Atheist or Anti-Religionist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2014, 08:57 AM
Atheist or Anti-Religionist
OK, I realize that I am walking into the fire with this question, but I think for those who can avoid a knee-jerk reaction and give me a thoughtful response it may be worth it.

Almost all of the atheists that I know base their position on the argument that religion is wrong about this, that, or the other thing. Is that really atheism? Lets face it, poking holes in religion is easy! Even religions poke holes in other religions.

Religion is like that old game Gosssip, where you go around the room whispering a secret to the next person in line just to see how wrong it is by the time it gets to the last person. If hundreds of millions of people played that game for thousands of years then yes, the message will be garbled by the time it gets to me.

The atheists that I have talked to rebel against what I refer to as the "anthropomorphic god" of religion. Many of them say that I ask too much of them when I propose the existence of a non-anthropomorphic deity - that it is not possible to consider such a thing.

Maybe you will say that I am splitting the hair too fine. But are the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of religion actually proof that the subject of their inquiry does not exist?

I look forward to your responses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
You could always meet other atheists because plenty just disregard any point of the religion before even picking holes at one.

It's them attributing reason and seeking evidence. If X religion doesn't hold accurate to evaluation of evidence and justification of belief, and Y doesn't, and Z doesn't.. then it seems there is no justification for belief to them.

Atheists don't in the base position assert the injury couldn't be true. But if none of the ways people approach seem to show up as justified enough to believe.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  Many of them say that I ask too much of them when I propose the existence of a non-anthropomorphic deity - that it is not possible to consider such a thing.

There's a difference between being an atheist and being a skeptic. If you have evidence for a non-anthropomorphic deity and they dismiss it without evaluating it then they are being as dogmatic as any theist.

Quote:But are the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of religion actually proof that the subject of their inquiry does not exist?

Short answer: no

Long answer: I see it as two different issues. I am an atheist because I've looked at the claims for the existence of a god (anthropomorphic or not) and found them all to be insufficient to be accepted. Pointing out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in each religion is part of evaluating the specific claims made by each.

I am an anti-religionist, to use your term, because I think religions don't provide anything that can't be found through secular channels. Basing beliefs and actions on the best available evidence makes much more sense to me than basing them on what appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
16-10-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
The concept of "faith" advises that some supernatural force either governs or at least created the known universe and known reality.
Religion prescribes instruction to a concept of faith.

Faith articulates a subjective construct while reigion describes a human construct.

I don't equate religion with faith. If one actually has faith, religion is unnecessary.
I don't associate any supernatural force with the laws governing the universe or reality.

For me, faith is irrelevant... but religion is a meddling pain in the ass. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
16-10-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
Atheism and anti-theism. Two completely different things. Not mutually exclusive, and neither always implies the other.

You know atheists that can't consider a non-anthropomorphic god? That's interesting Consider, I personally would find it many times more likely that if a god existed it would not be human-like at all. Although I think the likelihood of any god existing is lower than me getting struck by lightning 100 times in the next keyboard stroke.

But, still alive. Ah, well.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
Both.

I am an atheist because there is no evidence that any gods exist.

I am nearly anti-religion because most religions do harm. Even the ones that don't do harm do spread lies and/or misinformation. I say "nearly" because I can live with the peaceful religions that keep their views and practices to themselves although, because they spread untruths to their members, I still would be happier if they went away too - for the sake of those being misled.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
16-10-2014, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2014 11:35 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  OK, I realize that I am walking into the fire with this question, but I think for those who can avoid a knee-jerk reaction and give me a thoughtful response it may be worth it.

Is a "thoughtful response" one you agree with ?

(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  Almost all of the atheists that I know base their position on the argument that religion is wrong about this, that, or the other thing. Is that really atheism? Lets face it, poking holes in religion is easy! Even religions poke holes in other religions.

How many atheists do you actually know ?

(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  Religion is like that old game Gosssip, where you go around the room whispering a secret to the next person in line just to see how wrong it is by the time it gets to the last person. If hundreds of millions of people played that game for thousands of years then yes, the message will be garbled by the time it gets to me.

Not really. Religions do change, but they claim to base their systems on very specific texts, which have not changed at all.

(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  The atheists that I have talked to rebel against what I refer to as the "anthropomorphic god" of religion. Many of them say that I ask too much of them when I propose the existence of a non-anthropomorphic deity - that it is not possible to consider such a thing.

I think we seen this before here. Recently in fact.
There is no evidence of such a deity, and in fact, it is just is just as ludicrous for the VERY same reasons as an anthropomorphic one is. You have not defined what yours is, other than to say what it is not.

(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  Maybe you will say that I am splitting the hair too fine. But are the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of religion actually proof that the subject of their inquiry does not exist?

By itself, no. Lacking evidence for and and ALL of them, (including yours), yes.

In short, "both".
We know dear. "My god is *special*. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-10-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  OK, I realize that I am walking into the fire with this question, but I think for those who can avoid a knee-jerk reaction and give me a thoughtful response it may be worth it.

Almost all of the atheists that I know base their position on the argument that religion is wrong about this, that, or the other thing. Is that really atheism? Lets face it, poking holes in religion is easy! Even religions poke holes in other religions.

Religion is like that old game Gosssip, where you go around the room whispering a secret to the next person in line just to see how wrong it is by the time it gets to the last person. If hundreds of millions of people played that game for thousands of years then yes, the message will be garbled by the time it gets to me.

The atheists that I have talked to rebel against what I refer to as the "anthropomorphic god" of religion. Many of them say that I ask too much of them when I propose the existence of a non-anthropomorphic deity - that it is not possible to consider such a thing.

Maybe you will say that I am splitting the hair too fine. But are the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of religion actually proof that the subject of their inquiry does not exist?

I look forward to your responses.


So, what are the qualifications for being a non-anthropomorphic god?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
16-10-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
(16-10-2014 08:57 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  But are the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of religion actually proof that the subject of their inquiry does not exist?

No. Apologists protect their god by keeping him (it?) sufficiently nonfalsifiable and vague. Hell, even a skeptic could admit that logically, some god could exist that just hasn't been accurately or properly described yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Atheist or Anti-Religionist
(16-10-2014 10:45 AM)Dom Wrote:  So, what are the qualifications for being a non-anthropomorphic god?
(16-10-2014 11:21 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No. Apologists protect their god by keeping him (it?) sufficiently nonfalsifiable and vague. Hell, even a skeptic could admit that logically, some god could exist that just hasn't been accurately or properly described yet.
Well, with the proviso that I am simply an uneducated man taking a guess, I'm willing to take a shot at a definition. It goes like this; Untold thousands of years ago humans began to realize that there were things about their world that they did not understand. Before Issac Newton (well, he gets the credit anyway) when a boy asked "daddy, why did that falling apple hit me in the head?" there was no suitable answer that the father could give. It was just easier to say "because god made it that way". God simply became the answer to every question to which the answer was unknown. Unfortunately the boys next question was "what is god?" Now, having been asked to provide an answer about an unknown god, to explain an unknown event, to a ignorant, frightened, superstitious child, the good father made up something comforting, loving, and reassuring. He made up a good father in the sky who would always protect and love the child, someone like himself. This answer worked well for the uneducated, the superstitious, and the frightened.

Now to an simple person like myself, who is simply taking a guess, It seems like there have probably been smart guys like Issac Newton around for as long as there have been human beings. However if, like me, they have heard those stories about the ignorant, frightened, superstitious people developing a mob mentality and rising up and slaughtering those ideas they did not understand, they probably learned to be very careful about who they shared their insights and knowledge with. I have even heard rumors that the Egyptian "priests" who designed and built the pyramids used to stay up all night sitting on those pyramids studying the stars and formulating theories about their movements. While this seems kind of scientific to me, it appears that they were telling the ignorant, superstitious, fearful people of their time the more palatable story that they were simply worshiping the gods.

I have read some historians who say that the people who lived along the Nile back then didn't call the land Egypt, they called it Khem, a root word which still survives today in the words Alchemy and Chemistry. Perhaps those Ancient Egyptians were chemists, after all they discovered cement which I understand requires the refining of several different chemicals to make correctly.

So the non-anthropomorphic god is simply all the forces, elements, and truths that we, at this point, cannot understand any other way.

So there you have my description of how life works. One reality, called science by those with education and understanding, and explained as god to the ignorant, superstitious, and fearful. Of course, I cannot show that any of it is true. All I have is a story, belief, and not a shred of proof. Hey! I should form my own religion!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: