• 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?

Droppersneck

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
35,138
Location
all posts made by the Bluelight username "Droppers
I like how it doesnt take up your weekends but I dislike the trendiness that currently surrounds it. I would have considered atheism but their general beliefs and criticisms annoy me.When they try to make a distinction without a difference. They're suggesting that their beliefs are somehow of higher quality because they are based upon what they believe is right whereas a religious belief is somehow circumspect because it arose from that religion. Aside from that their arrogance, don't they understand that a religious person can truly believe that they are right? Furthermore, their opinions have to be based upon something. If it is not a religion then it had to come from somewhere else. That is of course unless you are the second coming of Nitezche or Kirkergaard. And if you are, then you are wasting your time cleaning out viruses (or viri if you are Latin educated).

Who is "right" is a matter of opinion and their opinions are no more valid, or better, than a religious persons imo.

I know the mods are tough in this forum, but just b/c you disagree with me I feel this thread has merit and shouldnt be deleted.
 
I like how free it is, but I agree on the trendiness. Some people only do atheism as a way of rebelling and looking cool to others, those people are lame
 
How is it organized, when it is simply a denial of any world beyond which our senses can perceive? Many religious people also believe in the empirical world as well, so such a belief is not unique to atheists. All atheists deny are the religions that humans have thought up thus far, and most simply think that all of the religions we have are foolish ancient forms of superstitious thought.
 
Would Richard Dawkins ever acknowledge that his rabid atheism is actually a religious view?
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about “religion”. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Atheism creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
 
From my experience most self described atheist are just boring pragmatists and self described religious people either are dim or have no life experience.

People that tend to take sides on the religious debate have a poor understanding of consciousness.

The best conversations i've had about the universe and spirituality were always with people that didn't care to subscribe to some title.
 
They're suggesting that their beliefs are somehow of higher quality because they are based upon what they believe is right

That actually sounds like most Christians I know.

Face it, EVERYONE feels their beliefs are the "right" ones regardless of their religion or lack thereof. What you call arrogance in an atheist, a pastor would call "good faith" in a Southern Baptist. I think you need to simmer down and put more thought into your arguments.

BTW, Kierkegaard was a Christian.
 
From my experience most self described atheist are just boring pragmatists and self described religious people either are dim or have no life experience.

People that tend to take sides on the religious debate have a poor understanding of consciousness.

The best conversations i've had about the universe and spirituality were always with people that didn't care to subscribe to some title.

Well said I must say.
Atheists are just as dogmatic n stubborn about their belief as some baptist minister in 1800's Georgia.
 
I like how it doesnt take up your weekends but I dislike the trendiness that currently surrounds it. I would have considered atheism but their general beliefs and criticisms annoy me.When they try to make a distinction without a difference. They're suggesting that their beliefs are somehow of higher quality because they are based upon what they believe is right whereas a religious belief is somehow circumspect because it arose from that religion. Aside from that their arrogance, don't they understand that a religious person can truly believe that they are right? Furthermore, their opinions have to be based upon something. If it is not a religion then it had to come from somewhere else. That is of course unless you are the second coming of Nitezche or Kirkergaard. And if you are, then you are wasting your time cleaning out viruses (or viri if you are Latin educated).

Who is "right" is a matter of opinion and their opinions are no more valid, or better, than a religious persons imo.

I know the mods are tough in this forum, but just b/c you disagree with me I feel this thread has merit and shouldnt be deleted.

I don't think that who is right about this is a matter of opinion, because there either is a god or there isn't.

As it stands there is no way to tell who is right, so I dislike atheism in the same way I dislike religion because they both say to each other 'you are wrong, I am right'.

However, atheism makes more sense to me because it isn't based on fairy tales so I probably prefer it over religion.
 
However, atheism makes more sense to me because it isn't based on fairy tales so I probably prefer it over religion.

Oh this reminded me, one more thng i dnt like bout Atheism is the degredation of theistic faith.
Its pretty arrogant n condescending of you to label religion as "fairy tales".
 
Oh this reminded me, one more thng i dnt like bout Atheism is the degredation of theistic faith.
Its pretty arrogant n condescending of you to label religion as "fairy tales".

Not really.

I realise that the bible has alot of actual history in it, so I'm not saying it all is.

However, to me, stories like Adam and Eve are fairy tales. If you believe they really happened, then please, I'd love to know why you would think they did...
 
Not really.

I realise that the bible has alot of actual history in it, so I'm not saying it all is.

However, to me, stories like Adam and Eve are fairy tales. If you believe they really happened, then please, I'd love to know why you would think they did...


The only problem I have is the use of the word "fairy-tale".
To me it sounds like your reducing religion to a child's bedtime story, while in reality it's one of the oldest n deepest aspects of our life.
Thats what I see here.
Nothing against you personally, I find most atheists talk in this same manner.
 
"The atheist religion?" Atheism is the lack of religion, no? And I would not say that atheism is organized at all - yeah, there may be some outspoken members of the atheist community that like to speak for all atheists, but it's not at all organized. That said, although I agree with a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, he can be needlessly combative, and very disparaging of those that hold religious beliefs. I'm a firm atheist, and simply because I don't see the need for the introduction of some supernatural being as an explanation for the state of things - there is no evidence of anything besides the material world. I'm a science gal - I need facts, not stories from dusty old books. It's not like I go around berating religious people - my friends range from atheist to agnostic to very religious. One of my best friends is a devout Muslim, and he knows that I think his beliefs are silly, but they are part of who he is and I don't fault him for it, and I certainly don't try to shove atheism down his throat in the same way that I wouldn't want some Southern Baptist to shove their religion down mine. That said, I can't help myself from arguing with a Seventh Day Adventist friend of mine. I mean, the kid believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Shit like that really upsets me.

I actually prefer identifying myself as a skeptic than an atheist, since I think it's a much better frame for how I understand things. There are plenty of atheists (i.e. Bill Maher) who describe themselves as atheist, but their skepticism and critical thinking faculties totally break down when it comes to other topics - in his case, alternative medicine and vaccines causing autism.

But yes, atheism has become annoyingly trendy among people who seem do it simply to be contrary and are completely uninformed. For them, yes, atheism may as well be another belief system. They could have just as easily fallen into Wicca or something.
 
There are religions that aren't based around god/gods. I think athiesm is a rebellion created by the dogmatic Western religions, and unfortunately, many people stop their spiritual awakening at the point which they realize that the Jewish-Christian-Muslim belief system isn't for them, settling on the idea that they are atheists. I think some of their spirituality could be preserved if they shifted to something less dogmatic like [insert religion] Deism or an Eastern Philosophy. I firmly believe people need some sort of spirituality in their lives as a form of guidance.
 
The only problem I have is the use of the word "fairy-tale".
To me it sounds like your reducing religion to a child's bedtime story, while in reality it's one of the oldest n deepest aspects of our life.

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?
 
Atheism is a healthy critique of unilateral views and should always work to make itself more robust, I support it fully. Every philosophical religion is the same thing against atheism, every non-philosophical religion is the same thing against social convention. All have their place.
 
wouldnt calling atheism a religion be the same as calling anarchy a type of government? they are those things, they are the lack of religion and government respectively.
however i dont believe atheism, they have some good ideas. im not a fan of organized religion, its too political.
 
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?

I have no problem with the Bible if it's taken in the same way the the Odyssey is - as a piece of literature, and an impressive one at that - but you'd be surprised how many people do believe it literally. Or at least pick and choose what they believe literally, with no real reason as to why one part of the Bible is true and one is just a story.


There are religions that aren't based around god/gods. I think athiesm is a rebellion created by the dogmatic Western religions, and unfortunately, many people stop their spiritual awakening at the point which they realize that the Jewish-Christian-Muslim belief system isn't for them, settling on the idea that they are atheists. I think some of their spirituality could be preserved if they shifted to something less dogmatic like [insert religion] Deism or an Eastern Philosophy. I firmly believe people need some sort of spirituality in their lives as a form of guidance.

After I abandoned Catholicism in 7th grade, I actually first jumped to Wicca, then Buddhism, then Taoism, then a sort of generalized pantheism. Haha, it was a pretty steady and methodical stripping away of layers of belief. I think I was actually really reluctant to call myself an atheist, but came to realize that was exactly what I was. I was attracted to eastern religions because of the philosophy behind them, but eventually realized that a philosophy and a religion is not the same thing. I still ascribe to a lot of Taoist views on life, because I think they can be very helpful in dealing with life, I just no longer buy the mystical, spiritual stuff that's also packaged with those religions. You don't need religion - you can build a moral system without one. But I hold a ton of respect for eastern religions because of their emphasis on philosophy - you see a lot less of that in the Abrahamic religions.
 
Top