Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[brainstorm]

You seem to like to throw the word 'faith' into places where it makes no sense at all (at least to me). In the context of the above anecdote, what you have is not faith - it's math.

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that faith is an essential component of believing in anything, including your own math skills and the notion that your math adequately represents something real. If you ask a six year old what 3 + 3 is, s/he will probably come up with 6. But when you as them if they're sure, they will question themselves because they haven't build up enough faith in their own math abilities yet.

 

[Cyrus]

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that faith is an essential component of believing in anything, including your own math skills and the notion that your math adequately represents something real. If you ask a six year old what 3 + 3 is, s/he will probably come up with 6. But when you as them if they're sure, they will question themselves because they haven't build up enough faith in their own math abilities yet.

No, it's really not. I'll let Gokul correct your false understandings here.

 

[brainstorm]

No, it's really not. I'll let Gokul correct your false understandings here.

I don't think you get the difference between logic and faith in logic. Logic is a standardized algorithm whereas faith is the subjective component that allows you to embrace logic.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think you get the difference between logic and faith in logic. Logic is a standardized algorithm whereas faith is the subjective component that allows you to embrace logic.

There is no 'faith' required to understand mathematics. Your example of asking a 6 year old 'why' 3+3 = 6 is not a proper question. The reason why 3 + 3 = 6 is because of how the rules of mathematics are defined. There is no 'faith' involved anywhere. This is a rather basic point that you have missed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, do you have an opinion on the matter of whether or not atheism is a religion (one you could share with us here)?

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence. Agnosticism is the lack of faith. Not all of the faithful join a religion so my opinion is that for some people their atheism is not a religion, and as the FACTS site shows, for other people it is. Does this help?

 

[Cyrus]

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence. Agnosticism is the lack of faith. Not all of the faithful join a religion so my opinion is that for some people their atheism is not a religion, and as the FACTS site shows, for other people it is. Does this help?

All the FACTS site shows, is that you gave us a crackpot link...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure if your being serious here. Whatever this nonsense you linked to is, it's certainly not atheism.

I am serious. It is not my fault if you find this particular atheistic religion nonsense. There are others, can you say that all of them are nonsense. Are they a different kind of nonsense than other religions. From my point of view, it is merely a counterexample to your statement which I repeat:

Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists.

Edit: On second reading the FACTS site, I must disagree with you. What ever deficiencies there are in the site, it most certainly is about atheism.

 

[Cyrus]

I am serious. It is not my fault if you find this particular atheistic religion nonsense. There are others, can you say that all of them are nonsense. Are they a different kind of nonsense than other religions. From my point of view, it is merely a counterexample to your statement which I repeat:

Again, atheism is not a religion. What they are doing, is not atheism. Atheism makes no claims about going around praising the moon cycle (or any of the other various nonsense rituals they state).

Edit: On second reading the FACTS site, I must disagree with you. What ever deficiencies there are in the site, it most certainly is about atheism.

No, it's really not. It's a cite that talks about atheism mixed in with a load of horse manure.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism makes no claims about going around praising the moon cycle.

Yes they do. They are atheists. They have a religion. They go around praising the moon cycle. Sue them.

Edit: Theirs is not the only atheistic religion. Do you intend to critique them all?

 

[Cyrus]

Yes they do. They are atheists. They have a religion. They go around praising the moon cycle. Sue them.

And what exactly is their religion?

 

[drizzle]

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your definition you have cited is a poor one - confusing religion with deism. Atheism, is, by definition, not a religion...

Fortunately, I am not wrong! Every single person hold a set of values/ethics/beliefs/questions/answers/etc that have been build up by one of two entities; either by one’s self/a bunch of people or God/Gods, alias religion, which consequently help to shape that person’s ‘identity’. You don’t have to swallow what I say, but you may need to reconsider your understanding of the word 'religion'. [… You still have the choice to ‘ignore’ ]

And btw, your definition [which you have NOT cited] is poorer than wiki's.

It does not make sense to even describe atheism as religion. Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists

Organization, heh, people tend to group up and form organizations that represent the shared aspects/understandings/principles for WHATEVER they feel the need to, whether it’s religions/politics/clans/etc so they can be more recognizable to others, and more powerful maybe.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And what exactly is their religion?

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Edit: Now I'm doing it. They believe there is no deity. There's a difference.

 

[Cyrus]

Fortunately, I am not wrong! Every single person hold a set of values/ethics/beliefs/questions/answers/etc that have been build up by one of two entities; either by one’s self/a bunch of people or God/Gods, alias religion, which consequently help to shape that person’s ‘identity’. You don’t have to swallow what I say, but you may need to reconsider your understanding of the word 'religion'. [… You still have the choice to ‘ignore’ ]

Ok.....no, I don't need to reconsider my understanding of the word religion - you do.

And btw, your definition [which you have NOT cited] is poorer than wiki's.

No, it's not.

Organization, heh, people tend to group up and form organizations that represent the shared aspects/understandings/principles for WHATEVER they feel the need to, whether it’s religions/politics/clans/etc so they can be more recognizable to others, and more powerful maybe.

Ok, and that doesn't answer my objection...

 

[Cyrus]

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Good, so we agree that Atheism means to not believe in any deity. NOW how does this jive with your link praising the moon - which has NOTHING to do with Atheism.

If the want to celebrate the moon - fine - then call them selves the mooninati for all I care, but don't go around calling your self something you're not (atheist).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

but don't go around calling your selft something you're not (atheist).

You shouldn't say that they are not atheists unless you can prove that they do believe in a deity. As for them praising the moon, I don't see why that makes you think that they do believe in a deity. One possibility is that you believe that the moon is a deity. Is that the problem? If so, I can understand your confusion. They do not believe that the moon is a deity, they just praise it. Barring that, I expect that you just can't admit that there are atheistic religions and so can't see them when you are looking directly at them. I repeat, FACTS is not the only atheistic religion. Are you going to critique them one at a time. This one meets on Thursays so they aren't a religion. This one meets in a rented building so they aren't a religion, etc.

 

[Cyrus]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less. Whatever it is these people are doing, I don't care: they are crackpots, and your link is crackpot. Their "FACTS Rituals" are pulled straight out of someones a**, again - nothing to do with Atheism.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less. Whatever it is these people are doing, I don't care. They are crackpots, and your link is crackpot.

Is Catholicism a religion in spite of the Bingo games?

 

[Cyrus]

Is Catholicism a religion in spite of the Bingo games?

hrmmmm...?

 

[Evo]

Atheism. They don't believe in any deity. That's all it takes to be an atheist. Atheists can praise the moon, or not praise the moon and it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are atheists.

Edit: Now I'm doing it. They believe there is no deity. There's a difference.

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atheism only means not to believe in a god. That's it - nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, you are describing atheism the faith, not atheism the religion. As you said yourself, there is more to a religion than the faith. There is organization, dogma, and ritual.

 

[Hurkyl]

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

Many do deny the existence of a deity. Many more claim simply not to believe, but frequently deny existence anyways.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, you are describing atheism the faith, not atheism the religion. As you said yourself, there is more to a religion than the faith. There is organization, dogma, and ritual.

Precisely, and Atheism makes no claims to any of those things!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Atehists do not believe there is no diety. They do not recognize any diety, therefore nothing to disbelieve.

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

 

[Evo]

Many do deny the existence of a deity. Many more claim simply not to believe, but frequently deny existence anyways.

But I would say those aren't "real atheists". There are people that are anti-religion, there are those that are really agnostic, but claim to be atheists, there are some that are just plain confused about what they believe. It is wrong to bundle all of these different people together and claim that they are all the same.

I don't know why some people don't get that some people simply don't give any credence to mythological creatures. I guess for people that believe it must be impossible to comprehend this?

If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist,

See, this is where you don't get it. I don't believe that there is no deity. I don't recognize the possibility in the first place, so there is nothing to deny.

I have no problem with people that believe in a diety. The Evo Child believes in a god. I'm glad that she finds comfort in that, although having been super religious from the age of 12-16, she left organized religion at age 16.

 

[brainstorm]

There is no 'faith' required to understand mathematics. Your example of asking a 6 year old 'why' 3+3 = 6 is not a proper question. The reason why 3 + 3 = 6 is because of how the rules of mathematics are defined. There is no 'faith' involved anywhere. This is a rather basic point that you have missed.

Ok, how can I explain this so you'll understand it. There is a logic that defines 3 + 3 as 6. Let's say it is programmed into your CPU. Then there is another circuit that decides whether you can trust your processor, let's call that faith. As kids develop the ability to process arithmetic, they are as yet unsure about their abilities and they haven't developed a full sense of faith in the logic that 3 + 3 will always = 6. They develop this faith through experience. Eventually, they don't even blink to insist 3 + 3 equalling 6 is a true to them as their own name being what it is (ironically their name is more subjective than math but they don't know this yet at a young age). However, they do not automatically know that 3 + 3 = 6. They have to arrive at the conclusion by counting so many times before it clicks. Once it clicks they may exercise faith that it will continue to be so, even without them counting, but that does require exercising faith. It does for adults too, but they put so much faith into the logic of arithmetic itself that they forget the leap they had to take as a young child to arrive at their belief in the infallibility of arithmetic to begin with. Please tell me you can see how this works so I don't have to keep explaining it.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't know why some people don't get that some people simply don't give any credence to mythological creatures. I guess for people that believe it must be impossible to comprehend this?

But why can't you see that there is faith involved with fully believing that they are mythological to start with?

 

[brainstorm]

Sorry to post 3 in a row, but it just occurred to me that the whole issue here is whether people claim that relatively objective logic exists external to human subjectivity or whether they are part and parcel of it. If all logic and knowledge is filtered through human subjectivity, then there is a question of belief and faith. If you presume to speak for logic as external to any human thinker, then you can say that faith/belief is peripheral.

 

[Evo]

But why can't you see that there is faith involved with fully believing that they are mythological to start with?

Dismissing is not believing.

If you told me a frog is on my foot when I know that there isn't, I've dismissed it. I didn't stop to consider if maybe there really was a frog there and then decided to not believe it. Do you understand that?

 

[brainstorm]

Dismissing is not believing.

If you told me a frog is on my foot when I know that there isn't, I've dismissed it. I didn't stop to consider if maybe there really was a frog there and then decided to not believe it. Do you understand that?

You would have to have faith in the state of your foot. If someone tells you there's a giant wasp on your back and stand still, you will stand still and ask if it's gone yet. You will only dismiss it if you have the ability to check the validity of the claim. It's too big of a risk to assume the claim is false on faith alone.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, how can I explain this so you'll understand it. There is a logic that defines 3 + 3 as 6. Let's say it is programmed into your CPU. Then there is another circuit that decides whether you can trust your processor, let's call that faith.

...what? No! That is NOT how it works.

As kids develop the ability to process arithmetic, they are as yet unsure about their abilities and they haven't developed a full sense of faith in the logic that 3 + 3 will always = 6. They develop this faith through experience.

This is meaningless, and explains nothing as to why 3+3 = 6.

Eventually, they don't even blink to insist 3 + 3 equalling 6 is a true to them as their own name being what it is (ironically their name is more subjective than math but they don't know this yet at a young age). However, they do not automatically know that 3 + 3 = 6. They have to arrive at the conclusion by counting so many times before it clicks. Once it clicks they may exercise faith that it will continue to be so, even without them counting, but that does require exercising faith. It does for adults too, but they put so much faith into the logic of arithmetic itself that they forget the leap they had to take as a young child to arrive at their belief in the infallibility of arithmetic to begin with. Please tell me you can see how this works so I don't have to keep explaining it.

...Sigh. No. You need to go back and reread what I told you. How a child learns to do math, has no bearing on why or how math works.