What aspects of the atheist religion do you like/dislike?

[drug_mentor]

I did specifically mention Abrahamic religions, and maybe I should have went further and just said Christians. I did go on to use the more general term of religious people, but after I had already specified who I was talking about I thought it was clear that I was still talking about them specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I have not had any Buddhists or Hindus act in a manner which I would describe as trying to convert me, a couple Buddhists were pretty keen on demonstrating the benefits of their practices to me but they emphasised it in a way where it was not neccessary to adopt the entire faith. I wish I had listened to them at the time actually, as I am currently benefiting from practicing mindfulness and plan to look at meditation in the near future.

This year alone I reckon I have turned away door knocking religious people about 4 times. For some reason they always come in pairs, and they are always some kind of Christian denomination. I have been astounded by the amount of Mormons lately, I wouldn't of thought they had a large following outside North America, but increasingly I run in to them. Aside from that, in March I had some lady at O-Week who just wouldn't let up with her shit.

Obviously this is all anecdotal, it doesn't really mean anything. I suppose the fact that I have been an atheist most of my life means I am less likely to encounter people trying to convert me to atheism. I think the fact you have religious sympathies means you are probably less likely to encounter religious people who want to convert you. It does seem to me that those who are seeking to convert people to their religion like to focus on atheists and agnostics, as opposed to those who belong to different faiths.

You can say my arguments are silly, but I think they are quite relevant. The point that I am making is that for a number of religions, converting other people is actually part of the institution. It seems a little disingenuous to accuse atheists of being more pushy than religious people, without acknowledging this fact.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Obviously this is all anecdotal, it doesn't really mean anything. I suppose the fact that I have been an atheist most of my life means I am less likely to encounter people trying to convert me to atheism. I think the fact you have religious sympathies means you are probably less likely to encounter religious people who want to convert you.

You beat me to it.
After thinking about it, I was going to say exactly that.

You can say my arguments are silly, but I think they are quite relevant. The point that I am making is that for a number of religions, converting other people is actually part of the institution. It seems a little disingenuous to accuse atheists of being more pushy than religious people, without acknowledging this fact.

Of course I acknowledge it. Your arguments were silly because you were constructing them so. The implication of statements like "Are there atheist missionaries? No, there aren't," and "Do they come and knock on your door? No, they don't," (in the context of this discussion) is what? That atheists aren't as pushy because they don't do certain things.

I'm not saying religious people aren't pushy.
I'm just saying that atheists are pretty damn pushy too.
It's not so cut and dry as to who is the pushier group.

I haven't had any door knockers for at least 6 years.
Though, maybe that's because of the flaming upside down cross my Satanic housemate erected on the front lawn.

 

[drug_mentor]

Of course I acknowledge it. Your arguments were silly because you were constructing them so. The implication of statements like "Are there atheist missionaries? No, there aren't," and "Do they come and knock on your door? No, they don't," (in the context of this discussion) is what? That atheists aren't as pushy because they don't do certain things.

You make a fair point here. From a philosophical point of view that was poor argumentation, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. I am trying to refine my arguments to be better, generally speaking.

I don't know if the last line of your post is a joke or not, if not I may have to invest in one of those things! I should seriously just buy one of those 'don't knock' stickers that makes it illegal for them to knock, but I never think to pick one up whilst I am out and have not seen them on display anywhere.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Maybe you should just make a sign that says, "If you're here selling God, I will rape you and eat your face."
(Or something to that extent.)

...

What do they do (the pushy ones) exactly?
Do they jam their foot in the door?

I mean: can't you just say, "No, thanks" and close the door?
Having someone knock on your door every four months doesn't like too much of a serious situation to me.
Unless I'm missing something...?

 

[drug_mentor]

It isn't that serious, it is just annoying. I was joking about getting a satanic cross, not joking about the sticker, the point of a sticker would not just be to stop religious folks but also door to door salespersons.

The pushy ones at the door aren't too ridiculous obviously, but I have encountered a number who will try and persuade me once I have told them I am not interested, I see that as pretty disrespectful. I mean, I am at fucking home, often in the middle of something, to have someone ignore me when I say I am not interested and keep talking their bullshit is inconsiderate. Of course I can just close the door, but that isn't really the point.

Your maths is a bit off, I said four times this year, is isn't even August yet. That works out to dealing with it every 7 weeks or so, not every 4 months. I acknowledge it is still infrequent, but there is a big difference between the two figures.

I don't have an axe to grind with religious people at all, even most of the ones who knock my door or that I encounter other places are mostly respectful. I am just always baffled when I hear people say they think atheists are more pushy than religious folks because it doesn't align with my experience. As I acknowledged earlier, I have since thought there are subjective reasons why my experience might be different to the experiences of others.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Your maths is a bit off, I said four times this year, is isn't even August yet. That works out to dealing with it every 7 weeks or so, not every 4 months.

Holy shit. I thought you said four times a year!
Yeah, that's way too much. That would piss me off, too.

I've lived in six different houses in six different suburbs in the past twelve years.
During the first couple of years, I had - maybe - four or five door-knocking religious types.
Since then, I haven't had a visit.

I did invite some Mormons in ages ago and freaked them out a bit.
Was on mushrooms. Maybe I'm on a Mormon blacklist, or something?

But, I never said Mormon's weren't pushy.

The problem I have with God religions, in general, is that It cares whether you believe in It. It is a recruitment mechanism. If your kids don't grow up baptized, Zionist, or soldiers for God, then by Jove they will burn in hell. Oh yes, naturally.

^This is what I was responding to: a(n incorrect) blanket statement about all theistic religions.
I don't know why people keep getting fundamental Christianity and theistic religion confused...?

I am just always baffled when I hear people say they think atheists are more pushy than religious folks because it doesn't align with my experience.

The religious stereotype is pushy.
This is re-enforced (ironically) by the (atheist) media.

[Religion is generally represented as either the butt of a joke or as evil.
By representing theistic religion as evil, an atheistic agenda is being pushed.]

 

[ForEverAfter]

People forget that religion is a man-made construct with no real purpose other than to subdue the masses.

Ugh.

I give up.

 

[swilow]

It's not a false equivalency. An atheist and a theist both have a strong confidence that their belief is the correct one.

It could be argued that it is a false equivalency, given the inherent difference in the nature of the faith of atheists as opposed to theists. Its like saying that the ocean and the sky are the same colour because they are blue. (Does it? Someone, extract the nonsense there quickly! ) Both exhibit faith of sorts, though they are faiths that are polar opposites. In that sense, may be it is an equivocation fallacy to discuss the spectrum of faith as one singular concept.

FWIW, I am not convinced that atheism and theism are both religions. I do think they share many traits, but I imagine that many concepts share similar traits, of being faith/belief based, as opposed to purely reason. Me believing the sun will rise tomorrow contains a different definition of belief then does believing in the coming Judgment.

Equating religious beliefs with lunacy would be an example of a false equivalency.

True, but that wasn't what I was actually saying- though I did write unclearly, and rushed it, so that is my own fault.

I meant that, it is a relatively common criticisim for religious people to relate atheistic beliefs as being similar, in concept, to theistic faith. Some atheists criticise religion and, as a counter argument, some religious people posit that atheism is a religion too. What I was asking was, why would religious people want to associate themselves with idea's and beliefs they are clearly opposed to i.e. atheists? Even as a valid argument, it seems counter-productive to equate your opposition with yourself, as a way of degrading their arguments against you.

That is what I speculate to be the reason that some atheists feel being compared to theism as offensive, because for them, theism is lunacy. Therefore, it seems illogical for theists to try and bring atheism down to its own level. A better, more positive argument would be to try and upraise theism, as seperate from atheism, in a manner that doesn't require the degradation of either view. Whether that is possible, I do not know.

Can I quickly say that I am not an atheist, though I have a fair dose of it in me. I'm not an atheist-apologist either. I actually often find atheism to be a tedious and limiting view of the world, though it has helped me refine my own, personal spirituality. Unforutnately, at times, not following or accepting the more mainstream religions is misrepresented as atheism,even by adherents; and that is an equivocation fallacy.

No prob, I see your point of thread and agree about certain religions being less tolerated on this forum.
I have a very strong faith with respect and in my time on this forum I have never tried to force it on anyone here.
Conversely, I have had several people try to attack aspects of my faith for seemingly no reason other than mockery.

I'd try and not mistake critique for mockery. After all, your faith is your choice, and consequences ollow. I totally disagree with people who criticise others for things they have no control of, but I feel that we are responsible for what we choose, and are open-candidates for criticism; if we publicly relay these choices that is. My own views are completely open to any form of criticism that people wish to throw at it, excepting the irrational and offensive. If I didn't want to be criticised or if it bothered me overly, I would hold my beliefs inside. As it stands, mine are in constant flux and I like it that way.

Not trying to justify people mocking you here, but you can report these sort of things. I've not really seen any reports regarding these discussions, so it seems like everyone here is relatively okay with things.

I do have a lot of respect for the way you express your views and have backbone and conviction.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Religion is so varied, I don't see how anyone can sensibly make such generalizations.

I'm sure you're aware, they manifest very differently in practice.

How does Buddhism and Hinduism manifest "differently"?
As for Christianity, the church does a lot of good too.
You're acting like religion is all bad, like it's evil.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Re: "quote mining", I didn't mean to take anything out of context. (And, I don't really think I did.) I was just trying to make it clear what I meant by "manifesting differently" so that you didn't have to scroll back up.

after two thousand years religion has done nothing to resolve the human condition

Nonsense. It just hasn't fixed everything.
I don't see religion as a positive force in society, but I don't see it as entirely negative either.
Saying it (religion) "has done nothing" isn't fair, or accurate.

Life on earth is miserable, and I don't necessarily mean poverty or war or deforestation. People are stuck in the same loop, regardless of birthplace or nationality or gender or religion. We are conditioned to follow a sequential and finite lifestyle, where meaning is transient and truth is elusive. People are thirsty for emotion, to feel that what they are doing matters. Ironically though, we hold on to those things which are convenient and reject anything that requires change. We knowingly repeat the same mistakes and we say that we didn't know or didn't hear, that we are victims of circumstances or that it was meant to be, but truth is we know a lot more than we are ever willing to admit, even to ourselves.

Life isn't miserable.
Funny thing is, you're describing what life is like without God.
Maybe religion hasn't done anything for you, because you don't think it can?

Religions are not as varied as you think. Maybe they originate from different places, but the doctrines they teach and propagate are not radically different. Maybe they use other texts or stories or allegories, but nonetheless they all tackle some basic universal concepts.

Sure, they are many similarities but also many differences. They (religions) are varied in terms of the impact they have on the world. Christianity has been the cause of wars, but Buddhism hasn't... so, you can't rightly equate them.

People are fascist and racist and sexist by nature, and no holy text or ordinance is going to cleanse you of that.

I don't see why people can't overcome prejudice through the exploration of religion.
In fact, I'm damn certain that it's happened countless times throughout history.
(I have personally experienced it.)

 

[swilow]

Some good posts rmikhail

Life on earth is miserable, and I don't necessarily mean poverty or war or deforestation. People are stuck in the same loop, regardless of birthplace or nationality or gender or religion. We are conditioned to follow a sequential and finite lifestyle, where meaning is transient and truth is elusive. People are thirsty for emotion, to feel that what they are doing matters. Ironically though, we hold on to those things which are convenient and reject anything that requires change. We knowingly repeat the same mistakes and we say that we didn't know or didn't hear, that we are victims of circumstances or that it was meant to be, but truth is we know a lot more than we are ever willing to admit, even to ourselves.

As you say, a lot of this is our 'programming' or part of our nature; that is, the tendency towards destruction amongst humans. Obviously, its difficult to be objective, but it does feel that we are a particularly competitive and sensitive animal. Think about the massive amounts of ritual we have; idea's like etiquette, table manners, politely adressing specific groups of people, making sound at each other when first sighted (hello!), apologising for minor things like accidentally bumping your body into anothers, thanking each other, saying "excuse me" when trying to manoeuver your body around anothers; all these things seem to geared towards ensuring we don't tear each others heads off at the slightest provocation. And there are hundred of these societal rituals that we perform daily, all to ensure harmony. I think that a yearning for spiritual satiation and, seperately, a tendency towards violence are inherent of human make-up.

Nonsense. It just hasn't fixed everything.

Good point. One could speculate as to the state of the world if religion had never come into play. Would we be in a worse state? Would we have developed our pseudo-egalitarian society more slowly, or not all? I think that life on earth would be worse now, had we not earlier had religions to focus and center us, and dissuade us from utilising our inherent capacity for destruction by providing a means of both reward (the favor of god) and punishment (the wrath of god) otherwise not present as motivating factors in 'doing good'. Religions helped to try and guide people through the weirdness of existence by explaining huge parts of its mystery.

IMO, the jury is out on how much of a role organised religion can play in the future. Obviously, in the western world, its subsiding massively, but I think we are seeing an increase in the devotion of certain Islamic sects, and with India being one of the largest and fastest growing highly religious society, I think religion will be playing a huge role, at least for the forseeable future. I hope that mistakes of the past can be learned from though.

 

[ForEverAfter]

People should be afraid of religion as much as they should be afraid of politics. "Look at all the terrible things that have happened in the name of politics!" they should say. "Politics, therefore, must be wrong."

Religion isn't going anywhere.
And, this is not the crusades. Nor is it the Spanish Inquisition.
Similarly, slavery has been abolished and women have the right to vote.

People who slander religion often refer to particularly horrible historical events that were carried out in the name of religion. These events do not represent religion, as a whole. Just as the crazy guy at the train station trying to recruit Christians doesn't represent your average individual with religious inclinations.

I think it's interesting that certain horrific historical events are recognized as political (in the name of religion) and others are recognized purely as political. World War 2 is the best example. It isn't perceived (academically) as a holy war, despite the fact that they killed Jewish people and the opposing force was (largely) Christian. And modern wars, like the Iraq war(s). Christian versus Islamic? No. They're about oil and power.

The Middle Eastern conflicts, also, are being carried out in the name of religion. The idea that people are killing each other because of the way something is worded is just a convenient way to look at it.

Religion isn't to blame any more than politics is to blame.

 

[Shain77]

I consider myself an atheist, but don't try to push my lack of belief on anybody. I know my non-belief insults some people, but there is nothing I can do about that.

I have no problem with anybody believing anything they want. Belief becomes a problem for me when it starts to be taught as fact. Just because you or anybody believes something doesn't make it true.

There is absolutely no way to disprove a god exists, just as there is no way to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Nobody wins these arguments.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[ForEverAfter]

it's impossible to reject spirituality without sounding like a complete moron.

RD is an idiot, because he lacks humility.
The stupider a man thinks he is, the smarter he can become.
This applies to a lot of highly educated people.
Education often reduces intelligence, IMO.

[...]slavery has been abolished and women have the right to vote[...]

Yes, and no thanks to religion.

I don't know how you know what part religion played in the lead up to abolishing slavery.
Lincoln often quoted the Bible and he grew up in a Christian environment.
I don't really think you know what you're talking about.

And, even if it did happen without religion (which it didn't)... So what?
I mean: slavery was abolished with no thanks to veterinary science.
What does that imply about veterinary science? That it's bad?

The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.

Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."

http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/01/14/how_christians_ended_slavery/page/full

 

[ebola?]

Religion isn't going anywhere.

For me, it's more that the border between religion and non-religion is a lot fuzzier than people like to admit. What is 'spirituality' other than a set of beliefs characterizing one's conception of the fundamental underpinnings of reality and how we engage it (ie, ontology and epistemology, ie, metaphysics, philosophically)? What is religion other than a means of engaging spirituality through means of structured interrelationships with others? And then how does religious faith differ from the practice of taking on assumptions to allow reasoned investigation?

Then in some sense, there is a respect in which everyone who muses about the fundamental properties of the universe is "religious". . .

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

Sure. I'm still not sure what the definition of religion is.
Nor am I convinced that atheism is a religion exactly.
It's just interesting, I think, to ask the question.

As for what you're saying about the blurred border between the religious and the non-religious, it's true.
If two people (and only those two people) share the same belief system, is that common ground religious?

Over time, things get distorted.
Because there have been so many horrors associated with religion, it has become a bad word.
But what it represents isn't going anywhere. The idea of God isn't going anywhere.

Spastic is a medical term, but - over time - it has become an insult.
(A spastic person is literally a person who suffers from spasms.)
So, we get rid of the word spastic. But, the spasms remain.

There are a bunch of people on this sub-forum that share belief systems.
These are, often, the same people who criticize religion.
One day, thousands of years from now, perhaps someone will criticize their "religion".

...

As for Christianity (and religion, in general) "not doing any good", see: history.
Religion has done an enormous amount of good. We just focus on the bad.

Then in some sense, there is a respect in which everyone who muses about the fundamental properties of the universe is "religious". . .

But: if you never settle - even for a moment - on one interpretation: are you ever religious?

 

[pmoseman]

The following statements have equivalent meanings:
a. All that is required by atheism is not believing in a god.

b. All that is required by atheism is believing there are no gods.

The text book definition of believe, the reason for, the essence of, is confidence in a thing or person.

In regards to (a.) Atheists have a lack of confidence in something which is a thing or person; so the phrasing does not describe a belief

In regards to (b.) Non-gods do not exist and do not fulfill the basic requirement of being things or persons; so that cannot be believed in.

Neither phrasing leads to the conclusion that atheism is a belief system and we have consistent meanings that coincide with standard definition.

....

By default, belief is a state of mind which presupposes something exists when it is not evident.

By default, not believing is the absence of something; not the presence of something. Belief is not a requirement of mind and can simply cease to be, or negate.

A koala bear that does not believe Elvis Presley has died has not switched something off; it has not created something in its mind to sustain this disbelief.

The absence of belief in a god is the only requirement of atheism; it is the default position of the mind and being the only requirement of atheism makes atheism not a religion.

EDIT:

Seeking atheism is another story.

religion - practice and belief

(doing nothing is not practice)

Does seeking atheism involve doing nothing? I do not think it does.

 

[ForEverAfter]

By default, belief is a state of mind which presupposes something exists when it is not evident.

By default, not believing is the absence of something

Crossed wires. I'm talking about BELIEVING that something doesn't exist... Not believing is the absence of something, but non-belief (not believing) is not disbelief (believing it to be untrue).

Please take a breath.
Think about it.

Atheism is arguably both disbelief and non-belief.
I am (we are) talking about the branch of atheism that is disbelief, rather than non-belief.
For convenience sake, you can pretend like we're talking about something else (if you like).

...

For the last time:
If I believe that Elvis Presley was never a real person, that is a belief.
If I don't believe either way, that is a non-belief.

Take a breath.

 

[pmoseman]

Crossed wires. I'm talking about BELIEVING that something doesn't exist... Not believing is the absence of something, but non-belief (not believing) is not disbelief (believing it to be untrue).

Please take a breath.
Think about it.

Atheism is arguably both disbelief and non-belief.
I am (we are) talking about the branch of atheism that is disbelief, rather than non-belief.
For convenience sake, you can pretend like we're talking about something else (if you like).

...

For the last time:
If I believe that Elvis Presley was never a real person, that is a belief.
If I don't believe either way, that is a non-belief.

Take a breath.

1. NOT believing Elvis.

This rather self evident. A rock does this and it is not a belief. This is the absence of mind and is a mere technicality. It does not evaluate.

The discussion, therefore, falls squarely on the following.

2. Believing Elvis not.

This is not necessarily equivalent to the first statement. The second statement is religious, they actively choose to evaluate God and not believe, and it is a belief.

OK. I hope that is clear now.

The second type believe in a thing which, in their own mind, is not there. Therefore, they believe in nothing. What is it about nothing all second statement atheists believe?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Ugh.
Forget it.
This is a waste of my time.