|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think we'll find that there are almost as many detailed definitions of atheism as there are atheists. Sure.
So most atheists have had to define the term for themselves. Fortunately, that's changing with the Internet, but still we pretty much define for ourselves what atheism is and what it means to be an atheist. Fine.
Can't we just agree to disagree and get along? Okay. But there's also these neo-atheists, who are quite anti-religious, and bigoted, and have a holier than thou attitude that anyone who is a theist is some deluded retard. They're just dickheads. I think its false that atheism can't be something more than a simple disbelief in gods. I've seen it. But if someone calls out the subset, the mob runs up claiming that there's nothing really uniting them and the dickheads fade away into the shadows. It is kinda funny how sensitive everyone is about considering that neo-atheist subset to be religious themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The only idea that unites all atheists is a lack of belief in deities. Within that group, a range of opinion exists. Some simply lack belief, others actively believe that no gods exist, still others (although very few) are completely certain that no gods could possibly exist. Some are hostile to the idea of gods, others might wish it were true. Some might hate religion, others might think religion a good thing, even if if it mistaken in some respects. And so on... Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making. Especially the 'rid-the-world-of-religion' ones, quite ironically. Look for atheist groups on myspace or facebook, and read their discussion and comments. Or take a look at the comments on religious or irreligious videos on something like youtube. Lots of dickheadery about, and a lot of it comes off as religious.
All these people might self-identify as atheists, but the only idea that could be said to unite them all is a lack of belief in deities. That is why many of us see it as being the only central tenet of atheism. Any time a subset of the group is chastized the whole group comes in to smear away the distinction of the subset by removing all qualifiers of the groups. Well they're there, and they're atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making. Especially the 'rid-the-world-of-religion' ones, quite ironically. You are conflating passion with religion. Surely someone can be passionate about something without it being religion. Why do theists want atheism to be a religion so badly? Have you ever heard an atheist claim that christianity is just another form of objective reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making. I think that you are obscuring your point through your choice of terminology. "Religious" is an odd way to describe those who virulently deny deities. It is an absurd way to describe those who have no orthodoxy of belief,no temples, no shared rituals, etc. If you want to criticise the more extreme elements of atheist thought, you would do better to use more precise terms. Try, "overconfident", "dogmatic", "religiose" even, but using the term "religious" is guaranteed to cause only dispute and confusion. It's also a bit weird that the atheists who you consider to most resemble your own position, religiosity, are the most objectionable.
Any time a subset of the group is chastized the whole group comes in to smear away the distinction of the subset by removing all qualifiers of the groups. Perhaps this is happening because the OP is an explicit attempt to tar all atheists with a brush that only applies to a vanishingly small subset. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So we also, according to you, get to define christianity by Westboro Baptist, right?
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that you are obscuring your point through your choice of terminology. "Religious" is an odd way to describe those who virulently deny deities. It is an absurd way to describe those who have no orthodoxy of belief,no temples, no shared rituals, etc. If you want to criticise the more extreme elements of atheist thought, you would do better to use more precise terms. Try, "overconfident", "dogmatic", "religiose" even, but using the term "religious" is guaranteed to cause only dispute and confusion. Well I think you're right. Religion/religious is probably not the best word to describe them. But I do see parallels between them and their behavior and those of the extremely religious christians. Paticularly with the us vs them mentality of demonizing the others.
It's also a bit weird that the atheists who you consider to most resemble your own position, religiosity, are the most objectionable. Personally, I'm not very religious. And I too am opposed to the extremely religious christians who act the same way as these "religious" atheists that I'm describing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So we also, according to you, get to define christianity by Westboro Baptist, right? I'm not defining atheism by the subset. But yes, those baptists are christians. I'd be wrong to say they weren't and argue that christianity does not include them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Well I think you're right. Religion/religious is probably not the best word to describe them. But I do see parallels between them and their behavior and those of the extremely religious christians. Of course you do. Overzealousness for a cause (to the point of a polarized "Us vs. Them" tribalist mentality of conflict) has never been wholly monopolized by religion. You could say that the same parallels exist for certain environmentalists, or even the Tea Party nutjobs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Of course you do. Overzealousness for a cause (to the point of a polarized "Us vs. Them" tribalist mentality of conflict) has never been wholly monopolized by religion. You could say that the same parallels exist for certain environmentalists, or even the Tea Party nutjobs. I just might call them religious too! I've certainly seen some "religious" environmentalists out there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Personally, I'm not very religious. And I too am opposed to the extremely religious christians who act the same way as these "religious" atheists that I'm describing. You're going to have a hard time backing off this CS, I understand, but, you are conflating the irreligious passion of some atheists with religious zeal. It may seem justified in your mind right now but it is a false comparison. Religion has a well defined connotation in society. Atheist, like evolutionist or numismatist, no matter at what level of passion, does not fit. My advise: just swallow hard and leave the fight on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
I just might call them religious too! I've certainly seen some "religious" environmentalists out there. And yet the term doesn't usually apply. You're using the term "religious" to mean "any group that pursues a specific belief with extreme zeal." That definition is too broad, because it makes almost anything a religion if a subset of supporters are overly enthusiastic. In the context you're using, Republicanism could count as a religion. I certainly wouldn't say that's an accurate description. I'll agree that some Atheists (and Republicans, and environmentalists, and Nascar fans...) hold themselves to their beliefs or values or preferences with a zeal that is typically seen only in extremist religious followers. But I don't think that means it's appropriate to identify everything that you see characterized by an overabundance of enthusiasm and opposition for opposing views as "religious."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
Instead of trying to broaden atheism to fit religion you be should broaden religion to fit atheism.
Religion: The belief or disbelief in and worship or non-worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.details of belief of disbelief as taught or not taught or discussed or not discussed. a particular system of faith or lack of faith and worship or non-worship. a pursuit or non-pursuit or interest or non-interest to which someone ascribes or does not ascribe supreme importance. Or whatever. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're going to have a hard time backing off this CS, I understand, but, you are conflating the irreligious passion of some atheists with religious zeal. It may seem justified in your mind right now but it is a false comparison. Religion has a well defined connotation in society. Atheist, like evolutionist or numismatist, no matter at what level of passion, does not fit Okay, fine. Its too conflated and it doesn't fit. It was just one word in the larger point that there can be more to atheism than just no belief in god and nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet the term doesn't usually apply. You're using the term "religious" to mean "any group that pursues a specific belief with extreme zeal." That definition is too broad, because it makes almost anything a religion if a subset of supporters are overly enthusiastic. In the context you're using, Republicanism could count as a religion. I certainly wouldn't say that's an accurate description. I'll agree that some Atheists (and Republicans, and environmentalists, and Nascar fans...) hold themselves to their beliefs or values or preferences with a zeal that is typically seen only in extremist religious followers. But I don't think that means it's appropriate to identify everything that you see characterized by an overabundance of enthusiasm and opposition for opposing views as "religious."
Well, you're right and that is how I'm using the word. I suppose its too loose and was a poor choice of words. It seems to fit to me and my tastes. Seriously though, would you really argue against some Nascar fans being called religious!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Since they're all Southern Baptists, I guess not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024