Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
so like, in undergrad, I sort of realized that most of the movements against colonial powers, at least that I knew of, came from highly religious stances. Like, sure, radical Islam is one of the clearest examples, but even something like the religion of the slaves in North America. They adopted religious metaphores for freedom and emancipation... I can't think of them off the top of my head... shit, ok, ya, like Koresh too I think was one of my examples... it was a phase, lol

Talking about it with some profs, the sort of conclusion I came to was that religions ask specific questions that are unquestionably political. How people should be treated, what is the purpose of man. Further, religion has always had an ability to encourage dialogue on these issues, and allowed a place for people to vent frustrations. Hell, it was one of the few social institutions people were allowed to have.

I'm not saying secular groups can't do this, Communism being the obvious example, but there is something inherently existential about religions that one has to seek out in a secular perspective. Sure, there are sheep everywhere, but secular sheep have less exposure to ideas that might question their indifference to human suffering

The re is no such thing (Will of God) in china

Originally posted by Digi
I'm much more interested in sociological implications of religion instead of ideas of what true or genuine religion is or isn't. As such, my thought experiment (if we're calling it that) is mored geared toward what would happen is modern society gradually but noticably lost religion until non-religion was the dominant zeitgeist.

I suppose Einstein's way of thinking might be an example of a result (albiet, with less insight/sophistication from the rest of us).

Originally posted by alltoomany
The re is no such thing (Will of God) in china

I don't understand what you mean...

Originally posted by inimalist
so like, in undergrad, I sort of realized that most of the movements against colonial powers, at least that I knew of, came from highly religious stances. Like, sure, radical Islam is one of the clearest examples, but even something like the religion of the slaves in North America. They adopted religious metaphores for freedom and emancipation... I can't think of them off the top of my head... shit, ok, ya, like Koresh too I think was one of my examples... it was a phase, lol

Talking about it with some profs, the sort of conclusion I came to was that religions ask specific questions that are unquestionably political. How people should be treated, what is the purpose of man. Further, religion has always had an ability to encourage dialogue on these issues, and allowed a place for people to vent frustrations. Hell, it was one of the few social institutions people were allowed to have.

I'm not saying secular groups can't do this, Communism being the obvious example, but there is something inherently existential about religions that one has to seek out in a secular perspective. Sure, there are sheep everywhere, but secular sheep have less exposure to ideas that might question their indifference to human suffering

Damnit in. I'll disagree on principle here, even though I can't form a cogent rebuttal.

😒

Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. And frankly, I think it would make an interesting story if religion were gradually but noticeably removed (how? by whom? does this include the removal of belief in God, or just the 'scaffolding' of religion?). Offhand, I suspect humans would (eventually, and after major socio-emotional upheavel?) replace it with something else for addressing the Big Questions, which would include ethical concerns. Some socio-political construct? Science? For me this still requires making assumptions about basic human nature as well as the nature of the universe.

I suppose Einstein's way of thinking might be an example of a result (albiet, with less insight/sophistication from the rest of us).

Suppose so. I think much like politics, we tend to hope that the majority shifts in favor of what we think is right. If we were all predominantly one thing (religious, atheists, republicans, democrats, etc) the world would probably be horrible.

Originally posted by Digi
Damnit in. I'll disagree on principle here, even though I can't form a cogent rebuttal.

😒

inimalist - 1

Digi - 0

Originally posted by Digi
If we were all predominantly one thing (religious, atheists, republicans, democrats, etc) the world would probably be horrible.

Originally posted by Mindship
I think we'd have most planets from Star Trek.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand what you mean...

If it rain outside and you are working outside some would say it's the will of god and stop working..In china if it starts to rain out they go get the water proof gear on and go back to work..and really not getting much work done.. they work much slower in the rain its all about keeping them working is the point

Originally posted by alltoomany
If it rain outside and you are working outside some would say it's the will of god and stop working.

I've never heard of this before in my life, and laziness is not exclusively western

[QUOTE=13283539]Originally posted by inimalist
I've never heard of this before in my life, and laziness is not exclusively western [/QUOT

watch out of the signs

wonderful

Originally posted by inimalist
inimalist - 1

Digi - 0

I wonder what the actual tally is. There's only been like 3-4 times we've ever disagreed. Just be happy I'm retired from comic tourneys for the forseeable future.

biscuits

Originally posted by Digi
I wonder what the actual tally is. There's only been like 3-4 times we've ever disagreed.

I was actually wondering about that when I put it up. I'm sure its slanted way more in my favor 😉

Originally posted by Digi
Just be happy I'm retired from comic tourneys for the forseeable future.

biscuits

w/e. we can settle this in a BZ. or are you chicken?

Originally posted by inimalist
I was actually wondering about that when I put it up. I'm sure its slanted way more in my favor 😉

Most likely. 🙁 ...though I'll contend a draw on our discussion about objective morality.

Originally posted by inimalist
w/e. we can settle this in a BZ. or are you chicken?

Mind-numbingly busy, more like. I've technically been an absentee mod for months now, and have a request in to (the perpetually MIA) Raz for a demotion to regular mod. Try me this summer. I'm not opposed to BZ's. But if tourneys actually finished anymore I'd consider coming out of retirement. Alas.

Originally posted by Digi
Most likely. 🙁 ...though I'll contend a draw on our discussion about objective morality.

oh dude, I don't even remember, we end up saying the same thing most of the time anyways

Originally posted by Digi
Mind-numbingly busy, more like. I've technically been an absentee mod for months now, and have a request in to (the perpetually MIA) Raz for a demotion to regular mod. Try me this summer. I'm not opposed to BZ's. But if tourneys actually finished anymore I'd consider coming out of retirement. Alas.

haha, ya, no worries, consider that more of an open challange, but I'm pretty much in the same boat as you

It would be cool in Kandy's tourney didn't sort of come off the rails, but truth be told, I havent had the time to do it justice either.

BUT YOU JUST WAIT SUCKA

Originally posted by alltoomany
If it rain outside and you are working outside some would say it's the will of god and stop working.

Ah, psychology.

Originally posted by Mindship
That reminds me of these women who can't get pregnant, do fertility drugs, have a litter of kids, then say that is the WoG ('interesting' that their infertility is never God's will).

Ah, psychology.

New atheist topic:

Semantic arguments abound on this forum, and are largely abhorred (not the least of which by me), but I want to control my question here so as not to let the discussion tumble away into irrelevance. My reasons for this are more than academic, as I feel like there may be a disconnect in the way I approach my atheism to the way others perceive it.

Initial Question:
What is the definition of atheism or an atheist?

Clarifying Material:
- By definition, I don't mean dictionary. I mean how it is used in society. I don't care for book definitions, I care about how it affects religious thought in the world.
- Second, I would differentiate between how it used by atheists themselves and by those who are religious. Different answers may exist for these two groups.

My Ideas:
- By non-atheists it seems that the definition is generally used to mean "Someone who denies the existence of God or gods." My contention is, if that is what atheism actually meant to atheists, there wouldn't actually be any atheists.
- As it pertains to atheists themselves, it is (usually) still a statement of belief. I.E. "I believe there is no God" or "I do not believe there exists a God" instead of "There is no God." I say this because, were it the latter of those two options, it is a logically indefensible position imo.
- As anecdotal evidence (though powerfully anecdotal imo) I like to use Richard Dawkins "degrees" of belief and non-belief, in which he doesn't even classify himself among the furthest degree of non-belief (the kind that abjectly denies God or gods). Even to the unofficial figurehead of atheism, there exists a degree of belief in the statement.

Why:
The reason for this line of inquiry is that I'm frequently told by others on this forum that either atheism IS denial of God, or that they know numerous atheists who take that stance. I find this unlikely, and if you pressed such atheists I think they'd either eventually agree with my take on atheism or reveal that they haven't thought it through entirely. But obviously I can't discredit personal testimony from my proverbial armchair here.

Still, it bugs me. Am I misinformed about atheists in general or statistical terms? Are there many more "hard" atheists than I believe? How do such atheists justify such an absolute stance? This interests me, because it will help me to interact with others and their reactions to atheism.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Originally posted by Digi
Still, it bugs me. Am I misinformed about atheists in general or statistical terms? Are there many more "hard" atheists than I believe? How do such atheists justify such an absolute stance? This interests me, because it will help me to interact with others and their reactions to atheism.

I think we have to be able to distinguish between "hard atheists" who deny that God could exist, and simply those who deny, based on the evidence, that one exists.

Like, use unicorns as the example. They don't exist. We don't need to make these caveats when describing unicorns, because there is no good evidence to suggest they are real, no known evolutionary mechanism that would produce them (I don't just mean horses with horns, I mean magical, mystical animals), and there are few, if any, logical positions that would allow for everything we know about the universe to be true and also for unicorns to exist. Now, it is true, we could just be wrong, but I don't think the acceptance of the fact that one might be mistaken is the same as saying "I'm unsure about the existence of God".

I feel people are just unwilling to make this statement because it is just unpopular to say God doesn't exist, or there is the perception that it is inappropriate to say that no evidence, no possible mechanism and no real coherent logical explanation means God isn't real in the same way people are entirely willing to say it about other scientific concepts. Like, there are entire books written about how String Theory can't be correct because it is unfalsifiable, etc, but when we replace ST with God, all of a sudden we have to show that unfalsifiability some type of deference? as if it makes it more true that we cant test it?

^👆that is pretty much how I view it.

In fact, I feel very comfortable in claiming God does not exist based solely on my knwoledge of the man-made and culturally bounded origins of the various concepts referred to as God or Gods (as magical entities endowed with volition and intelligence that warp reality or designed the cosmos) and in the lack of any perceivable manifestation of it - going by some pantheistic definitions of God that simply equate it with nature on the other hand, its existence is a self-evident truth

further analysing the historical reasons for widespread belief in God and the very material explanations supported by mountains of evidence regarding the origin and evolutio of life, and even the evolutuion of the cosmos itself, incomplete as our knowledge about them may be seals the deal beyond any conceiveble reasonable doubt for me.

I would say that I cannot verify the existence of God, yes, but really, so what? Internally, I have zero doubt that it does not exist.