Is Atheism a religion?

[Squagnut]

I apologise if my question appeared naive or simplistic, in essence, my intention was basically to question our need to question. I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same. Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

Question our need to question what? Me, I want to know about things. I know a fair bit about astronomy, but this knowledge won't improve my life, except insofar as I like to know stuff. Who are you to choose what a blind person might like to know about, or to determine the value knowledge of the colour orange may have? I know that orange light has its place on the electromagnetic spectrum, but such knowledge doesn't affect what I feel about a gorgeous orange sunset or whatever.

I know why I'm here. I'm here to reply to your post. I've waited all my life to reply to your post. In an hour from now I may be here to have a beer or chat to mates or whatever I happen to be doing. Knowing this doesn't improve my life - it describes my life.

Of course we need to question. At least, we do if we want answers.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I apologise if my question appeared naive or simplistic, in essence, my intention was basically to question our need to question.

That a proposition might be false should, alone, give one sufficient cause to question. But as you seem unconvinced by such academic exercises...

Religion is actively detrimental to the lives of even non-religious people. It causes immense, unnecessary suffering both on a societal and individual level. It is an impediment to human progress, and can add nothing to any argument that does not render it instantly more toxic.

This is not to say that faith is the root of all evil, but there are hundreds, nay thousands, of evils in the world which would not exist at all were it not for religion. Is this not sufficient cause to question religion's validity?

I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same.

You can scarcely imagine how little I care what you 'believe,' but there is something to what you say. Bias is innate to us, but it can be overcome. Men used to think that the earth was flat disc suspended in a crystal dome, others - namely Eratosthenes and his followers - thought the earth spherical. Both may have been biased to prefer their respective conclusions; however, only one group had good, intellectually justifiable reasons to believe as they did, and only one was correct.

It would be wrong to assert an equality between them. So it is with theism and atheism.

Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

You seem to understand atheists as proposing an alternative explanation to "why we are here," when - in fact - we do not.

However, buying into your question: It might not improve the lives of certain theists to alter their view as to "why we are here," but perhaps it would prevent them from endeavoring to end yours and mine.

 

[lrkun]

I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same.

This is not true.

1. Because a thinking person will QUESTION his or her original beliefs.

2. Such person will TEST the prior knowledge and compare it with the alleged new information.

3. The RESULT of the test will either CHANGE the prior knowledge, DISCARD it for the new one, or KEEP IT the same.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Is it just me, or does this part of the post:

I apologise if my question appeared naive or simplistic, in essence, my intention was basically to question our need to question. I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same.

Seem to have nothing to do with this part of the post?

Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

And neither part seems to have anything to do with the original question about atheism being a religion.

In short, I BE CONFUZZLED PLZ HALP

 

[Clint]

makula wrote:
Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

Well for one - this is a claim with no justification - how do you know the person will not benefit from it? What if the person enjoyed hearing the description of the roses in his garden or what a rainbow looks like? Is this not a benefit to them? And it's entirely possible with speed neuroscience is developing. ...However who say's we haven't discovered the point of our existence already? Putting aside any biological definition for gene survival, I'd say it's up to each individual to make the point and the reason for their own existence. Don't you?

In all honesty the 'why' question as to the existence of life is redundant. There is no why, as it implies a purpose behind it ...in which there is none (or no reason to believe there is).

 

[makula]

It seems my question brought down some serious heavy s**t, when all I was trying to say was instead of analysing Life, why not just live it? and just to avoid any confusion, I am not a God-botherer, I'm Irish and I know how religion can destroy a country. Religion is the Cancer of the Soul.

 

[AndromedasWake]

It seems my question brought down some serious heavy s**t, when all I was trying to say was instead of analysing Life, why not just live it? and just to avoid any confusion, I am not a God-botherer, I'm Irish and I know how religion can destroy a country. Religion is the Cancer of the Soul.

I would expect the general response to be that some people find meaning in analysing life, as a scientist finds meaning in analysing a particular part of nature. Or they may just feel compelled to do it. Remember that there is a balance between living to stay alive, and living to be fulfilled.

I could analogously ask someone who likes to understand the structure of poetry, "Instead of analysing poems, why not just read them?"

 

[Anachronous Rex]

It seems my question brought down some serious heavy s**t, when all I was trying to say was instead of analysing Life, why not just live it? and just to avoid any confusion, I am not a God-botherer, I'm Irish and I know how religion can destroy a country. Religion is the Cancer of the Soul.

"The uncontemplated life is not worth living" --Socrates

And on a more practical note: try living life without analysis... seriously, give it a whorl. I'd be interested to see how far you get.

 

[Nautyskin]

It seems my question brought down some serious heavy s**t, when all I was trying to say was instead of analysing Life, why not just live it?

I must say that if that's really what you were representing you picked a markedly strange title for it.

 

[Laurens]

Atheism is not a religion. If you think it is, you can fuck off.

Blunt, but to the point.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

When we remove the need to believe in unicorns, are we in danger of surplanting that belief? Continous quotes from ancient and modern philosphers supporting our argument against the existence of unicorns could hardly develop into a structured text complete with 'high priests' and disciples. Surely, true Aunicornism is the disbelief in unicorns...

 

[makula]

Atheism is not a religion. If you think it is, you can fuck off.

Blunt, but to the point.

Elequently put. By the way, if that is a picture of yourself; I can see right up your nose.

 

[Laurens]

I can see right up your nose.

Does it make you wet?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Elequently put. By the way, if that is a picture of yourself; I can see right up your nose.

You're still here? Why haven't you addressed interesting points like this one:

It seems my question brought down some serious heavy s**t, when all I was trying to say was instead of analysing Life, why not just live it?

I must say that if that's really what you were representing you picked a markedly strange title for it.

This is a very good point. It's highly unlikely that your stated goal here is genuine considering your thread title...

Would you care to respond to that or would you rather talk about people's noses?

Furthering the point, how is analyzing life not living it? How are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[DeathofSpeech]

When we remove the need to believe in a supreme being, are we in danger of surplanting that belief?

I shall borrow the stamp collection analogy.
"I must indoctrinate others into the hobby of not collecting stamps..."
I don't see that as a viable emotional investment without the promise NOT to receive 72 Inverted Jennies upon my death.
Someone would have to make it seriously not worth my time before I could not get behind that idea.

I do not, except in cartoon like images in my head, envision ever answering my door early Saturday morning to find a crew of atheists on my porch asking if I have considered what disbelief could mean for my life. I suspect I would be forced by conscience to shoot them. :shock:

so, no. I don't believe I, or most rational atheists would be able to become "all worked up over nothing."


A reactionary atheist / anti-theist might.
I suspect it's even probable that he would. He has an emotional stake in the destruction of religion that most atheists do not.
I'll use the example that I so dearly love thrown in my face, Stalin.
He wasn't so much interested in "spreading the truth" of atheism," as he was the extinction of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czarist theocracy.
He is still presented in arguments with theists, first as an atheist, and then by the extension of the evil that implies, as a communist. He couldn't help but be communist therefore, because atheism made him evil. sigh. :facepalm:

Some atheists don't come to disbelief by study, contemplation and rational thought, but by emotional rejection of and rage directed at religion (not necessarily the deity).
Stalin (again please forgive the example) hastened to dismantle the church, but remained ambivalent toward Judaism for a discrete period of time, suggesting that he had no pressing interest in crushing Judaism. He did eventually, but it didn't seem to be at the top of his "to do" list. Same deity, different group, different emotional value, different reaction.

Historically religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions, provide plenty of cause celebre for such an event. Reason must prevail in opposing them or we risk trading one tyrant for another.

Continous quotes from ancient and modern philosphers supporting our argument against the existence of a God could easily develop into a structured text complete with 'high priests' and disciples.

It might develop into a structured response. I have noticed for myself that in dealing with numbers of creationists that they abide by what might well be a written script, or perhaps their indoctrination is simply so similar and so deeply conditioned that they are predictable. It is natural then that if I notice a particular argument that gives them a bit of trouble or returns a response that looks particularly silly, that I make a mental note of it as a response that is desirable to provoke. The more deeply conditioned they are, the sillier they can be made to look.

I don't believe that structured response is a bad thing. A successful gambit provides an economy of effort.

I think that we each must take care that if we choose to be politically active and vocal (and we must) that we do not become the monsters we hunt.
Opposition to religion should not have as its agenda the active destruction of religion, but should be confined to the defense of disbelief.
It is enough to expose the contradictions and abuses of religion as irrational and we should take care that we don't find ourselves suppressing religion.
That would make us no better. We do not require a coup de grace. We need only secure the rights of anyone wishing to adopt skepticism to do so.
That is All we should do or we will find ourselves gradually becoming that which we despise.

Surely, true Atheism is the belief in nothing other than ourselves; just as surely is that your own opinion carries as much credence as the opinion of any other human being, philospher or not. The ability to think freely should be the goal of a true Atheist and maybe this is our Nirvana?

It think this implies that atheists are a group. I don't think that one can or should ever use the term True Atheist. That implies that there is a standard by which one's personal struggle with leaving religion, or defending against pressure to join a religion, can be measured in terms of adherence to a disbelief doctrine.
Shudder. Good luck defining a "True Atheist."


With that said. I believe it is time to be seen and to be heard.
The christian fundamentalist right has confirmed the strength of political influence that a small noisy group can have.
They should be confronted at every turn because silence on our part, implies the validity of their statements.
We shouldn't meet them as a mob, but as a cooperative / collective of individuals with diverse opinions, and a mutual interest in not becoming the next untrermenschen.
The christian right has declared war on reason, and either we meet them and make a good account of ourselves or we might as well start gathering wood for the witch-pyre ourselves.


Nirvana?
I think that my expectations of an ideal situation are simply to be left the fuck alone by the inquisition.
That isn't going to happen, probably in my lifetime.

 

[makula]

OK, OK, maybe this isn't the Forum for discussing the esoteric values of nasal passages and yes, I heartily agree with nearly every one; analysis is the life blood of the free thinker and it is vital that we question everything but by the Holy underpants of Joseph, can't we just have a laugh while we do it?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

OK, OK, maybe this isn't the Forum for discussing the esoteric values of nasal passages and yes, I heartily agree with nearly every one; analysis is the life blood of the free thinker and it is vital that we question everything but by the Holy underpants of Joseph, can't we just have a laugh while we do it?

Ahem:

Does it make you wet?

On a more serious note... so what you were doing originally was trolling then? Or what?

 

[makula]

OK, OK, maybe this isn't the Forum for discussing the esoteric values of nasal passages and yes, I heartily agree with nearly every one; analysis is the life blood of the free thinker and it is vital that we question everything but by the Holy underpants of Joseph, can't we just have a laugh while we do it?

Ahem:

Does it make you wet?

On a more serious note... so what you were doing originally was trolling then? Or what?

No, it's not me, it's the voices........somebody make them stop! Sorry, old habit, yes I was doing a spot of fishing. It is possible, without due care and attention, for an Atheist to become as anal retentive and dogmatic as a born again jesus-freak. Socrates may have had some deep thoughts that are worth quoting but so did Graham Chapman in the Life of Brian....remember' you don't need to follow anyone'? Maybe this is the wrong Forum for me; whilst I find other peoples interpretations fascinating and enlightening.......I really miss the giggles.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

No, it's not me, it's the voices........somebody make them stop! Sorry, old habit, yes I was doing a spot of fishing. It is possible, without due care and attention, for an Atheist to become as anal retentive and dogmatic as a born again jesus-freak. Socrates may have had some deep thoughts that are worth quoting but so did Graham Chapman in the Life of Brian....remember' you don't need to follow anyone'? Maybe this is the wrong Forum for me; whilst I find other peoples interpretations fascinating and enlightening.......I really miss the giggles.

Perhaps then you ought to introduce yourself in a manner that does not cause everyone on the forum to facepalm and mutter, "not again."

 

[Clint]

Perhaps then you ought to introduce yourself in a manner that does not cause everyone on the forum to facepalm and mutter, "not again."

hahaha - now that gave me a laugh!