The Morman hypothetical

[Hopper]

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.

Well, in practice, at least, so does catholicism, judaism, or about any other major "religion" I spoze, so I'm not sure that's a distinguishing factor

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.

Well, "positive teachings" aren't the only things that motivate people. Just being "against" sumthin is enough, and opposition alone will invariably generate "positive" values, like the KKK has (or thinks it has). To oppose sumthin, you must pay rigorous attention to the things you "must" do, and of course those things must be (or appear to be) the opposite of what your hated enemy does/values. Two negatives always make a positive. If you wanted, I spoze you could say that christians base their faith, in part, on the assumption that atheism lacks merit.

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

Well, I would too, but I don't think that alone would disqualify them from bein "religious."

 

[Hopper]

I don't claim to know anything about world religions or comparative religion, but it seems to me that there are "creeds" that have traditionally been considered to be religious, that have little or nothing to do with the "supernatural." Buddism and Taoism (or at least certain sects thereof) come to mind. Anyone can make "belief in the supernatural" an essential criterion for what they choose to call "religion," but I'm not convinced any such criterion has been applied as a rule by the majority of people. I might personally be more inclined to call buddism a "philosopy" than a "religion," but again, I don't really know that much about it. I'm not sure where the distinction lies. Any systematic set of beliefs generally carries a heavy dose of philosophy with it--Thomism and catholicism, for example.

 

[Hopper]

Gosh dammit, this is two posts in two days that I agree with Taint.

Just curious, Bum...do you agree because you think it's Sharpie? I'm pretty sure it is, now, my own damn self.

 

[One Brow]

Well, in practice, at least, so does catholicism, judaism, or about any other major "religion" I spoze, so I'm not sure that's a distinguishing factor

In practice, you can have a religion and choose not to structure your moral around it, absolutely. However, if you choose to structure your morals around Catholicism (as an example), then you will be anti-abortion-rights, anti-euthanasia, and anti-death-penalty. The teachings of the Church are very clear on these issues. By contrast, I am unaware of single moral principle that can be derived from either stroong atheism or simple theism.

Well, "positive teachings" aren't the only things that motivate people. Just being "against" sumthin is enough, and opposition alone will invariably generate "positive" values, like the KKK has (or thinks it has).

Strong atheism does not oppose anything. To oppose something, you have to believe it exists.

If you wanted, I spoze you could say that christians base their faith, in part, on the assumption that atheism lacks merit.

Probably some do.

Well, I would too, but I don't think that alone would disqualify them from bein "religious."

I agree, that is not the reason for the disqualification.

 

[One Brow]

I don't claim to know anything about world religions or comparative religion, but it seems to me that there are "creeds" that have traditionally been considered to be religious, that have little or nothing to do with the "supernatural." Buddism and Taoism (or at least certain sects thereof) come to mind. Anyone can make "belief in the supernatural" an essential criterion for what they choose to call "religion," but I'm not convinced any such criterion has been applied as a rule by the majority of people. I might personally be more inclined to call buddism a "philosopy" than a "religion," but again, I don't really know that much about it. I'm not sure where the distinction lies. Any systematic set of beliefs generally carries a heavy dose of philosophy with it--Thomism and catholicism, for example.

I have heard of sects of Buddhism that have no gods, and would not be surprised if there were also Taoist sects. I have no problem calling such sects atheistic. However, I am unaware of any Buddhist sects that disbelieve in an immortal soul, reincarnation, etc. Taoism seems to be deeply entrenched in notions like chi and spritual energy. Both of these sets of beliefs are used to offer priciples for living, moral behavior, etc. So, They would still be religions in that sense, more so than deism or plain theism.

 

[Hopper]

Well, Eric, like I said before, everyone is free to define "religious" in a way that suits them. I may be in the minority, but for me, being "religious" has virtually nuthin to do, per se, with mere "beliefs." I don't care much about what sumbuddy professes to "believe in." I don't care much about whether they have joined some established institution, or pledged themselves to adhere to a particular code of conduct.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and lip service paid to doctrinaire canons says little to me. The question for me would not really be what a person's particular set of beliefs are, but rather the degree to which they rely on those beliefs as a primary guide and motivation for their actions, on a principled, consistent basis.

To me, a person without integrity cannot be truly "religious," regardless of the "beliefs" they profess to have adopted. Winston Churchill was once asked which of the "virtues" he thought was primary and most important. He replied that it had to be "courage," because, he reasoned, none of the other virtues would even be possible without it.

 

[One Brow]

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and lip service paid to doctrinaire canons says little to me. The question for me would not really be what a person's particular set of beliefs are, but rather the degree to which they rely on those beliefs as a primary guide and motivation for their actions, on a principled, consistent basis.

That is a reasonable take on one of the less common definitions. So, I'm still waiting to hear how a belief that there are no gods can serve as a primary motivation and guide for actions on a rincipled, consistant basis.

Nice Churchill quote. He rocked, eh?

 

[Hopper]

That is a reasonable take on one of the less common definitions. So, I'm still waiting to hear how a belief that there are no gods can serve as a primary motivation and guide for actions on a rincipled, consistant basis.

Nice Churchill quote. He rocked, eh?

Winny ROCKS, sho nuff! "Winston! You are drunk," said Lady Ashley. His reply was "Yes madam, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly."

Well, Eric, I thought I kinda done explained alla that. The belief is just a startin point. Belief in God doesn't gitcha to some Thomistic catholic doctrine--ya gotta work at it.

Once you identify yourself as an "atheist," certain paths become open to you, so it's a startin point. Now you can be taught to HATE theists. Now you can make a devoted career out of ridiculing them, and resolving to undermine every goal they may seek. That takes dedication and devotion...eternal viligence and commitment, if you're a "true believer." It kinda gives ya a day-to-day agenda, and all, see?

 

[One Brow]

Well, Eric, I thought I kinda done explained alla that. The belief is just a startin point. Belief in God doesn't gitcha to some Thomistic catholic doctrine--ya gotta work at it.

Absolutely. Unless you actually are a Catholic, of course. Then you don't merely accept plain theism, you have incorporated an array of beliefs about the Bible, the Church, and the nature of life. I thought we already agreed plain theism was not much of a religion.

Once you identify yourself as an "atheist," certain paths become open to you, so it's a startin point. Now you can be taught to HATE theists. Now you can make a devoted career out of ridiculing them, and resolving to undermine every goal they may seek. That takes dedication and devotion...eternal viligence and commitment, if you're a "true believer." It kinda gives ya a day-to-day agenda, and all, see?

Very few atheists hate theists, or even religion. Most just want to be not judged morally inferior because of their lack of belief. Not to mention there are several religious people who also oppose the goals of various religious organizations. If you honestly think most atheist organizations are dominated by a hatred for theists, you might have a persecution complex.

 

[Hopper]

Very few atheists hate theists, or even religion....If you honestly think most atheist organizations are dominated by a hatred for theists, you might have a persecution complex.

Eric, this whole thing started with Edgewriter suggesting that atheism could itself take a form that was akin to religion. Some, including yourself initially, appeared to scoff at, or at least reject, that suggestion. I agreed with him. The ardent fevor and devotion with which some atheists proseltyze for their cause and oppose those who don't accept it strike me as being at least quasi-religious in nature. You appear to have at least paritally conceded this point:

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

I have not tried to quantify the number of atheists who treat their "creed" as a virtual religion. I merely pointed out that I think it can, and does, happen in "certain cases." I have not treated the question as an all or nothing proposition. Others here have, but I haven't.

Edit: P.S.: (1) They wouldn't be "persecuting" me, even if they hated theists. (2) I didn't even claim that athiest hate "theists," per se, although I suspect some do, more or less. Regardless of how many actually hate theists, as individuals, the hatred I was referring to was directed toward theism, not necessary it's adherents.

That said, many seem to quickly make it "personal," and expressly posit, as part of their "platform," the goal of ridiculing, mocking and attempting to personally "humiliate" adherents of religion.

 

[One Brow]

Eric, this whole thing started with Edgewriter suggesting that atheism could itself take a form that was akin to religion. Some, including yourself initially, appeared to scoff at, or at least reject, that suggestion. I agreed with him. The ardent fevor and devotion with which some atheists proseltyze for their cause and oppose those who don't accept it strike me as being at least quasi-religious in nature. You appear to have at least paritally conceded this point:

You seem to have left out that I conceded this in the manner the the Utah Jazz can act in the capacity of a religion for some people in that regard. I was also clear that this does not make teh Utah Jazz a religion, any more than it makes strong atheism a relgion.

I have not tried to quantify the number of atheists who treat their "creed" as a virtual religion. I merely pointed out that I think it can, and does, happen in "certain cases." I have not treated the question as an all or nothing proposition. Others here have, but I haven't.

I agree you have not done that. My objections are the blurring of boundaries, and to the notion that strong atheism is in some way a doorway to hating religions. Now, I could agree that atheism would free you from the guilt/self-loathing you would otherwise feel if you were a religious person who hated religions. But the atheism itself is not a source nor guide in the development of such despite.

Edit: P.S.: (1) They wouldn't be "persecuting" me, even if they hated theists. (2) I didn't even claim that athiest hate "theists," per se, although I suspect some do, more or less. Regardless of how many actually hate theists, as individuals, the hatred I was referring to was directed toward theism, not necessary it's adherents.

That said, many seem to quickly make it "personal," and expressly posit, as part of their "platform," the goal of ridiculing, mocking and attempting to personally "humiliate" adherents of religion.

I agree that some atheists hate theists generally. Nothing about being an atheist prevents you from being militant, a fanatic, just plain rude, etc.

 

[Hopper]

Some have suggested that "ritual" is an essential part of religion. Well, rituals can be negative too, eh?:

"Within the past year, "de-baptism" ceremonies have attracted as many as 250 participants at atheist conventions in Ohio, Texas, Florida and Georgia. More have taken place on college campuses in recent years, according to Hemant Mehta, chair of the board of directors for the Secular Student Alliance, a group that promotes atheism among high school and college students

... a robed "priest" used a hairdryer marked "reason" in an apparent bid to blow away the waters of baptism once and for all. For Gray [it] served a higher purpose than merely spoofing a Christian rite."It was very therapeutic," Gray said in an interview. "...It helped me admit that it was OK to think the way I think and to not have any religious beliefs."

De-baptism efforts have been growing internationally in recent years. More than 100,000 Britons downloaded de-baptism certificates from the National Secular Society (NSS) between 2005 and 2009, according to NSS campaigner Stephen Evans...Atheist groups expect more de-baptisms in years ahead. Mehta, of the Secular Students Alliance, says college groups already bring blow driers to campus recruitment events, offering to de-baptize undergraduates on the spot.

Not all American non-believers have warmed to de-baptism rituals. Secularist Phil Zuckerman, a Pitzer College sociologist who studies apostates, said he would never take part in such an event because it "feels intrinsically negative" and "immature."

https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-21-atheists-debaptism_N.htm

 

[Hopper]

My objections are the blurring of boundaries, and to the notion that strong atheism is in some way a doorway to hating religions...But the atheism itself is not a source nor guide in the development of such despite.

Atheism doesn't even have to be the primary tenet in a given creed to be "essential." As this author notes:

"What is the purpose of the atheistic agenda? Karl Marx recognized organized religion as a threat to the socialization of the worker because it preached lessons of love and loyalty. Marx believed that loyalty focused on a supreme being would inhibit the formation of a communist state. Stalin learned from this and took steps to limit religion in the USSR, closing churches or converting them into schools or theaters. Religious icons were destroyed and religious meetings were banned. Those who violated these rules lived in fear of being discovered by Stalin’s police.

In Emmet F. Field’s Atheism: An Affirmative View, published in 1980, Fields goes to painstaking lengths to repute any anti-atheistic jargon that Christians have used. However, the one claim made by Christians with which Fields agrees is the role that atheism has played in the success of communism. “There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of communism … Atheism is, has been, and will continue to be, the force for progress throughout the Communist world,” he writes.

Of course, not all atheists should be indicted for supporting or advocating communism..."

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/3051-atheists-are-at-it-again

 

[One Brow]

Atheism doesn't even have to be the primary tenet in a given creed to be "essential." ...

So some dictators, rather than trust the indirect loyalty afforded to the church by the adherents and then to the state by the church, decided to cut out the middleman, and try to harass the human tendency for directly for the service of the state. This shows atheism to be a source of moral guidance in what way? Or, is your point that atheism can change a person's understanding of what the source of that guidance could be? I don't argue that latter point, but ruling sources of guidance out or in as possibilities is not offering guidance.

As for de-baptism, that sounds like a personal ritual for people who need transitional riturals. How does atheism teach that such rituals are appropriate?

 

[Hopper]

So Or, is your point that atheism can change a person's understanding of what the source of that guidance could be? I don't argue that latter point, but ruling sources of guidance out or in as possibilities is not offering guidance.

Well, we agree then. Neither of us seem to claim that mere "theism" leads one to accept the tenents of the catholic church (for example only--could be some Protestant denomination, Islam, whatever) as a source of guidance. Nor does mere "atheism," standing alone, provide a "source of guidance." But each could be a prequisite for a chosen "source of guidance," one which is at least consistent with the (a)theistic belief of choice. That's my point.

As for de-baptism, that sounds like a personal ritual for people who need transitional riturals. How does atheism teach that such rituals are appropriate?

Yeah, I don't think it's too relevant, actually. I only brought it up for the comparison of the activities of (some) atheists with those of (some) theists, for contemplation by those who think "rituals" are an essential element of "religion." Again, mere "theism" does not "teach" that, e.g., "holy communion" is important, either. What the unadorned belief "teaches" is nuthin, in either case. As I said before, that aint the issue. Either way the (a)theistic belief can be an essential element of a more formalized and highly structured belief system that is relied upon as "guidance."

 

[VINYLONE]

Wow, this thread really went off when I was gone.

 

[moevillini]

Wow, this thread really went off when I was gone.

kinda like a blast of "hydration" to the face, eh?

 

[Hopper]

kinda like a blast of "hydration" to the face, eh?

When you sez it, Mo, it's HOT! When Vinny sez it, just downright disgustin, that's all.