The "religion" of non-religion! A discussion!

Let me start the discussion with this:

1) I am an agnostic. I do not know if God exists; I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if there are no gods -- and I personally do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful, reasonable guess in any of those directions.

2) I personally think (estimate) that there is enough evidence upon which to base a reasonable guess about the Bible and the god described in that book.

It is my guess (estimate based on reasonable consideration) that the Bible primarily is a rather self-serving history of the early Hebrew people -- written by relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious ancient Hebrews -- and which has, in my opinion, a half-baked mythology interwoven into it.

The god described in the first five books of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, quick-to-anger, mean-spirited, deceitful, murderous, barbaric tyrant -- with almost no redeeming features. The next 1000 pages of the Bible are devoted to books in which people pretty much fawn all over this god -- but that is understandable considering how vicious the god is. Fear provokes lots of protestations of love and adoration - as people like Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Caligula, Nero could tell you.

In any case, I think there is enough evidence upon which to base a guess that the god of the Bible is a joke -- no closer to being real than is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy -- and not nearly as nice as any of those others.

I see absolutely no virtue to being a follower or devotee of this god.

3) I know many agnostics and atheists. They are as dignified, as intelligent, as honest, as ethical, as moral, as hard-working, as successful, as loyal, as interesting and as subject to error as any of the religious people I know. In fact, I personally think a greater percentage of the agnostics and atheists I know are trustworthy than the percentage of religious people I know. And (this is only my personal experience) there appears to me to be a greater percentage of religious people who exhibit hypocritical traits than the agnostics and atheists.

4) The agnostics and atheists I know get the material for their personal set of ethics and morals from a variety of sources -- accepting some from some places, while reject others from the same places. The agnostics and atheists are, as I indicated above, more likely (as a percentage) to live up to the standards they have set for themselves than their religious counterparts.



So...let's see where this start takes us.

Personally, I don't need a doctrine to dictate how I should conduct my life.
I think if you use you're brain logically, the only conclusion to be reached is to lead a "decent, moral, ethical" life. But it seems some people do need that guidance. If that helps them, I don't see the harm in religion if it keeps someone from harming me and others.

But the problems come in when you try to define what's" decent, moral and ethical" and so many of the worlds problems past, present and future have stemmed from and will be molded by religious beliefs, in my opinion.

Sheesh maliagar! I've been reading your comments about the "religion of no religion" on the other thread, and I'm glad Frank started this here because it seems like the perfect place to rant on this point..

Calling atheism a "religion" is like calling bald a hair color. All the atheists have done is step back a couple of paces from the majority viewpoint and ask the simple question 'Is it true?' and 'Can you prove it?'
Atheists believe that any discussion of things theological will never make any kind of sense. Hence the word nonsense.

There is no religion to atheism. Atheism relies on what may or may not be proved. No one has ever offered up a shred of proof for religion, and atheists are under no burden to help the religious find their missing proof.

Take a bow mate.

CdK, is that a lobster holding it's own fork? How grim.

(yeah, I know it's a devil.)

Oh the avatar? Thems be random so till ya got to the devil part I had no idea what you were talking about.

What gets me is that so many pre-Judeo-Christian texts (Greek and Roman mythology come to mind, off the top of my head) are today treated as simple literature, the crazy but interesting ramblings of a primitive culture long gone. Let's just face it, it's only a matter of time before our current bible gets the same treatment. It should be taken for what it is.

Religious people are not more moral/ethical than non-religious people. In fact, I share Frank's observation that in many cases, "a greater percentage of religious people exhibit hypocritical traits than the agnostics and atheists." I didn't read any of maliagar's comments in other threads, but IMHO, simply the inference that one person is more moral/ethical than another because of their beliefs is itself immoral and unethical.

As far as "the religion of non-religion" goes, there is a definition of religion on Dictionary.com that says this:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

So if *that* definition is used, then anything could be considered a religion (even agnostic activism ).

The other definitions, though all have something to do with supernatural powers, spiritualism, the organization of people with those beliefs, etc. I must note that at the bottom of the page is a definition of religion from jargon.com (a hacker site) that mentions "paying homage to wizards", and after reading that, I'm even more curious about what Craven's trying to say in his little description!

The majority of agnostics/athiests I know, though, don't persue their either their uncertainty or their lack of belief with zeal or conscientious devotion. Unless there is a great movement of organized groups of these people, I don't see how either could be seen as a religion.

A more apt analogy would be to use "Hair Style" instead of "hair color". And bald can be the result of a hairstyle.



What? Atheists "believe"? One of the common definitions of "religion" is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

Since you have a defined group (Atheists) with a common belief (according to your own words - "any discussion of things theological will never make any kind of sense.") and many seem to defend that belief with ardor you do have the basis of a "religion" there...

Regardless of cause, it is still a lack of hair color/style.


Nice turnabout indeed. Let me attempt to rephrase... Many atheists do not say there is no god! The majority simply say the burden of proof is on the theist and until the theist comes up with proof, they will not believe in a god. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods and that is the only thing atheists have in common.

You are playing with a non-standard definition of "Atheism". From Merriam-Webster: Athesim: "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity".

If your atheist leaves room for the possibility that there might be a god then they aren't an atheist. They are an agnostic.

fishin,

Besides being creative with your reinvention of definitions what's the point?

Are you saying that anyone who has ever asserted something to be true is religious?

So if I say: "so and so is my dad" you will say that:

A) I believe it's my dad.
B) That I have "faith" that my mom didn't sleep with the milkman

And that you conclude that I'm religious? The arguments you pose are simply a way of naming people "religious" who don't want to be and who reject religion.

If you have such a bone to pick about how Monger phrased it try this one:

Atheists do NOT believe in.... blah blah blah

Because the way you argue here anyone who has an opinion is religious. If you don't believe in aliens then you BELIEVE there are no aliens and if you believe..

It's really a silly way to brand atheists as religious. It's on the intellectual level of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Just because theists don't like to be branded the way they are does not mean that the whole damn universe is now religious.

It's just a way for theists to fight the stigma of the word and has no basis. It's like finding out that someone doesn't liek being called something and then calling them that.

Fishin, I did not say atheists are agnostics. I said they say the burden of proof lies with "believers". I know many athiests who say simply that the reason they do not believe in god is because there is no proof of god, not because it is something they have locked into their own minds. I'm not aware of definitions of athiesm these people wouldn't be categorized under.

Being the logic-embracing people they like to think they are, I honestly think you'd find atheists very likely to change their mind in the highly unlikely event that solid proof of the existance of a deity is established somehow at some point.

It's also an attempt to equate two lines of reasoning and hold them up as equal in merit.

Replace religion with a belief in the tooth fairy and it's evident how ludicrous that argument is.

A believes in the tooth fairy.
B does not believe in the tooth fairy

According to your logic because B does not believe in the tooth fairy a simple word game will result in B believing that there is no tooth fairy and B is now a believer, just like A.

But what is lacking in this example is the name. Religious DOES NOT mean anyone who holds any belief. That si where I accuse you of being creative with definitions.

You are simply trying to call those who do not believe in the tooth fairy tooth fairyists simply because the belief has a negative stigma.

I just had lunch and God spoke to me:

I think there is a validity in the desire to equate Atheism with theism but not to term atheism a religion.

I say this because atheists can use the lack of theism to define themselves as much as theists might use their beliefs to define them.

And as we all know atheists and agnostics can be as dogmatic and zealous as any theist.

So in that I must add there is validity.

But to call one who rejects religion religious is a bit of a strech.

I would concede that it can easily be just as much of a way of life though.

Quite simply, atheism refers specifically to the belief that there is no deity, i.e, an omnipitent god figure. Atheists by definition are free to believe in powers beyond their control, and if that comes down to aliens, or science fiction, so be it, as long as they don't call it god.

(That was a very funny digression, CdK... Thanks. You're really being put upon by your boss, but at least he seems to realize it.)

I wonder about making a generalization as to whether believers are better people than non-believers. I know good and bad people from both sides of the question. However, there seem to be some believers of all faiths, not just Christian or Muslim or Jewish, who feel that as long as they hold to a certain belief standard within their own group, they don't need to be universally good to all. THAT doesn't seem right.

There are also many who mouth platitudes while not living them.

In addition, Einstein said and I believe it to be true:

Therefore, an ethical person who doesn't need to rely on his convictions of faith or a set of rules with a religious basis has a stronger claim to being a better person.

I don't think it has anything to do with religion but as a Christian I had less emphasis on morals.

I don't think it's because of Christianity but because when I stopped believing I had to think, I was not told what was right or wrong and I had to decide.

It changed me.

But I'm still bad.