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

[photon]

Originally Posted by Lobotroth

100% certain there is a God or Gods. How?

Actually that's the aspect I was most interested in, to see how many gnostic theists there were.

Because I think there's a contradiction there... typically in a discussion about the existence of god one will ask for evidence, the other will hand wave about free will therefore god cannot prove his existence.. so that would mean that all theists should be agnostic theists.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Troutman's explanation basically means what I suspected him to mean: that he rejects the notion of a "personal" god. However, this post of your has brought to my attention another issue in this whole discussion: the precise definition of "god" is becoming more and more fluid to the point that it becomes unintelligible to speak of it/him in a fairly general context. I seriously doubt that there is a single person in the Western world who does believe in "'god' as comprehended in ancient cultures," and this is in the same sense that no one in the developed world comprehends the cosmos, climate, or the mind in even remotely similar terms as in the ancient world.

I think that this explanation renders the whole question practically meaningless, since among theists the idea of "god" has experienced substantial development.

Yes, yes, and yes, and this is the reason why I consider myself ignostic.

The departure in the major religions from the idea of an anthropomorphic God has rendered him (it? whatever) as nothing but, in philosophical terms, an intentional object. A concept, not a thing. This strengthens a religion from some forms of criticism, but weakens it in practice at the same time, in my opinion, but I won't go into that here. Basically, when someone asks "do you believe in God?" my first response shouldn't be yes or no, but "tell me what you conceive God to be, and then I will tell you whether I believe in that conception or not." The original question, by itself, is meaningless. This is as important for the atheist to understand as it is for the religious.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You can comprehend dragons and Santa. You have the tools and knowledge to deem them ridiculous. Don't be arrogant enough to believe that comprehension and knowledge can be applied universally.

So basically God is more magical than Santa, or dragons, and is in fact too magical to comprehend.

Are there other things too magical to comprehend? Or just god?

Also - does this apply to all gods? There are a lot of people who are polytheistic - do all their gods count as inherently unknowable too?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

For sure. I was referring to the atheist split though. I assumed there were many more gnostic atheists here than agnostic.

I'm the other way, I'm actually surprised there's as many gnostic atheists as there are, in my experience almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist given a vague enough definition of god.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And I think that this explanation renders classic religious texts to be practically meaningless as well.

If I'm not going to believe some of it, why any of it? It's all equally as preposterous.

I don't go that far. I think there is value in studying myth. Not meaningless, but full of meaning.

[pylon]

Has anyone ever wondered, how many lives would have been spared over the last 4000 years, has religion never existed?

It would have to be billions.

[MacGr3gor]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm the other way, I'm actually surprised there's as many gnostic atheists as there are, in my experience almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist given a vague enough definition of god.

I agree, but I think it depends on the definition 'god'. If we're talking about a divine being outside of any religion, then I'm an agnostic atheist. But if we're talking about a god within a religion, then I'm a gnostic atheist.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Yes, yes, and yes, and this is the reason why I consider myself ignostic.

The departure in the major religions from the idea of an anthropomorphic God has rendered him (it? whatever) as nothing but, in philosophical terms, an intentional object. A concept, not a thing. This strengthens a religion from some forms of criticism, but weakens it in practice at the same time, in my opinion, but I won't go into that here. Basically, when someone asks "do you believe in God?" my first response shouldn't be yes or no, but "tell me what you conceive God to be, and then I will tell you whether I believe in that conception or not." The original question, by itself, is meaningless. This is as important for the atheist to understand as it is for the religious.

Thanks for that, that's a really insightful post.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by Zee

Atheism is not a religion... however a large number (not all) of highly vocal atheists are /more/ becoming evangelical and pushing their beliefs down other people throats /far more than/ similar to the way other religions do, and believe themselves to be more enlightened than those that believe in any religion.

The behavior may be that of religious zealots, even though they are not members of a religion per-se.

Note corrections to the above post I made...

Of all the hundreds (if not thousands) of religions that exist, a large percentage of them don't evangelize at all...

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm the other way, I'm actually surprised there's as many gnostic atheists as there are, in my experience almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist given a vague enough definition of god.

If we were a different crowd, I'd suggest that some were religious gnostic atheists (Ex - Buddhist) (We could go a bit into semantics, but I think that by definition of god/no god, Buddism is atheist). I suspect something else though.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Do you disbelieve in Zeus?

Yes.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by pylon

Has anyone ever wondered, how many lives would have been spared over the last 4000 years, has religion never existed?

It would have to be billions.

I'm not actually convinced that this is true. Religion is only one of many group identifiers that expansionist leaders could use to justify war. It just happened to be the best suited, most effective one. I imagine that communities would still have supported the vast majority of "holy wars" if the justification was based on some other group identifier or to spread some other cultural or moral technology (like law, etc.).

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by photon

Actually that's the aspect I was most interested in, to see how many gnostic theists there were.

Because I think there's a contradiction there... typically in a discussion about the existence of god one will ask for evidence, the other will hand wave about free will therefore god cannot prove his existence.. so that would mean that all theists should be agnostic theists.

What if I was to say that I am 100% certain the St. Louis Blues will win the Stanley Cup? It's a possible outcome because they're still in the playoffs but it would be absurd for me to say that I know with absolute certainty that they will win it all. No one would ever seriously state something like that yet we have people in this thread saying that without a doubt in their mind that a God or Gods exist. Can certainty be backed up by nothing more than a belief?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And I think that this explanation renders classic religious texts to be practically meaningless as well.

Only if you consider "meaning" to be something static as opposed to variable. Does the fact that Isaiah's concept of God as an enthroned warrior in some way negate the legitimacy of his experience?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If I'm not going to believe some of it, why any of it? It's all equally as preposterous.

It is preposterous if you demand from primitive ideas and expressions a modernly contrived meaning. The religious texts in Judaism and Christianity achieved the status they did in large part on the basis of their malleability. It may seem nonsensical to you and me, but people just simply did not apply the same interpretive conventions to the things that they read as we demand today. The reason for "scripture"'s success is very much due to how its meaning changed—and continues to change—over time.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yes.

Fair enough. But isn't Zeus beyond your comprehension and knowledge too? Shouldn't you at least be agnostic towards the existence of Zeus?

(Its always difficult to have these conversations without feeling like I'm attacking your beliefs. I don't mean to. Or if that is what I'm doing, I'm trying to be as respectful about it as possible. I'm genuinely curious.)

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

So basically God is more magical than Santa, or dragons, and is in fact too magical to comprehend.

Are there other things too magical to comprehend? Or just god?

Also - does this apply to all gods? There are a lot of people who are polytheistic - do all their gods count as inherently unknowable too?

What are you talking about? I didn't mention the word god.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What are you talking about? I didn't mention the word god.

I think that maybe I misunderstood you as well?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not actually convinced that this is true. Religion is only one of many group identifiers that expansionist leaders could use to justify war. It just happened to be the best suited, most effective one. I imagine that communities would still have supported the vast majority of "holy wars" if the justification was based on some other group identifier or to spread some other cultural or moral technology (like law, etc.).

In general, people that wanted power have just used whatever excuse was most convenient. In many cases, that excuse was religion, but I don't think that religion has killed billions. If religion didn't exist, there just would have been a different excuse made by the people who wanted power.

As for the original debate, who really cares whether Atheism is a religion or not? First of all, it doesn't make any difference to anyone what labels are. Second, there are many different definitions of "atheism" and "religion" that it makes any discussion useless anyway.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by pylon

Has anyone ever wondered, how many lives would have been spared over the last 4000 years, has religion never existed?

It would have to be billions.

My guess is humans would have created other reasons to kill each other.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What are you talking about? I didn't mention the word god.

My bad. I assumed that was what you meant in your reply given the context of this thread. I should have read more carefully.

Do you agree that we can equally apply the tools of knowledge and comprehension to god?