Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

As a note, I feel like I'd be grouped under Irreligion in this scheme since I don't take the concept of a deity seriously. But that isn't true, religion has social and philosophical aspects beyond its mythological ones which I do take seriously. I'm more of an a-mythologist or a-deist or perhaps, strangely enough, a-theist.

[Siquo]

I'm kind of stumped, because farmerbob is trying to hold a position that I agree with, but is doing it in a very strange way.

Now do the iteration ad infinitum, with all sorts of undetectable beings, and you're suddenly irrationally believing in nonexistence of infinite number of deities/creatures/thingies.

rational/irrational is not the point. Nor what you don't believe in. It's what you do believe in what makes it a religion. I believe that all undetectable beings exist (in some sort of probabilistic waveform if you will), because I don't believe in occams razor (not disbelieving, but believing that it's almost the opposite (and to be even more specific, the popular interpretation of occams razor, "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one")). Now if you do believe in occams razor, that makes it a religion, per the definition given before.

[Shade-o]

That's just the concept of probability coupled with wishful thinking for a universe that isn't pointless.

[Phmcw]

Funny is the importance given to Occam's razor. Yay yoda spoke. Listen to him.

Cool name that thing has, but only for making theory is it relevant.
Indeed how "only the simplest explanation is the good one" can say one . A lot simpler police inquiries would be if things that way worked.

Ok thank you yoda.

Now, disbelieving something mean you don't believe it. It's not exactly the same thing that believing something does not exist.
I usually call myself an atheist, because I don't believe in "yaveh" who doesn't even make sense, and not in a good way. (not in a "thing we cannot understand" way, but in a "the whole universe has been created by a selfish, misbehaved, slightly psychopathic teen" way.). As I said, I know that if one god exist, he doesn't want us to know. So I'm rather a very dubious agnostic when it come to siquo's god. (in the "why not but it's really far fetched" sense). And that give the  final blow to your smug "atheism is a religion" argument because that show that atheism isn't an organized system of belief. Christianity is not a religion. Catholicism is. Lutheranism is.   

[Darvi]

And that give the  final blow to your smug "atheism is a religion" argument because that show that atheism isn't an organized system of belief.

Nobody said a religion had to be organized.

[Phmcw]

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[31] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."
"People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[121] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[122][123] and Christian atheists.[124][125][126]"
"Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to deeper truths and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places, and/or scriptures."

Aheism is therefore not a friggin religion.

[Leafsnail]

Astrology has been debunked so thoroughly that anyone who doesn't believe in it isn't religious at all, just intelligent.

Can you really say that with a straight face?  Reaaaaaaally?

And I guess we're just pointlessly confusing two definitions of a word ("Religion is an organized group with specific beliefs" vs "Religion is absolutely everything").  It's the same trickery as "You can never jump in the same river twice".

[Darvi]

I almost goolged "Atheistic organizations" just for the hell of it. But whatever, I should've never brought this up in the first place 

[Leafsnail]

Go ahead.  Atheism isn't a religion anymore than theism is a religion.  There are religions contained within atheism (such as Buddhism) and religions contained within theism (like Christianity) but they aren't religions in themselves, and trying to paint everyone of either of those two groups as "religious" in the classic definition is just dishonest.

[Farmerbob]

Wait, so a religious belief system has to be organized or it's not a religion? What the fuck are you going on about?

No, but would anyone over the age of 12 choose to create an aunicorn religion because their sister says they have a invisible unicorn?

There's a certain level of organization necessary before a religion rises out of random background noise.

What I am saying here that has been rather misunderstood is that religion does not have to be organized, BUT for those "religions" which have only a handful or less of practitioners, it's highly unlikely that people who disagree with them will organize strongly enough to develop an actual name for themselves.  Opposition to the beliefs of just a few people doesn't require an identity.  Generally people ignore or ridicule small / tiny religious groups until they go away, which most do.

So I will rephrase and expand:

There is a certain level of organization required of most religions before they can grow to a size sufficient to warrant special consideration by those who do not agree with their religion.  It is possible (but not likely) that a religion might grow large without organization, as the threat of schism grows with each person's slightly different interpretation of the religious tenets.  Before growing to any significant size, provided that they don't engage in death worship or something terribly illegal or immoral, tiny religions are lumped together as odd beliefs that most people don't care enough about to oppose.  People certainly don't feel threatened enough by tiny religions to rally under a named organization, even though individual members of the religion might actually be frightening, or if the group is engaging in behavior as mentioned above.

I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized.  I beg to differ.  Atheists certainly are organized.  Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools?  What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season?  And that's just in the US.  I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.

I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be.  Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim.  Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.

[Leafsnail]

I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized.  I beg to differ.  Atheists certainly are organized.  Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools?  What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season?  And that's just in the US.  I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.

Well, a) people of religions which aren't Christianity are also annoyed about having it thrown in their face, b) most of the "holiday season" stuff is massively overblown, and c) some people actually agree with separation of church and state.  You don't have to be atheist to want those things changed.

I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be.  Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim.  Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.

Try not organized at all, due to not being a religion.  It makes just as much sense to say Theism as a whole is a religion.  There's nothing to schism from.  I am an atheist, and, like most atheists, am part of no group whatsoever.

And you clearly can be a "semi-atheist".  They're normally called agnostics.

Incidentally, you've done something interesting with semantics.  You've taken a definition of atheism different from the one that most atheists use, and then used that to say that all atheists conform to your definition (whether they actually agree with it or not).

[Farmerbob]

I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized.  I beg to differ.  Atheists certainly are organized.  Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools?  What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season?  And that's just in the US.  I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.

Well, a) people of religions which aren't Christianity are also annoyed about having it thrown in their face, b) most of the "holiday season" stuff is massively overblown, and c) some people actually agree with separation of church and state.  You don't have to be atheist to want those things changed.

I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be.  Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim.  Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.

Try not organized at all, due to not being a religion.  It makes just as much sense to say Theism as a whole is a religion.  There's nothing to schism from.  I am an atheist, and, like most atheists, am part of no group whatsoever.

And you clearly can be a "semi-atheist".  They're normally called agnostics.

Incidentally, you've done something interesting with semantics.  You've taken a definition of atheism different from the one that most atheists use, and then used that to say that all atheists conform to your definition (whether they actually agree with it or not).

How many different types of "No Gods" are there?  One.  The "No Gods" type.  That is why Atheists can be lumped together as a single religion.  You are correct that there is nothing to schism from.  There's one tenet, held irrationally, and if you abandon that belief you can't be Atheist any longer.

Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh.  If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.

As for using a different definition of Atheism than what most Atheists use: partly this is because the definition of Atheism that most Atheists use is wrong.  Agnostics are not atheists.  Irreligious people are not Atheists.  Atheists and Theists of most different types like to lump every non-theist into the same pile for various reasons, but it's pretty clear that there's a huge difference between Atheists, Agnostics, and Irreligious persons.  That doesn't mean that Agnostics and Atheists and Irreligious folks might not work together to address common goals, as mentioned above, but in almost all cases it's an Atheist group that starts the action and then starts to gain support from others.

Atheists will pump up their numbers any way they can to try to puff up their chests and look like a bigger voting block.

Theistic organizations lump together most non-theists and call them Atheists because it's just much simpler that way when they want to make a fuss about the ungodly.  The simple fact that most people here don't seem to know the difference between the nontheistic camps makes it pretty clear why a church wouldn't try to differentiate - they would just confuse most of their congregation.

[Darvi]

Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh.  If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.

While similar to a God in some aspects, the principles they believe in are still different. So they are non-theists, which is robably where the confusion comes from.

Agnostics are not atheists.

QFT.

Note to self: learn the difference between spoiler tags and quote tags.

[Leafsnail]

How many different types of "No Gods" are there?  One.  The "No Gods" type.  That is why Atheists can be lumped together as a single religion.  You are correct that there is nothing to schism from.  There's one tenet, held irrationally, and if you abandon that belief you can't be Atheist any longer.

Dude, that is NOT what the vast majority of atheists believe.  Hey, name one famous atheist who actually believes that (hint: Dawkins isn't one of them under your definition).

Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh.  If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.

They don't believe in gods.  And they don't have any "higher tier divine beings", whatever those are.

As for using a different definition of Atheism than what most Atheists use: partly this is because the definition of Atheism that most Atheists use is wrong.  Agnostics are not atheists.  Irreligious people are not Atheists.  Atheists and Theists of most different types like to lump every non-theist into the same pile for various reasons, but it's pretty clear that there's a huge difference between Atheists, Agnostics, and Irreligious persons.  That doesn't mean that Agnostics and Atheists and Irreligious folks might not work together to address common goals, as mentioned above, but in almost all cases it's an Atheist group that starts the action and then starts to gain support from others.

Again, I'd like a source on this.  I can't think of any famous atheists who fit your definition.  You can't force your definition on people who don't agree with it.

You use wikipedia as a source.  How about you check out their page on weak and strong atheism?

Atheists will pump up their numbers any way they can to try to puff up their chests and look like a bigger voting block.

Again with the claiming that a bunch of people with one idea in common is a group.

Theistic organizations lump together most non-theists and call them Atheists because it's just much simpler that way when they want to make a fuss about the ungodly.  The simple fact that most people here don't seem to know the difference between the nontheistic camps makes it pretty clear why a church wouldn't try to differentiate - they would just confuse most of their congregation.

I agree, and I think this is exactly what you're doing here.  You're forcing a silly, irrational belief on people who don't believe it using semantics.

I think I'll actually refer you to religioustolerance.org's bit on atheism.  It's really interesting.

[Siquo]

I think I'll actually refer you to religioustolerance.org's bit on atheism.  It's really interesting.

Hmm, it is. They also agree that some forms of atheism are actually religions, and others are not. The current discussion that "all atheists" or "all <fill in generalisation>" is not about it being true or not, but about specific sub-groups. Like any faith, atheism has factions, some of which are organised, and some of which fit the "religion" definition, partially or fully.

Also discussed there is the concept of "leap of faith", and how atheists are merely people afraid to let go of what they think they know, and take that leap. I don't fully agree, as there are amongst them people who are very ok with there being nothing, but it could apply to a lot of them. For instance: I'm leaping all over the place and people call me crazy.