well the title does not leave a lot of room for qualification, does it?
My judgement in the matter is that the so-called 'new atheists' have an exceedingly poor grasp of what they are talking about in the critical analysis of religion. I don't think they know what it means. If it meant what they said it meant, then I would agree with them. They have it all backwards. But some arguments are impossible to pursue, the chasm too deep to plumb, so I think I will call it a day.
Quote:Do you think that atheists are any less fulfilled in their life? You answered that atheists can find fulfillment, but when I pressed you to be clear on if they could achieve the same degree of fulfillment, you did not reply.
The reason why, is because I don't know.
I have never been atheist, but have also never been a churchgoer.
So I am in no-man's-land, in a way.
But I don't think it is necessary to have a belief in God, no. It is more about the kind of being you are. If you are compassionate, self-aware, and non-egotistical, those qualities are great qualities whether you believe in religion or not.
There are examples throughout history of atheist philosophers in this mold - the Meditations of Marcus Aurellius, and some of the more positive existentialists more recently.
Buddhism does not worship a creator God or look to God for salvation, but the Buddha is understood to be 'world-transcending' (lokutara).
But I still say most atheism, including yours, is reflexive and reactive. From what you write, you are intelligent and argue very well, but your whole motivation is a reflexive dislike of anything you perceive to be religious. Have an open mind, is all I would say, because I don't think you do at this point.
failures art wrote:By your loose definition of religion, I'm sure you'd be successful at finding a religious atheist, yes.
Say a group of people meets once a week in a church, preaching a belief system of how the world works, they apply moral guidelines to their lives according to that belief system, and they have priests that wear robes and funny hats, and they have chants, and ritual observances, and holy days. But their beliefs do not contain any supernatural claims. No gods, no magic. Thus according to your definition it would not be a religion and they would not be religious. How can that be? The definition must be wrong.
Your definition of a religion is accurate in a scientific realm. For example if the debate is about whether the universe was created by a deity or not, a belief that contains supernatural claims is religious, as distinguished from one that is scientific. And yes, in that context atheism is the skeptic position. But you cannot transfer that dichotomy to the question of being a religious person or not. If we are talking about people being religious or not, that is anthropology. In an anthropological context, 'religion' has to be understood in an anthropological sense.
On the wikipedia page for 'religion', right after your strict definition follows the loose one: a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the world, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the definition of religion which applies to the context in question. Using the strict definition is a verbal trick. Using the loose definition is not evaporating the meaning of the word, it is applying the right meaning of the word.
failures art wrote:It seems you're desperate to make atheists into religious people so that the the collateral of being religious is somehow lessened by it's greatest critic: The atheists.
It's the other way around: Atheists are using the strict meaning of the word 'religion' in a context in which it does not apply. The purpose is to criticize theists as being "merely religious". If the other side is "religion" then your side by implication is areligious, rational, scientific. I.e. it constructs a false choice between religion and atheism which practically all atheist arguments base on; the old "science vs. religion" mantra.
It is not me that tries to make atheists into religious people, it is atheists that try to make theists into the only religious people.
failures art wrote:I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
The accurate definition of a religion in the context of anthropology is a total vision of the world. Such visions are not restricted to belief in the supernatural or theism (or rather it depends on the definition of supernatural, as our own beliefs of course are natural and only what everybody else believes is supernatural).
An example of atheistic religion would be political movements that favor worship of the state or leader instead of deities, like communism.
The story of the Kims' descent is surrounded with mythology. Children in schools are taught that they came down from heaven, and were placed on the top of Mount Paektu, where they were transformed into human beings.
I happen to think that some modern environmentalist beliefs are based on a form of earth-worship, and therefore are religious as well.
And theoretical constructs, such as the belief in overpopulation
or peak-oil, are in my estimation religions as well.
And yes, global warming.
All of these are organized belief systems with what could be considered a church structure and priesthood, they have a doctrine, by the believer they are largely believed as faith and not due to empirical evidence or rational considerations, they present the believer with moral guidelines (use incandescent light bulbs), provide him with a community, many even promote asceticism, etc.
For a person that believes them it fulfills practically the same psychological functions as, say, Christianity. That's why the anthropological definition of religion makes more sense, as opposed to the 'belief in supernatural stuff' one.
You hold the vision that irrationality and faith are fully contained in supernatural beliefs. You can't comprehend how atheism and areligiousness aren't the same thing.
That is itself a vision of how the world works. Since you hold this vision to be self-evident without any need to question it and since it is an organized movement, it could be considered a religious faith.
That's what people mean when they say that atheism is a religion. They don't mean the philosophical notion, they mean your beliefs in that philosophical notion. What you believe in does not have to be supernatural for your belief to be religious.
Well, you posted a bunch of knee-jerk talking points, few of which actually address my arguments. I can only urge you to re-read my post and, you know, actually read it. There's more to it than you think.
I'll subscribe to this thread, if you should post an actual response.
I don't I don't think you will though, you want to maintain your beliefs at any cost.
Definitions be damned.
EmperorNero wrote:failures art wrote:By your loose definition of religion, I'm sure you'd be successful at finding a religious atheist, yes.
Say a group of people meets once a week in a church, preaching a belief system of how the world works, they apply moral guidelines to their lives according to that belief system, and they have priests that wear robes and funny hats, and they have chants, and ritual observances, and holy days. But their beliefs do not contain any supernatural claims. No gods, no magic. Thus according to your definition it would not be a religion and they would not be religious. How can that be? The definition must be wrong.
Wonderful, you've provided a fictional example to put me in my place about how things actually work.
EmperorNero wrote:Your definition of a religion is accurate in a scientific realm. For example if the debate is about whether the universe was created by a deity or not, a belief that contains supernatural claims is religious, as distinguished from one that is scientific. And yes, in that context atheism is the skeptic position. But you cannot transfer that dichotomy to the question of being a religious person or not. If we are talking about people being religious or not, that is anthropology. In an anthropological context, 'religion' has to be understood in an anthropological sense.
On the wikipedia page for 'religion', right after your strict definition follows the loose one: a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the world, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the definition of religion which applies to the context in question. Using the strict definition is a verbal trick. Using the loose definition is not evaporating the meaning of the word, it is applying the right meaning of the word.
1) Atheism does NOT give meaning to the world.
2) Atheism does NOT have devotional or ritual observances.
3) Atheism does NOT have a moral code.
EmperorNero wrote:failures art wrote:It seems you're desperate to make atheists into religious people so that the the collateral of being religious is somehow lessened by it's greatest critic: The atheists.
It's the other way around: Atheists are using the strict meaning of the word 'religion' in a context in which it does not apply. The purpose is to criticize theists as being "merely religious". If the other side is "religion" then your side by implication is areligious, rational, scientific. I.e. it constructs a false choice between religion and atheism which practically all atheist arguments base on; the old "science vs. religion" mantra.
That "old mantra" is a piece of baggage that the religious have been desperate to be rid of for some time. It still holds. It's not just science, but reason and logic. Religion is a suspension of a degree of the three to force a conclusion on how the universe is.
EmperorNero wrote:That is itself a vision of how the world works. Since you hold this vision to be self-evident without any need to question it and since it is an organized movement, it could be considered a religious faith.
I've never claimed anything self evident. Atheism isn't something I believe in.
EmperorNero wrote:failures art wrote:I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
The accurate definition of a religion in the context of anthropology is a total vision of the world. Such visions are not restricted to belief in the supernatural or theism (or rather it depends on the definition of supernatural, as our own beliefs of course are natural and only what everybody else believes is supernatural).
Atheism doesn't offer a total vision of the world and never has.
Yeah, it's fictional, that's the point. It exemplifies that the strict definition of religion isn't functional if we are talking about personal beliefs; religion in an anthropological sense.
Using the loose definition is not evaporating the meaning of the word, it is applying the right meaning of the word.
Yeah, I guess... But the argument was that 'belief in supernatural stuff' is the incorrect definition of a religion in an anthropological context. The accurate definition is 'a faith giving a total vision of the world'.
Right... But the argument was, that it's not theists that try to evaporate the definition of 'religion' to lessen the criticism against them, it is atheists that use the wrong definition of religion to score the cheap points against theism.
Sure [Atheism is] something you believe in.
That whole science mantra paradigm is a vision of the world.
Your atheistic beliefs aren't restricted to 'disbelief in deities', there's more than that. There are a lot of historical, sociological and ideological beliefs attached to a statement like "[science] is a piece of baggage that the religious have been desperate to be rid of for some time". You even construct the definitions of those words to fit your narrative.
Your vision of the world does not become 'not a vision of the world' because it is based on a skeptical notion. Just because a part of your belief system is based on skepticism does not mean that your whole belief system is skeptical.
Your beliefs are a vision of the world just as religious as Judaism or Islam. Maybe more so, because Jews and Muslims are aware that their faith is faith.
Depends on what you mean by atheism. Your whole construct is based on a simple verbal fallacy. You use the word 'atheism' in alternating meanings, and defend one with the properties of the other. 'Atheism' is the theoretical notion 'disbelief in deities'. Yet what you believe, your personal opinions, your 'atheism', is different from that theoretical notion. When any of your personal beliefs is attacked, you don't defend them but you defend the philosophical notion 'disbelief in deities', which is easy to do because it is a pure skeptical notion. Then you switch the meaning of the word 'atheism' to your personal beliefs and make your anti-theistic arguments.
That verbal trick provides your beliefs with a shell, which is impenetrable to any opposing argument.
In a sense your beliefs are unfalsifiable.
'Disbelief in deities' is not a vision of the world, but your anti-theism sure as heck is a vision of the world, for example above mentioned science vs. religion paradigm.
