Why Atheism Is A Religion

As one who calls himself a Christian, I guess I should feel insulted. "Weak minded fool" is harsh. Do you feel the same way about the many distinguished scientists and scholars who also call themselves Christian? I know lots of Christians who are politically active against the folks who want to ban abortions. You should get out more!

 

Sure, why not. As long as everyone gets a bite :-D

 

Puddy tats....

 

Well I know you aren't going to be insulted because you are not a good christian, and those scientists, they likely aren't good Christians either. Y'all don't follow biblical doctrine.

Kinda like this meme

https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0519a631c41ce47548523927a3d095e75b4834-wm.jpg

I'm puzzled why smart and spiritual people still want to associate themselves with an antiquated work of fictional literature.

 

I can see your point, but don't agree. I think the concept of a god historically denoted a supernatural being who had superhuman powers--not necessarily omnipotent but very potent. The Abrahamic God was typically thought of as the Almighty Dude in the Sky, and I think many believers still think of Him in those terms. I don't. I think religion is an evolving process by which competing memes adapt to changing environments. Theprodu puts it well. Religion suggests "That there is something more, and that this something somehow created/creates our world, and effects our daily life." I'm reminded of psychologist William James' observation:"Religion brings individuals into union with something more (God, self, Buddha-mind, the subconscious), producing feelings of tenderness and solemnity toward the world." (Varieties of Religious Experience, 493)". I tend toward Panendeism, which is something like a cross between pantheism and a deism. I approach God from three perspectives: (1) an objective hypothetical entity or force that is responsible for the laws of science; (2) a synonym or metaphor for ultimate meaning and mystery--the Ground of Being, as Tillich put it, or Dewey's summation of human idealism; and (3) the felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live, and move and have our being." Joseph Campbell remarked: God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought." I think these usages are appropriate in a post-modern, post-Tillich world. They're consistent with common discourse in progressive Christian communities which take an historical-metaphorical approach toward scripture, and they convey an attitude of reverence and awe for the sacred. Metaphorically, I think of God as ultimate meaning and anything less than that as a false god. The most important thing to me is that I'm a follower of Jesus in accepting as my guide to meaning and morality the values attributed to Him, which can be summed up as the agape principle: universal, non-judgmental love for all, including society's rejects. So metaphorically we can say "God is Love".

 

On the contrary, I think it's the literalists who aren't good Christians. Christianity can be a mind-crippling disease, especially when it takes the form of fundamentalism, which Pope Francis tells us is a disorder in all religions. "The mental structure of fundamentalism," he says, is "violence in the name of God." Even in mainline Protestant churches, I feel uncomfortable with the creeds and doctrines that supposedly define conventional Christian belief: virgin birth, resurrection of the body, god-man who came to earth to die for our sins, etc. Sausages are better appreciated if we don't know how they were put together, and knowing the political struggles that led to these formulations makes them less than credible to me.

I agree with Borg that the Bible should be taken seriously but not literally. I regard the Bible as the words of men trying to understand God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are collections of writings by different men at different times with different agendas , rooted in myth. But like all myths, it provides valuable historical insights into a remarkable people, and some of the most profound words of spiritual inspiration that have been penned by humans. Understanding the Old Testament is key to understanding the New Testament and the significance of Jesus.

 

The thing is I am not accusing you of anything. It seems to me this is projected a lot on people when their dubious remarks get a critical reaction. You said something striking about weak christians and I reacted to that.

Why do you say reality bites me? You're putting it like I said something wrong about you or what you said and then put me straight. But how exactly??

First of all it does not matter (to me) in what forum it is. I regard this as just another topic regarding atheism and theism in the philosophy and religion forum. If it is in the atheist subforum does that mean christians can't come in there and give their opinion on the thread matter? No. Well, it all depends on how they do it.

Second of all your unnuanced remark that i reacted to didn't really seemed to be a reply to a christian in this thread in particular but more about all christians in general. Wether it is in the atheist subforum, the crhistian one or in random thoughts you would have gotten the same reaction from me everywhere

What really bites mister, is how stupid and useless everyone talks about people with opposite beliefs. Time and time again. Everybody who does that is stuck in their own corner of perspective and think when they make such a stupid generalisation as you did (for whatever reason) about weak christians that it is somehow ok because 'hey some christians nagged on my lack of beliefs too'. So fucking what. Grow some balls. How does it make you sound more reasonable when you said what you said? And even more so, by reacting to it how am I accusing you of anything. Am I making you look llike something? Am I projecting something on you? No, I am just pointing out what you said yourself. How can you not expect a critical reaction to that And in return reality bites me and I am trying to accuse you of stuff? Puh lease.

I thought it was interesting too.... at first. When you read every thread about religion with these same regulars here you will notice how every thread about theism, atheism, religion and spiritual people ends in the same old same old. Like we haven't established all together 100 threads ago that god is a spiritual matter and we can't proof His/Her existence in physical reality. That no matter how unlogical it seems for an atheist and how much they try to point it out to a theist it simply a matter of personal belief and understanding.

Your observation is basically the point I am often trying to make. I see it so often it is ruining every thread. It's always about the same thing even though the thread was a worthy attempt to go at it from another angle (not this thread btw). People also always come with their projections and assumptions about the people they have been having these discussions with for pretty much years, which also doesn't help at all. It's all fricking circles. Everybody is out to react to what they disagree with in the other and rub that in as clear as possible with the idle hope to finally convince the other that they are wrong... I either quit participating in these threads or am just like Mr. Writer reacting to the thing I find most curious. Mr. Writer reacts to these theistic beliefs he doesn't understand with the same questions. I react to people like Mr. Writer with the same remarks. Nobody is really open to eachother and instead feels antagonized and (often deliberately) misinterpreted

Just my observations.

 

I don't have a faith. Just feel that Atheists should mind their own business. Do Atheists go to Church? No, so their message on the billboard isn't even targeted towards other Atheists, but towards Christians that they're trying to recruit.

 

Actually if you're Spiritual, for many people God can mean that which is the same within all beings. Something that connects everyone with Universal Oneness. Doesn't always represent some picture of a guy in a throne in the sky as you imagine it to be.

 

The other day I saw a gathering of little kids and some Christian speakers actually Preaching to the kids with the whole "Repeat after me" indoctrination. There was a translator there too, who I believe was translating into Arabic. I listened to it for a minute, the ridiculousness of the premise of this thread crossed my mind.

 

I thought some atheists did have some kind of gathering center for some kind of services. It just goes to show that one atheist does not have to be like the other. Neither is their mindsets. Same for theists obviously. Which is why it is so pointles to claim the big problem where it comes to religions is the theistic belief on itself.

I think it is great (hypothetical that is ) when people have an interest in someone elses opposite 'business' or spiritual beliefs. But it is all in the way that is acted upon. Hate those anti-abortion people? Ok. Rally against anti-abortion. Hate those anti-homosexual convictions? Well, target them. Think those people are mainly doing that because of their religious beliefs? Break it to them. But instead most antitheist or antireligious people on here just rally against religion or the theistic belief as a whole, or put that at the center of such kind of discrimination.. It is the religion that is at fault more so than the people who are discriminating or (to use a more rare but existing example) kill others with a religious motive. This is were people who already have the conviction anyway that 'religion is evil' are going wrong. They connect too many things to this inevitable truth of them. This while anti abortion or discrimination of gays is not solely done by the religious (albeit the far majority I think) and not all religious by far are anti abortion or discriminating gays, and to an even lesser extent kill nonbelievers or wish any serious harm upon them for being nonbelievers.

Soo what was I getting at That being interested in eachother is great and we don't have to mind eachother's business. It is just so that if we can't gather up any understanding about the people you're about to act interested in you will not understand them in that regard at all. That's when we get this old turn in the discussion like 'I am the one using logic, you believe in a god therefor we can assume you are making less use of logic. Oh and btw the burden of proof is upon you'. (maybe the burden of proof lies upon someone when they try to convince one, but often so it is that the theistic person here is first asked to share their beliefs and when they do they are pressed to defend them otherwise they are either not acting up to this burden of proof that another bestowed on them or even more silly a coward. In this case the atheist is often the one who is out to convince someone. In this regard I agree with you, Chinacat, that whoever is the evangelistical one there is a point when they're not sicnerely sharing their beliefs but starting to bully the other person because they think they're overly right. This is definitely not restricted to theists or atheists as we can see)

 

This is a great example of why we will always clash on this matter. It is not just because what we think and believe, but also for a large part what we conclude out of that about eachother and apparently the assumptions that are made afterwards. You see me defend a certain thing on this forum and make wrong assumptions because of it. Hans Teeuwen has actually been my favourite comedian for at least a decade. I pretty much rolled of the couch laughing of how he makes fun of Allah and all kinds of religious beliefs on stage and I love dutch tv programs like this where he provokes muslims. These tv programs are not so great just because of people like Teeuwen btw, but also because of his convo partners here Hope you acknowledge that too.
I don't expect you to read all my posts on these forums but I expressed often enough that I value openminded thinking above pretty much anything else and can appreciate provoking art a lot, for example antichristian and highly individualistic black metal. Even in this thread I mentioned that.
It seems you read past all that when you go about and say that when I criticize how you try to debate theists on this forum and how you regard religion in general. I know for a fact I will never be a person that brings any caliphate closer to existence (not that there is a serious threat there will be a caliphate in my country anyway, another thing that is worthy to point out). And also that I don't have to choose between moderate muslims and people like Hans Teeuwen at all. You go pressure people in taking a side my friend. Extremism and fanatisicm are the enemy, not moderate islam.

edit: spelling

 

What confuses me though is how God can be a metaphor, that is, a literary device, not an actual "being", while simultaneously also the creator of the universe and/or the ultimate meaning in reality. Consider an analogy, imagine I told you that I made pizza for everyone in this thread today, but the pizza isn't pepperoni, and it isn't vegetarian, no, it's a metaphor for the most pizzaest aspects of life which transcend all toppings.

How satisfied do you think you will be with my pizza when I bring you a plate with a metaphor on it?

Many religious people would say that you are imagining something that is not God; from my understanding of Islam, your view would be considered heresy in the vasy majority of the muslim world. Even the Sufis with their relatively liberal and nebulous theology, still do not deviate from the belief that Allah is a being with intentions, plans, and emotions.

I can assure you that I understand 99% of the beliefs I discuss and criticize. Studies show that in general atheists understand the beliefs of theists even better than theists do. When I ask someone a simple question about their belief (like I have above), it doesn't mean that I don't know the answer, or that I don't have a good theory or two. It means I want the person I'm speaking with to answer the question in their own words because I suspect they haven't actually thought about it through and through. This is called the Socratic method.

I am well read in theology and philosophy as, if you haven't noticed, I am extremely passionate, curious, and interested in these topics. It doesn't mean I don't understand theistic beliefs; it means I understand them, and I find them to be critically flawed or manifestly false, and I wish to engage the neurons of my discussion partners.

You seem to have a problem with the rhetoric I use; that is, you don't actually have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion on it's face, rather, you step out of the discussion, look at it from the air, and say "Ah, he's saying all kinds of things, but look at HOW he's saying them, that's no good!"

That is actually a different conversation entirely, one which we may engage in and which would likely be interesting. Feel free to start a thread on the rhetoric of philosophical discussions or on the etiquette of theological discourse; I find that to be of secondary importance to the actual theological discourse and philosophical discussion. You are playing the part of the referee, but nobody hired you for this sport!

 

Quality post all around but I have a point of contention. I don't think Asmo even feigns the referee shtick anymore. Or if he's referee with quotes like this...

It's clear the bookies are in his back pocket.

 

Yep, noticed that. pretty glaring, lol

 

Yes, you did. Do I really have to go back and quote what you said, about me being fond of putting down believers? Pfft I'm done with this shit

 

Damn son, not a clue huh? Well good luck with that.

 

I haven't commented on this meme yet. Who is it from? The seems to be assumption that a good Christian is somebody who takes all the stuff in the Bible literally--and believes in words wrenched out of historical context. Such a person is a misguided Christian. Since the Reformation (and in my opinion, also before that event), no one has the authority to declare what a "good Christian" is--least of all the hateful folks who violate the core principles of Jesus' teachings. Many of the people who set standards for who is and who is not a "good Christian" strike me as latter day Pharisees, of the type Jesus made a career of challenging.

The biblical prohibitions in the Old Testament against homosexuality reflected the values of a small population that was struggling for national survival. Whatever might be said for or against homosexuality, it produces no offspring. And sex was, among other things, considered to be an act of dominance practiced toward women, slaves and subordinates. For one man to practice it toward another was considered tantamount to turning an adult freeman into a woman or slave. (Lesbianism wasn't considered a problem until the first century C.E.) Homosexuality was also associated with pagan orgies, pederasty and ritual prostitution. Jesus, to the best of our knowledge, said nothing about it. Paul condemned it, probably on the basis of his Jewish cultural heritage and the reasons that I mentioned above. It's clear from his discussion in Romans I that he thought of it as unnatural lust. And it became interpreted as a violation of "natural law"--a Greco-Roman theory that became incorporated into Christian theology by Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, etc. None of these people had a concept of homosexuality being part of a normal loving relationship. Since the historical and philosophical foundations for the taboo no longer exist, I think it's possible for a good Christian not to condemn homosexuality.

 

Ah, you need to read more carefully. I didn't say that God is only a metaphor. In the Abrahimc and other traditions, though, there is a recognition that God is an ineffable mystery. These debates we have about the subject are like dogs debating the nature of humans. They know something about us, but their understanding is very limited. In discussing the ineffable, metaphors, analogies, allegories, parables, etc., are useful, as long as we keep in mind they're only metaphors. Humans developed the idea that there is something big and mysterious out there by a variety of approaches that I outlined in my previous post: (1) intellectual efforts to explain the integrated complexity of the universe; (2) experience of a felt presence of being touched by something big and wonderful; (3) a quest for meaning and morality to guide their lives by. Their efforts to gain some understanding of the incomprehensible may ultimately be futile, but some of us think it's an enterprise worth trying. Metaphors always have their limitations. Take your pizza analogy. We know that pizza is a tangible substance that satisfies our needs for bodily sustenance, but to paraphrase Jesus, Man does not live by pizza alone. When it comes to spiritual sustenance, pizza just doesn't do the job.

As for those religious folks who would say that I'm imagining something that is not God, all I can say is "Same to you, buddy!" In making sense of reality, I go by my own judgement based on reason, experience, intuitions, and willingness to take a chance. Jesus gave us the "fruits" test for judging false religions. My observations are that the fundies of all faiths, the ones who would condemn me as a heretic, are producing lots and lots of bitter fruit. And I don't rule out a God with intentions, plans and emotions. I'm just skeptical that we can ever fully understand what those are. I think they include the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, natural selection, etc. But I could be wrong.