Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[rootX]

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?

That's not correct analogy because you can easily verify that just by feeling if you have something on your foot.

 

[Evo]

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.

No. There is no point to continue. You're just not capable of understanding. That's ok, I understand how people that believe in the supernatural don't get it.

That's not correct analogy because you can easily verify that just by feeling if you have something on your foot.

I forgot to mention he said it was a weightless, invisible frog.

I've decided to denounce my atheism and become a member of the cult of the IPU. It seems easier to explain that I believe in the IPU than to not believe in supernatural creatures. You've all seen the symbol of the IPU here on the forum. Perhaps you didn't know it's meaning.

This is just in fun, and I hope that my new belief in the IPU makes everyone that couldn't deal with my lack of belief feel better.

Ok, I am now a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

[Danger]

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

I've only skimmed this thread, but will read it in detail when I sober up (maybe sometime tomorrow). As it stands, I seem to share a mind with Evo.
As to the subject of the quote: My father was a preacher. None of that hellfire-and-brimstone bible school crap—he graduated from the St. Peter's College division of McGill University in 1928 with a Masters in "Religious Studies" (which would now be called "Theology"). He was an Agnostic because of his studies. I am a die-hard Atheist because of what he taught me combined with my own studies of science. Anyhow, his definition of "religion" was "one's total response to the whole of life". By that terminology, everyone has a religion. He considered himself Agnostic because he didn't think that anyone could either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
I am an Atheist, despite the number of idiots who try to convince me that I'm Agnostic. I don't merely question the existence of a supreme being; I assert to the very core of my existence that there ain't no such thing. That, according to my father, is a religion in itself.

 

[DanP]

This is just in fun, and I hope that my new belief in the IPU makes everyone that couldn't deal with my lack of belief feel better.

Ok, I am now a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Does your religion allow you to ride you supreme Deity ?

 

[Danger]

Does your religion allow you to ride you supreme Deity ?

Yes, but carefully; she is, after all, a unicorn. And as Johnny Carson once noted, "A truly wise man never plays leap-frog with a unicorn."

I can imagine this theology becoming a treasure trove for proctologists.

 

[Klockan3]

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.

This is wrong, I think that some religious fanatics twisted the definitions in order to gain a moral victory by getting everyone to call themselves agnostics. Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists. Agnostics are people who think that the question can't be answered, but it don't say anything about if you are a theist or not. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist for example.

Then you can be a practical atheist who is not agnostic and do not reject the gods but just don't consider these questions at all since it doesn't have anything to do with their lives.

Maybe you don't think about "God" because you were never exposed to religious language to any significant extent. Still, I bet you have some means of externalizing your natural psychological propensity for faith. I think this is relevant to the OP because it has to do with whether some people are totally immune from religious-type beliefs, which I don't think they are just because faith is an inherent psychological propensity, like doubt or social conformity.

There is two ways for humans to gain knowledge, either through other humans or through inductive reasoning. I wouldn't call the knowledge gained through inductive reasoning faith, inductive reasoning just relies on "It have worked like this every time before so it will probably work like this again". Then you start pondering "IF X works like Y, what would that then mean?" and constructs science from that, still no belief involved. Faith is when you are told "X works like Y" and you take that to heart.

Science is all based on inductive reasoning, what you do at schools is just help people into making the correct arguments for themselves. But given enough time they would come to the same conclusions on their own. This is what makes science stronger than any belief system.

Edit: Of course there is a bit of belief involved when people present evidence in the form of experiments. But the fact that the same results have been found by many different researchers all with clashing interests makes the odds quite high that it is correct, if it was incorrect then you would get famous for proving it and someone would have done it. Also they let you do some of the more fundamental experiments yourself to make sure that science is not just a religion to you but instead see that science is just a description of the world.

 

[GeorgCantor]

As someone mentioned earlier, warring atheists factions are religeous. As soon as an atheist starts to push his disbelief on others, their passive disbelief turns pro-active and more akin to religion.

 

[Danger]

As someone mentioned earlier, warring atheists factions are religeous. As soon as an atheist starts to push his disbelief on others, their passive disbelief turns pro-active and more akin to religion.

That is precisely why I categorize myself as a "semi-militant" Atheist. Whatever you believe is fine with me. I'll support you in times of grief, ignore it, or tolerate it. I'll discuss it with you or argue with you about it. The instant you try to convert me, I will drop on you like a ball of neutronium.
Klockan3, I'm for the moment ignoring my/my dad's definition of religion and going with the more established concept of it. Organized religion is destructive, whereas science is constructive. In science, someone dreams up a theory. Everyone with a gram of interest in the subject then does everything possible to destroy that theory. If it survives, it is a much stronger theory; sometimes so strong that it is taken as fact (such as general/special relativity and evolution—and those are still being tested). Organized religion, on the other hand (especially Roman Catholicism) says "this is the way it is, and if you don't bow to us we will kill you". (If you think that I'm indulging in hyperbole, look up "crusades" in your Funk and Wagnall's.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists. Agnostics are people who think that the question can't be answered, but it don't say anything about if you are a theist or not. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist for example.

The bit about agnostic theist makes no sense to me whatever. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no diety?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So what happens if you really don't care either way?

 

[Danger]

What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no diety?

That would be Evo and Cyrus and me—Atheists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So what happens if you really don't care either way?

Agnostic.

 

[Danger]

Agnostic.

Hmmm... I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration. If Chris just flat-out doesn't give a **** either way, he hasn't bothered to form an opinion. I have no problem with that whatsoever (more like him, and there'd be a lot less war), but I don't think that he qualifies as Agnostic. More a Mugwump if anything.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That would be Evo and Cyrus and me—Atheists.

Well that's how I use the word, and I thought it was how everyone uses it. However Evo and Klockan3 disagree.

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

Theists are people who believe in a good. Atheists are people who are not theists.

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hmmm... I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration. If Chris just flat-out doesn't give a **** either way, he hasn't bothered to form an opinion. I have no problem with that whatsoever (more like him, and there'd be a lot less war), but I don't think that he qualifies as Agnostic. More a Mugwump if anything.

I don't believe in any gods, more than I don't know if there are any, I just don't care.

People will try to assign you a label that means they can identify more you. I would argue that some atheists ARE religious, as they seem to so dogmatically go after anyone with faith with a morally superior attitude. Likewise people in ('real') religion try to say atheism is a religion so there is still 'hope' of a convertion.

I just find it all a bit tedious.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would consider that more Apathetic than Agnostic. Agnosticism implies that one has given the subject some consideration.

I doubt that you haven't given the subject some consideration, just based on the fact that you are posting in this thread. However, although technically I am an agnostic, I have to admit I don't like the appelation either. It has strayed from its original wider meaning of "not knowing", i.e skeptic. It makes it sound as if there were questions I do know the answer to and only one that I don't.

 

[Danger]

I doubt that you haven't given the subject some consideration, just based on the fact that you are posting in this thread.

My reference was to Chris, not me, and he has since addressed the issue. I have personally been giving the matter considerable thought for a very long time. On behalf of a school friend and I, my father (the preacher) and his father (Chairman of the board of the church) hired Alan Boravoy (chief counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Union) as a representative and took the Essex County Board of Education to court. Result: blew mandatory religious education out of the entire Ontario school system. (I sometimes wonder what those 70-year-old southern Baptist virgins had left in their lives when they couldn't hit little kids with sticks any more.)

 

[GeorgCantor]

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

It starts with ath and ends in eist. What do i win?

 

[Danger]

It starts with ath and ends in eist. What do i win?

In fairness, Jimmy wants responses from Evo and Klockan3. Leave us hold off intervening until they have had chances to explain their standpoints.

 

[Evo]

Well that's how I use the word, and I thought it was how everyone uses it. However Evo and Klockan3 disagree.

So I address my question to them. What is the word that means someone who believes that there is no deity?

IMO, Atheists are labled by believers. Since I'm required to find a label that fits the closest, I would be a practical (pragmatic) atheist, I lack belief.

Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[52] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[53]

I don't know if there is a specific label for someone that doesn't 'believe' in a diety, perhaps theoretical atheist would fit what you are looking for?

Theoretical atheism

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Gokul43201]

This thread is moving way too fast for me. I have not read the last several dozen posts.

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence.

Atheism is not a faith in non-existence. Some atheists may have a faith in non-existence (see next post, for example), but the most general definition of atheism does not involve taking a position of non-existence.

Any claim requires substantiation to gain credibility. Atheism is an unwillingness to place faith in unsubstantiated existence claims. It is NOT a willingness to place faith in unsubstantiated non-existence claims.

 

[jackmell]

Guess I feel I have faith in my belief that Atheism is correct: no God out there, just Astronomy. I don't have absolute proof of course but an overwhelming abundance of circumstantial evidence which put me over the top a long time ago.

 

[brainstorm]

The interesting question sociologically would be why having the status, "atheist," would be stigmatized among some people and celebrated among others and vice-versa. Is this an identity distinction that sustains class divisions with economic functionality, a la Marx? Or is there some other reason people seek to gain social distinction by claiming a certain (non)religious status?

 

[jackmell]

The interesting question sociologically would be why having the status, "atheist," would be stigmatized among some people and celebrated among others and vice-versa. Is this an identity distinction that sustains class divisions with economic functionality, a la Marx? Or is there some other reason people seek to gain social distinction by claiming a certain (non)religious status?

Good point cus' I'll be honest with you: you drop me in the middle of Iran and I'll just flat-out lie about it. All that matters is survival.

 

[brainstorm]

Good point cus' I'll be honest with you: you drop me in the middle of Iran and I'll just flat-out lie about it. All that matters is survival.

And you might start believing the lie and actually end up as a believer. I saw an interview with Ayaan Hirschi Ali following the death threats against South Park artists for depicting the prophet Mohammed. Ali said that everyone should ignore the death threats and make similar depictions in order to show terrorists that the fear isn't working. When she said that, I think I almost saw her interviewer flinch a little. In fact, I think many people do allow themselves to fear religious non-conformity and feign believing for that reason. Fortunately, there is a secular-atheist culture that has evolved, which people can fear failing to conform to - so it's really just a question of what other people around you believe (or don't believe) and conforming to their beliefs or eschewing thereof. At least one thing is clear: fear of non-conformity is the dominant social force globally. Terror has officially won the war on freedom.

 

[Hurkyl]

Terror has officially won the war on freedom.

I wonder if Godwin's law needs to be expanded for the new millenium.

 

[brainstorm]

I wonder if Godwin's law needs to be expanded for the new millenium.

I had to google "Godwin's law" and once I did, it was annoying that you posted about it without explaining why. In fact, this law deserves its own discussion thread because the wikipedia entry explores nothing about why Hitler/nazi comparisons would frequently occur in internet discussions. There's just some kind of implicit assumption that if the comparison occurs so frequently, it must indicate empty application of the comparison. Why doesn't it explicitly state this conclusion, is the question? Similarly, how can the validity of any comparison be assessed on the basis of how frequently the comparison is made? Things are constantly compared to a KG or to absolute zero. Does that indicate that in general, there is no validity in comparing things to these two standardized measures?

moderators: I welcome your discretion to transplant this post and the previous one to a new thread entitled "Godwin's law" since it is a total digression from the thread topic, imo.

 

[drizzle]

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

No, it's not.

Okay fine, just don't be so dogmatic about your opinion on the matter, that's not how the mind function, IMO, but I know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith" is

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Does that ring something in your head?

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

What is your objection then? You bolded organization so I respond to that! You mean texts then? That's not a necessity to acknowledge religion, any organization would have it too [for example a country would have a set of legislation and constitution to serve its people, etc]…


Think about it this way, you grew up knowing a number of religions X/Y/Z/etc with all its characteristic thus forming your own understanding of religion, thinking that’s how it’s suppose to be like...




P.S. I see you start to use the dots perfectly



This topic is really interesting.

 

[turbo]

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and rejected that as a young teen. When I got to college, I was thrilled to realize that there were whole schools of study regarding religion and philosophy. The little library in our town had very few books on Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. I spent two years in college pursuing a double-major in English literature and philosophy after ditching chemical engineering.

After spending years intensively studying faith and religion, I accepted agnosticism, without a thorough study of classical agnostics. They were right, and I just knew that they were right. Deism and ritual evaporated for me. I am not an atheist. I cannot be bothered to go to the bother of denying something that I cannot explore.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am not an atheist. I cannot be bothered to go to the bother of denying something that I cannot explore.

Atheism demands no such denial from you. See post #81 above. You are using a very narrow definition that is adopted by only to a subset of atheists.

If that doesn't cut it for you, try this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.