• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

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

droppers said:
Unorthodox but still there. How would one explain away these different sects of atheism and their mega churches/groupies/followers?
Click to expand...

Don't confuse individuals and organizations that champion atheism with religious zeal with individual atheists who take a spiritual approach to their personal engagement with the universe.

ebola
 
I dislike the atheist stance because it seems like a teenage approach to dealing with the mystery of existence, and despite this atheists often accuse religious people of the same teenage attitude. Even when I was fully in love with science as a child/teenager and knowing the "god with white beard" was bullshit I still knew in my heart there is something more going on here. I just can not fathom how others don't get this and accept a sterile dead universe. It makes me chuckle when atheists tell the big bang creation story.. I mean what the actual fuck.. how can you honestly entertain the idea that all of this popped into existence for no reason. Then it usually descends into multiverse theory or some completely metaphysical untestable mathematical nonsense.. like what the actual fuck.. how is that any different to any other religious creation myth!

The logical stance to hold with all things considered is agnosticism. To say you know for sure "god" (this includes the huge variety of different concepts) does not exist is just ridiculous, and more often than not most atheists aren't even aware of another concept of god beyond the judeo-christian one. Non-dualism? Buddhist conception? Tribal "great father"? Nope. I do not one for second believe they have spent more than 1 second even researching other possibilities.

Atheism is nothing but an excuse for lazy thinking and justification for morally questionable behaviour. You only need look around at Western society to see this and the result of our modern godless stance.

Highly recommend this Oxford debate on "Does God Exist?" This speaker Peter Hitchens sums up my view:

 
This is the most idiotic question that could be asked. Atheism is not a religion, there is no dogma, scripture, tenants, or morality purposed. Atheism only addresses belief in god, all it means is we don't believe in god, nothing else.

There may be traits that many atheists share like skepticism but that doesn't mean something like skepticism is a requirement to be an atheist. It wouldn't matter if every single atheist on the planet thought that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, it wouldn't mean that view is atheistic. Just because we aren't buying what religion is selling doesn't mean we are selling something else.
 
socko said:
I agree, but some atheists are so Evangelical about their Atheism that it makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

Evangelical as a term doesn't even make sense when applied like that. Do you mean some people are firm atheists? If so I have to agree, but that doesnt mean atheism is a religion. If someone is a staunch believer in aliens does that make belief in aliens a religion?
 
falsifiedhypothesi said:
Evangelical as a term doesn't even make sense when applied like that. Do you mean some people are firm atheists? If so I have to agree, but that doesnt mean atheism is a religion. If someone is a staunch believer in aliens does that make belief in aliens a religion?
Click to expand...
I was kind of joking because I have friends like this and sometimes they're like Envangelical Christians. But yes, firm atheists who are very enthusiastic and actively DISBELIEVE in gods, especially the Bible God.
Atheism means lack of belief rather than active disbelief, so people sometimes joke that they follow an atheist religion. Some were raised by Fundamentalist Christian parents, so it's almost like a reaction to try to recover from their Christian indoctrination.
 
murphy said:
every belief system is a religion imo.
Click to expand...

Okay. How do you define religion? Why say "religion" and not "ideology" or "worldview"? Regardless, Atheism is not a system of belief. It defines a particular space of views one does not hold, leaving each individual atheist to fill in the substantive content of their worldview; that one doesn't believe in any god doesn't specify what one does believe in.

falsified hypothesis said:
Evangelical as a term doesn't even make sense when applied like that.
Click to expand...

To be evangelical in this sense is to believe fervently in the superiority of one's worldview and in its universality (specifically, its applicability to all humans), leading to vigorous proselytization. We see this to some minor extent with the more politicized "New Atheist" groups.

ebola
 
Last edited:
Ok ill accept that definition of evangelical. I have small issues with forcefull atheists as well since i am an easy going person, though as a whole those people are good for the atheist community.

It seems many atheists have now taken the, "fight fire with fire" approach and it seems to be working for the most part. The religious (depending on location and religion) have always had a welcomed public voice. Atheists have not had that, and to break the ice for acceptance we have to be aggressive and try to inform as many people as possible on the facts. All we can do is dispell the misconceptions and give them the facts, after that if we are still ostracized then theres not much we can do. I have hopeful expectations that in the near future the US will more atheists in government positions.
 
Is it working though? What are our goals for improving our relations with society at large? What data indicate that we've made progress toward such goals?

to break the ice for acceptance we have to be aggressive and try to inform as many people as possible on the facts. All we can do is dispell the misconceptions and give them the facts
Click to expand...

What facts in particular should people be informed about? Why are they best delivered aggressively?

ebola
 
yeah, it was stupid to use the word religion. we cannot define religion as everyone has his own religion.
your right, atheism is not a belief system either as every atheist has a different worldview, ect
ebola? said:
Okay. How do you define religion? Why say "religion" and not "ideology" or "worldview"? Regardless, Atheism is not a system of belief. It defines a particular space of views one does not hold, leaving each individual atheist to fill in the substantive content of their worldview; that one doesn't believe in any god doesn't specify what one does believe in.



To be evangelical in this sense is to believe fervently in the superiority of one's worldview and in its universality (specifically, its applicability to all humans), leading to vigorous proselytization. We see this to some minor extent with the more politicized "New Atheist" groups.

ebola
Click to expand...
 
Heh...it may seem like a tangential question, but is Daoism religion as we think of it in the West? What about Confucianism? How about belief in trans-humanism brought about by an upcoming technological singularity? It seems like it's primarily in medieval and modern European contexts that religion emerges as something highly distinctly separate from other institutions in society, depending on well-bounded organizations, bodies of rules for behavioral regulation applicable only to religious practice, etc.

These are fuzzy borders indeed, but they might help illustrate what is unique about religion, and how this relates to various worldviews held by Atheists.

yeah, it was stupid to use the word religion.
Click to expand...

Heh...I wouldn't call it "stupid". As was mentioned earlier, various New Atheists groups are taking on tactics usually reserved for religion (specifically, universalist, proselytizing religion), blurring the lines between religion and irreligious worldview. The question (very similar to yours), "Is atheism compatible with worldviews and practices taking on strong religious characteristics?" is a decent starting point.


ebola
 
ebola? said:
Heh...it may seem like a tangential question, but is Daoism religion as we think of it in the West? What about Confucianism? How about belief in trans-humanism brought about by an upcoming technological singularity? It seems like it's primarily in medieval and modern European contexts that religion emerges as something highly distinctly separate from other institutions in society, depending on well-bounded organizations, bodies of rules for behavioral regulation applicable only to religious practice, etc.

These are fuzzy borders indeed, but they might help illustrate what is unique about religion, and how this relates to various worldviews held by Atheists.



Heh...I wouldn't call it "stupid". As was mentioned earlier, various New Atheists groups are taking on tactics usually reserved for religion (specifically, universalist, proselytizing religion), blurring the lines between religion and irreligious worldview. The question (very similar to yours), "Is atheism compatible with worldviews and practices taking on strong religious characteristics?" is a decent starting point.


ebola
Click to expand...
religion is a word without much meaning anymore.
religion/spirituality is a practice, its something you need to do, to experience, to change. the basic is love and mindfulness which brings purification and happiness.
without purification progress, spiritual life cannot go much forward
 
Last edited:
ebola? said:
Is it working though? What are our goals for improving our relations with society at large? What data indicate that we've made progress toward such goals?



What facts in particular should people be informed about? Why are they best delivered aggressively?
Click to expand...

I do think it's working, in the United states atheism is growing. I don't have any sources so I'm not sure if it's growing because of more outspoken atheists, better scientific knowledge, or for some other reason. I'm not sure of the goals of Dawkins, Hitchens, and others but I would like to think its to promote science, skepticism, and secularism or maybe just gain further acceptance for atheists.

Things that indicate progress are the continued banishment of creationism in science classes, outlawing government led prayer in schools.

The facts I'm referring to are just the basics of atheism, essentially that the only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in God. Atheism is not a system of morals or any kind of system for that matter, we have a wide variety of moral beliefs. They are not necessarily best delivered aggressively but usually more aggressive people reach a wider audience.
 
I've literally not read any of this thread but I will say this... I like the fact that they don't blindly follow organized religion and are skeptical about things. I dislike the fact that a lot of them have holier than thou attitudes and behave just like the people (mainly Christians) they disagree with. That's not to say all of them are like that, but from what I've seen a lot of atheists go out of their way just to bash Christianity. I don't really see what good it does and personally I don't care what someone's religion is as long as they're not hurting people or trying to cram it down other people's throats.
 
Bardeaux said:
How about terms like "make-beliefs" or "fables"? Obviously the stories have a message and are very old. A question I often would like to ask theists is wether or not they believe stories like Adam and Eve in a literal, historically correct sense, that a creator literally crafted one man then used his rib to clone a woman. Or if these stories are understood the same way fables are understood, in that Adam and Eve are just symbols for the relativity of all mankind? I can understand that there was a time when these tales were seen as literal truth, but in the modern age I have a hard time believing that so many people truly see them as such. Heaven and hell is another example. Is heaven a physical place where good people live after they die while hell is a physical place where not so nice people live after they die? Or are heaven and hell symbolic states that one creates while he is still living?
Click to expand...
You might be surprised at just how many believe the literality of their Religion, and it ain't just Christians. Many people never question the basics of things they were exposed to when very young - it is why so few stray from the Religion of their parents.

Fable is probably a good term; I'd suggest Myth but too many myths are turning out to be true and it might just encourage people to insist THEIR particular myth is true. :D

I doubt a case can be made that Atheism is a Religion, but it is definitely a belief system. Atheists don't just have a blankness, they are sure there is no God. Otherwise they are Agnostics. :D People who don't believe are usually termed Agnostic.

Atheists and Believers are, to me, on the same side of the line. I saw a model a while back on BL suggesting a X rather than a line but I am not sure it is valid. It relies on changing definitions so Atheists can 'not believe' rather than be 'Deny God' which is what the term means.

Atheists who simply 'not believe' in God are called Negative Atheists and very often termed Agnostics.

I think there isn't a lot to like about either Atheism or the Religions, mainly because they tend to see things as black and white. You either agree with them or you're a (insert derogatory term here)

Many Religions see the physical world as an evil place, either a punishment for past sins or a place where demons dwell, and so they tend to ignore things that can be learned here. Mind you, as individuals, many Religious people have contributed quite a bit to our knowledge - perhaps in the beginning the idea that the world must be 'organised' led to the study the world around us?

But Atheists have their own blind spots and so we have a world where anything spiritual or to do with Psi or ESP or events outside the world of Physics get ignored, derided or attacked as junk or fringe Science.
 
Last edited:
not really contributing to the discussion here but the word "atheist" has a bad connotation to me... that is all i have to say
 
A lot of our scientific knowledge has directly contradicted religious claims and the confidence Atheists have is high, concerning the probability of a particular set of beliefs being completely wrong. This translates into not holding those beliefs and certainly not practices which require unnecessary obligations.

Theistic beliefs are not objective phenomena that can be studied or tested, not any rational ones anyway. There is virtually no evidence to support them. We have witnessed many common sense ideas, seemingly, with better evidence supporting them, none the less, objectively disproven.

Atheism need not come about from any kind of certainty in what doesn't exist but can simply leave the unknown as is. One can still conjecture and imagine, naturally, and hold other beliefs. Atheism is a reaction to Theism, which would also include Gnosticism, making Atheists Agnostics as well.

Atheism does not necessarily apply to all religions, especially ones the Atheist is simply unfamiliar with.

EDIT: Gnosticism seems to be a religion unto itself, not simply a viewpoint applied to another religion or irreligion.

Regarding it as a theistic religion makes Atheism necessarily Agnostic.

As terms dealing in absolute certainty, Gnostic, or conversely, Agnostic, do not matter to Atheism. Whether you have absolute certainty or not these views are both atheistic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top