do get angry when believers try to use government coercion to strip my rights away, simply because I don't believe. I do get angry when I am accused of being a vile, immoral, conscienceless mass murder at heart, only held in check by the godly. I get, not angry but maybe sad and frustrated, when I find out that the "deep and meaningful" relationships I had with believers, including my own family, evaporated when I left the faith.
I would like to find a way to promote the idea atheists are people too, that we are not demonic forces, that we are not trying to destroy you or your children, that we are reasonable people. Unfortunately, for many (not all) believers, this is 100% unacceptable. They see it a contrary to scripture and right doctrine, and as such is a lie from the pits of Hell. Is there something we atheists can do do convince these people that we are not the monsters under the bed? Is this the job of other believers, like yourself? Is it even possible? If it cannot be done, then do we stop trying to worry about what moderate theists think of us, and make a stand? I certainly don't have the answer.
I'm neither religious or Atheist.
It is not just about "Belief" or "Nonbelief"...If a person that embraces theology or a Atheist is sufficiently perfervid as to their views in that regard...they are no different "religiously" IMO.
We are getting off topic a bit. But I suppose in a way making atheism look like a religion can be related to some argument that atheists claim the moral high -ground.
It's like this: one can find similarities between atheism and religion and argue that makes it a religion.
It is a disbelief in the god -claim and a rejection of the claims of religion. That can be represented as a position on religion, but that does not make it a religion anymore than not playing football is a sport.
There are obvious ways that atheism is NOT like a religion. It has no dogma, Holy book, Churches or priests, no funny hats nor rituals and, as Steve Martin says, atheist got no songs (he means religious hymnal; we got songs). Of course religion can argue that Dawkins et al are our high priests, Darwin is our holy book and wherever there are three or four of we hellbound satanspawn gathered together, there is the Church and religion of Athe. Of course that argument falls down when one sees that one can do the same with stamp collectors, Military re-enactors (they even have funny hats) and womens' cricket. If having books, advocates and meetings makes for a religion, then our weekly Italian cookery class is the Ealing Taliban.
Perfervidness in itself does not a religion make (as you would have found out if you had looked the word up before you used it), as is often the case, old chum, your argument is a crock and demonstrably so, and it doesn't matter whether you accept that or no; solus denial gets you nothing but yet more deflation of credibility.
Atheism of course will be based on a rationale of evidence and reason, though in fact one could simply reject the God -claim without that and still be an atheist. But calling that rationale a 'belief system' and claiming that makes atheism a religion applies no more than applying those methods to criminal investigation
Of course if you apply it to evolutionary biology then, yes that too becomes a 'religion'; a 'faith -based theory'. And so we see what this 'atheism is a religion' thing is all about: it is about trying to discredit the rationale and make it look like it is based on faith as much as is the god claim and thus is (logically) no more valid.
As we will not be surprised to find out, it is another dishonest theist argument. Gldnrule, don't end up doing their dirty work for them just because you have some rather incomprehensible prejudice against militant atheism.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-19-2014 at 08:44 AM..
Reason: a bit of polishing.
The only "this again?" factor to it...is your grasping at straws AGAIN and trying to claim the definitions of every word that upsets your argument and causes your "Godophobia" to flair up, is a "metaphor" for the cherry-picked part of the definition that fits your argument. The opposite has even been argued on this forum...that religious Deities are "metaphors" for GOD.
This is a common tactic used by Fundies of all stripes. It goes along with your "*Them* to oppose" concept you note. Fundies typically have such a strong bias and prejudice toward the other side...they can't tolerate any association what-so-ever. You just fail to see that you are a Fundie...and that controls your thinking. OH, WAIT!...I'm sure you think "fundamentalism" can only define religious bias.
You need to get hip to the fact that the different definitions of "God", "Religion", etc stand on their own and are not "metaphors" for the other definitions.
"God" can identify something other than a religious Deity...without being a "metaphor" for religious Deities. "Religion" defines things other than those theologically based.
I know you don't like this, but that doesn't change it.
All people of all beliefs, theological persuasions, or nonbelief can be good or bad. Of course, that is entirely dependent upon each ones subjective morality, and our arbitrary determination of what is "good" and what is "bad".
Hmm, well, if any highly focused interest or activity is considered a religion, how come football, stamp collecting, and model trains aren't constitutionally protected? Does someone have a right to play/watch football, for instance? Can there be a civil suit lodged against someone who prevented a fan from catching the game?
Words, as you well know, have multiple definitions and, perhaps more importantly, different connotations.
Religion, without a doubt, carries with it the connotation that there is a monolothic belief system in place, complete with an object of worship (usually a god), church services, at least one holy book, etc. etc.
Someone might say "he watches the football game religiously," but using the word in that context is still a tip of the hat toward deity-worshiping religions where people are often very diligent about maintaining rituals. Thus, watching the football game is being described as a ritual - as would be found in many religious practices.
In an attempt to equate atheism with religion is much the same way people might call the Japanese internment camps during WWII "concentration" camps. Or how people will equate liberalism with socialism. These are little baby hyperboles, an attempt to pollute the meaning of one word, like atheism, by associating it with another word, religion. This association is mandatory if a critic wishes to equate atheism with religious fundamentalism - they both must have religiosity in common.
Of course, it is simply clever wordsmithing; accuracy or veracity are not the main foci.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
It I just don't your arguments appear to be compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
I will agree there has been rumblings in the 'no-gods' direction but it just appears to me if the belief was anything 'good' it would have superseded monolithic religion in grabbing those proverbial 'hearts and minds'. I think the 'no gods' line should be doing better.
That's because you're expecting people to behave rationally. If we valued reason and fact over feel-good dreams and fantasies, the "no god" position would have superseded monolithic religion a long time ago. However, given the natural fear of death and an awareness of our own mortality, it stands to reason that a wonderful paradise overseen by a loving god is far more attractive than the atheist assertion that death equals non-existence. It's hard for people to conceive of non-existence; many imagine themselves being conscious of not existing after they die, and that can be terrifying.
Throw in a lot of pomp and ceremony, a lot of ritualistic behavior, charismatic priests, and you can get entire nations to believe in the most irrational idea - as long as there's a big fat reward waiting for them at the end. How many suicide cults killed themselves so they would no longer exist? Yeah, there was always a reward for their devotion and belief.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is something "good" about the no-god position. Atheism, admittedly, cannot honestly offer a juicy carrot to those looking for an afterlife. Thus the candy of religion is far sweeter and much yummier than anything atheism can offer. Thus billions of people are willing to set aside rationality, reason, and pragmatism in order to even have a chance at a bucolic afterlife where they can see all of their loved ones again. That kind of promise is almost too irresistable to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric
Really I've been wondering that you guys at bottom are just mad that the damn religious thing is still hanging around. Even in the face of sometimes going against the 'moral' grain.
The more it hangs around the angrier you get!
This is nothing more than an ad hominem lodged at an entire group of people - making it no less fallacious than if it had been lodged at a single person.
I don't think you have any real idea what makes atheists angry. If you did, then you wouldn't be asserting such a ludicrous accusation. Sure, some people get angry at religion, myself included. But not because it's still "hanging around" but because religion is so full of itself that it both thinks it automatically deserves respect and that it has the right to dictate to others how to live their lives.
And ... once again, I see the usual suspects criticizing atheists and how they go about doing things. Strange how I never see you folks criticizing how fundamentalist believers do things - even when they do or say something egregious. In fact, if you folks are involved in those threads at all, it's to ... yeah ... criticize the atheists who are posting there.
Say what you want, claim neutrality, say you're neither atheist or religious, your actions betray your bias. Atheists are still expected to stand aside as religion does as it pleases - one peep out of us and we become "militant" and "just as bad as they are."
Which is interesting ... how can we atheists be "just as bad" unless you acknowledge the fact that the fundamentalist crowd is actually bad? And if they are bad, as you would have to acknowledge, why do you NEVER say anything against them?
Originally Posted by travric Really I've been wondering that you guys at bottom are just mad that the damn religious thing is still hanging around. Even in the face of sometimes going against the 'moral' grain.
The more it hangs around the angrier you get!
Quote:
I don't think you have any real idea what makes
atheists angry. If you did, then you wouldn't be asserting such a ludicrous
accusation
But to me it's quite evident that you would none other than love to see that the whole religion thing be gone and done with. I think there's sure alot of energy used and expended to upset it and ostensibly show that it is a derelict belief system. Under the circumstances it is understandable that anger would be the feeling engendered in adherents. Maybe another way of looking at it is that some religionists just don't know how far atheists are stunned that religion is still part of the world at this point considering that people use it to kill and kill in its name?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
