The Religion of Atheism (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

Well you guys seem to have grown weary of debating the semantics of what constitutes atheism verses agnostics.

So I thought I’d ask a question of my own.

Why do so many atheist so vehemently defend their religion? (for the sake of argument, I’ll broaden the definition here to include any who are not actively seeking to strengthen their connection to God)

I seem to observe more tendencies to ridicule from the faith of the atheist, than from others.

 

[Rabbie]

As an atheist I would refute the idea that Atheism is a religion. Atheism to me is simply the lack of belief in a god/gods/supernatural power etc. I have not seen vehemence you refer to except perhaps in not feeling obliged to follow someone else's beliefs

Atheists do not in general advocate the death of religious people, do not start Jihads or such like and do not attack people for believing in different variant of their religion. I do not know of any atheist suicide bombers.

 

[Pauldohert]

Neither do Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh etc etc in general.

What about Stalin?

 

[dan-cat]

I seem to observe more tendencies to ridicule from the faith of the atheist, than from others.

It's a defense mechanism. It's a strong theme of mainstream religion to class the unbeliever as 'lost' or 'infidel'. It's the believers or the creed that they believe in that casts the first stone, IMO. It's quite acceptable to defend oneself from these unsubstantiated claims.

I am not Christian and I am not lost. Others may believe different and they are entitled to defend their beliefs. I, equally so.

 

[Rabbie]

Neither do Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh etc etc in general.

What about Stalin?

So the Catholic Church never burnt heretics. The protestant churches didn't kill Catholic just for being Catholics. It was Jews that persecuted the first Christians. Islam regards non-believers as being inferiors who should be killed. Check out history before you generalise.

Stalin didn't kill people because of their religion. He killed them because he thought they wanted to depose him. Many of his victims were communist atheists.

 

[Alc]

Why do so many atheist so vehemently defend their religion? (for the sake of argument, I’ll broaden the definition here to include any who are not actively seeking to strengthen their connection to God)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned Atheism isn't a religion. According to everything I understand about how it's defined, it's impossible to be religious if you have a complete lack of belief in anything supernatural/magical/mythical/call it what you will. 'Broadening' the definition to make it a religion is akin to broadening the definition of a horse so that you include it in a list of birds.

I seem to observe more tendencies to ridicule from the faith of the atheist, than from others.

Ignoring the sly little use of the word 'faith' there, I think you'd understand this tendency more if you looked at it from an atheistic(?) perspective. I know it annoys some religious types to use these types of comparison, but it's the easiest way I can think of to explain it.

Suppose I thought that there was a goblin living in my garden. I told everyone he was there. I can't see him, I can't hear him, I just know he's there. Everything I do is because I want to keep the goblin happy. In fact, if I do a good enough job of keeping him happy, when I die he'll take me to a fantastic goblin kingdom where I'll live on forever. You'd think I was mad, but you might not say anything. I'm a loon, but a harmless one.

Suppose I then get lots of people to agree with me. I start by targetting the less-educated, who would be easier to convince, but as the years go on I have many people believing it. Still nobody can see or hear him. I go on to torture people who believe in the fairies in my neighbours garden. I start wars on people who don't believe in the goblin (or, sometimes, I just use that to justify it). I cause misery and suffering for millions of people, all because I think there is a goblin in my garden. Whether or not you said anything, would you not think I was deranged? Goblins don't exist. There is no evidence for their existence beyond the fact that I believe he's there.

I try to convince you by pointing out that, since the goblin magicked-up the world and everything in it to begin with, if he doesn't exist, how could the world? I use this and other flawed logic and badly-drawn analogies with aeroplanes and watches to prove my point, only resuting in my sounding madder and madder.

I tell you that many people do good things in the goblin's name. You observe that this doesn't hold up, since plenty of people who don't believe in the goblin do at least as much good. You point out that if the only reason someone does good is because they think an all-powerful goblin is watching them, then they have a flawed character to say the least.

As a last resort, I refer you to the holy books of Goblinicity. These books must be true, I submit, because it is is written in them that they are. You still don't agree, oh non-believer.

Now, do you understand the tendency for ridicule? To an atheist, the only difference between one fictional character and the next is, sadly, the amount of harm done in that creature's name.

 

[dan-cat]

As a last resort, I refer you to the holy books of Goblinicity.

You missed one out that I abhor. Believe in the goblin or suffer eternal pain after death. As you indicated, it is the vulnerable that this particular gem is targeted at.

 

[Pauldohert]

Rabbie which do you prefer - (merely putting your original statement by way of contrast that you intended to religious groups.)

Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh do not in general advocate the death of religious people, do not start Jihads or such like and do not attack people for believing in different variant of their religion.

OR


Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh in general advocate the death of religious people, start Jihads or such like and attack people for believing in different variant of their religion?

Which one is actually true is fairly evident - except to a fervent aethiest maybe.

 

[Alc]

You missed one out that I abhor. Believe in the goblin or suffer eternal pain after death. As you indicated, it is the vulnerable that this particular gem is targeted at.

There was a comedy sketch when I was much younger, mocking why some of the Protestants hated the Catholics in Northern Irelend. The explanation went along the lines of "the head of the Catholic church is the Pope. 'Pope' is an anagram of 'Epop', which is a four letter word starting with 'E', like Evil"

 

[dan-cat]

There was a comedy sketch when I was much younger, mocking why some of the Protestants hated the Catholics in Northern Irelend. The explanation went along the lines of "the head of the Catholic church is the Pope. 'Pope' is an anagram of 'Epop', which is a four letter word starting with 'E', like Evil"

Never heard of that one. I do enjoy the 'comfy chair' one with Monty Python though. Link

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie which do you prefer - (merely putting your original statement by way of contrast that you intended to religious groups.)

Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh do not in general advocate the death of religious people, do not start Jihads or such like and do not attack people for believing in different variant of their religion.

OR


Muslims, Jewish, Catholics, Protestents, Sikh in general advocate the death of religious people, start Jihads or such like and attack people for believing in different variant of their religion?

Which one is actually true is fairly evident - except to a fervent aethiest maybe.

Paul I agree that is true for the vast majority of religious people nowadays probably due to the fact they have seen through the bits of their religions that advocate this. I think we can agree that the most violent religious people are the fundamentalists who take a literal view of the teachings of their religion and think they can book a place in paradise by killing unbelievers. Historically we can see many wars fought over religious beliefs and an attempt to impose those beliefs by force.

Personally I do not care whether someone is religious or not provided they do not want to harm me or my family. "Live and let live" I say.

Someone else's beliefs are only relevant to me when they want to impose them on other people.

 

[Rabbie]

There was a comedy sketch when I was much younger, mocking why some of the Protestants hated the Catholics in Northern Irelend. The explanation went along the lines of "the head of the Catholic church is the Pope. 'Pope' is an anagram of 'Epop', which is a four letter word starting with 'E', like Evil"

I doubt if their real reasons were any more rational

 

[Pauldohert]

"Live and let live" I say.

But in this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry.

What do you say then?

 

[Alc]

Never heard of that one. I do enjoy the 'comfy chair' one with Monty Python though. Link

It was from a UK show called 'A Kick up the Eighties'.
Robbie Coltrane said it, but I can't locate a clip, I'm afraid.

 

[oumahexi]

If you keep checking religions out, and keep coming to the conclusion that there's no way that, if there was a god it would look like us and that there probably is a higher consciousness but that is probably known to psychologists as our subconscious, or possibly to scientists as extra dimensional beings, does that mean that you are activly looking to expand your spirituality but still an athiest???

 

[Thales750]

If you keep checking religions out, and keep coming to the conclusion that there's no way that, if there was a god it would look like us and that there probably is a higher consciousness but that is probably known to psychologists as our subconscious, or possibly to scientists as extra dimensional beings, does that mean that you are activly looking to expand your spirituality but still an athiest???

Why would anyone assume God looks like us?

 

[speakers_86]

Well you guys seem to have grown weary of debating the semantics of what constitutes atheism verses agnostics.

So I thought I’d ask a question of my own.

Why do so many atheist so vehemently defend their religion? (for the sake of argument, I’ll broaden the definition here to include any who are not actively seeking to strengthen their connection to God)

I seem to observe more tendencies to ridicule from the faith of the atheist, than from others.

Its already been pointed out that atheism is not a religion. So I guess I dont need to say it.

I try not to ridicule, but I may pose a question that highlights a contradiction in faith. The reason that I ask the question to begin with is because I feel that the contradiction is evidence that there is no higher power. Since religion can not be proved, we can at least try to disprove it.

Unfortunately, it seems that people of faith do not tend to believe that my previous sentence is true. That is were the argument starts.

 

[Alc]

If you keep checking religions out, and keep coming to the conclusion that there's no way that, if there was a god it would look like us and that there probably is a higher consciousness but that is probably known to psychologists as our subconscious, or possibly to scientists as extra dimensional beings, does that mean that you are activly looking to expand your spirituality but still an athiest???

I think 'spirituality' itself is a somewhat dodgy word, as it seems to mean something different to everyone who uses it. For me, it always brings to mind one of the older-type religions - tree worshipping, or whatever.

I think if you can clearly make a distinction between it and religion then good luck to you and I for one won't be demanding your atheist badge be revoked just yet.

 

[Alc]

Why would anyone assume God looks like us?

Genesis 1:26 sort of gives that impression.

 

[Thales750]

Genesis 1:26 sort of gives that impression.

In his image. I see.

I think the image refered to, is the ability to create.