Religion

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Zolan

I've already stated previously that the term Atheist means a lack of belief in God (or Gods) and nothing more. I'm not even attempting to redefine the term itself. I was referring to Atheism as a belief structure in the larger picture, and what the acceptance of that position entails.

[Figment]

Zolan, I think the only person who is misinterpreting you is you at this point.


There is no such thing as a religion called Atheism, it's why we don't capitalize its first letter, because there's only atheism. It doesn't exist. Period. You can talk about religious Humanism/secular Humanism as organized movements with an ethical code etc and you seem to be talking about that as well, but it doesn't seem to me you really comprehend that they are not the same thing and are confusing it with something else entirely.

When you talk about atheism, you talk about EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF ATHEISM at the same time. Nobody by their right mind would EVER agree with you suggesting this is becoming a religion of its own because the very definition of atheism is the exact opposite and CANNOT be a religious movement.

You defined atheism very poorly for yourself, because you confuse it with a self-created illusion called Atheism. Please, if you want to discuss a religious movement lacking gods, refer to actual religions (or as some would say, a "stance at life") like Bhuddism or Humanism.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Figment

There is no such thing as a religion called Atheism, it's why we don't capitalize its first letter, because there's only atheism.

This is actually a trick that I've seen Christian apologists do in various debates/interviews/etc. It's a way to rally their fellow Christians against atheism, by turning it into Atheism. Rather than atheism being simply about a lack of belief in their God, it instead becomes a competing religion which is about abortions, and evolution, and immorality, and so on. They take a jerk like Dawkins and call him the pope of Atheism, the religion of baby-eaters, and their dumb followers see the situation in new terms.

[Warborn]

That's my point. Zolan is using atheism as incorrectly as these other Christian apologists do. It's wrong, but it explains where he's coming from in that he's bought the idea that atheism is just another competing religion.

I think Dawkins is good as a biology advocate helping to explain stuff like evolution to the hoi polloi, but I think he's doing more harm than good for the movement he espouses. Even the most privileged people -- the WASPs -- have a real persecution complex going on in the US. So Dawkins trying to muscle atheism into the public stage as something that isn't distrusted and reviled, the Christian majority which controls all the power and has a powerful groupthink apparatus in Fox News and both political parties essentially is going to push back. If nobody says anything, religion will simply die a slow, quiet death. It's hard to be seriously religious in a society where the Internet exists and isn't heavily censored.

[Figment]

Honestly have no problems with people like Dawkins. Tbh, I can understand his arrogant tone now and then given the fact every time one debates this stuff you get every single Duke out there (often in positions of religious power over others) coming down to tell him you're wrong and doing so without or with very poorly construed arguments. However, if you see him debate with other religious figures, he'll be very respectful if they act respectful and thoughtful towards the debate. It's to me at least clear he appreciates and respects the debate above all, but hates debating with ignorants or pretentious people that clearly haven't quite got a good grasp on what they believe.

And besides, he's only human too. Plus his attitude doesn't really differ much from you Elcyco. :P

Meanwhile, Dawkins has excellent arguments that conform with evidence, observations and do not make any significant assumptions I know of, his explanations are pretty darn well written too, so again, no issue with that and the man knows how to drive a point home pretty well.


So is it a personal dislike for a person's attitude, or the attitude taken up by people you aptly call fanboys? One could call those his followers, sure, though I wouldn't quite dare call that anywhere near a religion. Or is it that the fanboys take up a similar position without being fully aware of all the arguments presented, yet pretending they do? (Which... doesn't make them wrong btw, just when they misrepresent the argument or go beyond the argument, they'd actually be wrong. Similarly if they act disrespectful towards people that do have a good grasp on what they believe. That though, is immaturity and not a trait you can pin on every follower).


Quite liked the SouthPark episode about Cartman wanting a Wii though with the various forms of Dawkins followers fighting one another over who correctly interpreted his book.

But all in all, I don't really get what the fuss is about. If you think he's a bit part of a movement, well yeah, iirc he has said he's a Humanist as well.

[Figment]

Fair enough, though I would say nuanciation in these matters is not just difficult, but almost impossible to maintain without ever falling into generalizations.

In part because both sides of the debate like to strawman each other's definitions, next to their own side to be their own definition.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Effective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



Atheism doesn't really fit into any of those.

Well, you could, maybe, argue that atheism has a "personal set of attitudes/beliefs"

Of course...I've never seen an Atheist practice them.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Hi my name is Caroline and I'm a secular humanist atheist bioethicist deconstructionist feminist freshman communications science student. My hobbies include listening to classical music, alchemy (not chemistry, that would be too mundane), painting still life with charcoal and sometimes I sacrifice a couple of goats just for the fun of it.

I don't know why, but this seems really obnoxious

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by elfailo

White shirt goes well with the goatee.

Thanks. Not the greatest Goatee...they are a bitch to keep even.

[Zolan]

I never said Atheism was a religion...

I said religions can have both theistic and atheistic belief systems.
- i.e. Secular Humanism

Therefore, religion and atheism (lack of belief in a God) are not exclusive from one another.


If you guys still can't understand the anthropological and religious studies definitions of religion, then I'm done posting about it.

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

It may perturb you, but the belief that something does not exist is still a belief.

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Warborn

This is actually a trick that I've seen Christian apologists do in various debates/interviews/etc. It's a way to rally their fellow Christians against atheism, by turning it into Atheism. Rather than atheism being simply about a lack of belief in their God, it instead becomes a competing religion which is about abortions, and evolution, and immorality, and so on. They take a jerk like Dawkins and call him the pope of Atheism, the religion of baby-eaters, and their dumb followers see the situation in new terms.

Originally Posted by Warborn

That's my point. Zolan is using atheism as incorrectly as these other Christian apologists do. It's wrong, but it explains where he's coming from in that he's bought the idea that atheism is just another competing religion.

I think Dawkins is good as a biology advocate helping to explain stuff like evolution to the hoi polloi, but I think he's doing more harm than good for the movement he espouses. Even the most privileged people -- the WASPs -- have a real persecution complex going on in the US. So Dawkins trying to muscle atheism into the public stage as something that isn't distrusted and reviled, the Christian majority which controls all the power and has a powerful groupthink apparatus in Fox News and both political parties essentially is going to push back. If nobody says anything, religion will simply die a slow, quiet death. It's hard to be seriously religious in a society where the Internet exists and isn't heavily censored.

Because I'm obviously a Christian.

[Warborn]

I didn't say you were Christian, I said it's a tactic I've seen Christian apologists do. I don't doubt that Jewish or Islamic apologists work the same way, I've just never seen them do it. Whatever your beliefs are, I understand that the distorted view of reality you're presenting is hardly unique.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Zolan

It may perturb you, but the belief that something does not exist is still a belief.

So, not having belief in something is a belief?

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Warborn

I didn't say you were Christian, I said it's a tactic I've seen Christian apologists do. I don't doubt that Jewish or Islamic apologists work the same way, I've just never seen them do it. Whatever your beliefs are, I understand that the distorted view of reality you're presenting is hardly unique.

>Zolan is using atheism as incorrectly as these other Christian apologists do.
>as these other Christian apologists do
>as these other
>other