Originally posted by ImpedimentThose are good thoughts, but they are hardly the province of only the atheist.
To quote Madalyn O'Hair:"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."
These are good thoughts, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Impediment
I think that most organized christians would pray and wait for a miracle to happen instead of doing what needs to be done, yes.
Most would probably give to a charity. In fact there a lot of very large Christian charities and just given pure random chance I would bet that most charities in the US are headed by Christians.
Originally posted by Impediment
I would have to concede to that, yes. Still, I'm of the opinion that atheism, no matter how many people say otherwise, is not a religion.Maybe I should have just stayed out of the thread.
No, there is no problem with your constitution to this thread, and I am enjoying the debate.
So, you would not hold yourself to the same standard that you hold everyone else? What I mean is, if everyone believed that Atheism was a religion, then you would still not believe?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, there is no problem with your constitution to this thread, and I am enjoying the debate.So, you would not hold yourself to the same standard that you hold everyone else? What I mean is, if everyone believed that Atheism was a religion, then you would still not believe?
Well, I would have to answer your question with a question:
Since atheism is, in fact, a belief structure based on non-belief in any kind of higher power, what would you categorize Buddhism as? I am genuinely curious, since I want to answer you queries with an intelligent response.
(BTW, Shaky, I apologize for my earlier crude retort. I was inebriated. I see you as a very intelligent person and all I did was show my ass when you, and Symetric Chaos, challenged my opening post.)
Originally posted by Impediment
Well, I would have to answer your question with a question:Since atheism is, in fact, a belief structure based on non-belief in any kind of higher power, what would you categorize Buddhism as? I am genuinely curious, since I want to answer you queries with an intelligent response.
(BTW, Shaky, I apologize for my earlier crude retort. I was inebriated. I see you as a very intelligent person and all I did was show my ass when you, and Symetric Chaos, challenged my opening post.)
Your apology is accepted, thank you.
I think a belief structure is a religion? It maybe inappropriate to call all belief structures a religions, because of cultural norms. So, a religion has to be more then just a belief structure. However, a new born religion could, in theory, look just like a belief structure that is not a religion. Consider the first century Christians in comparison to the conventional religions at the time. It had no unity. Beliefs varied from location to location. It took Paul to unite the teachings of Jesus into a religion. But no one goes around talking about the church that Paul united. They all talk about the one that Jesus started. We have the benefit of history to place these first years into context. Who is to say that the same thing will not happen to Atheism? I understand that you could say that the very nature of Atheism would prevent it from becoming a religion, but Buddha told his followers not to warship him; there are Buddhist sects that warship Buddha as a god in the world of today. People will do what they want to do, and if some people who need a religious structure in their lives, have chosen to be an Atheist, they could find a way to make Atheism a religion.
So, you can see that I am really not arguing that Atheism is a current religion. But as Atheism spreads, then more people who would have otherwise been in a religion, will then be Atheists. These changes, will transform Atheism into the very thing it fighting against. This is a natural process that can be seen thoughout history. If you look at world religions over history, you will see a pattern. Old gods are replaced with new gods that have a better relationship between man and god. By getting rid of god, Atheism has established a better relationship between man and god. In this case it’s between man and man.
Old gods are replaced with new gods that have a better relationship between man and god. By getting rid of god, Atheism has established a better relationship between man and god. In this case it’s between man and man.
Atheism has not changed the relationship between man and god. It has excised the relationship. While other modes of thought (like humanism) may replace that relationship with a relationship between man and man, I do not think that Atheism has done so.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure that this is the case.Atheism has not changed the relationship between man and god. It has excised the relationship. While other modes of thought (like humanism) may replace that relationship with a relationship between man and man, I do not think that Atheism has done so.
How do you come to that opinion, and why do you make a destination between Atheism and Humanism. Perhaps Atheism is a humanistic religion in it’s embryonic stage.
I think that removing god from the equation could be viewed as a better relationship. At this point, you have to figure out with who. If there is no god, then humans are in this universe all by themselves. If Atheism doesn’t fulfill this basic need of having something valuable to contribute, then Atheism will eventually die out. It may return in the future, but it will not have any lasting effects on humanity. New religions will replace the old, and we will go on.
Religion borned the most cowardly spiteful acts any human could ever commit. The core reason every peice of genecide ever commited.
Ive no problem with the idea of a God - in the most general of terms - but religion has No right to exist.
Religion is entirely interpretation a thousand year old game of chinese whispers and no matter which ****ing way it's read the answer is ALWAYS blood, and segregation. I hate religion down to my bones, and i'll be sure to tell God that if i ever see him. He'd likely agree.
/bitter, on this subject.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you come to that opinion, and why do you make a destination between Atheism and Humanism. Perhaps Atheism is a humanistic religion in it’s embryonic stage.
Is clear that atheism is not necessarily humanistic. For instance, it is entirely possible for an egoist without a shred of compassion to be an atheist.
It is clear that atheism cannot be called a religion. It incorporates no belief, has no central dogma, and cannot exclude groups from the term. That is, Richard Dawkins cannot say "Red Nemesis is not an atheist if he chooses to believe in elves." In fact, atheism does not even necessarily have a central belief-axiom.
You see, a belief must be positive. It must assert that something happens or exists. Asserting the existence of God is therefore a belief. However, failing to assert the existence of God is not a belief. Similarly, asserting the absence of God may be a belief (because the claim that something does not exist is very difficult to logically support) or it may not (in that the existence of any given God may be mutually exclusive with the properties it has been given). Either way, the number of atheists that actively assert the non-existence of God is relatively small.
Moreover, the rationale behind each atheist's lack of belief can be very different. From identifying the problem of evil, asking too many questions, and rebelling against authority to not liking the dogmatic atmosphere of the church, any given atheist may give you a different reason (and set of qualifiers) for their non belief.
All of this is to say that atheism does not meet the criteria for a religion--the thinking behind atheism is not universally shared among atheists and the group is not based on a foundation of shared experience. Among the early Christians there were a variety of experiences and sects. Among atheists there is not even that much cohesion. The situations are completely different.
I think that removing god from the equation could be viewed as a better relationship.
At this point, you have to figure out with who. If there is no god, then humans are in this universe all by themselves.
If Atheism doesn’t fulfill this basic need of having something valuable to contribute, then Atheism will eventually die out. It may return in the future, but it will not have any lasting effects on humanity. New religions will replace the old, and we will go on. [/B]
I'd like to take the chance to make a little prediction: Atheism will neither "die out" nor will we move on. There may be an increase in atheists or there may be a decrease, but that will be a consequence of individual choices. It cannot die out because there will always be people that simply do not believe.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It seems like you are ascribing motivations to others that may not exist. It is like when Christians say that someone is an atheist simply because she "doesn't like God." This is oversimplifying the matter. Atheism isn't seeking to contribute something valuable. It can't be said to be doing anything as a bloc at all. You are making the mistake of treating it as a monolithic group, and I hope that I have convinced you otherwise.I'd like to take the chance to make a little prediction: Atheism will neither "die out" nor will we move on. There may be an increase in atheists or there may be a decrease, but that will be a consequence of individual choices. It cannot die out because there will always be people that simply do not believe.
awesome post, we are in total agreement with pretty much everything
however, there is a recent, as in last 10 years, trend in atheists trying to come together. The Atheist Alliance movement holds talks and conventions about what being an atheist is about, Dawkins tried to start the ill-fated "brights" movement, and even Sam Harris, when speaking to the Atheist Alliance about why it is better NOT to call oneself an atheist, was faced with an audiance who, point blank, said they needed a "thing" to call themselves.
Now, I'm not saying that makes them a religion, but there is something there. Human psychology is such that it is not only tribalist, but it seeks to divide the world into tribes. For people like myself, whom the label of atheism or the actual disbelief in god is not central to anything I believe about the world, it doesn't make any sense, but for others, there is a need to see themselves as something which is qualitatively opposed to something else.
In a lot of ways, what religion is as a social and cultural force, there is a very vocal community of self-defining atheists who are attempting the same thing.
No, I don't think it is a religion in any way, it might be similar to Marxism or other movements like that, only that they are at the hegemony building stages, and we are privillaged with actually getting to see the debates about what this atheism means (and it appears it will be Dawkins who gets to set a lot of that agenda, imho)
Originally posted by Juk3n
Religion borned the most cowardly spiteful acts any human could ever commit. The core reason every peice of genecide ever commited.
Ive no problem with the idea of a God - in the most general of terms - but religion has No right to exist.Religion is entirely interpretation a thousand year old game of chinese whispers and no matter which ****ing way it's read the answer is ALWAYS blood, and segregation. I hate religion down to my bones, and i'll be sure to tell God that if i ever see him. He'd likely agree.
/bitter, on this subject.
You sound like a religious man.
Humans are the reason for the cowardly spiteful acts you speak of, not religion. Religion is a reflection of humans nature, not the other way around.
If you got rid of all religions, humans would siply make up new ones.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure why, but I don't think I expressed myself correctly. It is probably my fault for entering into a discussion without having defined the terms. Here is how I define these words:
[b]Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. [/B]
If this was true, then when I said god, you would have no opinion. You would be like some undiscovered tribe member who had never heard of the concept of a god (they do exist, but you are not one of them). At an early age, you were given the concept of a god, then at some time in your life, you choose to not belief. Not believing is something is different then lacking a belief. There are two types of Atheists; one that lacks a belief in a god, and one that disbelieves in a god. Sense the later is far more common then the first, I will not commit on Atheists that have a lack of belief, because none of them are here.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Humanism is the attempt to better humanity's experience.
Religion is a shared pattern of belief that has concretely defined boundaries. (It is possible to say that someone is not a Christian if they do not believe something, for instance the divinity of Jesus Christ.) [/B]
Your definition of a Religion is too narrow, and does not incorporate all religions of the world. To be a member of the sect of Buddhism that I belong to, all you have to do is join. As ridicules as it sounds, you do not have to believe in the philosophy, or practice the rituals to stay a member. There is no one going to say anything about your practice, because in my religion, it is a individual practice, and therefore, and individual religion.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Belief is a positive assertion that does not remain within the bounds of rationality.
Reason is the system of logic and thinking that both allows one to reach true conclusions from given axioms and provides a method of testing those axioms from truth value.Is clear that atheism is not necessarily humanistic. For instance, it is entirely possible for an egoist without a shred of compassion to be an atheist.
It is clear that atheism cannot be called a religion. It incorporates no belief, has no central dogma, and cannot exclude groups from the term. That is, Richard Dawkins cannot say "Red Nemesis is not an atheist if he chooses to believe in elves." In fact, atheism does not even necessarily have a central belief-axiom. [/B]
This is not true; Atheism does have a core belief. The statement “there is no god(s)” would be agreed upon by all Atheists. If I said that I was an Atheist because god told me that I was, then besides the question of my mental state, you would say I was not an Atheist. There is also a dogma developing within the minds of many Atheists; that all of the evil in the world was, and is caused by religions.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You see, a belief must be positive. It must assert that something happens or exists. Asserting the existence of God is therefore a belief. However, failing to assert the existence of God is not a belief. Similarly, asserting the absence of God may be a belief (because the claim that something does not exist is very difficult to logically support) or it may not (in that the existence of any given God may be mutually exclusive with the properties it has been given). Either way, the number of atheists that actively assert the non-existence of God is relatively small.
The number of Atheists that actively assert the non-existence of a god is immaterial, because I was projecting into the future. As Atheism becomes more popular, people will naturally wish to assert their belief as a positive way, because a negative assertion is difficult. Most people who will become Atheists in the future will be uneducated, and not understand what you are talking about. They will not be able to keep the intellectual aspect of the conversation pristine. Knowing human nature, there could one day be wars between theists and atheists. I believe that it has already happened. The cold war, was between a Christian state, and an atheist state. Sure there was more to it that just that, but if communism had promoted Christianity, the outcome would have been very different.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Moreover, the rationale behind each atheist's lack of belief can be very different. From identifying the problem of evil, asking too many questions, and rebelling against authority to not liking the dogmatic atmosphere of the church, any given atheist may give you a different reason (and set of qualifiers) for their non belief.
On the contrary, I see a commonality. It is the projection, and incorrect belief that the evil of the world would go away if all religions were gone.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
All of this is to say that atheism does not meet the criteria for a religion--the thinking behind atheism is not universally shared among atheists and the group is not based on a foundation of shared experience. Among the early Christians there were a variety of experiences and sects. Among atheists there is not even that much cohesion. The situations are completely different.
We are still talking about humans, and humans create religion out of nothing. You really don’t believe that religions came from a god, do you? Therefore, the only place that religions could have come from was the minds of humans. If humans can image (make up) religions from nothing, then they take a common idea and make it into a religion.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
But a relationship with nothing is not a relationship. Replacing the relationship may be "better," but it is not the same one.
You are trying to apply logic to humans. Good luck with that. Imagine for a moment, if JIA were to become an Atheist. Don’t you think he would tell everyone how wrong they were, and have no clue of what logic is.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Ok. I do not understand why this affects what atheism actually is. The consequences of an idea do not make it true or false, and also don't change what that idea is. You may be correct in that atheists will try to replace a relationship with God with human relationships. That is not an aspect of atheism as I understand it, however.
I’ve never said anything about Atheism being right or wrong. All I am saying is that if an Atheist gets into someone’s face and tells them they are wrong, then they are ether a hypocrite, or a member of a religion.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It seems like you are ascribing motivations to others that may not exist. It is like when Christians say that someone is an atheist simply because she "doesn't like God." This is oversimplifying the matter. Atheism isn't seeking to contribute something valuable. It can't be said to be doing anything as a bloc at all. You are making the mistake of treating it as a monolithic group, and I hope that I have convinced you otherwise.
Convinced me of what? That Atheism is not organized? From chaos comes order.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'd like to take the chance to make a little prediction: Atheism will neither "die out" nor will we move on. There may be an increase in atheists or there may be a decrease, but that will be a consequence of individual choices. It cannot die out because there will always be people that simply do not believe.
Do not believe in what? From my point of view, it is still just a conversation about God. In my religion, god doesn’t matter. For personal reasons, I consider myself to be a theist, but I have been called an Atheist by mainly Christians. Don’t get confused between my point and theirs. I have gotten used, over the years, to having Christians yell at me and tell me I’m wrong, but as of late, I now have to put up with Atheists.
Why would an Atheist, in the way you are describing them, yell at me and tell me I am wrong? Why would they say we need to get rid of all religions? My answer to that question is they are becoming a religion. What is yours?