Freedom From Atheism

Not necessarily.

 

Atheists are just as concerned with religion as religious people, if not even more obsessed.

Atheists are so sure of themselves that they want to eliminate all religion in their own form of an ideological Holocaust.

 

If the Kliens' religion was so fragile that it was "destroyed" because they had to sell cake to gays or go into another line of work, I'd say it was pretty shaky to begin with. In a pluralistic country the courts have to strike a reasonable, principled, balance between one person's rights and another's. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. If people offering goods and services to the public are free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion, they potentially have the right to "force" their will on others. If doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc., could turn away people because their religion considers them odious, it could effectively "destroy" the targeted people. Sure, with the Kliens, it was only wedding cake, but it's the principle of the thing.

 

I don't think religious morality has been the core definition since the beginning of time. In fact, in the Greco-Roman world around the time of Jesus, non-Judeo-Christian religions had little to do with morality. Of course, those pagans had morality, but it was not part of their religion. Their gods were often pretty immoral by anyone's standards. Part of the attraction of Christianity was that it offered moral religion without circumcision and Jewish dietary laws. I think morality is an outgrowth of empathy, reciprocal altruism and the needs of communal living, which may be "hardwired" into us and are also passed on by social learning. The world's moral philosophies are the results of millenia of cultural evolution based on these foundations. And yes, they are typically intertwined today with religion, but don't have to be. I know plenty of atheists who seem to be moral enough for me to trust with my children and personal belongings. I think their parents, religious or otherwise, did a good job raising them, and/or they deserve lots of credit on their own in developing good values.

 

I don't agree that "atheists' are creating their own religion, if that means all or most atheists. Some are, some aren't. According to cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz,: "Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." Or according to sociologist R.N. Bellah, religion is "..a set of symbolic forms and acts that relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence." Those definitions are broad enough to accommodate many atheists nicely. Of course, when we include the supernatural in the definition, atheists are left out. Certainly, the new atheist mega-churches are incorporating forms of ritual that are typically associated with religion. In the sixties, chapters of the American Humanist Association wrestled with issue of developing rites of passage for children comparable to baptism or confirmation, such as the "presentation of the child". I'd say ceremonies such as those border on the religious. I think it's also meaningful to speak of secular ideological movements like Communism and nationalism as secular quasi-religions. And more to the point of these forums, "scientism" can be quasi-religious in providing confidence that science can and will answer all meaningful questions and solve most human problems, if not now, at some point in the future. If faith is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1) scientism is naturalistic faith paralleling religious faith in the supernatural.

Most atheists I know are less doctrinaire and ritualistic in their beliefs. Most, I'd say, are not doctrinaire or ritualistic at all. So it would be hard to characterize these as religious.

 

I think we need to distinguish between the atheists we encounter on internet discussion forums from those we meet on the street, and between "organized" atheism and the personal beliefs of everyday atheists. On forums like this, I expect and welcome candid expressions of opinion, and don't at all feel "assaulted" by them. As a matter of taste, I think civility in discourse is desirable. A few years ago, this forum was so cluttered with anti-religious folks posting epithets that intelligent discourse was almost impossible. But those people seem to have gone away. As long as people follow the Forum rules, I have no problem with them challenging my core beliefs and values. As a matter of fact, that's the main reason I'm here--to expose myself to views that are different from my own. Ideas that seem so reasonable when rattling around in my brain or shared with co-religionists, often seem more questionable under attack from outsiders. That's why God made atheists! These forums are particularly valuable in offering a more candid and aggressive exchange than I get in everyday encounters with atheist friends, who tend to go about their business. I've been to lots of atheist functions where the subjects of God and religion seldom arise. They could just as well be suppers of Methodist or Episcopalian church groups. "New" Atheists like the "Four Horsemen" and David Silverman, are polemicists who, like politicians, are catering to a constituency that tends to be more ideological or anti-religious than the typical atheist on the street.

 

I do not agree that reasoning right versus wrong has been the core definition of religion since the beginning of time. First, people held beliefs long before they were able to write them down, so we should admit that we do not know what people have thought since the beginning of time. Secondly the earliest writings of a religious nature which I am aware of tend to be concerned more with explaining how everything came to be than expounding on moral principles. A religion focused on morality seems to be a more recent invention (a few thousand years) and even in those cases it is rarely a reasoning about morality but rather a defacto statement of what is right and wrong.

To the second point I most emphatically do not agree that atheists are creating their own religion. Firstly I rarely meet two athiests who hold the same beliefs so to me the idea that there is a coalition of athiests is flawed. Second, the whole of my athiesm is as follows: I do not believe that any gods exist. It is difficult to me to see how that constitutes a religion.

To this point:
"So how can an atheist be 'moral' without simultaneously falling under the definition of religion or are they trying to change the definition to mean something it was never intended to mean? That would be subterfuge would it not?"

First an athiest can be moral without falling under the definition of religion because to an athiest morality has nothing to do with religion. As for the second part of that sentence, where you claim that the definition of morality was always meant to be religious, I disagree so fundamentally that it is hard to respond. You and I clearly do not share much in the way of world views, and so at this point a meaningful discussion might not be possible. I will simply say that I do not concern myself in the least bit with intended definitions, as if the people in the past have some power over current thought simply by virtue of speaking first. And to the last part, no, that would not be subterfuge at all.

 

My response was meant as satire too. This isn't the first time I've come across one of your posts.

 

Yeah, 15,000+ posts. I'm kinda hard to miss.

 

What term do you use for someone who is not concerned with religion?

 

Apatheist, aka. "pragmatic atheist" or "apathetic agnostic". "I don't know and I don't care' .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/apatheism.htm

 

Thats what they can call me then, if they feel the need to label ... an 'apatheist' or pragmatic atheist

 

If you are stumped with religious texts or anything, put down your books and go ask an atheist, they'll tell you all about it. all the atheists I really know just don't even bother talking about it. The ones I know IRL I mean. They don't act snotty like the ones online do. And basically, they can't really prove that they're right or that your wrong or anything for that matter, just egotistical really.

There's really just more important stuff in my life to think about rather than somebody else's opinions on religions.

 

Agnostic is still the most accurate label for me.

 

But scientists have a pretty firm grip about the origins and creation of the universe. If I'm reading agnostic correctly, then you'd be someone who thinks it's impossible to understand such an event? You're like my father, perhaps.. Who doesn't believe in anything but won't count it out either until there's evidential proof? I rate this approach higher than religious people's approach tbh. As for me I'm still very torn about what I believe in. I know what I believe in, but my mind is open to so much interpretation on the subject that I honestly believe that what I do believe in resides only inside me, for me to understand and learn.

 

I don't think so. The last I looked, they were speculating about quantum vacuum fluctuations and the wave function of the universe--but no firmer grip than we have on the existence of Jesus.

 

Oh don't worry, I don't believe a smidgen of what scientists say, but along with religion there are certain aspects of cosmology that fit right into the cosmology of my own beliefs.

 

I don't really have any investment in evolution theory. I don't have any grounds to disagree, (though I'm pretty satisfied fossil records contradict the biblical flood) It's pretty much gee-whiz science to me. It doesn't effect my world view or how I plan my life. I think most of the moral values presented in the bible, (and countless other so called ancient religious scripts) are, or should be, completely self evident.

 

If your objective is to argue the point you need to change your strategy since the above is the common fallacy called poisoning the well.

Worse everything you claim is FALSE and a misrepresentation of my positions, I can only assume due to lack of understanding them in the context I presented them in the first place.

Its illegal argumentative strategy to put your twist on my positions then incorrectly present them to others as my position.

We've gone through all this before.
In my past discussions with him It seems to me that ZZap:

Uses his own definition for religion.

FALSE: I used the second part of YOUR POSTED DEFINITION however you chose to ignore that fact.

Which as I have shown philosophically stands by itself without the need for all the garbage you want to attach.



He doesn't understand what the separation of church and state means as he believe that the U.S. government is a religion.

FALSE: He claims the US Government has overstepped its legitimate authority and operates defacto outside its legal constitutional boundaries and you insist that is within their authority because 'they' claim it is. You failed to prove its within their authority by any other method other than their claim of authority.

He believes a denial of a God or Gods is a religion.

FALSE: Thats patently ridiculous and there is was never a post made that could possibly lead anyone to that conclusion. Just making it all up to poison the well.

He believes that non belief in a religion....is a religion.

FALSE: The atheist premise of nonbelief is nothing more than another argumentative fallacy that presupposes belief in no God.

Simply reversing the terms and pretending its somehow different is ridiculous and is a deductive fallacy and failure of reasoning which pretends nonbelief is somehow different than belief that no god exists. This might fool those who do not realize its purely semantics not supported in logic or reason.

He believes that religious folk have a right to force their religious views on others contrary to U.S. law, which he doesn't understand as he believes that government is a religion. (The Kleins)

adding more well poisoning that I believe government is a religion makes your statement nonsensical however I have already shown you that they do have the right to enforce their religion against trespass or intrusion from other religions or atheists and you simply continue to repeat the same mantra despite being informed otherwise.

He believes those who want nothing to do with religion are waging a war on religion.

Yes atheists want to destroy and discredit anyone who is not an atheist like themselves.




He believes only those who practice a religion are moral.

Incorrectly stated: Everyone who practices morals including atheists practice religion.


He believes all religions are always moral.

Once again:

Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities;

You can make your own judgment call on how good or bad a religion or religious principle or practice is based on your moral compass it does not change the fact that by definition a religion has to be moral.

I would appreciate it very much if you would discontinue misrepreaenting my positions by presenting your spin on my positions as fact.

 

Yes you nailed it perfectly!