Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 10:35 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(25-01-2017 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 09:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, some people have a notion that the universe originated in some fashion. That's part of their thoughts, same as lots of other things in their life. Why define oneself in relation to one particular aspect of one's world view or personality? I don't believe in comic book heroes. Someone, somewhere might. Why would I define myself as an "acomicbookheroist"?

Richard Dworkin addressed this in an interview I saw on Youtube. If theism doesn't enter into one's thoughts from one day to the next, then why define oneself with reference to it?

I see a mountain out my window. I believe it is there. Am I a mountainist? If I don't know that there is a mountain because I never looked out my window, am I an "amountainist"? What is belief? I believe tomorrow will come? I must be a "tomorrowist"? We all need to define ourselves in terms of something do we?

I am not an atheist...I'm a cyclist? Is that a religion?

Are you really this naive? Consider

Religions are a major social and political force in this world, comic book fans are not.

And, no, I do not define myself by my atheism, it is merely one aspect of who I am.

But cyclists (as a group) are fairly obnoxious.
They think they're morally superior and they own the fucking road.
Angel

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
25-01-2017, 10:50 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(25-01-2017 09:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, some people have a notion that the universe originated in some fashion. That's part of their thoughts, same as lots of other things in their life. Why define oneself in relation to one particular aspect of one's world view or personality?
I am, first and foremost, a person who does not afford belief to things that are not substantiated. As a RESULT of this epistemological stance, I do not afford belief to any deities. It happens therefore that I stand in contrast to a very prominent social majority belief position known as theism. One who is not a theist, is, relative to that, an atheist.

If theism were not a significant "thing" then there would be no utility in this label and I would just be an ordinary, thinking, rational person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
25-01-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(25-01-2017 10:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you really this naive? Consider

Religions are a major social and political force in this world, comic book fans are not.

And, no, I do not define myself by my atheism, it is merely one aspect of who I am.

But cyclists (as a group) are fairly obnoxious.
They think they're morally superior and they own the fucking road.
Angel

Well, sure, there is that. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(25-01-2017 10:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you really this naive? Consider

Religions are a major social and political force in this world, comic book fans are not.

And, no, I do not define myself by my atheism, it is merely one aspect of who I am.

But cyclists (as a group) are fairly obnoxious.
They think they're morally superior and they own the fucking road.
Angel
This is true.Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 05:08 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
I should probably clarify that the only time I seriously find cyclists annoying is when they ride two a breast and you can't get passed them, that's so annoying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 01:55 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs?
Not all beliefs are the same. Some beliefs are reasonable and some are absurd and there are many shades of gray in between.

You cannot tell me that my belief that Australia exists (although I've never been there) is just as outrageous and incredible as the belief that the Earth is just a few thousand years old.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes a3e6u9's post
04-02-2017, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 05:23 PM by Uniqueness.)
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Is atheism just a religion of nonreligion? What I mean is are atheists especially ones in this forum just trying to proselytize people into atheism? And objectively could evolution and the views of Richard Dawkins be seen as just atheist doctrine? Am I even allowed to ask these questions or are they too inconvenient? I know atheists don't see themselves as religious. But really haven't atheists just replaced God with no god or just themselves as gods? What I mean by that is instead of worshipping a cosmic being whose existence cannot be proven or even disproven (Much like a flatlander attempting to prove the existence of a space lander or debunk the existence thereof) you just merely worship science, technology, the laws of physics, or simply yourselves. Could you be doing this without even realizing it? And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs? My case in point is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He admits in his forward he isn't truly an atheist but rather a scientific pantheist. He has no problem attributing god-like qualities to the universe or even the multi-verse. In fact his only logical argument against the existence of God kinda falls apart in the fourth chapter. He says he cannot accept God as a theroy because he is a "skyhook" and an "infinite regression." And he rejects outright something as "complicated as God" as self existent and eternal. Yet he has no problem with a Darwinian multi-verse (which is infinity regressive not to mention must be very complicated by it's very nature) or a big bang/big crunch multi-verse (which is also very complicated and eternal/self existent by it's nature). Really by the same maxim Dawkins reject God as a theory, so is his counter argument rely. But my point is let's say I buy Dawkins case. Isn't that just as if not more so incredible than any creator? And wouldn't that take the same measure of faith as belief in any god? Or is it different because we replace a god with a universe or even a non-anthropomorphised force of nature. I don't know atheists help me out here.

Okay...let's pretend that we're not talking about God but instead a teapot. This teapot orbits somewhere between earth & mars - but is too small to be seen by even our most powerful telescopes. Do you think non-belief in that is a religion?

Alternatively, choose any religion besides your own (if you're a christian, you can think about Muslims and vice versa and so on) - if you think about it, in order to remain logically consistent, you'd have to say everyone has lots of religions. Because they're a christian (1), but they don't believe in Islam (2) or Judaism (3) or Hinduism (4) and so on. Does that sound correct?

Is bald a hair colour?

That said, it's worth making a distinction between gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. Personally, I think both forms of gnostics are ... well....being silly is the politest phrase I can use. Now, the agnostic atheist has no burden of proof because they are not making a claim - they are merely rejecting the claim that a God exists.



Atheism/theism is about belief. Agnosticm/gnosticm is about whether knowledge is possible. And then there's ich- and apath- people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Uniqueness's post
04-02-2017, 06:54 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(04-02-2017 05:08 PM)Uniqueness Wrote:  Okay...let's pretend that we're not talking about God but instead a teapot. This teapot orbits somewhere between earth & mars - but is too small to be seen by even our most powerful telescopes. Do you think non-belief in that is a religion?

Make it a two tonne steel manhole cover and we're good to go. Life imitating philosophy.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 07:02 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(04-02-2017 05:08 PM)Uniqueness Wrote:  That said, it's worth making a distinction between gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. Personally, I think both forms of gnostics are ... well....being silly is the politest phrase I can use. Now, the agnostic atheist has no burden of proof because they are not making a claim - they are merely rejecting the claim that a God exists.

I find that it depends on what it is exactly that we're discussing.

If we're talking about the general concept of a Creator hiding away before the universe existed then I'm an agnostic atheist.

If we're talking about the biblically literal Christian god then I'll be a good deal more gnostic about its nonexistence.

While there's no evidence for the former, I can't rule it out. The latter is an incoherent, self-contradictory mess of tribalistic jingo that looks suspiciously like it was used to line the budgie cage before it was written up.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
04-02-2017, 09:20 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Is atheism just a religion of nonreligion?

To me, atheism is not a belief system, but rather a position against religious belief systems.

Quote:What I mean is are atheists especially ones in this forum just trying to proselytize people into atheism?

No, I don't think so. From what I see, they seem to persuade people- especially believers- into applying objective reasoning, rationality, and critical thinking towards their religious beliefs. In short, they merely want believers to question their beliefs.

Quote: And objectively could evolution and the views of Richard Dawkins be seen as just atheist doctrine?

Excluding Dawkins' atheists views and pertaining to his scientific views on evolution, they can only be seen that way if one chooses to see it that way. But that would be a non sequitur as both are mutually exclusive of the atheistic position.

Quote:But really haven't atheists just replaced God with no god or just themselves as gods? What I mean by that is instead of worshiping a cosmic being whose existence cannot be proven or even disproved (Much like a flatlander attempting to prove the existence of a space lander or debunk the existence thereof) you just merely worship science, technology, the laws of physics, or simply yourselves. Could you be doing this without even realizing it?

This appears to be a false comparison, an apples to oranges thing. You see, you are attempting to compare a belief in a supernatural entity which has no observable/testable/falsifiable evidence, to a method which repeatedly tests and verifies its data which leads to a plausible and falsifiable hypothesis.

Quote:And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs? My case in point is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He admits in his forward he isn't truly an atheist but rather a scientific pantheist. He has no problem attributing god-like qualities to the universe or even the multi-verse. In fact his only logical argument against the existence of God kinda falls apart in the fourth chapter. He says he cannot accept God as a theroy because he is a "skyhook" and an "infinite regression." And he rejects outright something as "complicated as God" as self existent and eternal. Yet he has no problem with a Darwinian multi-verse (which is infinity regressive not to mention must be very complicated by it's very nature) or a big bang/big crunch multi-verse (which is also very complicated and eternal/self existent by it's nature). Really by the same maxim Dawkins reject God as a theory, so is his counter argument rely.

But my point is let's say I buy Dawkins case. Isn't that just as if not more so incredible than any creator? And wouldn't that take the same measure of faith as belief in any god? Or is it different because we replace a god with a universe or even a non-anthropomorphised force of nature. I don't know atheists help me out here.

I do not find his position incredible at all. You see, since we have never found out if the universe is finite, yet it exists nonetheless, we still can reasonably postulate that it very well could be infinite. Since the existence of the universe is observable, but the existence of God is not, then Dawkins' position is not in the same ballpark as "incredible" as the religious position of God is. In fact, they cannot be reasonably and fairly compared.

Dawkins rejects God as a theory because there is absolutely no evidence to support such as theory. He accepts a Big Bang because there is evidence to support such a theory, and he accepts a Big Crunch because the effects of gravity (Black Holes et al) support such a theory. Perhaps a greater understanding of such physics would enable you to understand the "why" in regards to these held positions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: