Atheism as Religion?

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
An atheist may be well-versed in philosophy, bioengineering, physics, etc., yet have a third-grade understanding of theology and scripture. As such, he should at least be willing to be taught.

Every argument for God being a mean, torturous tyrant is fundamentally flawed. Certainly such arguments can be and are made, but they are still fundamentally ...[text shortened]... begin a prosperous conversation with the atheist from a position unclouded by misrepresentation.

Whilst I disagree with the majority of your post, rather than argue from an atheist position, I'm going to give you the chance to explain to me and to try and illuminate the errors you believe exist in my epistemic framework. I am always on the search for improvements to it, and would genuinely welcome corrections, if there are any to be made. For the time being I am prepared to put aside my preconceptual notions and consider the problem as you lay it out. Can you convince me that my arguement is flawed?

Originally posted by rwingett
Besides the spelling, what is the difference between a non-theist and an atheist?

The concept it creates in the mind of the reader. The majority of people do not immediately see the a- part of atheist as being a negative, instead they see 'atheist' as a label for a group of people with a common set of beliefs which is untrue.
To illustrate, consider the difference between the terms 'colored' and 'non-white'. The second one is usually considered more politically correct because it is:
1. not so much of a label.
2. has less negative history attached to it.

In South Africa 'colored' usually refers to people who are non-white and non-black. One can talk about the 'colored' community which specifically refers to a community of people with a specific skin color. This may lead to the incorrect assumption that every person who is not black or not white has something in common other than their skin color.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The concept it creates in the mind of the reader. The majority of people do not immediately see the a- part of atheist as being a negative, instead they see 'atheist' as a label for a group of people with a common set of beliefs which is untrue.
To illustrate, consider the difference between the terms 'colored' and 'non-white'. The second one is usually ...[text shortened]... son who is not black or not white has something in common other than their skin color.

So except for the misinformed prejudices of a select group of readers, they are exactly the same. Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by rwingett
So except for the misinformed prejudices of a select group of readers, they are exactly the same. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. But the 'select group of readers' includes almost all the people I would be addressing my posts to and a significant number of the people who might ask me what my religion is in day to day life.
Notice how when someone says he is agnostic, you probably do not categorize him but rather ask more before making any judgments, but if someone says he is atheist he gets put in a category and told he has a specific religion (atheism) and people even make very specific judgments about what his 'world view' or 'set of beliefs' must be.
Interstingly if someone says he is Buddhist, people will often not realize that that may entail atheism and will categorize him completely differently.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. But the 'select group of readers' includes almost all the people I would be addressing my posts to and a significant number of the people who might ask me what my religion is in day to day life.
Notice how when someone says he is agnostic, you probably do not categorize him but rather ask more before making any judgments, but if someone says he is a ...[text shortened]... n not realize that that may entail atheism and will categorize him completely differently.

So you prefer to pander to the ignorance of the masses by implicitly buying into their miscategorization of atheism? When someone says they're an agnostic, I assume they do so because they do not really know what atheism means. A little education in this matter would do far more good in the long run than a little appeasement. People who know the actual definition of 'atheist' but still go shopping for alternate adjectives are guilty of gross intellectual cowardice.

There is a movement afoot by some 'non-theists' to adopt the presumably less confrontational name of 'brights.' I am hard pressed to come up with a more contemptible example of craven sophistry than that. Until atheists can hold their head up high and proudly use the term 'atheist', instead of slinking around like whipped curs, constantly apologizing for it, they'll forever find themselves on the defensive.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That was not cherry picking. Many English words have different usages, I was merely pointing out that the usage being used in this thread was 2 and 4.

If you look at 1 and 3 you will see that the do not refer to the usage that we are discussing in this thread.
For example if I say: "he pursued his studies with [b]religion". I think that would be 3. and it is a usage that is not being used in this thread.[/b]

The ones you didn't pick did show a reason why Atheism could be
thought of as a religion, I didn't even address those, but went to
the ones you did pick instead.

The use of the word while trying to define it is really a rat hole, it isn't
something I care to argue about when the subject is still be
discussed. You agree?
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
So you prefer to pander to the ignorance of the masses by implicitly buying into their miscategorization of atheism? When someone says they're an agnostic, I assume they do so because they do not really know what atheism means. A little education in this matter would do far more good in the long run than a little appeasement. People who know the actual defi ...[text shortened]... curs, constantly apologizing for it, they'll forever find themselves on the defensive.

I agree. The term brights sounds really stupid to me and actually seems to polarize more since it implies that others are not "bright".

It may not be easy, but it's better to fight to make sure people understand what atheism truly is instead of reinventing terms just to dodge a misunderstood one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I usually go for the nearest dictionary I can find. In this case it was Marriam Webster

[b]Religion
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century

1 a: the state of a religious
b ...[text shortened]... a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent zealous

I don't think atheism fits.[/b]

Here is the main reason I think Atheism is no different than any
religion.

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

As a people we all have our own views about things, we view the whole
of the universe an apply our own personal set of filters to it. Our own
personal set of filters being, how we believe the universe should be
looked at, they are our foundational world views. We think about sex
and we apply our views; we think about government we apply our
views; we think about time we apply our views, no matter what it is
we look at or discuss we are applying our foundational world views to
it. At the core of all of our beliefs are the plum lines that which we use
to look and judge truth, this lines up with the line we use for
justice so it is just, this lines up with righteousness so it is rightious,
this does not line up with fairness so it is unfair.

That plum line, that foundation view, colors everything else is as big
a deal we can possibly have! Before I became a Christian I didn't
believe in God, I didn't even think about God, God was not part of my
life growing up in any way of note, no one I knew believed or if they did
they did not talk about it. I didn't argue with those that knew or
claimed to know God, I didn't agree with those that didn't believe in
God. I use to think at that point I was an Atheist, but no longer I
didn't have a view it wasn't a subject I entertained what so ever.

I became a Christian in Jan 1980, a few years before that I was drawn
by God into a relationship with Him. So I became a believer before
I became a Christian, only in the fact that I now felt God was real, but
didn't activiely follow Him, or put much if any effort into my beliefs
about God until I did become a Christian.

With an Atheist there is an active cause, a system of beliefs, and
various principles to that belief system that are defended and people
are very active in pushing those here. If I were to accept that Atheism
were simply a ~belief in God and not a religion I don't believe I'd
see strong defences for the cause, an us against them attitude
towards believers and so on. As was pointed out by another here there
is something to that, that binds Atheist.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here is the main reason I think Atheism is no different than any
religion.

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

As a people we all have our own views about things, we view the whole
of the universe an apply our own personal set of filters to it. Our own
personal set of filters being, how we believe the universe s ...[text shortened]... as pointed out by another here there
is something to that, that binds Atheist.
Kelly

The problem here is the word 'faith'. You simply must ditinguish between matters of reasonable and justified belief, and matters of faith. Matters of justified belief are grown to upon evidence which can be empirically measured, ie they have values which can be noted and considered in respect to some verifiable scale. That's not the same as matters of faith, which while seemingly real to the person with faith, cannot be recorded accurately, verified, or measured. This makes atheism (weak at the least) and theism very different creatures within very different epistemic frameworks.

Originally posted by Starrman
The problem here is the word 'faith'. You simply must ditinguish between matters of reasonable and justified belief, and matters of faith. Matters of justified belief are grown to upon evidence which can be empirically measured, ie they have values which can be noted and considered in respect to some verifiable scale. That's not the same as matters of fa ...[text shortened]... at the least) and theism very different creatures within very different epistemic frameworks.

Athiest and Thiest are different no doubt about it, but theist are
different from each other too, that does not mean that theist are not
part of a religion. If you want the "RIGHT WAY" things must be looked
at, I'd say everyone wants that! If you want to claim one groups views
are the "reasonable and justified beliefs" I think each group of people
who view the universe the same way all feel they are doing just that!

If you can empirically measure something that isn't a matter of faith,
or belief, those are strickly numbers, what you tell me the numbers
mean, that can be where we part ways and faith becomes something
we now have to deal with. All belief systems have things they believe
that they cannot be proven wrong about, with some things it isn't a
big deal with others it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by Starrman
Whilst I disagree with the majority of your post, rather than argue from an atheist position, I'm going to give you the chance to explain to me and to try and illuminate the errors you believe exist in my epistemic framework. I am always on the search for improvements to it, and would genuinely welcome corrections, if there are any to be made. For the tim ...[text shortened]... s and consider the problem as you lay it out. Can you convince me that my arguement is flawed?

Perhaps. I can try. Which argument shall we tackle first? (And should we start a new thread?)

Originally posted by rwingett
So you prefer to pander to the ignorance of the masses by implicitly buying into their miscategorization of atheism? When someone says they're an agnostic, I assume they do so because they do not really know what atheism means. A little education in this matter would do far more good in the long run than a little appeasement. People who know the actual defi curs, constantly apologizing for it, they'll forever find themselves on the defensive.

People who know the actual definition of 'atheist' but still go shopping for alternate adjectives are guilty of gross intellectual cowardice.

Perhaps. The matter is as unimportant to me as an argument over whether Zen Buddhism is properly a religion or a philosophy. And, frankly, Robb, I think I’ve taken stronger atheistic positions than you have on here—stronger than your general “In the absence of evidence I withhold belief” position, anyway. For example, I have argued that there is no epistemic justification for the assumption of a supernatural category (without which there is no supernatural theism of any kind); and that at least certain conceptions of God (including what I take to be the most conventional Christian one—i.e., God as a supernatural individual/personal being whose existence is not bounded by natural dimensionality) are incoherent;* and, more simply, I have made my analogical “Orange Unicorn in the Refrigerator” argument that sometimes absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence. I have also argued for non-dualism (particularly the Zen variety).

Now, you might think such ventures to be foolish and unnecessary. But charges of intellectual cowardice are unwarranted. I have never charged that you hold to your “I have no burden of proof” out of cravenness. Nor do I now.

I’ll take your counsel, though, and from now on simply refer to myself as a non-dualist—and let those who are ignorant or burdened by misinformed prejudices about that go and study (or not). The same for those who think it is a term of intellectual cowardice.

* And that argument was not strictly reactionary; I started the thread and presented my argument. I was never quite sure that my argument was not over-burdened with semantic distinctions that could result in a strawman, but the debate was helping me to refine my terms; the thread died when lucifershammer, my principal antagonist, left. Again, you may judge such ventures to be foolish, but I like the challenge of playing “the white side of the board” on such issues, even if I have the “burden” of opening.

__________________________

“Brights”?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]People who know the actual definition of 'atheist' but still go shopping for alternate adjectives are guilty of gross intellectual cowardice.

Perhaps. The matter is as unimportant to me as an argument over whether Zen Buddhism is properly a religion or a philosophy. And, frankly, Robb, I think I’ve taken stronger atheistic positions than you have ...[text shortened]... ch issues, even if I have the “burden” of opening.

__________________________

“Brights”?[/b]

I was going to go easy on you. But when twhitehead jumped in there, I was no longer able to restrain my rhetorical excesses. They were not necessarily directed at you. I'm sure you have good reasons for employing the terminology you do, but most people do not.

Originally posted by vistesd
“Brights”?

One of Richard Dorkins' less fortunate ideas.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]People who know the actual definition of 'atheist' but still go shopping for alternate adjectives are guilty of gross intellectual cowardice.

Perhaps. The matter is as unimportant to me as an argument over whether Zen Buddhism is properly a religion or a philosophy. And, frankly, Robb, I think I’ve taken stronger atheistic positions than you have ...[text shortened]... ch issues, even if I have the “burden” of opening.

__________________________

“Brights”?[/b]

I am not sure that non-dualism, at least all non-dualism, is compatible with Rob's definition of atheism. I think his "burden of proof" assertion is at odds with the Zen attitude of searching for the truth whatever it may be without pre-existing conceptions. One can hardly empty the cup if one insists that the shape of the cup itself implies what its contents should be.