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

Got cold beer in the freg. Come on over any time.

Any technology sufficiently advanced as to be outside the sphere of reference of the beholder meets the definition of "Miracle". I have yet to be convinced ANYTHING ever has ACTUALLY occurred which can be explained only as a "Miracle". I've always felt deus ex machina was inadequate. Just because one cannot explain something does not transport that thing to the realm of the theistic. Claims of resurected corpses and of lunchpail snacks feeding throngs are improbable enough to be dismissed in the lack of valid forensic evidence. Miracles, flying saucers, sasquatches, and fantastic aquatic monsters are of the same cloth to me ... a cloth used primarily to provide coverage for the willingly, even eagerly, gullible.

I just wondered whether you would change your mind, since you brought up "insufficient data." I thought, if you found sufficient data, would you then be convinced.

That is a little scary to me... that someone will change their entire belief system if, a big IF, something occurs to "convince" them. It makes it seem shaky.

Belief systems are a pretty shakey business to begin with. If i say "I believe i'll have a ham sammich," i've only expressed my probably behavior, which is based upon sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of the contents of the larder to be acceptable. If, however, i say "I believe the world rests upon the back of a giant, invisible turtle, which stands upon the back of a giant, invisible turtle, which stands upon the back of a giant, invisible turtle . . . etc." then i've entered a realm upon which speculation is purely random and refers to no personal experience or knowledge which is demonstrable. A scarey business altogether.

<I believe I'd like a ham sandwich, too.>

I am reminded of a former friend who became an overnight Mormon and then tried to convince everyone else to do the same. "But what if it IS TRUE?" was his mantra. "Don't you want to hedge your bets?"

Uhhh, no.

Couple of comments:

First of all, I do not personally consider atheism a religion -- and I think the arguments some are making to get to that point are dubious. Back in Abuzz, I participated in a long, drawn out thread devoted to discussing whether agnosticism and atheism were religions -- and I think by the end of the debate, the general consensus was that neither was a religion.

As Timber pointed out, however, atheism does manifest itself in two quite different ways:

a) Atheists who assert "I do not believe in God!"

b) Atheists who assert "I believe there are no gods."

An agnostic can easily identify with (a) -- and in fact, an agnostic can truthfully say "I do not believe in God!" (I dislike the word "believe" and seldom use it, preferring instead to use whatever word best fits whatever I am truly attempting to say.)

In any case, the expression "I do not believe in God" is not the exclusive property of atheists.

An agnostic cannot identify with (b) at all. In my opinion, atheists who express their atheism that way are simply "believers" just like theists -- except they happen to "believe" the opposite of what the theists "believe." And because of that, just as the burden of proof for the theistic assertion "There is a God" falls on the theists -- the burden of proof for the atheistic assertion "There are no gods" falls on the atheists.

So while atheism is not a religion, it certainly can be a "belief system" -- and in this instance, it is.

In any case, since neither atheists nor theists can come close to meeting that burden of proof, they really ought to abandon their positions in favor of something more akin to agnosticism.

Just my opinion, of course.

Certainly, should sufficient incontravertable data be presented, one would be forced to the conclusion that a reappraisal of theretofore held conviction would be in order. That happens all the time in any of the academic pursuits. That is precisely the point of the Scientific Method. While the data and experiential references available do not support the existence of a deity, or of anything metaphysical, they do not preclude the existance of such. There at present simply is "Insufficient Data".

Not scary at all ... my "Belief System" is based entirely upon the best available evidence of which I am aware. There may be, or may come to be, evidence of which I am presently unaware. Should I become aware of conclusive evidence, in my mind the matter would change from "Unresolved" to "Resolved", one way or the other. My belief system is quite unshaken by the possibility of revision pursuant to additional information; that is the whole point of it. There really is no paradox to the statement "There are no absolutes". All things are subject to condition and degree. Absolutely :wink:

Okay then, what would it take to convince you there was a god? Can you design an experiment that would provide proof?

My experience with atheists is that they are very far from "being a religion," but rather are a political sub-group, one which believes (based on our history, the Constitution) we are meant to live our public lives in a secular society.

That doesn't (in my view) exclude the existence of religious belief, churches, etc. What it does do, or would like to do, is make sure religious belief doesn't impose itself directly on public life, in public schools. No problem having a religious president; problem having "God" appear on coinage, in political rhetoric, at school football games.

But these pretty sane restrictions are being protested by fundamentalists (mostly) and that's what has exacerbated the relationship. It has been convenient for fundamentalists to portray secularism as "a religion," because they can then claim their religion is getting short shrift in the public arena.

Neither atheism nor secularism are a religion. They are socio-political beliefs that our public life should take place in a kind of neutral territory in which we can all meet, regardless of personal spiritual beliefs, and without the intrusion of any of those beliefs.

(The moment someone stands up and cries, "That not fair! Take "God" out of the public schools? Not fair!", ask them whether this year we could substitute Buddha or Satan. No, for the most part militant pro-religious people want their personal beliefs and only their personal beliefs to hold sway! Well, we all do. That's why we need neutral territory to work out our public life.)

Well said, Tartarin.

Piffka, that's a question I've long wrestled with (Jesuit Education and all that, you know). In short, no, I have not yet been able to design such an experiment, nor have I encountered any such designed by others, though I've looked with vigor and great interest. Frankly, I would very much like for there to be a deity, but I see no empirical basis from which to expect there is one. To my mind, the very panoply of contradictory, contentious religions, schisms, sects, and god concepts throughout history mitigate strongly against the validity of concept, something I find dismaying, but not particularly unsettling ... there is always, or at least yet, the possibility there is one. Nothing of which I am aware categorically precludes that.

Tartar, You pretty much have it analyzed and scrutinized as most atheists see religion in this country. The problem is that's exactly what they're supposed to be doing. c.i.

So far, timber has put forth what I think of in terms of atheism: it is a-religious rather than irreligious. All of us have seen atheism used in a rather evangelical way when arguing against religion; that, to me, is irreligious, not a-religious.

Tartarin, your definition is probably the most contemporary view, but it describes a social construct, without defining atheism.

As for the poll, the third choice was the winner by such a large margin, that it doesn't seem to be a problem in this crowd.

Since I was late, as usual, I looked up atheism and found a detailed and objective definition put out by the Catholic church, as follows. I have included an excerpt and the link to the entire article.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

Atheism
(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Diane, Most of us just use the current definition from our dictionary. c.i.

I like that definition, Diane. Amazing that the pagans used to call the Christians atheists. That Catholic Encyclopedia is created by the Jesuits, I think, and is quite thorough. A handy reference!

Tartarin - I agree almost completely with your rundown of the subject except for the commonality between atheists and secularists. I think someone can be a secularist and also religious and. though they may rally behind a political statement, I don't see atheists as having a socio-political belief. They can certainly be slandered by politicos, but to me, anyway, atheism is an individual's discovery of an internal (for them) truth.

Timber -- Not being able to design a good enough experiment is the reason that I see the "insufficient data" as being shaky. I can't come up with anything but the most absurd experiments that would prove an existence of any kind of god. In general, I think that religious folk, believers, have a "strong feeling" that they are correct in their assumption of beliefs. Who can argue with that? Who can test it, except themselves? Of course, believers are in a continual state of positive reinforcement by their fellowship group to maintain that feeling. That's why a "crisis of faith" can be so upsetting -- they usually cannot even discuss it with their cronies without becoming outcast.

c.i. the dictionary definitions posted were fine, but this article puts it into a much more complex light as to philosophy and perception.

Piffka -- You said it yourself when you use commonality. There's a link, a point of view in common, but they are not identical.

Diane, Espansion of our knowledge is one of the reasons I enjoy A2K. Your contributions are always appreciated. I had to chuckle, though, when I read "and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero." c.i.

PS -- The word "atheist" is so self-evident that it scarcely needs definition. As the amoral person sets himself outside of a particular code, so the a-theist sets himself outside of the belief in god. We are too polite to be "im-theists" -- anti god!

c.i., lol. That old saying, "Perception is reality," holds true in just about any situation.

You have not met Mr. Piffka! I have to hold him back from offending god and everybody else.