Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

Coin, while some groups and religions may teach that, most don't. Christianity, for example, paints us as the stewards of this world, and of nature. We aren't really the owners, we're just tasked with managing it. The real owner will come back and hold us accountable. On top of that, I don't really think the rental car is a proper analogy. The point of this life isn't to test, but to make, to train. And lastly, the whole 'going to church and tithing' thing being more important than, say, saving lives by ending pollution is actually the kind of ritualistic religious practice Christ taught against.

Now, Christianity isn't the only religion, and I'm not 100% sure how, for example, Hinduism paints things, but I'm fairly sure they're similar on a number of points at least.

 

Heh, a couple of weeks ago I spent an entire two hours listening to two hours of one of the professors at my university telling us how religions are the cause of our current environmental problems. What a waste of time that was...

Anyway to jump back a bit, sorry.

I don't buy that line of argument. What those 'teachers' doing that are not teaching atheism. If I went to a class on economics and the teacher simply told me that Neo-Keynesian theories are correct and anyone who believes other wise is lying, I could not come out of the class and claim to have been taught Neo-Keynesian theory. To teach me about it, they would have to explain the IS-LM model, the Phillips Curve, the Triangular Model, inflations, stagnation, exchange rates and so forth.

Same applies to Atheism. You cannot teach it just by saying that it is right and everyone who tells you other wise is lying. That is not teaching. That is, for a lack of a better term, "brain-washing".

You then asked, NOG, how much of the previous pages I've read. To answer that exactly, I have read pages 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and still feel you have not explained in the slightest how you can teach an absence of an idea.

 

Rotku, if you teach something that leads people to decide that all religions are lies and gods don't exist, you are teaching atheism. Whether you define atheism as the less inclusive belief in no gods or the more inclusive non-belief in gods, it still covers the belief in no gods (i.e. the term Atheism covers that territory no matter which definition you use). It's really that simple.

Unless you're going to now start claiming that those who believe there are no gods are not atheists at all, that they have no right to that term, you have to accept that atheism can be taught, because it does cover some beliefs.

There's a huge difference between the two. If atheism (or at least a part of it) is the belief that gods don't exist and religions are lies, then teaching that religions are lies and gods don't exist is teaching atheism. There's no more explanation needed, no 5-hour lectures on the various theories and models, because that's all there is to it. Simple ideas can be taught like that. And yes, it is something like brainwashing, but it's how all simple and non-provable ideas are taught, be it racism, sexism, racial equality, sexual equality, the basics of most religions, atheism, even that it's wrong to lie.

 

Santa Claus has been disproven? I'm really interested in proof to deny the existence of a mythical being.

 

Man, is this horse dead!

 

Woah, not according to Buddy the Elf!

 

An interesting take from Gregg Easterbrook:

 

I like the empiricist one -- it seems to sum up how most intelligent people who do not believe in God arrive at that conclusion.

 

... and I think most atheists would prefer "realist" or "freethinking." I didn't see very many in the list that would not be offensive to someone (maybe "nontheist").

 

But the thing about 'nontheist' is that that is what atheist means... a- means lack of... apathetic is 'without feeling (pathos)', so a nontheist would be exactly the same, it would just sound 'Americanized'.

And I agree with T2, most of those could be considered offensive - like a 'null'.

 

There are problems with those, too. Realist implies not a belief that gods aren't real, or a non-belief that they are, but rather a recognition of reality (which both sides claim). Free thinker, on the other hand, implies a relation to the standard (i.e. not like everyone else). The problem pointed out is that, in many sub-cultures, religion is the 'free-thinker' position, as atheism has become standard.

Naturalist won't work, because it's already in use. Nontheist is the same a atheist. Null is insulting (though, perhaps nulltheist? specifically implying a belief in no gods?). Spock is a little to trecky, or, even worse, associated with Dr. Spock (and who wants that these days?). Materialist doesn't work because of the greed implications. Empiricists sounds mostly neutral. It may be associated with Empires, but hopefully that'll just be for idiots who've never heard of empirical evidence.

 

NOG, as my mother used to say when I would state the obvious "no sh*t Sherlock" -- I was making an point. Freethinker tends to imply an person who is well thought out and not restricted in traditional thought processes (and hence also offensive).

 

Ah, ok, I didn't realize that was a pseudo-sarcastic comment, rather than serious.

 

Rotku

It seems like you are agreeing with me on the issue of what the were doing just that you didn't want to call them "teachers".

Also I think both NOG and I have said atheism is an idea (not a lack of one), just a different one than those presented by most religions-especially as it relates to discussions over if religious ideas are correct or not.

 

Both the belief that there are no gods, and belief that no conclusion can be properly drawn are ideas. The only position that is genuinely a non-idea is the "I don't care, I never think about it" position. The complete abdication of the debate is a non-idea. Claiming you don't see enough evidence to believe in gods, but also don't see enough evidence to discount them, is an idea. Now, as I've said, simple ideas that can be explained with just a sentence or two (such as "There are no gods") can be taught simply by asserting that they are true. There's nothing more detailed to teach.

 

There is absolutely NO evidence of dieties. Anywhere. Ever. With no evidence supporting the existence of God, no evidence is necessary to discount God.

Atheism is not an idea in and off itself. People may have beliefs associated with atheism, but atheism itself is not a belief and requires no evidence of "non-existence" of a being. As I said before, prove there are no pink unicorns -- you can't. Especially when unicorns themselves are magical in nature and have powers you cannot comprehend.

 

T2Bruno

I would say that there is evidence there is a God (or if I was Hindu, I would likely say there is evidence there are gods). The issue is that the evidence is not definitive and, do to its circumstantial nature, debatable. Thus religions are debatable in their likelihood of being true. And even if some things are proven true that could leave their meanings subject of interpretation or debate.

I have no problems saying there is a debate and reasonable people can be on different sides in it-therefore I don't label anyone unfairly/inaccurately.

But when you disagreed with the dictionary definition of atheism with the claim it was written by theists that strikes as persecution complex (or whatever you want to call it) as well as improper language use. When did you start doing this and why? If you can remember either then good, for me the why is more important.

Edit: "There is no such doctrine and to assume such a doctrine exists is "insane and dangerous."

I believe Dawkins was involved in creating a video that basically tried to blame much war/suffering on the existence of religion. It may be fringe and inaccurate but there is a doctrine, theory, or whatever it could otherwise be called that tries to blame religion's existence for problems. Thus you actually have the very very rare individual who actually calls for banning religion (I actually read someone say they wanted this on a different blog somewhere-I regard that person as quite fringe and subscribing to an idea/theory that is wrong but also fringe).

 

I am in support of not banning cause that would probably only help but concentrated efforts in stealthily eradication the religious state from humanity. We are already well on our way, as soon as you educate people and show them that they actually have a choice that there are other ways of looking at the world than what their parents and church teach them many many reject religion. Which is all to the best. Let us revel in our accomplishments as they are our and let us make our own mistakes without blaming it on our invisible buddy in the clouds.

Religion is a major factor in a large amount of the worlds suffering, sure human greed and selfishness are the main reasons but religion helps. When you are convinced you have god on your side you are convinced that you are *right* and if you are *right* with a divine mandate anything you do is justified. Oh boy, I am repeating myself, maybe not from this thread but from others. Anyhoo, religion is not only stupid it is also by and large evil. I also wouldnt call Dawkins a fringe person, he is the atheist equivalent of any run of the mill missionary. He gets attention because he is one of very few as non-believers generally do not believe in active proselytizing. Dawkins is fighting for humanity and ratinonality and the stranglehold of ignorance that religion still holds on a large part of the human race.

 

joacqin, I think your attitude on religion is both fringe and unjustified. And strongly biased on top of that.

I'll readily agree that religion has been involved wars, prejudice, atrocities and so on.

But it has also been involved in helping people through suffering, saving lives, and bringing about greater humanitarian efforts/society.


And I see promoting selective history as trying to build up a certain type of ignorance rather than fight ignorance.