The Morman hypothetical

[Scat]

Gosh dammit, this is two posts in two days that I agree with Taint. Someone kill me now, please.

It could be worse. It cold be Bean that you are agreeing with. Just saying.

 

[TroutBum]

It could be worse. It cold be Bean that you are agreeing with. Just saying.

I don't care if he tells me the world is round and that the ocean is salty -- I will NEVER agree with that 'guy'.


*hooray for FREE money*

 

[moevillini]

...Probably very few words have one, and only one, meaning. It doesn't mean that any of the different meanings are "wrong."

...Kind of like "douche". So many meanings to that word.

meanwhile, back at the ranch....

some of us are still trying to understand the true meaning of NOTHING

 

[Hopper]

From Atheists.org:

"Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God" and/or "denial of God. [Like newer ones don't, eh? Yeah, right] ... atheists certainly do not "deny" that gods exist."

https://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

These militant atheist groups got the idea that they would get a wider audience if they denied that they denied God's existence. That's when the "newspeak" campaign began. Now they claim that "atheists certainly do not "deny" that gods exist," eh?

In truth, the typical member of such groups not only vehemently denies the existence of god, but HATES all things religious and seeks to destroy them. These groups often thrive on ridiculing, insulting, and attempting to humiliate religious believers.

Some excerpts from an article written a sympathetic religion editor at "the Age," Barney Zwartz, about "what organisers believe to be the world's biggest atheist conference:"

"One lesson the atheist movement is learning, as the convention shows, is that it must broaden its appeal, reaching out to secularists, rationalists and others... the speakers should probably have spent less time ridiculing religion and more on positive and practical ideas...It was superfluous for speaker after speaker to point out that believers are deluded fantasists who believe in a magic friend who does magic tricks...

Many there would be horrified at how similar it was to evangelical meetings I have covered, down to the bouffant-haired televangelist prototype in Atheist Alliance International president Stuart Bechman, who was master of ceremonies. Every jibe brought a burst of applause - all that was missing was the "hallelujahs".

What was missing was any sign of self-deprecation. Atheism will be a mature movement in Australia when atheists can laugh not just at the religious, but at themselves."

https://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12266

"What was missing was any sign of self-deprecation"<---- Well, this is serious bidnizz, ya know?

 

[Hopper]

Strong atheists certainly have a belief system, although I would not call it a religion.

Ya really think some of these atheists aren't devoted fundamental evangelicist types who are out to proselytize and convert 24/7, Eric?

"Michael Shermer, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott and others are probably right that contemptuous ridicule is not an expedient way to change the minds of those who are deeply religious. But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt." Richard Dawkins

 

[One Brow]

Ya really think some of these atheists aren't devoted fundamental evangelicist types who are out to proselytize and convert 24/7, Eric?

I disagree that proselytization implies an undertaking is religious.

Perhaps, rather than try to define the ontological status of a belief system by the behavior of a minority of people who accept it, you could put som eeffort into justifying that ontology?

 

[Hopper]

Awww, I don't really care about elaborate attempts to define sumthin, eh, Eric? Dark cited an essay by some militant atheist anthropologist which I presume you looked at. I did too, but not too carefully. But many would seemingly define "religion" to include devotion to such "creeds" as communism, secular humanism (which the Supreme Court is this country has said is a "religious" organization entitled to first amendment protection and tax exempt status, etc), existentialism, etc.

I quoted a dictionary definition (one of several) which made "faith" and "ardor," as opposed to a specific content, a defining element of religious devotion and belief.. If you want to exclude all defintions of "religion" from your thinking, other than a very narrow one which you prefer, help yourself. I don't care if you call the same thing "religious" that I do.

 

[Hopper]

But the fanaticism, zeal, and dedication with which some atheists attempt to spread their "gospel," strikes me as bein very similar to some on the theistic side, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Hopper]

An excerpt from (just one of many available) treastises arguing that secular humanism is, and should be treated as, a religion:

"In June 1951 The Humanist published an article by Manifesto signer Edwin H. Wilson, “Humanism: The Fourth Faith.” He wrote:

Today, I am suggesting that there is in the world as a present and potent faith, embraced by vast numbers, yet seldom mentioned — a fourth faith — namely Humanism. This fourth faith — with rare exceptions such as some Universalist or Unitarian churches, a few independent Humanist Fellowships and the Ethical Societies — has no church to embody it…. Theirs is a secular faith.” According to Wilson, the other three faiths are Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/3001-is-humanism-a-religion

 

[Hopper]

Of course the potential problem humanism, when calling itself a religion, encounters is that it wants to establish itself as the dominant belief system in the public schools:

Humanist editor Joe R. Burnett suggested as much in the Nov.-Dec. 1961 issue of The Humanist (p. 347) when arguing in favor of federal aid to education. He said:

“Humanists obviously have a vital interest in the passage of a strong bill for federal aid to public education. Without wanting to push the analogy too far, one might say that public education is the parochial education for scientific humanism.”

(same site as above)

 

[Hopper]

meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Meanwhile, back at the oasis....

Omar was under the fig tree, eatin his date.

Hay, Mo! Ya wanna be my date next Friday? I'll take ya ta Red's Road House, and even buy the first round, eh!? Waddaya say!?

 

[Hopper]

Here's a lil serenade, eh, Mo?

Gots me a hot rod Fode, anna two-dolla bill...
An I knowz a joint just up ovva da hill...
They gotz ice-cold beer anna sawdust flo....
Cmon, Purty Mama, we can rock and roll!

Sedda, Hay, there, Good-lookin....Watcha gotz cookin? Howze bout cookin sumthin up wit me!?

 

[One Brow]

Awww, I don't really care about elaborate attempts to define sumthin, eh, Eric? Dark cited an essay by some militant atheist anthropologist which I presume you looked at. I did too, but not too carefully. But many would seemingly define "religion" to include devotion to such "creeds" as communism, secular humanism (which the Supreme Court is this country has said is a "religious" organization entitled to first amendment protection and tax exempt status, etc), existentialism, etc.

I quoted a dictionary definition (one of several) which made "faith" and "ardor," as opposed to a specific content, a defining element of religious devotion and belief.. If you want to exclude all defintions of "religion" from your thinking, other than a very narrow one which you prefer, help yourself. I don't care if you call the same thing "religious" that I do.

You quoted: "Main Entry: re·li·gion 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

Under this definition, being a fan of the Utah Jazz is a religion. However, no one would call the Utah Jazz a religion on it's own. It's the ardor/devotion of the fan that makes it like a religion to the person. I don't feel the need to exclude all definitions of religion, but I do separate the metaphorical definitions from the ontological. Strong atheism is not a religion, even though it acts in that capacity for some atheists.

 

[Hopper]

Strong atheism is not a religion, even though it acts in that capacity for some atheists.

Well, why not, eh, Eric? It does, after all, preach reliable conclusions about the existence of a supreme bein, the existence of an afterlife, all that kinda stuff, don't it? Aint that sumthin ya can kinda structure your life, beliefs, activities and morals around? I mean, it deals with the BIG questions, don't it? One has a basic obligation to his fellow man to convert others to that kinda truth, don't he?

 

[Hopper]

If your contention is that one simple belief, standin all by itself, is insufficient to be called a religion, I see your point, but that aint really the issue here. Theism, in isolation, is not a "religion" either, but it's got the makins of one.

 

[Hopper]

skip, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Repost:

Ah, so we're bringing Philosophy into the argument now. Scientific method be damned, we have PHILOSOPHY to solve all our problems.

Are you of the opinion, Dark, that analysis of belief systems, etc., is a "scientific" matter, rather than a more or less philosophical one?

Yes. What do you think Anthropology is about?

Well, Dark, I don't rightly know just exactly what all anthropology is about, truth be told. But if ya wanna know how it relates to religion and the "scientific method," ya might wanna read the very first sentence of that anthropologist you cited, eh?:

"The anthropological literature on religion is diverse and voluminous, but there is one common perspective that pervades virtually that entire body of work, and that is the conviction that the epistemological principles of the scientific method cannot and/or should not be applied to the content of religious beliefs..."

https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm

 

[Hopper]

Hmm, seems sumbuddy gimme another red rep hit for that last post, eh!? With fanmail attached, even!: "Jump off a cliff, you sack of balls. I hate you."

That you, Sharpie?

 

[One Brow]

Well, why not, eh, Eric? It does, after all, preach reliable conclusions about the existence of a supreme bein, the existence of an afterlife, all that kinda stuff, don't it?

As reliable as any other belief system.

Aint that sumthin ya can kinda structure your life, beliefs, activities and morals around?

Not that I can see. Strong atheism fits equally well with communist and libertarian political views. It fits equally well with supporting or opposing abortion, the death penalty, or gun control.

Christians don't their beliefs or morals around the absence of reincarnation. Hindus don't structure theirs around an absence of salvation. These religions have positive teachings and points of view regarding morality. Such teachings are lacking in strong atheism.

I mean, it deals with the BIG questions, don't it? One has a basic obligation to his fellow man to convert others to that kinda truth, don't he?

I would classify an atheist with a need to convert as being at least slightly neurotic/insecure.

 

[One Brow]

If your contention is that one simple belief, standin all by itself, is insufficient to be called a religion, I see your point, but that aint really the issue here. Theism, in isolation, is not a "religion" either, but it's got the makins of one.

I don't think you could "structure your life, beliefs, activities and morals around" around merely saying "gods of some sort exist", so I agree that theism, per se, is not much of a religion. Theism has one one acpect that is more religious than strong atheism: the acceptance of the supernatural.