Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by pylon

Well, on a scientific level, we are immortal, and are made up of matter billion of years old, and when our sun goes nova, and evaporates whatever remains of us, there is a chance that matter will be absorbed in a stellar disk that will spawn another star, that may spawn life etc.......

I Am more looking at the idea that physics and string theory model currently suggets there is 10 or 11 dimensions, whichever one you buy into. And we have no clue what happens in those upper dimensions (past 4 if you consider time to be one) if they exist. I could be open to a scientific explanation that the answer to an afterlife, may be held there. There is a lot of strange phenomena and brain activity anomalies that have been observed in people's brains at the moment of death that may be more than just a spike in brain activity.

Meh, who knows. Every time I lose someone close to me, I have trouble accepting they are just.... gone. And always hope there is that remote chance they are still sentient in some way. I guess I can kiss off the idea of sleep tonight... Lol

It can be sad, or scary for sure. But it can also be very interesting and exciting. Life would have no purpose if we had all the answers. As I mentioned I like to think about a lot of those things too. The trick is to not drive yourself crazy with the ideas. As I mentioned, if we did have the answers, there would be no point to anything. And we probably wouldn't be the mortal beings we are, capable of all the pitfalls and pleasures that come with being mortal.

[Dion]

The book has had a low-key presence on the Brandeis campus. It was mentioned several times in the alumni news. The University gave a copy of the book to all seniors one year for the senior class forum. Sociologist Maury Stein uses the book in teaching a course on Birth and Death. From their long friendship, Stein remarks on Schwartz’ charm, “but no one knew how telegenic he was until Nightline.”

Stein notes that Morrie was very affected by the sudden death of their mutual colleague Irv Zola. The packed funeral and loving tributes led him to remark, from his wheelchair, “I am not going to let that happen to me.” He saw the terminal diagnosis from ALS as a “gift” that allowed him to share and receive love while he was alive. The book recounts his “living funeral” where friends came and made tributes while he was alive to hear and enjoy them. “He had renewed energy at the end of his life. He was answering 200-300 letters a week from people who had seen him on television. He taught his final graduate class with ALS gradually incapacitating him,” says Stein.

Stein feels that the appeal of the book is “a reconstruction of what is possible in the dying process. Morrie showed it can be a lively, communicative process and that wisdom and growth are possible in the late stages of illness.” Many people reading the book no doubt have had someone close to them die with a scenario that diverges from Morrie’s loving embrace. Indeed, one of the most poignant passages in the book centers on Morrie’s description of the death of his mother, when he was a child, and the death of his father years later. Then and now, death is shut away and not discussed when it happens or even in later years. This social psychologist realized the harm in that approach and used his Tuesday reflections to suggest a different path.

http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/feb01/fn3.html

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Um, no. Atheism is not a religion.

Sure it is, every week I get 100-150 people together and teach them astrophysics for a small donation of $10-20....what the suckers don't know is I just picked up a book at the library and read it to them!! It's a great living.


j/k

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by John Doe

I am curious. Could you give me a couple of those definitions of religion that would include Atheism?

Here are a couple that I see skimming through it quickly, from this list. As you can see the list is pretty long so I don't have time to go through it and read all of them.

14. Religion is social worldmaking

71. “All ideas and feelings are religious that refer to an ideal existence”

83. Clifford Geertz: Religion is 1) a system of symbols which acts 2) to establish powerful, pervasive, long-lasting moods and motivations in men by 3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and 4) clothing these conceptions with an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

88. Oxford University Press textbook: “Religion has been about power and meaning in relation to human destiny … It expresses our sense of being ‘tied and bound’ by relations of obligation to whatever power we believe govern our destiny—whether these power be natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal, one or many …” (6)

Now I do realize that these are not strict, all encompassing definitions, but are merely ways at looking at religion. Some of which could cause someone looking at Atheism to think it is more closely related to religion than they had previously thought.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by pylon

Well, on a scientific level, we are immortal, and are made up of matter billion of years old, and when our sun goes nova, and evaporates whatever remains of us, there is a chance that matter will be absorbed in a stellar disk that will spawn another star, that may spawn life etc.......

I Am more looking at the idea that physics and string theory model currently suggets there is 10 or 11 dimensions, whichever one you buy into. And we have no clue what happens in those upper dimensions (past 4 if you consider time to be one) if they exist. I could be open to a scientific explanation that the answer to an afterlife, may be held there. There is a lot of strange phenomena and brain activity anomalies that have been observed in people's brains at the moment of death that may be more than just a spike in brain activity.

Meh, who knows. Every time I lose someone close to me, I have trouble accepting they are just.... gone. And always hope there is that remote chance they are still sentient in some way. I guess I can kiss off the idea of sleep tonight... Lol

It's wishful thinking if you're hoping scientists find heaven in an alternate dimension.

That being said, special relativity should provide something you would likely find interesting, and is more grounded in science. Using SR, you find time doesn't exist in the way we think of it; it doesn't flow. Instead, it's a "block," encompassing all of time, from the beginning to the end, if such things exist. All moments of our "past," while seeming to be the past to us, are actually just frames, to put it simply, in this block of spacetime. So while you might view that fun memory of your friend, or whoever, that died as being in the past, forever lost to time, it is actually still existent, and you and your buddy will be reliving it forever, just as you would have been since the beginning of the universe.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Here are a couple that I see skimming through it quickly, from this list. As you can see the list is pretty long so I don't have time to go through it and read all of them.



Now I do realize that these are not strict, all encompassing definitions, but are merely ways at looking at religion. Some of which could cause someone looking at Atheism to think it is more closely related to religion than they had previously thought.

I don't think that atheism can be included in any of those definitions. There is no weekly atheist ritualistic gatherings for the purpose of social world-making. Atheism doesn't refer to any ideal existence whatsoever. Atheism offers no symbols to establish powerful, pervasive, long-lasting moods and motivations in men. Atheists certainly don't believe in a power that governs our destiny.

[photon]

Originally Posted by pylon

But if you are even .001% open to the idea that there may be an unexplainable form of afterlife, does that disqualify you from Atheism?

I don't think so, for a couple of reasons.

First:



Agnosticism and Atheism aren't on the same axis of description of position, agnostic-atheist, gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, gnostic-theist are all legitimate positions.

An agnostic-atheist doesn't believe, but doesn't know and can be 100% open to the idea of a spirit world (given sufficient evidence hopefully, but some atheists believe in all kinds of wacky unknown physics).

Second:

I don't think being an atheist would preclude one from believing in some kind of afterlife, it just means one doesn't believe there's a god. One could believe that the pattern of consciousness exists in one or more higher dimensions that are usually inaccessible to us, that doesn't require spirituality or belief in god. I think explaining it would be difficult as it would require new physics that we haven't found yet, and for it to interact with brains and people it would certainly be easily detectable.

But maybe the kind of belief you are looking for is what Einstein talked about: Spinoza's God, or pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't think that atheism can be included in any of those definitions. There is no weekly atheist ritualistic gatherings for the purpose of social world-making. Atheism doesn't refer to any ideal existence whatsoever. Atheism offers no symbols to establish powerful, pervasive, long-lasting moods and motivations in men. Atheists certainly don't believe in a power that governs our destiny.

Given your thoughts, I do agree about the Geertz quote, it really doesn't apply, but I think the rest are totally valid.

You go into /r/atheism on Reddit and you will find many examples of people engaging in social world making. People are building a narrative of how the world was created, based on the information they have. Just because that involves science based fact rather than a theist narrative does not change the process.

You don't see many atheists who desire an ideal existence where science is revered over fairy tales? People who want to remove religious people form political or social power due to their backwards beliefs? For me this is the one that is clear cut.

I think they certainly do believe in a power that is natural that governs life. Call it the laws of nature, science or whatever you want. Just because they don't talk about God or direct control doesn't mean it is that much different. I do agree though, that calling it destiny, as my quote did, probably doesn't fit with any common atheist beliefs.

Like I said, I don't think these definitions apply a concrete definition that groups Atheism in with all religions, but it simply provides a viewpoint where if you abstract what religion and atheism are, they are really just different forms of the same phenomenon.

[photon]

I think you're moving from atheism to specific groups of atheists that share common philosophies. Atheism isn't a philosophy, it's just a lack of belief. "New Atheists" may be a philosophy (though I think it's more a label to target people whom the labeler disagrees with), but something like secular humanism is more a real philosophy and is more appropriate to be in the discussion.

You go into /r/atheism on Reddit and you will find many examples of people engaging in social world making. People are building a narrative of how the world was created, based on the information they have. Just because that involves science based fact rather than a theist narrative does not change the process.

Ok, but those people aren't using any central tenets of atheism to do so, because there aren't any central tenets. The things they're rejecting are things like organized religion, might makes right philosophy, eternal punishment/reward, etc. Those aren't aspects of theism, those are aspects of religions. Atheism may be a common attribute for those people that draws them together, but it's more a response to organized religion and certain ways of thinking than organizing based on atheism alone.

Same thing with theists, strictly speaking theism by itself doesn't lead to organization either. "Do you believe in a god(s)?" "Yup" "Me to"... to go any further moves beyond theism.

You don't see many atheists who desire an ideal existence where science is revered over fairy tales? People who want to remove religious people form political or social power due to their backwards beliefs? For me this is the one that is clear cut.

But that doesn't constitute a religion, just a group with common ideals. There are groups of atheists who believe in all kinds of pseudo-scientific fairy tales, just not religious ones.

And the whole US political system is driven by people who want to remove other people from political or social power due to their political ideology, but Democrat or Republican aren't religious beliefs (though for some they certainly seem to be much closer than atheism).

Atheism itself doesn't dictate the ideals some atheists may share and work towards, they just share one common lack of belief.

I think they certainly do believe in a power that is natural that governs life. Call it the laws of nature, science or whatever you want.

But that's not just belief, that's also knowledge. I don't just believe that the relationship of gravity described by GR is true (belief), I can demonstrate it to be true unambiguously (knowledge).

Believing that things' relationship to other things is governed by a set of rules I would agree is a common feature that an atheist would accept (though again not a tenant of atheism, nothing about lack of belief dictates this) as would theists, but that's so basic it's like saying atheism is a religion because it involves people like religion does.

Like I said, I don't think these definitions apply a concrete definition that groups Atheism in with all religions, but it simply provides a viewpoint where if you abstract what religion and atheism are, they are really just different forms of the same phenomenon.

I don't think you've shown that though, your examples are for groups of people who share common philosophies or ideologies, but those aren't common to all atheists, and those aren't dictated by atheism. They may be informed by the lack of belief, but that's all.

Just like being a theist doesn't dictate any beliefs. Not all theists share a belief in the afterlife, not all theists believe in spirits, not all theists think their god cares at all about them. One could be a theist and not be religious.. so if theism isn't a religion, how can atheism be one?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think you've shown that though, your examples are for groups of people who share common philosophies or ideologies, but those aren't common to all atheists, and those aren't dictated by atheism. They may be informed by the lack of belief, but that's all.

Exactly. You will notice that I did not claim in my post that atheism was a religion. I said that it had many things in common with religions, so much so that some scholarly definitions of what religion was, would fit.

Many of your objections are merely semantics.

Atheists don't have a central tenent, yet they tend to think the same things as each other (as much as religions tend to believe the same things at least). Just because it isn't central doesn't change how people act on those thoughts.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing, but how they motivate people to do things is the same.

I think the real difference in what we are saying is that you think the cause of the atheism is the real defining metric, where as I think the result is equally as defining. In some ways, the influence of a strong atheist thought process is the same as a strong religious belief. The way you define it, then absolutely not, atheism is not a religion. I think if you look at the bigger picture though, that line blurs.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Exactly. You will notice that I did not claim in my post that atheism was a religion. I said that it had many things in common with religions, so much so that some scholarly definitions of what religion was, would fit.

Many of your objections are merely semantics.

Atheists don't have a central tenent, yet they tend to think the same things as each other (as much as religions tend to believe the same things at least). Just because it isn't central doesn't change how people act on those thoughts.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing, but how they motivate people to do things is the same.

I think the real difference in what we are saying is that you think the cause of the atheism is the real defining metric, where as I think the result is equally as defining. In some ways, the influence of a strong atheist thought process is the same as a strong religious belief. The way you define it, then absolutely not, atheism is not a religion. I think if you look at the bigger picture though, that line blurs.

Other than not believing in a god atheists don't 'tend' to think anything, you might as well argue hockey fans tend to think a certain way.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Other than not believing in a god atheists don't 'tend' to think anything, you might as well argue hockey fans tend to think a certain way.

Like, for example, tending towards the thinking that hockey is an enjoyable sport to watch?

Maybe my wording is a bit vague but I don't see how it is a stretch to say that people who have the same thoughts about a certain topic would tend to think the same things about that topic, especially to the degree that "all religious people think the same", which is how I quantified my statement. Of course I realize they are not all identical mind clones of each other, but I really didn't think that needed to be clarified.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Rathji

...I think the real difference in what we are saying is that you think the cause of the atheism is the real defining metric, where as I think the result is equally as defining. In some ways, the influence of a strong atheist thought process is the same as a strong religious belief. The way you define it, then absolutely not, atheism is not a religion. I think if you look at the bigger picture though, that line blurs.

In my reading of this thread, I can't help but conclude that so much of the issue stems from how "religion" has been defined in the past, and how it continues to be re-defined over the course of time.

At the time in which Christianity and modern Judaism emerged, "religion" was best understood as activity by which practitioners sought to curry favour with the gods. It was not compartmentalized and anthropologically distinguished from other parts of day-to-day life, as appeal to the divine practically permeated all of life. There were no real religiously motivated conflicts, because people almost universally agreed upon the existence of the gods, and the importance of their regular consultation and placation.

Christianity effectively changed this mindset in its insistence first, on the exclusivity of Jesus and the God of the Jews, and second, on the assent to a set of beliefs, or a "creed". Both of these unusual developments were exceptionally threatening to the Roman Empire, and the conflict that this created resulted in an explosion of Christianity in the empirical age. Religion, in the course of the first several centuries of the common era, came to take on a much more epistemological dimension, and was more and more defined according to conceptual matters than real actions—"orthodoxy" came to supplant "orthopraxis".

The Protestant Reformation that emerged from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment only served to exacerbate this distinction. In the present climate, it seems that "religion" has been effectively neutered, and constricted precisely to the importance of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. I think this is a testament to the exaggerated emphasis that we have gradually assigned to matters of the mind, and the promise of intellect and knowledge to shape our world. So long as "religion" is predominantly an intellectual matter, then critics will continue to insist upon the position of non-belief as a religious one. It's wrong, but the problem is one that Western religions basically created, and are now under great pains to practically apply in the modern world.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think so, for a couple of reasons.

First:



Agnosticism and Atheism aren't on the same axis of description of position, agnostic-atheist, gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, gnostic-theist are all legitimate positions.

An agnostic-atheist doesn't believe, but doesn't know and can be 100% open to the idea of a spirit world (given sufficient evidence hopefully, but some atheists believe in all kinds of wacky unknown physics).

Second:

I don't think being an atheist would preclude one from believing in some kind of afterlife, it just means one doesn't believe there's a god. One could believe that the pattern of consciousness exists in one or more higher dimensions that are usually inaccessible to us, that doesn't require spirituality or belief in god. I think explaining it would be difficult as it would require new physics that we haven't found yet, and for it to interact with brains and people it would certainly be easily detectable.

But maybe the kind of belief you are looking for is what Einstein talked about: Spinoza's God, or pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I would be interested to see how calgarypuck falls between those 4 designations.

I think you should run a poll with that picture as an aid to satisfy my curiosity!

[photon]

Ok added the poll, I hope people won't choose other just because they don't agree with the definitions or have a quibble with the wording, just pick what's closest if you can.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I think this what it's all about. Theists are concerned that atheists are becoming more prominent and starting push back where theists and organized religion tries to bully them around to get their way.

Funny how common sense prevails in an age of free information.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

Ok added the poll, I hope people won't choose other just because they don't agree with the definitions or have a quibble with the wording, just pick what's closest if you can.

And of course I voted before I read this post. Oh well, ignore the 1 other that is there (or remove my vote if that is possible.)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think the person who made this graph understands what a gnostic theist is when on the theist side it says "believe in a god or gods". Gnostic means you know, like after a storm you know the bridge is there, not you believe the bridge is still there.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think the person who made this graph understands what a gnostic theist is when on the theist side it says "believe in a god or gods". Gnostic means you know, like after a storm you know the bridge is there, not you believe the bridge is still there.

I think that you're reading it wrong. That is just the theist pole: believes in a God or Gods. That belief may be either certain (gnostic) or uncertain (agnostic).

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I think that you're reading it wrong. That is just the theist pole: believes in a God or Gods. That belief may be either certain (gnostic) or uncertain (agnostic).

No belief isn't the same as knowing. Splitting hairs in some peoples eyes but I make the distinction. Belief often entails second hand information, like in a holy book or a religious leader. If you trust the book or say a person, you can say you are 100% certain you believe there is a god but Gnostic means you know and to know you have to experience it for yourself.