I do not see an equation between eating meat when you're a vegan and doing a religious thing when you're atheist.
If you're atheist, the religious thing has not purpose or meaning other than the culture and/or experience. That depends on the religious thing, of course (doing something like persecuting dead soldiers is apparently a religious thing for a certain church).
Whereas, supporting the consumption of animals is immoral, if you're vegan because you think it is immoral to eat animals.
I could be wrong: do you have to pay the Catholic Church or you wedding? In my LDS Faith, it is wrong/a sin for a bishop to take money from a couple that wants to be married in our church. I see your point if you have to pay that Catholic Church money.
But, case in point, as a Mormon, we believe our church to be the most correct in its spiritual teachings. We also believe that some churches are corrupt. That does not stop us from attending their meetings or services. In fact, there is nothing wrong with that, from our perspective, especially if we are fellowshipping and supporting the spiritual progress of "non-members".
Things would be different if you were not just an atheist but an anti-theist like Hitchens or Teller. Both you and Omega Vision are, as far as I can tell, agnostic atheists.
Discard the vegan analogy if you don't like it, though I think it holds true. You believe one thing, yet do something that is opposed to it.
The larger point stands, however. It's not just going through the motions because you like a ceremony. Religious rites have sociological implications. And in doing something that you either don't believe in or are opposed to, you risk either lying or cheapening an experience that is intended to have spiritual importance. Or both. Some can live with that for the sake of family, friends, community, tradition, or whatever else. But it's not a black and white situation.
I straddle the line between agnostic atheist and anti-theist, as you put it. It largely depends on the topic or aspect of religion being addressed. Hitchens is a hero of mine, for example, though largely because of how he carried himself and didn't pull punches on any topic (he wrote and spoke on MUCH more than just religion). As with most free-thinkers, I can't wholly endorse everything he said.
i don't know if you have to pay, but you have to be a baptized and confirmed catholic. my sister is getting married in june and they won't be having a catholic wedding for this reason. getting your confirmation also requires attending ccd classes.
Not really for the person that doesn't believe in the existential benefits of said rites.
You don't have to believe in it to participate in it. Also, you can be atheist and still have a spiritual experience. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find any religious leader that says you must attend a church wedding for the purpose of having a spiritual experience. They'll most likely say to attend for the love of family....and THEN try to tie in God.
I could have sworn that that was my argument. No stealzies!
To bring it home and more on that topic, I do not believe in reincarnation but I have mediated with Buddhists on multiple occasions. It was a spiritual experience, each time...but I don't really believe what they do.
I know lots of atheists who baptize their children because of the value of the ritual to their communites. it's social value of the rite.
I was using dawkins as an example to illustrate my previous point, not as proof of it, so, no.
I acknowledge his brilliantism though I find him overated, disagree with most of his views on evolution and find many of them harmful to the discipline, but yes, his vocal pedantism doesn't do the promotion of skepticism in society any services.
Pfff fail. Hitler was Austrian. Internet license revoked.
Though most Austrians are assholes. Just look at Arnold.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I think if you looked into it, case by case, you'd find a lot of that atheist adherence is a desire to not "rock the boat" of their family or community. There are other outlets for spirituality, or non-religious ceremony...actual atheists practicing religion usually speaks to something deeper and more unfortunate. Because I know atheists that go through the motions too...and I can guarantee you they do so because it's too much work and social risk to openly leave the religion, regardless of how they live their lives 99% of the time. It's almost certainly NOT because they like to see meaningless water poured over their child's head.
I'm most interested that you disagree with Dawkins views on evolution. Aside from some niggling points, he hasn't really been proven wrong by the scientific community, even on his work that's now decades old. It's much easier to say you disagree with how he applies evolution to religion (though on specific aspects of many religions, it's a valid argument), but the actual biology part is, by and large, heavily proven and accepted.
One can be militant without being an assh*le, though, to re-touch the earlier point. It's really not hard. The fact that we only tend to see the assholes contributes to a profound selection bias. Use Penn Jilette as an example, who will call anyone out on their bullsh*t, but not only tolerates but openly celebrates the right of evangelicals and others to proclaim and fight for their beliefs. It's intensely refreshing, an approach that doesn't sacrifice respect or intellectual intensity. There are many like that; they just don't get the headlines. So, again, to paint militants as anything, especially based on a single outlier, is very flawed.
As far as atheism goes he has been called philosophically illiterate, mischaracterizing the kalam argument and Aquinas. There's a thread on common sense atheism called rescuing Dawkins.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I think ON is asking about his evolutionary stuff, not atheism/philosophy. It was what I focused on as well. Say what you will about his application of the ideas, but his science is sound AFAIK.
haha, I wouldn't disagree with that characterization all that much either, though I can't speak to kalam and Aquinas.
It was more about the evolution stuff. I know it would be silly to think any one person got stuff all correct, but I'm interested in what specifically 753 has to say about Dawkin's biology.
His science is very sound. He is not just a good biologist, he is a genius in his field. Sure, he may have been wrong here and there on a few things but his scientific work is really solid.
A person who loves science can admire Dawkins just solely on his scientific contributions, alone: forget his past-times.
I have no idea what 753 is talking about unless he wants to get into fairly subjective arguments about evolution (fitness vs. group).
What other spider nests can I poke before I go back into hiding? I want to get my religion fill, and living in the Midwest is more about strategic silences than discussion/debate.
- Moral responsibility (or lack thereof) in an atheistic, possibly deterministic, worldview?
- How to go about debating those with a "I know what I saw" paranormal believer (note: I fail mightily with this in practice)?
- Is it worth trying to create a movement for the sake of pushing toward more comprehensive social acceptance? What would/should such a movement look like? Or is it not needed?
- Are there philosophies that can be assimilated into an atheistic worldview? For example, Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy to many. I wouldn't espouse Buddhism, but there are those that say they're compatible.
- For my non-atheist/non-secular friends: is atheism just another way of thinking to you, or is it more repugnant than other theistic views that you don't agree with? Or, more generally, what are the problems with atheism from an intellectual perspective? What are its logical holes? I think that's what I'm most interested in hearing. When non-atheists think of atheism, what reasons come to mind as to why it isn't adequate?
Pick one, or go to my OP and dig into something. Or not, of course.
With the #2 point you made, a video was made by an atheist/intellectual that covered this about the paranormal. The atheist/agnostic is accused of being "closed minded" because they do not think the "ghost" everyone saw was actually a ghost. But the closed minded are those that say it was definitely a ghost. The one with the open mind is the person that can say it was possibly other things.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on May 10th, 2013 at 12:49 AM
It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.(please log in to view the image) (please log in to view the image) (please log in to view the image) (please log in to view the image)
Skeptics often come at this from a genuinely unsympathetic angle. Consider a mundane alternative.
A really cool car parks across from your house. By the time you get your friend over the car is gone. You are justified in believing the car was there. You are not justified in insisting that your friend believe based on your beliefs. Claims of experience are not as convincing as an experience, nor are they as good as evidence.
Now we get into the believer being defensive because they draw a parallel to this mundane situation. Most likely your friend would believe you. The next part of the discussion should be to get around to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Suggest that Obama was in the car, how would they expect their friend to react then? Hopefully that would leave people with the feeling that you are respectful of what they saw and an understand of why it isn't enough for you.
There's a story relevant to this. A scientist once asked Newton: "What shapes are the orbits of the planets?" And he replied: "They are ellipses, I have proven it! Sadly, I seem to have misplaced the equations." Now Newton was very smart and we now know he was right but the scientist waited for Newton to find the missing papers. A claim that you've seen proof is not the same thing as proof.
Emphasizing the fallibility of human perception (which skeptics like to do in this case) doesn't seem to work at all and I'm not sure why. Paranormal believers are insistent on the idea that we merely need observers with more impressive titles to be convinced by eye-witness testimony.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
That's a decent perspective on it. Not all take this approach (the ones who believe it's a ghost/paranormal/whatever), but I have encountered it. And at least once I've been called close-minded for such a stance.
Not bad, I like the train of thought. And yes, eyewitness accounts are taken as absolute canon by them, to a fault, in my experience.
My gf told me about a home video of a friend she watched where the cabinets swung open violently and simultaneously with apparently no outside force acting upon them. It's her justification for believing in ghosts. I haven't seen the video, so I can't corroborate it. But I was left trying to tell her these things that you relate, and really didn't get too far before I sort of smiled and let it drop by changing the subject.
I find most of those arguments with a significant other can be solved by just letting it go. Just not worth it. There are a nearly infinite other things to enjoy together than the discussions on the existential.
I also, naively, think an evangelical Christian and staunch atheist can be happily married with children.
KMC Community Forums
May 1st, 2013 05:41 PM
