Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[Cyrus]

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence. Agnosticism is the lack of faith. Not all of the faithful join a religion so my opinion is that for some people their atheism is not a religion, and as the FACTS site shows, for other people it is. Does this help?

All the FACTS site shows, is that you gave us a crackpot link...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure if your being serious here. Whatever this nonsense you linked to is, it's certainly not atheism.

I am serious. It is not my fault if you find this particular atheistic religion nonsense. There are others, can you say that all of them are nonsense. Are they a different kind of nonsense than other religions. From my point of view, it is merely a counterexample to your statement which I repeat:

Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists.

Edit: On second reading the FACTS site, I must disagree with you. What ever deficiencies there are in the site, it most certainly is about atheism.

 

[Cyrus]

I am serious. It is not my fault if you find this particular atheistic religion nonsense. There are others, can you say that all of them are nonsense. Are they a different kind of nonsense than other religions. From my point of view, it is merely a counterexample to your statement which I repeat:

Again, atheism is not a religion. What they are doing, is not atheism. Atheism makes no claims about going around praising the moon cycle (or any of the other various nonsense rituals they state).

Edit: On second reading the FACTS site, I must disagree with you. What ever deficiencies there are in the site, it most certainly is about atheism.

No, it's really not. It's a cite that talks about atheism mixed in with a load of horse manure.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism makes no claims about going around praising the moon cycle.

Yes they do. They are atheists. They have a religion. They go around praising the moon cycle. Sue them.

Edit: Theirs is not the only atheistic religion. Do you intend to critique them all?

 

[Cyrus]

Yes they do. They are atheists. They have a religion. They go around praising the moon cycle. Sue them.

And what exactly is their religion?

 

[drizzle]

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your definition you have cited is a poor one - confusing religion with deism. Atheism, is, by definition, not a religion...

Fortunately, I am not wrong! Every single person hold a set of values/ethics/beliefs/questions/answers/etc that have been build up by one of two entities; either by one’s self/a bunch of people or God/Gods, alias religion, which consequently help to shape that person’s ‘identity’. You don’t have to swallow what I say, but you may need to reconsider your understanding of the word 'religion'. [… You still have the choice to ‘ignore’ ]

And btw, your definition [which you have NOT cited] is poorer than wiki's.

It does not make sense to even describe atheism as religion. Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists

Organization, heh, people tend to group up and form organizations that represent the shared aspects/understandings/principles for WHATEVER they feel the need to, whether it’s religions/politics/clans/etc so they can be more recognizable to others, and more powerful maybe.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And what exactly is their religion?

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Edit: Now I'm doing it. They believe there is no deity. There's a difference.

 

[Cyrus]

Fortunately, I am not wrong! Every single person hold a set of values/ethics/beliefs/questions/answers/etc that have been build up by one of two entities; either by one’s self/a bunch of people or God/Gods, alias religion, which consequently help to shape that person’s ‘identity’. You don’t have to swallow what I say, but you may need to reconsider your understanding of the word 'religion'. [… You still have the choice to ‘ignore’ ]

Ok.....no, I don't need to reconsider my understanding of the word religion - you do.

And btw, your definition [which you have NOT cited] is poorer than wiki's.

No, it's not.

Organization, heh, people tend to group up and form organizations that represent the shared aspects/understandings/principles for WHATEVER they feel the need to, whether it’s religions/politics/clans/etc so they can be more recognizable to others, and more powerful maybe.

Ok, and that doesn't answer my objection...

 

[Cyrus]

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Good, so we agree that Atheism means to not believe in any deity. NOW how does this jive with your link praising the moon - which has NOTHING to do with Atheism.

If the want to celebrate the moon - fine - then call them selves the mooninati for all I care, but don't go around calling your self something you're not (atheist).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

but don't go around calling your selft something you're not (atheist).

You shouldn't say that they are not atheists unless you can prove that they do believe in a deity. As for them praising the moon, I don't see why that makes you think that they do believe in a deity. One possibility is that you believe that the moon is a deity. Is that the problem? If so, I can understand your confusion. They do not believe that the moon is a deity, they just praise it. Barring that, I expect that you just can't admit that there are atheistic religions and so can't see them when you are looking directly at them. I repeat, FACTS is not the only atheistic religion. Are you going to critique them one at a time. This one meets on Thursays so they aren't a religion. This one meets in a rented building so they aren't a religion, etc.

 

[Cyrus]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less. Whatever it is these people are doing, I don't care: they are crackpots, and your link is crackpot. Their "FACTS Rituals" are pulled straight out of someones a**, again - nothing to do with Atheism.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less. Whatever it is these people are doing, I don't care. They are crackpots, and your link is crackpot.

Is Catholicism a religion in spite of the Bingo games?

 

[Cyrus]

Is Catholicism a religion in spite of the Bingo games?

hrmmmm...?

 

[Evo]

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Edit: Now I'm doing it. They believe there is no deity. There's a difference.

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, you are describing atheism the faith, not atheism the religion. As you said yourself, there is more to a religion than the faith. There is organization, dogma, and ritual.

 

[Hurkyl]

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

Many do deny the existence of a deity. Many more claim simply not to believe, but frequently deny existence anyways.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, you are describing atheism the faith, not atheism the religion. As you said yourself, there is more to a religion than the faith. There is organization, dogma, and ritual.

Precisely, and Atheism makes no claims to any of those things!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

 

[Evo]

Many do deny the existence of a deity. Many more claim simply not to believe, but frequently deny existence anyways.

But I would say those aren't "real atheists". There are people that are anti-religion, there are those that are really agnostic, but claim to be atheists, there are some that are just plain confused about what they believe. It is wrong to bundle all of these different people together and claim that they are all the same.

I don't know why some people don't get that some people simply don't give any credence to mythological creatures. I guess for people that believe it must be impossible to comprehend this?

If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist,

See, this is where you don't get it. I don't believe that there is no deity. I don't recognize the possibility in the first place, so there is nothing to deny.

I have no problem with people that believe in a diety. The Evo Child believes in a god. I'm glad that she finds comfort in that, although having been super religious from the age of 12-16, she left organized religion at age 16.

 

[brainstorm]

There is no 'faith' required to understand mathematics. Your example of asking a 6 year old 'why' 3+3 = 6 is not a proper question. The reason why 3 + 3 = 6 is because of how the rules of mathematics are defined. There is no 'faith' involved anywhere. This is a rather basic point that you have missed.

Ok, how can I explain this so you'll understand it. There is a logic that defines 3 + 3 as 6. Let's say it is programmed into your CPU. Then there is another circuit that decides whether you can trust your processor, let's call that faith. As kids develop the ability to process arithmetic, they are as yet unsure about their abilities and they haven't developed a full sense of faith in the logic that 3 + 3 will always = 6. They develop this faith through experience. Eventually, they don't even blink to insist 3 + 3 equalling 6 is a true to them as their own name being what it is (ironically their name is more subjective than math but they don't know this yet at a young age). However, they do not automatically know that 3 + 3 = 6. They have to arrive at the conclusion by counting so many times before it clicks. Once it clicks they may exercise faith that it will continue to be so, even without them counting, but that does require exercising faith. It does for adults too, but they put so much faith into the logic of arithmetic itself that they forget the leap they had to take as a young child to arrive at their belief in the infallibility of arithmetic to begin with. Please tell me you can see how this works so I don't have to keep explaining it.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't know why some people don't get that some people simply don't give any credence to mythological creatures. I guess for people that believe it must be impossible to comprehend this?

But why can't you see that there is faith involved with fully believing that they are mythological to start with?

 

[brainstorm]

Sorry to post 3 in a row, but it just occurred to me that the whole issue here is whether people claim that relatively objective logic exists external to human subjectivity or whether they are part and parcel of it. If all logic and knowledge is filtered through human subjectivity, then there is a question of belief and faith. If you presume to speak for logic as external to any human thinker, then you can say that faith/belief is peripheral.

 

[Evo]

But why can't you see that there is faith involved with fully believing that they are mythological to start with?

Dismissing is not believing.

If you told me a frog is on my foot when I know that there isn't, I've dismissed it. I didn't stop to consider if maybe there really was a frog there and then decided to not believe it. Do you understand that?

 

[brainstorm]

Dismissing is not believing.

If you told me a frog is on my foot when I know that there isn't, I've dismissed it. I didn't stop to consider if maybe there really was a frog there and then decided to not believe it. Do you understand that?

You would have to have faith in the state of your foot. If someone tells you there's a giant wasp on your back and stand still, you will stand still and ask if it's gone yet. You will only dismiss it if you have the ability to check the validity of the claim. It's too big of a risk to assume the claim is false on faith alone.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, how can I explain this so you'll understand it. There is a logic that defines 3 + 3 as 6. Let's say it is programmed into your CPU. Then there is another circuit that decides whether you can trust your processor, let's call that faith.

...what? No! That is NOT how it works.

As kids develop the ability to process arithmetic, they are as yet unsure about their abilities and they haven't developed a full sense of faith in the logic that 3 + 3 will always = 6. They develop this faith through experience.

This is meaningless, and explains nothing as to why 3+3 = 6.

Eventually, they don't even blink to insist 3 + 3 equalling 6 is a true to them as their own name being what it is (ironically their name is more subjective than math but they don't know this yet at a young age). However, they do not automatically know that 3 + 3 = 6. They have to arrive at the conclusion by counting so many times before it clicks. Once it clicks they may exercise faith that it will continue to be so, even without them counting, but that does require exercising faith. It does for adults too, but they put so much faith into the logic of arithmetic itself that they forget the leap they had to take as a young child to arrive at their belief in the infallibility of arithmetic to begin with. Please tell me you can see how this works so I don't have to keep explaining it.

...Sigh. No. You need to go back and reread what I told you. How a child learns to do math, has no bearing on why or how math works.

 

[rootX]

Dismissing is not believing.

If you told me a frog is on my foot when I know that there isn't, I've dismissed it. I didn't stop to consider if maybe there really was a frog there and then decided to not believe it. Do you understand that?

That's not correct analogy because you can easily verify that just by feeling if you have something on your foot.

 

[Evo]

You would have to have faith in the state of your foot. If someone tells you there's a giant wasp on your back and stand still, you will stand still and ask if it's gone yet. You will only dismiss it if you have the ability to check the validity of the claim. It's too big of a risk to assume the claim is false on faith alone.

No. There is no point to continue. You're just not capable of understanding. That's ok, I understand how people that believe in the supernatural don't get it.

That's not correct analogy because you can easily verify that just by feeling if you have something on your foot.

I forgot to mention he said it was a weightless, invisible frog.

I've decided to denounce my atheism and become a member of the cult of the IPU. It seems easier to explain that I believe in the IPU than to not believe in supernatural creatures. You've all seen the symbol of the IPU here on the forum. Perhaps you didn't know it's meaning.

This is just in fun, and I hope that my new belief in the IPU makes everyone that couldn't deal with my lack of belief feel better.

Ok, I am now a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

[Danger]

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

I've only skimmed this thread, but will read it in detail when I sober up (maybe sometime tomorrow). As it stands, I seem to share a mind with Evo.
As to the subject of the quote: My father was a preacher. None of that hellfire-and-brimstone bible school crap—he graduated from the St. Peter's College division of McGill University in 1928 with a Masters in "Religious Studies" (which would now be called "Theology"). He was an Agnostic because of his studies. I am a die-hard Atheist because of what he taught me combined with my own studies of science. Anyhow, his definition of "religion" was "one's total response to the whole of life". By that terminology, everyone has a religion. He considered himself Agnostic because he didn't think that anyone could either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
I am an Atheist, despite the number of idiots who try to convince me that I'm Agnostic. I don't merely question the existence of a supreme being; I assert to the very core of my existence that there ain't no such thing. That, according to my father, is a religion in itself.

 

[DanP]

This is just in fun, and I hope that my new belief in the IPU makes everyone that couldn't deal with my lack of belief feel better.

Ok, I am now a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Does your religion allow you to ride you supreme Deity ?

 

[Danger]

Does your religion allow you to ride you supreme Deity ?

Yes, but carefully; she is, after all, a unicorn. And as Johnny Carson once noted, "A truly wise man never plays leap-frog with a unicorn."

I can imagine this theology becoming a treasure trove for proctologists.

 

[Klockan3]

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

This is wrong, I think that some religious fanatics twisted the definitions in order to gain a moral victory by getting everyone to call themselves agnostics. Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists. Agnostics are people who think that the question can't be answered, but it don't say anything about if you are a theist or not. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist for example.

Then you can be a practical atheist who is not agnostic and do not reject the gods but just don't consider these questions at all since it doesn't have anything to do with their lives.

Maybe you don't think about "God" because you were never exposed to religious language to any significant extent. Still, I bet you have some means of externalizing your natural psychological propensity for faith. I think this is relevant to the OP because it has to do with whether some people are totally immune from religious-type beliefs, which I don't think they are just because faith is an inherent psychological propensity, like doubt or social conformity.

There is two ways for humans to gain knowledge, either through other humans or through inductive reasoning. I wouldn't call the knowledge gained through inductive reasoning faith, inductive reasoning just relies on "It have worked like this every time before so it will probably work like this again". Then you start pondering "IF X works like Y, what would that then mean?" and constructs science from that, still no belief involved. Faith is when you are told "X works like Y" and you take that to heart.

Science is all based on inductive reasoning, what you do at schools is just help people into making the correct arguments for themselves. But given enough time they would come to the same conclusions on their own. This is what makes science stronger than any belief system.

Edit: Of course there is a bit of belief involved when people present evidence in the form of experiments. But the fact that the same results have been found by many different researchers all with clashing interests makes the odds quite high that it is correct, if it was incorrect then you would get famous for proving it and someone would have done it. Also they let you do some of the more fundamental experiments yourself to make sure that science is not just a religion to you but instead see that science is just a description of the world.

 

[GeorgCantor]

As someone mentioned earlier, warring atheists factions are religeous. As soon as an atheist starts to push his disbelief on others, their passive disbelief turns pro-active and more akin to religion.

 

[Danger]

As someone mentioned earlier, warring atheists factions are religeous. As soon as an atheist starts to push his disbelief on others, their passive disbelief turns pro-active and more akin to religion.

That is precisely why I categorize myself as a "semi-militant" Atheist. Whatever you believe is fine with me. I'll support you in times of grief, ignore it, or tolerate it. I'll discuss it with you or argue with you about it. The instant you try to convert me, I will drop on you like a ball of neutronium.
Klockan3, I'm for the moment ignoring my/my dad's definition of religion and going with the more established concept of it. Organized religion is destructive, whereas science is constructive. In science, someone dreams up a theory. Everyone with a gram of interest in the subject then does everything possible to destroy that theory. If it survives, it is a much stronger theory; sometimes so strong that it is taken as fact (such as general/special relativity and evolution—and those are still being tested). Organized religion, on the other hand (especially Roman Catholicism) says "this is the way it is, and if you don't bow to us we will kill you". (If you think that I'm indulging in hyperbole, look up "crusades" in your Funk and Wagnall's.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists. Agnostics are people who think that the question can't be answered, but it don't say anything about if you are a theist or not. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist for example.

The bit about agnostic theist makes no sense to me whatever. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no diety?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So what happens if you really don't care either way?