Atheism is a religion of self-worship

[manifold]

OK N4, I think I understand your analogy. Unfortunately I think it is a poor one, no offense. "Greatness" of a musical band is a purely subjective matter of taste. I know people who think the Beatles suck donkey pole. Likening one's belief system regarding the existence or non-existence of a higher power to musical preferences just doesn't work for me.

And the qualities of a "greater" being are not a subjective matter of taste? Either one knows nothing of such a being, or one believes in a communication from that being. And those supposed communications are at least as contentious about which is the correct "interpretation" as debates about what is the "greatest" band of all time. Just like it may be a combination of personal preference and selective criteria that informs one decision about the "greatest" band, so are the scriptures selected and interpreted by preference.

Absolutely not. God either exists or does not, regardless of how many people believe or disbelieve. And if God does exist, his qualities are what they are, again regardless of what people have written and preached about him. Nothing subjective about that in the least.

 

[manifold]

Is anything more subjective than religion?

We weren't talking about religion. We were discussing the possible existence of deity. And like I said to N4, God either exists or does not exist regardless of the subjective whims of mankind.

 

[Bootneck]

A couple people have commented on this sig-line so I thought I'd start a thread about it.

What do you think I mean by this? (pos reps given for sincere efforts, right or wrong. )


Discuss.

Dunno. But I do know that atheism is a non-prophet organisation.

 

[N4mddissent]

I think Barb has made a fine point theists worship a projection of themselves. The gods are but projections of Man's nature and desire. Those who worship such personal deities, then, are truly worshiping themselves and the best and worst aspects of human nature.

Atheism, then,rejects this glorification and deification of Mankind, accepting the limits of human understanding where theists seek to appeal to their own desires to provide answers.

The gods are but projections of Man's nature and desire. Those who worship such personal deities, then, are truly worshiping themselves and the best and worst aspects of human nature.

Exactly! That's how I see it, although I don't consider myself an atheist. I do believe there is some higher power, but at the same time I can't see the limitation of the unimaginable to what we are able to imagine as a valid explanation.

I have my own personal way of defining atheist. Since the word means "without gods", I take a position that it is more useful to have "without gods" define the practical affects on your life and behavior rather than personal speculation. Basically, if your behavior and your understanding of the world are based on rational consideration and not informed or directed by your belief in some higher power, perhaps considering such things unknowable and uncertain, then your interactions with the world are performed "without gods", even if your philosophical considerations and personal musings are not. I see it as big-tent atheism and welcome you if you fit the description. Of course, I would not call you an atheist if you preferred not to be- just offering a practical way to separate many nuanced views into distinct camps for practical purposes. After all, someone's personal philosophical considerations don't affect me, but their approach to interacting with world outside themselves does.

 

[N4mddissent]

OK N4, I think I understand your analogy. Unfortunately I think it is a poor one, no offense. "Greatness" of a musical band is a purely subjective matter of taste. I know people who think the Beatles suck donkey pole. Likening one's belief system regarding the existence or non-existence of a higher power to musical preferences just doesn't work for me.

And the qualities of a "greater" being are not a subjective matter of taste? Either one knows nothing of such a being, or one believes in a communication from that being. And those supposed communications are at least as contentious about which is the correct "interpretation" as debates about what is the "greatest" band of all time. Just like it may be a combination of personal preference and selective criteria that informs one decision about the "greatest" band, so are the scriptures selected and interpreted by preference.

Absolutely not. God either exists or does not, regardless of how many people believe or disbelieve. And if God does exist, his qualities are what they are, again regardless of what people have written and preached about him. Nothing subjective about that in the least.

What makes you assume god is omniscient? What other qualities does god possess? Are you willing to admit that even supposing god has objective qualities, that human understanding of those qualities come from subjective interpretation?

 

[rdean]

Republicans take it as an "admission" that you ARE a believer when you say, "I have no mystical or occult beliefs".

Using that same "logic", Obama, a mixed-race man, and Frank, a gay Jew, are most definitely Nazis.

 

[JBeukema]

I have my own personal way of defining atheist. Since the word means "without gods", I take a position that it is more useful to have "without gods" define the practical affects on your life and behavior rather than personal speculation. Basically, if your behavior and your understanding of the world are based on rational consideration and not informed or directed by your belief in some higher power, perhaps considering such things unknowable and uncertain, then your interactions with the world are performed "without gods", even if your philosophical considerations and personal musings are not. I see it as big-tent atheism and welcome you if you fit the description. Of course, I would not call you an atheist if you preferred not to be- just offering a practical way to separate many nuanced views into distinct camps for practical purposes. After all, someone's personal philosophical considerations don't affect me, but their approach to interacting with world outside themselves does.

Sounds to me like you're using 'atheism' to refer to secularism and secular interactions

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers

 

[N4mddissent]

I have my own personal way of defining atheist. Since the word means "without gods", I take a position that it is more useful to have "without gods" define the practical affects on your life and behavior rather than personal speculation. Basically, if your behavior and your understanding of the world are based on rational consideration and not informed or directed by your belief in some higher power, perhaps considering such things unknowable and uncertain, then your interactions with the world are performed "without gods", even if your philosophical considerations and personal musings are not. I see it as big-tent atheism and welcome you if you fit the description. Of course, I would not call you an atheist if you preferred not to be- just offering a practical way to separate many nuanced views into distinct camps for practical purposes. After all, someone's personal philosophical considerations don't affect me, but their approach to interacting with world outside themselves does.

Sounds to me like you're using 'atheism' to refer to secularism and secular interactions

I see them as very similar. I would say the difference is that atheistic approach would reject dogmatic theological assumptions whereas a secular approach would be without regard to theological dogma. For example, a broad tent atheist may say there is no such thing as god or may be a deist who says that god is beyond our ken- but they may agree that referring to scripture or other communications from "god" for authority and placing faith above reason are inappropriate and incorrect approaches to truth. A secular approach would not necessarily say those are approaches are incorrect or inappropriate, but merely not considered in the context of the situation.

When confronted with a creationist, an atheistic approach would be to say that placing authority in the bible as a guide to historic truth is misguided since there is no evidence that it is some divine communication or that if a divine being existed that it would communicate truthfully.

A secular approach would be to simply present the information about evolution and the scientific evidences that support it, explaining why it should be accepted as true- but not actively attacking the belief of the creationist as false, leaving them to resolve any conflicts in their own mind.

Admittedly, it is a subtle distinction.

 

[JBeukema]

I have my own personal way of defining atheist. Since the word means "without gods", I take a position that it is more useful to have "without gods" define the practical affects on your life and behavior rather than personal speculation. Basically, if your behavior and your understanding of the world are based on rational consideration and not informed or directed by your belief in some higher power, perhaps considering such things unknowable and uncertain, then your interactions with the world are performed "without gods", even if your philosophical considerations and personal musings are not. I see it as big-tent atheism and welcome you if you fit the description. Of course, I would not call you an atheist if you preferred not to be- just offering a practical way to separate many nuanced views into distinct camps for practical purposes. After all, someone's personal philosophical considerations don't affect me, but their approach to interacting with world outside themselves does.

Sounds to me like you're using 'atheism' to refer to secularism and secular interactions

I see them as very similar. I would say the difference is that atheistic approach would reject dogmatic theological assumptions whereas a secular approach would be without regard to theological dogma.

They're too different matters, just like theism and gnosticism. Either a theist or an atheist can be involved with secular social structures and events. Take government offices, for instance. You're adding needless complexity to the issue.

For example, a broad tent atheist may say there is no such thing as god or may be a deist who says that god is beyond our ken

Deism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Deism is a subset of theism.

- but they may agree that referring to scripture or other communications from "god" for authority and placing faith above reason are inappropriate and incorrect approaches to truth.

Again, theism and atheism are matters of personal belief only. Secularism, empiricism, and positivism deal with the structure of social constructs and the nature of human interactions. qwhy do you insist on attemopting to omplicate and confuse the issue by using 'atheism' where the term, is not properly applied? What are you trying to achieve?

 

[Barb]

Sounds to me like you're using 'atheism' to refer to secularism and secular interactions

I see them as very similar. I would say the difference is that atheistic approach would reject dogmatic theological assumptions whereas a secular approach would be without regard to theological dogma.

They're too different matters, just like theism and gnosticism. Either a theist or an atheist can be involved with secular social structures and events. Take government offices, for instance. You're adding needless complexity to the issue.

For example, a broad tent atheist may say there is no such thing as god or may be a deist who says that god is beyond our ken

Deism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Deism is a subset of theism.

- but they may agree that referring to scripture or other communications from "god" for authority and placing faith above reason are inappropriate and incorrect approaches to truth.

Again, theism and atheism are matters of personal belief only. Secularism, empiricism, and positivism deal with the structure of social constructs and the nature of human interactions. qwhy do you insist on attemopting to omplicate and confuse the issue by using 'atheism' where the term, is not properly applied? What are you trying to achieve?

Maybe a bigger tent, where fence sitters can mix and mingle over a pint or three with those of a more defined mindset? It wouldn't be a bad thing...would it?

 

[N4mddissent]

They're too different matters, just like theism and gnosticism. Either a theist or an atheist can be involved with secular social structures and events. Take government offices, for instance. You're adding needless complexity to the issue.

I don't see how my distinction differs appreciably from this statement. Secular social structures do not consider theological questions by definition. So, as I suggested, secularism does not oppose theism or atheism, but rather are matters considered without regard or reference to a particular theological position. Maybe I am not understanding what your specific complaint is here.

Deism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Deism is a subset of theism.

Perhaps they are, as atheism is commonly understood. But language is dynamic, and my suggestion is that it would be beneficial and more useful if we reconsidered the denotation of the word atheism. After all, do the behaviors and interactions of deists more closely resemble theists or atheists?

Again, theism and atheism are matters of personal belief only. Secularism, empiricism, and positivism deal with the structure of social constructs and the nature of human interactions. qwhy do you insist on attemopting to omplicate and confuse the issue by using 'atheism' where the term, is not properly applied? What are you trying to achieve?

I agree they are matters of personal belief, and the slight alteration of how we define "atheism" that I suggest does not contradict this point. At its root, the word "atheism" means "without god(s)". As it stands now, it is colloquially interpreted to denote a personal rejection, in public considerations or private reflections, of any god's existence. I merely suggest that an effort be made to promote an interpretation in which any personal belief that rejects consideration of any divine authority as a valid approach to governing social interactions and epistemology in general.

What am I trying to achieve? Well, it is a pragmatic approach which considers two major motivations that I believe drive theological debates and attempts to prioritize the objectives. The motivations:

1) For the enjoyment of philosophical exploration and discussion.

2) To establish a particular foundation for epistomological validity and shared social institutions.

The first motivation speaks for itself. The second can be more clearly defined as a conflict which almost always finds battle lines drawn between one side which promotes the primacy of rational thought or logical reasoning, and another side which promotes the primacy of divine authority or revelation. This second motivation, I believe, takes priority considering that a decrease in its success leads to an increase in the futility of the first motivation.

While there may be other words used at various times to distinguish an inclusive group of those advocating the primacy of rational thought (like freethinker), these have become antiquated, forgotten, and in some cases are considered to implicitly pejorative (sort of like how "pro-life" implies opponents are "anti-life" and so when used for self-identification, it is intended to indirectly insult opponents).

Also, there is already a great deal of confusion about various terms identifying theological positions- leading to the development of distinctions like "weak atheism", "strong atheism", "agnostic atheist", "agnostic theist", "big A Agnostic", etc... and a great deal of confusion within like-minded communities and wasted time debating nuanced philosophical positions that really have no effect on larger issues like the decline of enlightenment values, historical revisionism, exclusive exceptionalism, and manufactured realities. So I am not trying to complicate the issue- the issue is complicated by its nature- and I am not trying to confuse the issue, since there is already confusion. After all, how many times does the claim that "atheism requires faith" pop up despite information which suggest that most atheists do not 100% discount the possibility of a "god" but merely assert there is not enough evidence to accept such a claim.

By being fractured with no unifying indentification, those various groups which support the primacy of rational thought waste time in arguments between each other and make themselves easy targets for opponents. Without unity, each separate sub-group, may not come to the defense of others, since they do not perceive the attack as directed at them. It is also easier to create straw men, and demonize shared enlightenment values, by attack what opponents perceive as the least popular or most "wicked" group, and then painting our shared values with the perceived "evils" of the least popular.

With the recent rise of "New-Atheism", not only has the word "atheism" risen in public awareness, but has begun to inspire a certain amound of activism. It also presents an opportunity to use the label "New-Atheism" to define what is "new" about atheism. If we merely leave it as "outspoken" atheism, I believe we will miss out on a great opportunity. Instead, we should invite all who practice social and epistomological "atheism" into the fold. This would grow the movement and separate the polical/social debates which have real and practical effects, from the more general philosophical debates which have been ongoing for millenia and aren't likely to be resolved any time soon. We need to focus the goals of "New Atheism", prioritizing the establishment of enlightenment values and rational thinking as the primary foundation of epistimology and social institutions- especially social authority. When we too frequently engage in the more general philosophical debates, beyond what is needed to support our social goals, and fight among ourselves based on absolutist lines of division, we end up sounding "preachy" and effectively are just engaging in mental masturbation.

Theism is a very large tent as it stands. And as currently defined, some of them have very little in common. As long as atheism is defined in such a way that makes it exclusive, and rejects those who share social principles and values to maintain some form of philosophical purity associated with the label "atheist", then it will limit its own growth, and limit its own impact in the social discourse. In short, it will limit its own practical effectiveness in society. The label atheist is recognizable at this point. We should take advantage and swell our ranks to create a unified group promoting reason rather than divine authority as a foundation for our culture. A group that explicitly rejects theological beliefs (even those members may hold) as a useful or valid source of knowledge and authority. Don't cede those who are our natural allies to theism simply by defining them out of the group. That's all I'm trying to accomplish, since I personally don't care what people imagine is possible in their own head- as long as they agree with me that faith and divine authority should always be reason's bitch.

 

[JBeukema]

After all, do the behaviors and interactions of deists more closely resemble theists or atheists?

You're asking for a broad generalization of the 'behaviors and interactions' of two broad and diverse groups.

agree they are matters of personal belief, and the slight alteration of how we define "atheism" that I suggest does not contradict this point. At its root, the word "atheism" means "without god(s)". As it stands now, it is colloquially interpreted to denote a personal rejection, in public considerations or private reflections, of any god's existence. I merely suggest that an effort be made to promote an interpretation in which any personal belief that rejects consideration of any divine authority as a valid approach to governing social interactions and epistemology in general.

The word 'secularism' exists for that very purpose. There is no point complicating the matter. Using the proper terms is important if one is to be accurate and properly understood. It is key to effective communication that we use the terms accurately and consistently. Your proposal would render meaningless the term as any useful application.

What am I trying to achieve? Well, it is a pragmatic approach which considers two major motivations that I believe drive theological debates and attempts to prioritize the objectives. The motivations:

1) For the enjoyment of philosophical exploration and discussion.

Such discussion can only be constructive with clear and consistent terminology and communication.

2) To establish a particular foundation for epistomological validity and shared social institutions.

I don't see the relevance to your misuse of the term 'atheism'.

Also, there is already a great deal of confusion about various terms identifying theological positions-

and so you wish to add to it? It's hard enough explaining to a retard (specifically a theist) the meaning of gnosticism and agnosticism as they relate to theism and atheism.

After all, how many times does the claim that "atheism requires faith" pop up despite information which suggest that most atheists do not 100% discount the possibility of a "god" but merely assert there is not enough evidence to accept such a claim.

Theists are generally stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. It is their anti-intellectualism and refusal to think that makes this even an issue.

It is also easier to create straw men, and demonize shared enlightenment values, by attack what opponents perceive as the least popular or most "wicked" group, and then painting our shared values with the perceived "evils" of the least popular.

Your attempts to classify any secular entity atheist is not only inaccurate, it would make such strawmen even easier to construct.

 

[Anguille]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

 

[Ravi]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

Worse...they think they are so important that God gives a fuck what they think.

 

[deaddude]

Is anything more subjective than religion?

We weren't talking about religion. We were discussing the possible existence of deity. And like I said to N4, God either exists or does not exist regardless of the subjective whims of mankind.

Not true. If you believe in consensual reality, then Gods existence very much depends on whether or not people believe in Him. I don't believe in this personally, just pointing out that there are exceptions, and the argument remains subjective.

 

[JBeukema]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

Worse...they think they are so important that God gives a fuck what they think.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting...

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

And some people in this thread have asserted that theists are :


Theists are generally stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. It is their anti-intellectualism and refusal to think that makes this even an issue.

So I guess it is "even, Steven" with the name calling?



Care

 

[JBeukema]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

And some people in this thread have asserted that theists are :


Theists are generally stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. It is their anti-intellectualism and refusal to think that makes this even an issue.

So I guess it is "even, Steven" with the name calling?



Care

Name calling? Sounds like an accurate description of the majority of theists.

 

[Care4all]

Some people in this thread have asserted that atheists are narcissistic.

In fact it is theists who are narcissistic. They believe thay are so important that it took a god to create them.

And some people in this thread have asserted that theists are :


Theists are generally stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. It is their anti-intellectualism and refusal to think that makes this even an issue.

So I guess it is "even, Steven" with the name calling?



Care

Name calling? Sounds like an accurate description of the majority of theists.

Jb,

Do you remember that thread we were arguing about genesis and how the earth was formed? What was the name of that thread? I have been watching some stuff on the Universe and how our moon was formed, Giant impact theory, on the History channel and thought I could get that topic going again.... it comes closer to matching up the two genesis stories

Care