Do athiests have an edge?
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because athiests practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make athiests equally as biased?
Opinions.
good thing I'm wearing armor
I would have to say that Agnostics may have an edge. They do not generally come off as put off by religion, but it does seem that some are as well. An agnostic would have an edge in every respect but the religion he came from if that were the case.
Atheism to me seems to most often come off as a response to religion. This is a very shallow view, but it's how it seems to me.
God-****ing-damn, I like you A, and you are not the only one who does it, but for chist-buddha-mohammed-chance-moses' sake, why do you native speakers decide to ****ing misspell "atheism", it's not a hard word at all....I don't get it, it pisses me off big time. But enough about that.
I think atheism is just another belief system, and no more unbiased than any other. It might apply to agnosticism though.
Originally posted by Regret
I would have to say that Agnostics may have an edge. They do not generally come off as put off by religion, but it does seem that some are as well. An agnostic would have an edge in every respect but the religion he came from if that were the case.Atheism to me seems to most often come off as a response to religion. This is a very shallow view, but it's how it seems to me.
I tend to agree.
IMO, atheism does appear to be, as noted, mostly a reaction to religion, especially the organized, dogmatic, often abusive form of it (which, btw, I like to call religionism).
Agnosticism, on the other, seems largely to have the fairness of mind to at least say, "I don't know." It seems more honest in its search for truth and perhaps, overall, is less biased.
Originally posted by The Omega
Atheism is not a religious filosophy, seeing as we do not BELIEVE in anything "religious".Atheism CAN be a response to religion I suppose, or it can be, as in my case, simply not needing or believing in any deities, gods, demons, angels, devils or what have you.
Not needing to believe in deities doesn't make them not exist though. I mean. But yes, it certainly isn't a religious philosophy, it is a belief system though.
Originally posted by The Omega
Atheism is not a religious filosophy, seeing as we do not BELIEVE in anything "religious".Atheism CAN be a response to religion I suppose, or it can be, as in my case, simply not needing or believing in any deities, gods, demons, angels, devils or what have you.
I considered qualifying my statements with something like this, given this response I probably should have. 😉 I do think that often, and I think I could use the term frequently, atheism is a response to religion.
If atheism is, as you say, an absence of need for the supernatural, then I would agree that it may have an unbiased edge in viewing religion, but not entirely. It would seem to me that the religions furthest from the supernatural would hold more attraction than those that held strong supernatural views. But it is the stance that God does not exist, so it is not entirely unbiased in any open religious discussion.
Originally posted by Regret
I considered qualifying my statements with something like this, given this response I probably should have. 😉 I do think that often, and I think I could use the term frequently, atheism is a response to religion.If atheism is, as you say, an absence of need for the supernatural, then I would agree that it may have an unbiased edge in viewing religion, but not entirely. It would seem to me that the religions furthest from the supernatural would hold more attraction than those that held strong supernatural views. But it is the stance that God does not exist, so it is not entirely unbiased in any open religious discussion.
I could expect atheism to be a response to religion by "rebelling" teenagers for example from religious households.
But saying that atheism is SOLELY a response to religion is giving religion too much power.
And actually... 🙂 ... I don't know if "unbiased" is the right word... What I mean is, in any religious debate, I'd ask for proof of the gods, deities, devils, angels, messiases, profets etc before the debate could even proceed. It's like trying to debate with a strong proponent of a conspiracy hypothesis with no proof... I'd ask for proof...
I can discuss the actions of various churches and priests, popes, mullahs and other clerics in a sociological and historical context.
Originally posted by The Omega
I could expect atheism to be a response to religion by "rebelling" teenagers for example from religious households.
But saying that atheism is SOLELY a response to religion is giving religion too much power.And actually... 🙂 ... I don't know if "unbiased" is the right word... What I mean is, in any religious debate, I'd ask for proof of the gods, deities, devils, angels, messiases, profets etc before the debate could even proceed. It's like trying to debate with a strong proponent of a conspiracy hypothesis with no proof... I'd ask for proof...
I can discuss the actions of various churches and priests, popes, mullahs and other clerics in a sociological and historical context.
I agree with everything you posted (never stated the solely portion myself. 😉 ) I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?
Originally posted by Regret
I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?
YES! Thats exactly what I was thinking. I'm not saying that athiesm itself is a superior viewpoint, I'm asking about viewpoint.
There top a cliff may have a better view, but that doesnt mean its the place you like better.
Re: Do athiests have an edge?
Originally posted by Alliance
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because Atheists practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make Atheists equally as biased?Opinions.
good thing I'm wearing armor
Atheists have a disadvantage, because they do not have a support group.