Religions : Legitimate vs otherwise

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

No, atheist thought doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most people get their belief system from society around them and label it either by their religion, or some kind of fuzzy "be good" if not religious.

But among atheists that have thought about it, they'll put the normal labels to their moral framework.. secular humanist, libertarian, cultural Christian, pantheist, lots of words to describe the different parts of any given individual's belief system.

Maybe atheists are responsible for some generalization, but maybe it's just because that's a common banner that some people can gather under for a specific view that tends to get ignored in public thought and discussion.

I don't know if it's entirely atheists fault though, I don't know how many times I read about someone saying something negative about a religious position and they're automatically called an atheist.

Christians were called atheists by Roman Hellenists. It's all about context, in a really weird way. I guess in human's quest to find "truth" there are a lot of contradictions.

[photon]

True, and deists were looked down upon as as bad as atheists at one point by Christians, but now they're more buddy buddy.

During the Kansas trial for the stickers in textbooks about evolution, the Christians were always talking about the atheists this, the atheists that, when some of the most compelling testimony against intelligent design was given by a Christian, while on the flip side one of the star witnesses for intelligent design rejects a young earth and accepts an old earth and common descent; to things the Kansas Christians attribute to the "evil atheist agenda to corrupt our children"! But he wasn't referred to as an atheist...

I agree it is about context, and I think labels can get in the way a great deal. That's why I'd rather use the words as they are defined, and if there's something else to discuss, then discuss that. Many times people argue against "atheists" when in fact they're arguing against philosophical naturalism, or against nihilism, or something else.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't have a group.

As for lack of thought, besides being an insult, the implication seems to be "if you just thought about it more, you'd believe it. You just aren't thinking".

Luckily, the very opposite is true. The more people "think" about religion, including their own, the less they tend to believe.

Re: generalizations, you'll have to be more specific. I gave a couple examples of things that can't happen in reality. Was I wrong? Can those things happen in reality?

Actually the more people are indoctrinated into any belief system the less likely they are to think for themselves. I've seen it in Christian sects when people coming back from bible colleges/seminaries and I've seen it people coming back secular colleges and universities. They become disciples of their professors and mirror their belief systems; both religious and political.

Regarding your question: To the best of my knowledge people can't float in the air in our reality. The thing your missing is God is not a part of our reality on a day to day basis. We have five measurable senses and with those five senses we detect everything that know to be. As mankind is learning to amplify these senses our reality is expanding. One day we may discover an element or energy force that might put floating in the air to be a natural part of our reality. One day we might detect God as well but, I doubt it. God can move. He seems to have a specific agenda and reveals himself when and where he chooses. I believe he has chosen to reveal himself in a collection of books. I don't believe these 66 books reveal all that God is but, certainly the parts that He would have revealed. I also believe that all humans including you have a spiritual sense. That is why cultures in the absence of the knowledge of the one true God invent their own.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually the more people are indoctrinated into any belief system the less likely they are to think for themselves. I've seen it in Christian sects when people coming back from bible colleges/seminaries and I've seen it people coming back secular colleges and universities. They become disciples of their professors and mirror their belief systems; both religious and political.

Regarding your question: To the best of my knowledge people can't float in the air in our reality. The thing your missing is God is not a part of our reality on a day to day basis. We have five measurable senses and with those five senses we detect everything that know to be. As mankind is learning to amplify these senses our reality is expanding. One day we may discover an element or energy force that might put floating in the air to be a natural part of our reality. One day we might detect God as well but, I doubt it. God can move. He seems to have a specific agenda and reveals himself when and where he chooses. I believe he has chosen to reveal himself in a collection of books. I don't believe these 66 books reveal all that God is but, certainly the parts that He would have revealed. I also believe that all humans including you have a spiritual sense. That is why cultures in the absence of the knowledge of the one true God invent their own.

Ill ignore your rant against Thor and I a few threads ago to bite on this one. What particular brand of Christianity does this thought process reflect CB? Is there some limit on the amount of indoctrination it takes to be less likely to think for oneself? For instance if you just read the bible daily and go to church once a week...does that mean you are or are not indoctrinated? Do I need to go to a secular school to become a Heathen? I didnt know that energy forces were reflected in any of the bibles Ive read?
God isnt a part of your reality on a day to day basis? Seriously?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

True, and deists were looked down upon as as bad as atheists at one point by Christians, but now they're more buddy buddy.

During the Kansas trial for the stickers in textbooks about evolution, the Christians were always talking about the atheists this, the atheists that, when some of the most compelling testimony against intelligent design was given by a Christian, while on the flip side one of the star witnesses for intelligent design rejects a young earth and accepts an old earth and common descent; to things the Kansas Christians attribute to the "evil atheist agenda to corrupt our children"! But he wasn't referred to as an atheist...

I agree it is about context, and I think labels can get in the way a great deal. That's why I'd rather use the words as they are defined, and if there's something else to discuss, then discuss that. Many times people argue against "atheists" when in fact they're arguing against philosophical naturalism, or against nihilism, or something else.

I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.

The categories of atheism are quite fascinating. Hitchens is like a libertarian. His only reason for hating religion is that it amounts to a fantasy of a celestial North Korea.

It's always interesting to learn why people believe what they believe.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I also believe that all humans including you have a spiritual sense. That is why I believe cultures in the absence of the knowledge of the one true God invent their own.

You forgot to put I believe in front of your statement to clarify it as speculation rather than a statement of fact.

Also most cultures throughout history have been polytheistic not monotheistic.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.

The categories of atheism are quite fascinating. Hitchens is like a libertarian. His only reason for hating religion is that it amounts to a fantasy of a celestial North Korea.

It's always interesting to learn why people believe what they believe.

Atheists appear militant because thats what the church(es) tell you and want the people to hear. In fact we are more "vocal" about belief systems and how they actually came about. When theists are presented with "the facts" they get irritated and label Atheists in derogatory ways in order to remove the focus off of themselves. (See CalgaryBornAgains rant against myself and Thor a few posts back). Fortunately many of the Freethinkers of today are knowledgeable enough to ignore the rants.
It is also fortunate that atheists dont wear the same stripes as a sect of Christians or Muslims. This enables us to respond in many different ways. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris et al are very different and appeal to different audiences.
I dont think there has been anything more militant in our history than that of the church...in all of its colors.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.

I wonder if it is intentional or not. I think it happens because science is easy to associate with philosophical naturalism, and science certainly easier to say. In our age of 2 minute sound bites and such, getting a message across is important and maybe science does get promoted as a philosophy.

But I don't think even Dawkins intends to do that, maybe it just comes across that way because science is being used as a tool to analyze and refute claims about and of religion. So when someone says "science gives us an explanation for x, so this reason y from religion isn't needed" people maybe perceive that as science replacing religion? It isn't it's just removing the requirement for it in some areas.

I don't think Dawkins ever promotes science as an ideology directly.

[Calgaryborn]

I'm not attempting to throw a couple hay-makers out there and withdrawal from the conversation. Until 10 minutes ago I had all night for this jousting. Unfortunately, I now have 1 hour to feed my boys and get them to the babysitter before going to work. I'll try to address some of your questions/statements when I have a chance.
Sorry.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Atheists appear militant because thats what the church(es) tell you and want the people to hear. In fact we are more "vocal" about belief systems and how they actually came about. When theists are presented with "the facts" they get irritated and label Atheists in derogatory ways in order to remove the focus off of themselves. Fortunately many of the Freethinkers of today are knowledgeable enough to ignore the rants.
I dont think there has been anything more militant in our history than that of the church...in all of its colors.

Well, if you are going to use generalizations like that, then I guess I agree. I said some atheists, not all atheists.

Labels like atheist, theist, Freethinker (why the capitalization) are only generalizations. Not to hide behind sociological/post-modern bull though.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, if you are going to use generalizations like that, then I guess I agree. I said some atheists, not all atheists.

Labels like atheist, theist, Freethinker (why the capitalization) are only generalizations. Not to hide behind sociological/post-modern bull though.

You said....

I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.

The categories of atheism are quite fascinating. Hitchens is like a libertarian. His only reason for hating religion is that it amounts to a fantasy of a celestial North Korea.

It's always interesting to learn why people believe what they believe.

My response was in regards to your "militant atheists"...or some of us!

My capitalization stems from a disability to type properly and an ingrained issue with my two fingers and the way they work between my brain and a keyboard. Habit of quickly responding to posts on messageboards.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You said....

I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.

The categories of atheism are quite fascinating. Hitchens is like a libertarian. His only reason for hating religion is that it amounts to a fantasy of a celestial North Korea.

It's always interesting to learn why people believe what they believe.

My response was in regards to your "militant atheists"...or some of us!

My capitalization stems from a disability to type properly and an ingrained issue with my two fingers and the way they work between my brain and a keyboard. Habit of quickly responding to posts on messageboards.

But the term, militant, is simply used to describe a behaviour. You wouldn't deny that some atheists are more militant than others?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

But the term, militant, is simply used to describe a behaviour. You wouldn't deny that some atheists are more militant than others?

Definitions of militant on the Web:

• disposed to warfare or hard-line policies; "militant nations"; "hawkish congressman"; "warlike policies"
• competitive: showing a fighting disposition; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
• a militant reformer
• belligerent: engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"

I dont think atheists are militant yet. We havent been forced to come together for a greater cause...hence becoming militant. Other than one guy in Dutch parliament <Geert Wilders?> we dont see militant reformers.
Extremely vocal critics for sure...and getting louder. If that is militant than sure.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Definitions of militant on the Web:

• disposed to warfare or hard-line policies; "militant nations"; "hawkish congressman"; "warlike policies"
• competitive: showing a fighting disposition; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
• a militant reformer
• belligerent: engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"

I dont think atheists are militant yet. We havent been forced to come together for a greater cause...hence becoming militant. Other than one guy in Dutch parliament we dont see militant reformers.
Extremely vocal for sure...and getting louder. If that is militant than sure.

I understand the increasing concern for secularism and rational social discussion. I really do and I support even the most belligerent atheist in that quest (even though I am not an atheist), however, I do think that you run the risk of alienating moderate secularists, including the religious.

Someone else made this point that moderates have a problem distancing themselves from the extremists, because at the end of the day they see themselves as part of the same family. But why? You will never come close to eradicating religion, why not gain allies instead of pushing them away?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

I understand the increasing concern for secularism and rational social discussion. I really do and I support even the most belligerent atheist in that quest (even though I am not an atheist), however, I do think that you run the risk of alienating moderate secularists, including the religious.

Someone else made this point that moderates have a problem distancing themselves from the extremists, because at the end of the day they see themselves as part of the same family. But why? You will never come close to eradicating religion, why not gain allies instead of pushing them away?

The only place Im beligerent<LOL> is here. Im passive otherwise LOL.

In regards to others...some will be alienated...ce la vie.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

But the term, militant, is simply used to describe a behaviour. You wouldn't deny that some atheists are more militant than others?

Militant is such a bad word in this case, passionate, fed up is more like the truth. No atheist is going to kill you over a belief, blow up buildings, or any such nonsense.

For thousands of years the truly militant have been religious leaders who speak loudly, rudely, and aggressively to anyone who don't share their viewpoint.

Even Dawkins isn't even close to militant, as much as he's very firm and not trying to be the longstanding closet type atheist who tries the friendly approach.

Certainly the religious don't try the friendly approach to atheism, and now that we are a vocal minority and they don't like it; they resort to calling us fundamentalists, militants, zealots, 'as bad as any religion,' etc..

So because some of us are blunt, feel passionately about the need to have the debate in public; its not even close to being a militant. We are reasonable people, we live by logic and reason and not absolutism and dogma.

So yes, militant is the worst word you could use.

Now if you called Pat Robertson militant, we could agree

[RougeUnderoos]

Atheist = non-believer.

Militant Atheist = non-believer who says it out loud.

At least that's the impression I get.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.... these guys are doing nothing more than expressing their opinions. They don't shoot anybody, they don't tear down churches. They write books and speak in public.

They might be obnoxious and saying things people don't want to (and never used to have to) hear, but it's got nothing to do with being militant.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Someone else made this point that moderates have a problem distancing themselves from the extremists, because at the end of the day they see themselves as part of the same family. But why? You will never come close to eradicating religion, why not gain allies instead of pushing them away?

The goal isn't eradicating religion, as much as its moving to secularism with regards to politics. The eventual goal is nations to look more like Sweden and Denmark, not USA or Pakistan.

That has to occur gradually, and you talk about allies, well of course you can gain 'friends' in the movement from moderate religious people; but ultimately the battle is right now for awareness and trying to change the zeitgeist towards a real debate.

Right now in many parts of the world, atheism isn't even on the radar, and for those countries where they are; its helping those people who are in very religious families, communities, etc.. find some hope/support

Its consciousness raising and ultimately gaining the respect and becoming a force in world politics, debate, and having a seat at the table.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Atheist = non-believer.

Militant Atheist = non-believer who says it out loud.

At least that's the impression I get.

So we can then state:

Christian = Believer
Militant Christian = Believer who says it out loud.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.... these guys are doing nothing more than expressing their opinions. They don't shoot anybody, they don't tear down churches. They write books and speak in public.

They might be obnoxious and saying things people don't want to (and never used to have to) hear, but it's got nothing to do with being militant.

Couldn't agree more.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Atheist = non-believer.

Militant Atheist = non-believer who says it out loud.

At least that's the impression I get.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.... these guys are doing nothing more than expressing their opinions. They don't shoot anybody, they don't tear down churches. They write books and speak in public.

They might be obnoxious and saying things people don't want to (and never used to have to) hear, but it's got nothing to do with being militant.

I actually really like Hitchens and Harris and I get really frustrated when people talk about these three men (or four, if you count Dennett) as if they are part of a triumivirate of ultimate aweseom atheists. These guys are without a doubt incredibly diverse and share almost entirely different beliefs. Harris is an Eastern mystic, for crying out loud!

I categorize militant in liberal terms. That is, someone who is willing to use or take over the institutions of the state for their own use, without the needed democratic component. Now are religious people like that? Of course, probably more so, but you can't deny that this certain faction exists within the "atheist camp."