https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
@Marshmallow Marshall , using the definition of religion, please argue in what way atheism is a religion and/or has doctrine
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
The religious folks always love to counter that atheism is a religion in and of itself, it is always funny.
I don't know if it's just that they do that to try to frame atheism in a way that they can relate to/understand, or if it's just a blatant ignorant misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. Or a bit of both? I don't get it man. Even back when I was religious I don't remember viewing atheism this way.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Religion inherently is accompanied by a series of beliefs and values that come with the religion- including but not limited to belief in a god.
If you classify belief in a religion solely as belief in a god… I could see why you could consider atheism a religion. But that’s not what religion is. You’re not only believing in a god, you are believing in the values that the religion teaches. Atheism can’t be considered a religion is you believe in the values of the religion because atheism doesn’t have any inherent values.
So I guess… if you think atheism is a religion… that makes you bad at being religious?
Saying atheism is a religion is plain wrong lol, but it does have potential dogmatism in common with religion ("EVERYONE should be atheist, and showing that you are religious should be illegal!").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
Gnostic atheism has a doctrine: Gods cannot exist, because there is no scientific evidence of their existence, etc.
Also, I feel like I should clarify something: I'm not "religious"! I'm an agnostic theist (and don't necessarily believe whatever "god" is even has a consciousness by itself). So no renegade lol I'm not trying to preach you down!
Yeah no, this isn't a thing. If anything, atheists are more likely to be believers in actual freedom of belief/religion (and freedom FROM religion) and proponents of separation of religion and state. But being atheist means you can believe/push anything you want! Or don't want! You can try to convince people that their religion is dumb or you can just not give a shit - there's no rules to atheism, no message, no teachings and no way to live. Atheism doesn't care how you live your life in any way. Honestly, most atheists couldn't give a damn what you believe as long as you allow them to live with disbelief in peace.
Still wrong!! "I don't believe in gods" is not a principle or position in a branch of knowledge or a system of belief! Non belief is not a system of belief in anything! And the only branch of knowledge that can be involved is scientific knowledge... Which if anything would be scientific doctrine not atheist doctrine lmao. Using scientific facts in arguments is scientific knowledge, not atheist knowledge. There is no atheist knowledge. There is no atheist system of belief. No atheist teachings. No atheist doctrine!
If you ask someone why they are Christian, they'll give you a laundry list of Christian teachings that they build and base their faith and belief on. Christian doctrine. Christian teachings. If you ask an atheist why they are atheist, the answers can vary and there aren't any atheist teachings that brought them to that conclusion! Because atheism doesn't have teachings! Doesn't have principles or beliefs or stances on anything. Which is why "atheist doctrine" is a misunderstanding of what atheism is!
Last edited by BananaCucho; June 18th, 2021 at 09:56 PM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
yea, like a lot of atheists oline are like, RELIGION IS CRINGE
but i don't think they role force their beliefs on others outside of that
hmm, maybe non=belief is a better way to describe my views? uwu
yea, it actually is xD
Yeah man don't let these believers make you think that your non-belief is somehow equal to or on the same level of their belief. Non-belief does not require the faith nor irrationality that belief does. Of all the beliefs and religions that exist, the probability of their one god (or gods) existing while all others don't is not equal to the probability that no gods exist lol. Not even close.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I think there are actually people who say that in the francosphere tho. (I can't tell for sure because they're all speaking french) France has been edging towards banning hijabs in public for a long time in the name of "secularism". They take their secularism very far over there. So mm isnt pulling it out his ass when he says it like an american evangelical is
He says everyone who is religious is basically a nutbag and campaigns heavily in favoyr banning religion in the name of ‘science’. He basically misunderstands the point of religion (like a typical fundamentalist, since all fundamentalists think that science and religion are incompatible with one another.
Something I really dislike about debating religion is the concept of 'faith'. Yes its a thing but all too often I see it used to justify and regurgitate something the individuals power structure has pushed on them. Like 2 weeks ago I got into the whole "Is the Bible the infallible word of God" conversation with a guy and walked him one by one through these versus on Gods Face:
Genisis 32:30 Seeing Gods face = Preservation of life
Exedus 33:20 No man will see God and Live
Genisis 32:30 Jacob saw Gods Face
Genisis 12:7 Abraham saw Gods Face
Exedus 33:11 Moses saw Gods Face
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time
Exedus 24: 9-11 The 70 Elders saw Gods face
1 Timothy 6:16 No man has or can see God
Obvious and direct contradictions which reflect they can not all be true but it was like the cogs in his head stopped turning for a while then he just dismissed it all and cut back to "I have faith that the Bible is the infallible word of God" because thats what preachers have been telling him. This also runs into an issue I take that preachers always seem to start 'speaking for God' or declaring things they can not possibly know as if they are facts instead of teaching within their own ignorance but thats another subject..
That said- I have some degree of faith but it is not of that sort and that is not why I made the arguments that I did. A lot of the arguments here deal more with linguistic and semiotic meaning pivoting on semantics and categorization which.. Is kind of pointless (to include my own in that line)
As I see it there is a hard difference between the Connotation and Denotation of the category 'Atheists' which has become the center of a debate. I personally do not see the broadening of the category of Atheists to include Agnostic beliefs simply because the term itself retains its stance without tacking on the sub-category of Atheism but when I started reading the historical development of Atheism I quickly came to the conclusion that I just do not care enough about the subject to continue. It is of note that it looks like it came out of Samkhya (an Indian philosophy that rejects the idea of God) suggesting that the agnostic bit was a later addition. I also got a chuckle finding out theres like.. Jewish and Christian sects of atheism now? Kinda seems like someone is reeeeeaaaally trying to expand influence pool there..
But anyways, the fact so many people here see a direct connotation of the category Atheism as a disbelief (rather than lack of belief) in God reflects the difference in categorization relating more toward its use between in groups and out groups of Atheists. Maybe the denotation is technically different but I am torn between calling that ignorance on behalf of its use and that the denotation is itself just contrived to justify inclusion of a larger pool of people for a power structure as opposed to conveying information because as I said, there is no reason to create a 'Agnostic Atheist" category to convey your beliefs when simply calling yourself agnostic conveys your beliefs more clearly and with less symbols (words.)
At the end of the day though, Does it really matter? Words convey meaning and debating the meaning of a category is less productive than simply cutting the category out and expressing the meaning. I agree with Bannana that "Agnostic Atheism" has no belief but I also don't think thats how I will ever use the word/category of 'Atheism.' In my personal life I have never met a person who identified as an atheist and described their belief as agnostic. Those who did hold such a position identified as agnostic and not as an atheist at all. Maybe its a cultural thing in America and the places I have traveled internationally but when someone identifies as Atheist (in my personal experience) its a hard line belief that God does not exist. If they say "I don't believe in a god, but hey who knows really" they declare as agnostic.
A part of me also questions if the expansion to include agnostics under atheism (or the new religious atheism stuff thats...?) may be just an effort to grow the population of the group and increase the reach of the power structures that use the group to personal ends. But thats just the cynical side of me that sees no logical reason for the action while seeing substantial gain from such an action by any power structure within the group.
Last edited by Helz; June 19th, 2021 at 09:42 AM.
@Helz atheism, agnostic, agnostic atheism really are all just labels in the end that people use to easily describe themselves. Which is really my whole point; atheism isn't a religion like Christianity, Judaism, etc are in that it's exactly that: a label and not a belief system.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I question religious folks' capacity for reason.
Last edited by Renegade; June 19th, 2021 at 09:59 AM.
Man you guys have way different experiences than I have lmao. Then again most of the atheists I know are post Mormon atheists which may have a bit to do with it.
I mean why is religion supposed to be above criticism? Of course he says it a lot more eloquently than you put it, but criticizing a religion is hardly making atheism a religion in and of itself.
You should provide a source for this. Dawkins has heavily criticized religion and have spoken in hypotheticals about things like a world without religion, but I don't ever recall him actually advocating for a religion ban. Please cite this claim. Thanks.
Even if he truly misunderstood religion as you state, I don't see how anything he has said has "turned atheism into a religion". It kinda sounds like he has annoyed you a bit but that doesn't justify the claim.
Last edited by BananaCucho; June 19th, 2021 at 09:59 AM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I think both are just labels.
If you go church to church totally different belief systems can be taught. The thing I was referencing earlier is that atheism has similar parallels with religion in many ways. I kinda feel like we are talking past etchother here and our points are not mutually exclusive, we are just diving into the holy shit mess that is language and categorization.
I also do not feel like I will ever be inclined to differentiate agnostic from gnostic under the umbrella of atheism. When I use the word/symbol atheism in a conversation with the people I am around we mutually understand a meaning that totally excludes agnostic beliefs while if I want to talk about agnostic beliefs I simply use that word/symbol agnostic while excluding the word/symbol atheism because it would confuse people.
Languages are living things that evolve with their use and are not set in stone as dictionary's would attempt to do. Different dialects exist within most big languages and words meaning changes depending on where you live. You could draw out plenty of such differences between America and England's use of English in both words as well as spelling.
Imagine this same conversation along those terms. If I was America arguing a Boot is a shoe and you were England arguing it should also include the trunk of your car there is a difference in how the symbol is used -but- neither side is wrong. The productive thing to do would be for each side to acknowledge the opposing sides use and share information through symbols accordingly. The unproductive thing may be to argue about the meaning of the word (as we have done here.)
That's fair.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
A bit off topic but I was working on the house and rolling some stuff around in my head and came up with this off topic and totally unsubstantiatedSpoiler : atheist conspiracy theory: :
Like I said.. Totally unsubstantiated assumptions and pretty off topic but I might not be wrong given that it does explain the direction of growth while establishing motive..
-edit
I wonder if religions will ever attempt to include gnostic individuals to expand their power group
Last edited by Helz; June 19th, 2021 at 10:46 AM.
apo isn't atheist.
however, she won't bow a head down to a tyrant just because that's a normalcy enforced through peer pressure. (just referring to a number of common religions)
religion is a double edged sword. yes, it can help encourage some known societal 'morals' such as being kind to others, builds a type of community, and so on.
but, then it also needlessly and heavily discriminates against a mass of other morally right values. many religions become an entrapment through the use of 'tradition' and 'excommunication' (multiple different forms ranging from simply not being apart of the community anymore to complete banishment) just for not believing in those same morals
Somebody around actually knows that! xD
Ever since a crazy Muslim literally decapitated a teacher in France for talking about Muhammad in a way he didn't like or something like that, there's... a lot of tension, let's say. It absolutely isn't a non-existant mentality. I'm a bit surprised it seems foreign to some people.
@ helz wallpost: Same experience about people describing themselves as agnostic first and foremost, not as atheists when it's what they actually mean. Didn't expect to face disagreements about that, honestly.
I mean, stuff like that is what the Qur'an kinda tells to do. Why would a thing like that make more of an impact than let's say the November 2015 Paris attacks?
My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI
I've of course seen people be extremely anti-religion, but I've never heard anyone oppose religious expression here in the UK ("showing your religion should be illegal"), so my experience is like ceko and banana's.
I also generally hear the word agnostic used that way, and respect people don't have to use words the way a dictionary tells them to. I apologize if I gave a different impression due to my pedantic interjections lol
I don't really see that. I think if anything atheists are likely to feel superior and smug and form exclusive cliques like you get with (some) feminists. I think that's reflected in the rhetoric. Marketable atheists that make lots of money through their atheism are "intellectuals" and edgy and non-mainstream. While modern christians are gentle, polite and as innoffensive as humanly possible (I'm thinking of the pope). That's the behaviour of a group trying expand... or at least stop contracting.
Jewish atheists are a thing because jewishness is also like an ethnicity, afaik. Even if you don't really subscribe to the religious views you can still be closely affiliated with the community and be "ethnically jewish". This christian atheism thing is pretty wild tho. I had no idea this existed and i've got a big shit eating grin on my face now
In the Netherlands, 42% of the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) are nontheists. [...] A minister of the PKN, Klaas Hendrikse has described God as "a word for experience, or human experience" and said that Jesus may have never existed. Hendrikse gained attention with his book published in November 2007 in which he said that it was not necessary to believe in God's existence in order to believe in God.
from wikipedia XD
I feel like this conversation got a bit derailed when we started talking about power structures. Sorry, but I just don’t see what power structures have to do with anything. It’s also a bit meh to look for ‘power structures’ everywhere, IMO. I feel like you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history lol.
Speaking of religion not existing, has anyone seen The Invention of Lying? Pretty funny take on what the world would be like if nobody could lie except for the one person who figured out how to do it
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
That was a pretty funny film. If you like the concept of that humor theres a youtuber named Ryan George that has tons of content along the same lines. It kinda makes me understand how weird the stuff we consider normal really is when put in context of being seen by someone who is alien to it.
Lololol
Everyone is Protestant then
It wasn't the point of the thread, but I don't really mind. As for looking for power structures everywhere, that's called analyzing society. Indeed, you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history... and you should! They are the generators of the forces moving society through the ages. It's absolutely relevant to anything that relates to society.
Of course, those attacks still have an impact even today, and you can still see people wearing or having as a profile picture "JE SUIS CHARLIE", "I am Charlie [an attacked magazine that became the symbol of free speech back then]". But the decapitation left a strong effect and led Macron to force the creation of a "Council of Imams": https://www.leconseildesimamsdefrance.org/ (and by the way, the first thing you see on that page is the Council saying they disagree with the murder lol). Some schools of Islam were judged too radical and especially "anti-republican" (i.e. anti-democratic), and were denied the entry to that council. I'm not sure what happened with them, but they certainly aren't tolerated much.