Atheist vs Theist

[steve_bank]

There are recent and past arguments by Christians that atheism is a relgion with a dogma and thenrest. I see it as a weak attempt to turn the table.

As far as I know there are no schools where you study atheism. It can be touched on in secular philosophy. Atheists do adopt secular traditions like humanism, but that is not an 'atheist' philosophy or belief system.

There are people who identify as atheists but belie in some sort of higher power. They may believe in ghosts.

There is an old myth of a spirit in a volcano. I reject it, and I suppose that makes me an
a-spirit-in-the-volcano-ist. The difference is that a volcano myth does not pervade our politics and culture and does not impact my life..

For me because Christianity is so pervasive in the USA I study it to understand it. Beyond that I do not dwell in atheism. I do not read books on atheism. I have no idea who's who in atheism.

There is a whole culture of atheism with competing factions. As I see it that is just human nature. Religion, unions, politics all the same dynamics.

The difference is the Christian claim to moral authority in ancient texts of unknown authors.

Atheism could disappear and there would still be theism. If theism disappeared there would not be much call for atheism. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As far as I know there are no schools where you study atheism.

According to one or another Creationists, thats what we indoctrinate kids in by teaching them evolution, old earth, liberal thought, the scientific method, vaccinations, communism, globalism, and climate change.

 

[skepticalbip]

As far as I know there are no schools where you study atheism.

According to one or another Creationists, thats what we indoctrinate kids in by teaching them evolution, old earth, liberal thought, the scientific method, vaccinations, communism, globalism, and climate change.

True, and physics professors indoctrinate kids too, by rejecting religious solutions.

 

[just_me]

Atheism is, to me a healthy tool in which faith based people should explore the hypocrisy in their own faith. Opposition makes one rethink that which has been taken for granted and re-evaluate the actions and activity's of those within any ideology. If people don't take advantage of these things they are no good to themselves or to others. They are simply mimic each other.

 

[Lion IRC]

Hey look everybody it's Atheist Day
https://mobile.twitter.com/atheist_day

Also known as;
International Day For The Color Bald
Non-Stamp Collectors Day
Empty Manifesto Appreciation Day

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Bible God. The God that commands murders, massacres, and genocides. But God is morally perfect! Really!

 

[OLDMAN]

Hey look everybody it's Atheist Day
https://mobile.twitter.com/atheist_day

Also known as;
International Day For The Color Bald
Non-Stamp Collectors Day
Empty Manifesto Appreciation Day

As was pointed out in an earlier post, when a religion has so much power in society that it is printed on their money, then a counter view point may have to rally to be heard. Understand?

 

[steve_bank]

As far as I know there are no schools where you study atheism.

According to one or another Creationists, thats what we indoctrinate kids in by teaching them evolution, old earth, liberal thought, the scientific method, vaccinations, communism, globalism, and climate change.

You are right, it is not as simple as I'd like it to be.

Theists lump everything that conflicts with an interpretation as atheist ideology. It includes aspects of science.

 

[steve_bank]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ronald Reagan's kid is a prominent member.

They had a paid 30 minute segment on TV this morning. I was a bit shocked to see it amidst the Sunday morning Christian shows. It discussed religious intolerance in Bangladesh and India against gays and also secular free thinners. Two people were recently hacked to death in their homes over religious intolerance.

The name of the show is Freethought Matters.

Christians like lion are unable to see the inherent intolerance in religion. We see it routinely in the USA. Whatever may be seen as atheist ideology is countering the potential and actual suppression of those who have no faith.

In the 20th century USA coming out publically as atheist in a community could be just as risky as coming out as gay.


https://ffrf.org/

 

[steve_bank]

Hey look everybody it's Atheist Day
https://mobile.twitter.com/atheist_day

Also known as;
International Day For The Color Bald
Non-Stamp Collectors Day
Empty Manifesto Appreciation Day

St Patrick's Day when everybody gets drunk to celebrate the allged ridding of Ireland of snakes.

Christmas Day when we celebrate the death of a half god human by glutinous meals and buying loads of materialist junk.

Every Sunday when Catholics eat bread and wine transformed into the body and blood of a dead half god. Ritual cannibalism. One gets he essence of a dead person by eating it.

A short list off the top of my head.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As far as I know there are no schools where you study atheism.

According to one or another Creationists, thats what we indoctrinate kids in by teaching them evolution, old earth, liberal thought, the scientific method, vaccinations, communism, globalism, and climate change.

You are right, it is not as simple as I'd like it to be.

Theists lump everything that conflicts with an interpretation as atheist ideology. It includes aspects of science.

It includes other theist's interpretations.

 

[Politesse]

A lot of new religions could be classified as oppositional to another -- Christianity to Temple Judaism for instance.

I don't think atheism is a religion, but for the same reason that I wouldn't call theism a religion (category, not instance), not because I think the cosmological claims many atheists make are somehow beyond social critique, or of a fundamentally different class from other cosmological narratives.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't Cosmology come from Astronomy: the study of the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, etc?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Doesn't Cosmology come from Astronomy: the study of the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, etc?

Not really. The earliest philosophers speculated on cosmology and were naturalists. Stars were hot lumps of matter and not divine. Even early Greek theology was not theistical in origin. Hesiod's Theogony. All came from the cosmic chaos, the Void.


[FONT=arial, helvetica]This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures going out.
[/FONT]- Heraclitus

 

[Politesse]

Doesn't Cosmology come from Astronomy: the study of the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, etc?

In a discussion of religion and philosophy, it is a much broader concept.

 

[steve_bank]

Cosmology was always molded to fit political needs of the ruling powers. General scince as well. The well knon examples are Galileo and a few astronomers who were executed as heretics.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't Cosmology come from Astronomy: the study of the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, etc?

In a discussion of religion and philosophy, it is a much broader concept.

I was responding to your remark - ''I think the cosmological claims many atheists make are somehow beyond social critique, or of a fundamentally different class from other cosmological narratives''

The question being: what are these cosmological claims that ''many atheist make''.....if not something that's directly related to and supported by discoveries that are made through the use of science, astronomy and physics?

 

[Politesse]

Doesn't Cosmology come from Astronomy: the study of the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, etc?

In a discussion of religion and philosophy, it is a much broader concept.

I was responding to your remark - ''I think the cosmological claims many atheists make are somehow beyond social critique, or of a fundamentally different class from other cosmological narratives''

The question being: what are these cosmological claims that ''many atheist make''.....if not something that's directly related to and supported by discoveries that are made through the use of science, astronomy and physics?

That God does not exist, that there is no essential purpose to the universe beyond what some tiny apes choose to ascribe to it from moment to moment, and that material things simply popped into existence one day, fully outfitted with a bunch of "physical laws" which exist for no other reason than that they seem to do, and/or have "always existed" and as such should be considered eternal in much the same sense that theists think God is.

Yes, I know that "atheist" does not necessarily mean any of the above, any more than "theist" necessarily means someone who believes in a 6,000 year old ex nihilo act of will, but they are fairly common sentiments.

 

[bilby]

I was responding to your remark - ''I think the cosmological claims many atheists make are somehow beyond social critique, or of a fundamentally different class from other cosmological narratives''

The question being: what are these cosmological claims that ''many atheist make''.....if not something that's directly related to and supported by discoveries that are made through the use of science, astronomy and physics?

That God does not exist, that there is no essential purpose to the universe beyond what some tiny apes choose to ascribe to it from moment to moment, and that material things simply popped into existence one day, fully outfitted with a bunch of "physical laws" which exist for no other reason than that they seem to do, and/or have "always existed" and as such should be considered eternal in much the same sense that theists think God is.

Yes, I know that "atheist" does not necessarily mean any of the above, any more than "theist" necessarily means someone who believes in a 6,000 year old ex nihilo act of will, but they are fairly common sentiments.

That god does not exist is not a claim; It's a counter claim. Nobody has ever claimed that god does not exist without first being told by someone else that god does exist.

Atheism is a reaction to an absurd claim. Some absurd claims turn out to be supported by compelling evidence, and are eventually accepted as true as a result - for example, the claim that continents move around on the surface of the Earth over time, or the claim that a single electron can pass through two slits at the same time, as long as you don't look to see which one it went through; But the claim that a god or gods exist is not supported by evidence - the only evidence for the claim is that some people believe it.

The idea that

material things simply popped into existence one day, fully outfitted with a bunch of "physical laws" which exist for no other reason than that they seem to do, and/or have "always existed" and as such should be considered eternal

is NOT an atheistic claim. Theists make the exact same claim - they just extend the claim to include an extra unevidenced and immaterial thing, that caused material things to pop into existence, and that has "always existed" and as such is considered eternal.

Why an unsupported claim that includes an extra, unsupported and unevidenced, entity should be held up as less unlikely than the same claim without the extra entity, I cannot say - it makes no sense at all, but for some reason, some people find it more convincing.

It's bizarre to me that people find this 'god' idea compelling. I mean, if you were disposed to dismiss the idea of continental drift as obvious nonsense (and many were when it was first proposed), would you honestly find the hypothesis more convincing if it included the belief that the continental plates were pushed by gods, angels, or ghosts?

 

[Politesse]

Why an unsupported claim that includes an extra, unsupported and unevidenced, entity should be held up as less unlikely than the same claim without the extra entity, I cannot say - it makes no sense at all, but for some reason, some people find it more convincing.

It's bizarre to me that people find this 'god' idea compelling. I mean, if you were disposed to dismiss the idea of continental drift as obvious nonsense (and many were when it was first proposed), would you honestly find the hypothesis more convincing if it included the belief that the continental plates were pushed by gods, angels, or ghosts?

That is because you are better at questioning the rationality of other people's basic assumptions than you are at critically examining your own. From this agnostic's perspective, at least, I see little rational difference between these positions. The facts are more or less the same either way, and there's no idea to support either model of how the magic of existence works. You can call it God, Fred, or the meaningless void, but at the end of the day, the source of the universe makes very rational little sense. Because the universe itself doesn't. However it is characterized, the creation of the universe involved something happening - matter being created or destroyed - that is so alien to our understanding that we can only talk about it in ill-fitting metaphor. The universe is strange. It is a very strange fact. That you find an atheistic framework for considering it more comforting is down to your experience and biases, just as other people's biases inform their emotional responses. Your perspective isn't better or worse than anyone else's. There can be no real thing as a better or worse response when no facts whatsoever are known.