Happy Atheist Forum

I've been an Atheist by definition all of my life, but I've only been an Atheist through rationalising and making an educated decision in the last couple of years. As such there are still a few aspects of religious arguments against atheism I am unfamiliar with.
What is a decent rebuttal when someone tells you that Atheism takes faith, or that Atheism is itself a religion? I haven't ever had this question tossed at me before and it's a topic I've never seriously considered until recently. I struggle with answering the "religion" part of that question more than the "faith" aspect, although both bewilder me to some extent.

Here are some interesting articles I found that illustrate what I mean more directly:
http://www.carm.org/religion-of-atheism (http://www.carm.org/religion-of-atheism)
http://www.christian-faith.com/html/pag ... in_atheism (http://www.christian-faith.com/html/page/faith_in_atheism)

Religion, defined as 1.

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Does not cover atheism, though, how you define it, can of course vary. Atheism is certainly a belief system, but I would not consider it a religion. When this is put forward, simply ask them to define religion and go from there.

The faith one is far easier, faith, defined as "belief without evidence" obviously does not cover atheism, as we don't believe full stop. Not believing in something you have no evidence for is the most rational, least faith based position.

Some of my favourite, cookie cutter responses are
"Atheism is a religion like "not collecting stamps" is a hobby"
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour"

Faith is belief in something without evidence.  Therefore, not having a belief in something can't be a faith based position.  Saying it takes faith to be an atheist is like saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns.  

Now...defending gnostic atheists from the faith claim is a different story.  I'll let one of them try to explain that one.

On the question of religion, it depends on how you define it.

Religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion):

Quote1.   a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.   a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.   the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.   the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.   the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.   something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.   religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.   Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I think it's reasonable to argue that, by the commonly accepted definition, for something to be a religion, it has to involve a belief in god(s) or supernatural entities, ritual practices and some kind of code of conduct. There is some truth in the article on atheism as religion above. However, I think the kind of atheism that the author observed would have been better described as a social movement than as a religion.

The idea that atheists need to have faith to believing the Christian God doesn't exist is absurd. By that argument atheists must also have faith to not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Whenever someone tells me atheism takes faith/is a religion/whatever, I usually grab the nearest magazine or newspaper, roll it up, hit them on the nose with it, and say, "No! BAD."

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Whenever someone tells me atheism takes faith/is a religion/whatever, I usually grab the nearest magazine or newspaper, roll it up, hit them on the nose with it, and say, "No! BAD."

I recommend keeping around a tin can filled with pennies so you can shake it to make a loud noise and startle the subject instead.

I used to work with a really nice Mormon kid who felt that atheism was a religion and the ensuing conversation we had was pretty interesting.  Basically I feel all you can do is ask the person what their definition of 'religion' is and then go from there.  My friend, for instance, claimed that any belief pertaining to existence was a religion.  I asked him if he felt evolutionary biology was a religion and he said said no, but the fact that atheists believe that there isn't a god when it's impossible to prove specifically that god DOESN'T exist makes it a religion and not in the same category as a scientific study.  So, he was already moving the goalposts, so to speak, on his definition.  I pointed this out to him and he agreed that he had changed his definition but maintained that his position remained firm.  Then I brought up the legality of what a religion is.  I pointed out that it wasn't possible for atheist organizations to attain the same tax status as religious organizations (at least not in Washington state as far as I'm aware) and he said he thought that wasn't fair but he still maintained his position.  Finally, I asked him why he would consider atheism a religion, given that atheists can't attain the same tax exempt status as religious organizations, that the definition of religion seems to exclude atheism, and that even his atheism-inclusive definition of what a religion was seemed to fall apart instantly under a slight amount of scrutiny.  His response was that he didn't like how critical atheists are of religion when, in his opinion, atheists have no more earthly validity to their position than anyone else.

I'm writing this all out because this is the part of the conversation that I found really interesting.

Like I had mentioned, my friend is a Mormon.  I asked him how he felt when people would call Mormonism a cult and he rolled his eyes and said that that was ridiculous.  I said that I felt that people who classified his religion as a cult were doing the exact same thing with Mormonism that he was doing with atheism.  Calling Mormonism a cult is a way to underhandedly insult the religion by expanding the definition of an unsavory term to include the religion.  Calling atheism a religion is the exact same practice in that atheists have the same negative reaction to being called religious as Mormons have being called cult members.

My point is this - if someone claims that atheism is a religion I feel like it's more of an expression of their insecurity and lack of understanding of atheism rather than an actual position.  Whether you want to spend any of your time dealing with it is your choice, but it's an easily refuted assertion if dealing with the established definitions of atheism and religion.  If the conversation goes beyond that, I would probably assume the person is being passive aggressively insulting.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1786 (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1786)
This is an interesting site I found discussing exactly the same topic. People's responses are actually quite humorous, like SSY and curiosityandthecat's descriptions.
Thanks for all the answers, I've enjoyed reading all of them and they've been extremely helpful.  

I think where things become interesting is when we move away from the central point and move into specifics. Atheism is a catch-all term to describe a group of people who do not believe in a deity. Apart from this central pillar, different groups of atheists have little in common. Whereas the term atheism cannot be called a religion, there are groups with atheistic aspects (e.g. a lack of a god) which most certainly could be termed as a religion. The most obvious case would be Taoism or Buddhism; although there are some sects of these movements which do not believe in a deity (therefore are atheists), I think it would be hard to define these sects as anything other than religious organisations. As such although atheism itself is not a religion, that is not to say that atheists are not religious.

I think the problem has arisen from the mistake of describing a world-view as ‘Atheist’. Atheism means just the lack of belief in a God: if this is the complete absolute of a person’s philosophical world-view then I find it hard to see how they can possibly negotiate the moral conundrums which a sane human tends to come across. Obviously most people will have a wider philosophical perspective than just ‘atheist’- that could be anything from Platonist to Communist-and it is when this wider philosophical perspective is taken into account that we begin to see self-confessed atheists as religious figures. Those that declare atheism as a religion probably recognise this, but communicate it in a rather crude and philosophically muddled manner.

In an attempt to further illuminate my point I will use myself as an example. Although I could be described as a Theist, I have not stated my world-view as such. This is because, like atheism, theism is not an acceptable world-view; the fact that I am a theist tells you little about me other than that I believe in some form of deity. Again like atheism, theism cannot be described as a religion because of the complete lack of unifying principles between those who can describe themselves as theists- a Hindu and me are both theists, but do not share much beyond that. As such I describe myself as Roman Catholic so as to give my fellow forum users a better picture of my philosophical and religious beliefs, and in the same way I think it would be entirely possible for atheists to further compartmentalise their beliefs, and I think from this new compartmentalisation it would be far easier to ascertain the religious nature of your beliefs; I think it will probably surprise many forum users to learn how religious many so-called secular belief systems are when we look beyond the dogmatic whitewash.

I break off now to allow others to come in with their comments.

Quote from: "Dagda"I think it will probably surprise many forum users to learn how religious many so-called secular belief systems are when we look beyond the dogmatic whitewash.

examples?   Religions involve, worship, ritual, dogma etc....what secular philosophies include that? (I won't be surprised if you provide Secular Humanism as an example but that's the only secular philosophy I can think of which has any hint of religion to it; and i think it would be a stretch to call it a religion)

Anyway, I agree theist and atheist are not worldviews; while a belief or lack of belief in god certainly affects how one might view the world there is a lot more that goes into forming a full worldview.

Although the example is a little extreme, it is probably best as in it is easier to see the argument when it is as clear cut. Bolshevik Communism must be described as a secular and atheistic philosophy. However, I would argue that it was just as religious as the Christianity it attempted to supersede.

The most glaring example of religious themes would be the belief among Bolsheviks that it was only a matter of time before the glorious dictatorship of the proletariat spread throughout the world, destroying the oppressive capitalist regimes. This belief went in the face of all the evidence, and can be described as little other than a Revelation/End Time prophesy not dissimilar to those found in Christianity. In this they placed an inordinate amount of faith in a belief which had no or little grounding in physical evidence; religious belief in action.

The Bolsheviks also took to the idea that their leaders where almost infallible-gods among men. This, of course, is rather close to the traditional religious view of their leaders being God’s representative-in this case God was merely removed from the equation. They even had religious texts in the form of the writings of Marx (in China a better example would be Mao), and these became as unquestionable as the leader of the party. Some believers even began going on a sort of pilgrimage to the preserved bodies of Lenin and Stalin as well as the major landmarks of the life of Marx (one church in Konigsberg was left untouched by the party apparatchik because it held the body of a good friend of Marx-hardly the act of a secular/logical non-religion).

Although I have been rather basic with the above outline (people have written entire books on this subject and I don’t want to be here all day), I hope you will agree that Bolshevism has all the hallmarks of a religious belief, complete with dogma, shrines and religious texts. The only thing missing was a deity, but as per my Taoist example, this hardly disqualifies the Bolsheviks from the status of a religion.

This kind of patter appears anywhere that the traditional religions fail. In Nazi Germany the Bibles in Churches were replaced with copies of Mien Kamp, and the Nuremberg rallies were really mass religious events with the emphasis on the party and the people rather than a deity. In North Korea (the most atheistic country in the world) their leaders have become points of devotion; what else would allow a dead man to stay on as head of state? Even in this country (UK) we are seeing a revival of tarot and mediums just as God begins to fail; in the absence of the traditional font into which the human pours their faith new avenues are created. Some place this in political philosophies, others in mystical sect, and still yet more in science, technology and progress.

Religion is like sex; there is an evolutionary need for it, and few will truly escape. Even if God could be proven to be a figment of the imagination, religion would survive in new forms.

i found this [youtube:2hacrk95]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SCgnaCbgK0[/youtube:2hacrk95]  a good and figurativ explaination (but you can skip the first 3 minutes). easy to use for everyone if a pen and a napkin is at hand. a bit akwardly presented in that video, but nevertheless an interessting take on that issue.

if atheism is a religion, every newborn would be extremely religious.

Quote from: "Dagda"In Nazi Germany the Bibles in Churches were replaced with copies of Mien Kamp,

That is actually not true. The Bible was not abolished or replaced by Mein Kampf in the German churches during the Nazi regime.  The only element of truth in the story is that the couples at church weddings got a free copy of Mein Kampf instead of a Bible.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Dagda"In Nazi Germany the Bibles in Churches were replaced with copies of Mien Kamp,

That is actually not true. The Bible was not abolished or replaced by Mein Kampf in the German churches during the Nazi regime.  The only element of truth in the story is that the couples at church weddings got a free copy of Mein Kampf instead of a Bible.

A 1933 speech by Reinhold Krause advocated the removal of the Bible as a Jewish superstition, and in a rally of the same year the Deutsche Christen passed a motion to omit the Old Testament from Church Bibles. Although I may be wrong about Mein Kamp replacing the Bible, the Nazi party certainly became involved in religious affairs, and my point still stands about the political religions.

Quote from: "Justme"if atheism is a religion, every newborn would be extremely religious.

Perhaps I was not clear. Atheism is NOT a world-view. Although atheism cannot be a religion (neither can theism) there are religions which are atheistic. Nazism and Communism are political religions. Ancestor worshipers could quite happily be atheists. I am saying that a religion does not need a deity.

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Dagda"In Nazi Germany the Bibles in Churches were replaced with copies of Mien Kamp,

That is actually not true. The Bible was not abolished or replaced by Mein Kampf in the German churches during the Nazi regime.  The only element of truth in the story is that the couples at church weddings got a free copy of Mein Kampf instead of a Bible.

A 1933 speech by Reinhold Krause advocated the removal of the Bible as a Jewish superstition, and in a rally of the same year the Deutsche Christen passed a motion to omit the Old Testament from Church Bibles. Although I may be wrong about Mein Kamp replacing the Bible, the Nazi party certainly became involved in religious affairs, and my point still stands about the political religions.

Quote from: "Justme"if atheism is a religion, every newborn would be extremely religious.

Perhaps I was not clear. Atheism is NOT a world-view. Although atheism cannot be a religion (neither can theism) there are religions which are atheistic. Nazism and Communism are political religions. Ancestor worshipers could quite happily be atheists. I am saying that a religion does not need a deity.

[sarcasm]Yeah, and capitalism is a Christian religion as is the Republican party[/sarcasm]

Communism is not an atheist religion.  Communism is a political concept.  Christians can be communist.  Neither is Nazism an atheist religion as most Nazis were Christian - Catholic or Lutheran, mostly - it is also a political concept.  Neither is evolution an atheist religion, it is a scientific theory supported by scientific facts.  Nor is science a religion, it is a systematic investigation and categorization of reality through the use of the empirical method.

Religions are religions - you can't (well, you can say it, and you probably will, but it's incorrect to say) just say that every social structure or concept is a religion.

Considering the "god with us" slogan used by the natzi party...i don't think they count as a secular philosophy.

There are plenty of religions that don't involve worship of a supernatural deity but none of those religions could rightly be called "secular"

Example of a religion formed around a real living (normal) person:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-i ... ersonality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il#Cult_of_personality)

Wrong choice of words on my part. A secular religion is somewhat a contradiction in terms. Anyway, my point stands-religion does not need a deity.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"[

Communism is not an atheist religion. Communism is a political concept. Christians can be communist. Neither is Nazism an atheist religion as most Nazis were Christian - Catholic or Lutheran, mostly - it is also a political concept. Neither is evolution an atheist religion, it is a scientific theory supported by scientific facts. Nor is science a religion, it is a systematic investigation and categorization of reality through the use of the empirical method.

Religions are religions - you can't (well, you can say it, and you probably will, but it's incorrect to say) just say that every social structure or concept is a religion.

Why doe communism not qualify as a religion? As I have stated before they have a holy text/s that cannot be questioned; they build or maintain what amounts to shrines around their dead leaders; the living leaders are treated as infallible (even today the Chinese Communists try hard not to contradict the now discredited Mao); they have a strong belief in an event (socialist utopia) occurring without needing one iota of evidence; and they are hostile to competing religions (Christians, Jews etc). Perhaps it began as a political concept (and in some areas remains political) but in some cases I think it morphed into something else.

I admit that I know far more about Communism than Nazism, but one of the Christian Church’s first moves was to attach a lot of pagan symbolism to their religion so that pagans would feel comfortable in a Church. I think the Nazi Party was using a 20th Century version of this tactic. Be aware of confusing the believers with the religion; traditional religion faded as Nazi support rose-perhaps an indication that one could not easily exist alongside the other in the heart of man. In Nazi philosophy there was little room for the Christian God in a world dominated by the god-like super-man. Nazism was slowly phasing God out, pushing Him off the pedestal to be replaced with something else, for only when the god-head is gone can the god-man take His place. Nazism only had 12 years to achieve something it took Christianity five centuries, and Bolshevism five decades.

As for your comment about evolution, I don’t quite understand; who mentioned evolution?

I am not saying every social structure is a religion, but that when the traditional religions fail, new religions take their place. In the case of Russia in was Bolshevism; China had Maoism; India had Naxilism; the African slaves had the cargo cults. Most religions have political elements, but in the 19th and 20th  Centuries we began to see political parties with religious elements.

Dagda -

QuoteI think where things become interesting is when we move away from the central point and move into specifics.

This was the first sentence you wrote when replying to this thread and I think at this point it's a good time to come back to it.  It's one thing to move from the central point and explore specifics, but once you take the specifics and make them central points, eradicating the original central point completely, your argument starts to sound like someone trying to make facts comply with a specific outcome.

My opinion is that if you have to re-define a term in order to make the term fit your position, you're not proving anything except that if the word meant something different, your point would be correct.  Purposefully ignoring parts of a definition is one way to change the definition.  If we accept Webster's definition of religion:


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back â€" more at rely
Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

â€" re·li·gion·less adjective

- deity worship is specifically mentioned first and foremost.  The definition 'scrupulous conformity' is specifically noted as archaic and therefore not of use in this instance - an outdated definition does us no good.  

The last definition may be able to be applied in the way you're trying to apply it, but only if you apply the label of religion in a way that doesn't hold the same meaning in any way to religion in regard to theists.  Perhaps you can make a case that technically a belief structure such as communism is a religion, but in order for it to be considered a religion, it must be accepted that it's a religion in an entirely different way than most people think of religion, a completely non-theistic religiousness. Then, if it can be determined that communism is a belief rather than a political structure and if the subjective terms 'ardor' and 'faith' can be agreed upon to be applicable to those structures you might be able to argue your point.  All that after you've chosen to ignore the initial definition of the term which pertains to worship of a God.

Once you've spread a definition that thin in order to make it applicable, is it still a viable use of the term?  I personally don't think so.

Quote from: "Dagda"Why doe communism not qualify as a religion?

Because communism is a political philosophy; it doesn't center around worship of the supernatural and someone can decide communism is the idea social structure without using faith.

You are confusing communism with how some are practicing it and communism the philosophy.  Just because some communist countries may be religious and communist doesn't mean that communism is a religion.  By your logic I could claim that capitalism is a religion since so many right wing Christians have incorporated it into their life philosophy.  Just because someone may strongly support something doesn't mean it falls under the defnition of religion; we can't just bastardize words to suit whatever point we are trying to make.

We all know you don't have to believe in a god to follow a religion...if that had been your point we'd all be in agreement.

The dictionary? The famous line ‘I wandered lonely as a cloud’ would have made no sense to a medieval man. Wandering or to wander was to walk with a wand. As you can see the similarities between Wordsworth walking with a wand and clouds is rather thin on the ground. Of course, by the time of the famous poet the meaning of ‘wandered’ had changed, and so the poem made sense. My point is that words and their meanings change over time, and various editions of the dictionary reflect the meaning of the word at the time they were written, not to lay down the laws of reality. My definition of religion would be ‘a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith’. But not that alone; a religion is a predator which must devour any other religion it comes in contact with (in the space of the believers mind if no-where else) in order to feed its growth. When these two come together, we have a religion. Do not quote the dictionary at me like it is a scientific text; it does not transcend beyond the limited understanding of the culture that they appeared, and in philosophical terms is a rather poor source.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Dagda"Why doe communism not qualify as a religion?

Because communism is a political philosophy; it doesn't center around worship of the supernatural and someone can decide communism is the idea social structure without using faith.

You are confusing communism with how some are practicing it and communism the philosophy. Just because some communist countries may be religious and communist doesn't mean that communism is a religion. By your logic I could claim that capitalism is a religion since so many right wing Christians have incorporated it into their life philosophy. Just because someone may strongly support something doesn't mean it falls under the defnition of religion; we can't just bastardize words to suit whatever point we are trying to make.

We all know you don't have to believe in a god to follow a religion...if that had been your point we'd all be in agreement.

The supporters of Bolshevism did not just ‘strongly support’ their cause, they believed in it with a devotion which knew no bounds. As I said, in the last century we saw political ideals develop religious dimensions. They are called political religions because they incorporate the political and the religious. I have provided evidence of what I consider the religious nature of Bolshevism/Maoism, and I do not think that evidence can be interpreted as mere political philosophy.

My logic does not entail that capitalism is a religion, just that it can be a religion. Any life philosophy has the potential of becoming religious in nature if the right circumstances present themselves.

I fear that we are going round in circles. When I as why you consider Maoism not to be a religion you declare it is because it is a political philosophy. I say it is both, but what is your response? I have provided evidence, but can do no more. Unless you would like to provide some reason that Bolshevism cannot be a religion, then I can take it no further.

Atheists demand evidence for everything (as they should), but once I have provided evidence for something that disagrees with your own philosophy, you do not criticise the evidence (e.g. this does not show religious devotion, but instead the perfectly logical...) but instead make a declaration grounded in nothing more that the cultural prejudice of the day.

One's passion about a particular set of beliefs or philosophies could be compared to being religious (depending on the level and type of passion - especially when one is acting more closed-minded about the topic.)
When I say "He is crazy in love" I do not wish to impart that he is "mentally deranged; demented; insane" - more that some attributes of the "mentally deranged" could also be attributed to his love. Much is the same when stating one's commitment to communism (or any set of ideas) is religious.
It's a matter of language.

I have decided that the word "Christian" now means baby killer.  I know the definition says otherwise but dictionaries just indicate common usage and might be outdated.  

Dagada I think you may be confusing fanatasism with religion. One does not require the other. Otherwise trekkie fanatics would be clasified as a religion. many relious folks are fanatacal about thier religions but it's not a requirement.

Quote from: "Whitney"I have decided that the word "Christian" now means baby killer.  I know the definition says otherwise but dictionaries just indicate common usage and might be outdated.  

#


Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

 

Quote from: "Tanker"Dagada I think you may be confusing fanatasism with religion. One does not require the other. Otherwise trekkie fanatics would be clasified as a religion. many relious folks are fanatacal about thier religions but it's not a requirement.

No I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

QuoteNo I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

Because it's a political philosophy.

No one is saying that the dictionary encompasses all the sociological connotations of everything in the known world, but you can't just expand the definition of something to suit your argument.

/facepalm

Quote from: "Dagda"Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

Great. Another Christian who seems to think atheists are all Vulcans.  

Quote from: "kelltrill"

QuoteNo I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

Because it's a political philosophy.

No one is saying that the dictionary encompasses all the sociological connotations of everything in the known world, but you can't just expand the definition of something to suit your argument.

/facepalm

I am not expanding the definition. A religion is something in which a person must take a leap of faith to arrive at a conclusion which the evidence alone could not reach (Bolshevism has this is abundance). A religion is also an organisation with dogma etc (Russian Communist Party was clearly dogmatic and had clear social structure). They have a leader of some sort who tends the flock (Stalin/Lenin etc). They tend to proscribe other religious beliefs as heretical (again the Bolshevists were merciless in their dealings with any other religion). They also tend to have some kind of aim for mankind (yes the Bolshevists had a grand plan). Sacred places are not a requirement, but are a good indication of a religion (was not the burial places of Lenin and Stalin treated with much the same reverence as any shrine?) The Bolsheviks tick almost all the boxes when it comes to a religion. As I have already stated although Bolshevism began as a political philosophy, it became something more.

Oh, before I forget, when I ask why political philosophy and religion are mutely exclusive, declaring that it is just so ‘because it is a political philosophy’ is not really a proper answer.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Dagda"Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

Great. Another Christian who seems to think atheists are all Vulcans.

Great, someone else who thinks that anyone who talks about logic is a Trekkie. The study of logic is a legitimate philosophical concern, and as we are having a philosophical discussion...

I think this thread is getting close to needing some shampoo  

This argument is becoming circular.

The standard (i.e accepted) definition of religion is that it fundamentally entails a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A religion traditionally offers answers to important spiritual questions and offer ways to define that which we cannot explain. That is how a religion comes about, from existential uncertainty. Communism is a political philosophy because it does not fulfil these basic requirements. At the very most we can say that Communism is like religion, even a lot like, because it has characteristic traits of dogma and religious-like organisation. To say, however, that it is a religion (to follow the definition you laid down in your previous post) would mean that any number of things would fall into that category.
Take a seminar for rape survivors, for instance. I know it’s a sensitive issue but it is a convenient example.

QuoteA religion is something in which a person must take a leap of faith to arrive at a conclusion which the evidence alone could not reach

Surviving betrayal and sexual assault takes a leap of faith in many things, including the people around you. This is especially true if the rapist was a friend or family member. There is a book titled Surviving Betrayal Requires a Leap of Faith by Cynthia Wall to support this approach.

QuoteA religion is also an organisation with dogma etc (Russian Communist Party was clearly dogmatic and had clear social structure).

If it is a convention it is an organised gathering or coming together of people with a shared interest or history. People who attend these seminars regularly make it part of their social structure, and draw support from each other and a shared morality.

QuoteThey have a leader of some sort who tends the flock (Stalin/Lenin etc).

Carrie Shelver in SA organises marches, protests and 1in9 campaigns for "women who speak out." She is the local leader of the organisation and events manager. If she wants people to meet at a certain place at a certain time, they will.

QuoteThey tend to proscribe other religious beliefs as heretical (again the Bolshevists were merciless in their dealings with any other religion).

This is based on the premise that Communism was a religion. However, it is well known that conventions designed to help people overcome a certain thing (like rape, addiction, or alcoholism) are anti the methods used by other similar organisations. This is human nature and is not only found amongst religions. Everyone likes to think that their way is the right way.

QuoteThey also tend to have some kind of aim for mankind (yes the Bolshevists had a grand plan).

The 1in9 campaign especially strives for a world where women are no longer sexually abused and where domestic violence is a thing of the past, resulting in a more durable, peaceful world. This is their fundamental ideal.

QuoteSacred places are not a requirement, but are a good indication of a religion (was not the burial places of Lenin and Stalin treated with much the same reverence as any shrine?)

There are many places where women have been raped which are treated with reverence and respect and where symbols are erected to mark the event, with the woman’s permission, as a sign of solidarity and an ongoing commitment to seek justice.

I am not, however, saying that a political philosophy and a religion are two ideas which cannot become entangled. That would be to deny the basic fact that Bolshevik Jews existed. All I am saying is that religion is a touchy subject, and has been for the whole of human history. Therefore, I reckon it is safe to say that the category of "religion" has not been arbitrarily decided on, nor has the separate category of "political philosophy."

Some thoughts:

1. If communism, or any other political or economic philosophy meets the criteria to be called a religion, so does capitalism.

    a. I'm thoroughly convinced it doesn't.

    b. I am thoroughly convinced it doesn't matter.

2. Any reference to "the" dictionary implies agreement between all dictionaries.

   a. there is no "the" dictionary.

    b. Webster's has always had a christian bias. Before consulting it for definitions of things like "religion", it might be useful to look up its definition of words like "atheism":

atheism
One entry found.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thÄ"-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism


Hmm...not even a mention of any really accurate definition by most atheists' standards. At least they seem to have upgraded it a bit from "denial of the existence of God".

3. Even if communism or anything else is an atheistic religion    that fact alone would tell us absolutely nothing at all about atheism itself. In fact nothing tells us anything at all about atheism escept this: a (no) + theos (god) + ism (belief) = no belief in god.

I agree with elliebean's point about dictionary definitions not being satisfactory or substantial enough, hence me picking apart Dagda's post. It wasn't to be vindictive, it's just unavoidable when we venture into a debate about definitions.
Communism has a deity in Marx and is a great principle totally destroyed by its followers. It even has commandments, thanks to George Orwell's Animal Farm, which satirises Communism. In those respects it could be classed as a religion complete with people who follow it religiously. However, to say that it is a religion because people follow it religiously is misguided. Insofar as all religions are ideological positions, Communism can be seen as analogous to religion. I still don't think it is though because its basic position is different. Furthermore, Communism doesn't offer the support or the institutions that separates religions from merely being faith.

Quote from: "BadPoison"I watch The Office religiously every Wednesday night.

Ooops, I meant to post this in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411)

Sorry - I should have put up a ;)

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "BadPoison"I watch The Office religiously every Wednesday night.

Ooops, I meant to post this in this thread:
http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411)

Sorry - I should have put up a ;)

, oops sorry.

It seems that in the US, atheism is considered to be a religion for first amendment purposes. Link (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf). I'm happy that the first amendment protects freedom of speech for atheists. I'm not sure if I like the way they've gone about it though. I think I would prefer it if it protected one's freedom to speak about religion. It seems to me that a person being religious or of a particular religion is irrelevant. They also have the right to talk about other people's religion. A Christian can talk about Islam. Their being Christian is irrelevant in this case. Why would an atheist have to be classified as religious to talk about Islam?

Perhaps this has more to do with the establishment clause than freedom of speech?

Quote from: "AlP"It seems that in the US, atheism is considered to be a religion for first amendment purposes. Link (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf). I'm happy that the first amendment protects freedom of speech for atheists. I'm not sure if I like the way they've gone about it though. I think I would prefer it if it protected one's freedom to speak about religion. It seems to me that a person being religious or of a particular religion is irrelevant. They also have the right to talk about other people's religion. A Christian can talk about Islam. Their being Christian is irrelevant in this case. Why would an atheist have to be classified as religious to talk about Islam?

Perhaps this has more to do with the establishment clause than freedom of speech?

I don't think that case establishes atheist as a religion in the us...it just points out a stupid problem with our prison system.

Between the establishment clause and the right to freedom of speech there is no reason to have to define atheist as a religion in order to protect personal freedom to speak about religion.  In this case it was a prisoner who chose to define his particular brand of atheism as a religion in order to have a study group that would not otherwise be allowed in the prison system.  What really should be happening is that the prison system makes no special accommodations based on religious preference.  With the way it is set up now, requiring approval, it is allowing the government to decide what is and is not a valid religious practice and that is unconstitutional imo.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't think that case establishes atheist as a religion in the us...it just points out a stupid problem with our prison system.

Between the establishment clause and the right to freedom of speech there is no reason to have to define atheist as a religion in order to protect personal freedom to speak about religion.  In this case it was a prisoner who chose to define his particular brand of atheism as a religion in order to have a study group that would not otherwise be allowed in the prison system.  What really should be happening is that the prison system makes no special accommodations based on religious preference.  With the way it is set up now, requiring approval, it is allowing the government to decide what is and is not a valid religious practice and that is unconstitutional imo.

I'm reading and rereading. It's so ambiguous. Take this excerpt.

QuoteThe Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent
to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on
numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.
v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722
(2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to
religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In
McCreary County, it described the touchstone of
Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Emphasis is mine.

Leave it to the US courts to define religion as including non-religion.  However, that is a proper interpretation of the intention of the idea of the establishment clause.  

somewhat related to the OP (though not about atheism)

The following is from NTCOF website. http://bit.ly/b1siak (http://bit.ly/b1siak) (I no longer wish to support NTCOF, hence the bit.ly link and abbreviation of their name)
Note that I think NTCOF's definition of religion is way too broad and doesn't capture the intended meaning of the word.  Theology would come a lot closer to describing freethought...it's a system used to examine religious views; not a religion.

QuoteIs Freethought a religion?

Yes, the functional definition of religion on which the NTCOF is predicated clearly includes Freethought. But it’s important to realize that this position incorporates the idea that "religion" is simply what people believe and think about questions that are generally understood to be "religious." These questions have to do with the ultimate nature of reality, the meaning and purpose of the human condition, good and evil, and other matters. It is not necessary for people to believe in the supernatural, to suppress their doubts and questions, or to "have faith" in doctrines and dogmas for their ideas to count as legitimate religious opinion or "religion."  Even the courts have admitted this.

On the other hand, if one defined religion as a fixed creed, Freethought would not qualify. But neither would Unitarian-Universalism (UUism), which also has no fixed creed. In fact, unlike Freethought, which supports a standard of critical thinking that excludes belief in god(s) on the basis of available facts and reason, UUism embraces both theism and atheism. In this respect UUism is less a religion than Freethought.

Sadly, when it comes to religious issues, many people choose their words to advance an agenda or an argument and not to communicate a thought or idea. When it suits believers’ needs to construe religion narrowly, such as when determining eligibility for tax exemptions, it may be said that "worship of a Supreme Being" is required. But when believers are upset about the absence of organized group prayers in public schools they may insist that this amounts to atheism and, atheism being a religion, the absence of prayer to god(s) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Likewise, those who oppose evolution often claim â€" falsely â€" that evolution is a religion.

Similar inconsistencies can arise among unbelievers. Many atheists, for example, know that European paganism, African animism, and American native religious beliefs were brutally attacked by Christians who supposed that they had the "true religion." Even those unbelievers who proudly refer to themselves as infidels know that both Christians and Moslems have regarded each other as "infidels." Most also know that Marxist-Leninists have had few qualms about crushing Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions. Yet it is often supposed that words can be narrowly defined and selectively applied in such a way that all the blame for wars and other inhumanities can be attached to religions and churches. Curiously, some unbelievers also insist that they are "not religious" even though they have very strong opinions on the subject of religion and may be more familiar with the intricacies of various theologies than those who say they believe in them.

That's a pretty radical shift Whitney!

I think the question of whether atheists are religious is mostly political. We have atheist organizations, like the one linked above, trying to be categorized as religious partly in order to get tax-exempt status. Then we have theists trying to categorize atheists as religious for reasons I don't really understand. I'm sure it isn't because they're trying to annoy us. Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

QuoteThen we have theists trying to categorize atheists as religious for reasons I don't really understand. I'm sure it isn't because they're trying to annoy us. Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

I think it's because if atheism is classified as a religion that means it stands for something, in a way. It could then easily be said that atheists have faith, which just puts a damper on all our efforts to explain the implications of being an atheist to people. I think hardcore theists, people who were "born theists," battle to wrap their minds around the concept that atheists exist without faith in a supernatural deity. We must seem so hollow and anti to them. By canvasing to make atheism a religion they probably think they're doing our immortal souls a divine favour.

Yet so many politicians are able to use an anti-atheist rhetoric to win votes among the huge religious majority. Much of this comes from atheism having a bad wrap - having been incorrectly associated with wickedness, satanism, ect.
Much of the electorate votes for whomever does the best job of demonizing people who are different (which is not necessarily their political opponents. They only need to make a case that they would do a better job of protecting the population from the evil atheists than the other guy.)

Here George H W Bush is being interviewed on the campaign trail:

QuoteSherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Did Bush win or lose more votes for saying this. Were there no shouts of "Alright!" and "I agree with that!" in living rooms across America?

Yet as Kelltrill stated above, many anti-secularists make the opposite argument: Atheism is a religion.


It's hard for me to wrap my head around the absurdity of it all.

Quote from: "AlP"Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

I think it is because they know religion requires faith and want to imply it takes faith to be an atheist (when it doesn't, you just have to lack belief).

I think it works something like this:

~ Theist discovers that atheists don't believe in god :hmm:
~ Theist makes assumptions on what atheists believe :idea:
~ Those things make a lot of sense :blink:
~ Some of those beliefs begin to appear hypocritical :pace:
~ Theist hates hypocrisy, especially when applied to himself; becomes angry :borg2:
~ Theist hates atheists too, wishes to lash out :/
~ Theists thinks to himself, what would be most hypocritical in an atheist? :bounce:

And ta-daa! Atheism is a religion.

Quote from: "elliebean"I think it works something like this:

~ Theist discovers that atheists don't believe in god :hmm:
~ Theist makes assumptions on what atheists believe :idea:
~ Those things make a lot of sense :blink:
~ Some of those beliefs begin to appear hypocritical :pace:
~ Theist hates hypocrisy, especially when applied to himself; becomes angry :borg2:
~ Theist hates atheists too, wishes to lash out :/
~ Theists thinks to himself, what would be most hypocritical in an atheist? :bounce:

And ta-daa! Atheism is a religion.

Well put!

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I have been rather busy. As I am about to head out, I will make this short. The point I was trying to make is this: religion is brought on by an evolutionary need for something. Once (or if) the traditional religions disappear, the human race will replace them with something else. We might not call it religion, but its psychological and physical effect will be so similar (such as in Bolshevism/Nazism) that this will be a merely superficial change in the use of language.

Quote from: "Dagda"Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I have been rather busy. As I am about to head out, I will make this short. The point I was trying to make is this: religion is brought on by an evolutionary need for something. Once (or if) the traditional religions disappear, the human race will replace them with something else. We might not call it religion, but its psychological and physical effect will be so similar (such as in Bolshevism/Nazism) that this will be a merely superficial change in the use of language.

and you failed to make that point.

Religion seems to be largely the product of three things, imo, 1)desire to have answers even if you have to make them up 2)desire for community with those of similar thinking (relates to indoctrination which is why it is not a numbered item) 3)desire for control of people (also related to indoctrination).

Once someone no longer has a need for religious thinking (item 1), then the type of communities they form will be largely like 2 or 2+3.  However, it is hard to get a situation involving 2 and 3 if the group happens to be of the freethinking mindset; members simply leave when 3 becomes apparent and definitely leave if 1 is even hinted at.

I am afraid you are wrong. From what I can gather from my brief sojourn into psychology the current theory about the development of religion is that it is an evolutionary development in humans which was used to fulfil various psychological needs. These needs circled around the very basic (a social bonding) to the more complex (giving meaning or an aim to life). We see these tendencies across every culture, and the development of religion is the first step toward civilisation (civilisation follows hot on the heels of religious development). To say that freethinkers somehow rise above this need which is fulfilled by religion is a bit silly; you are either claiming that atheists are the next stage of evolution (a little outlandish) or rise above the evolutionary needs of the rest of humanity (rather unlikely).

If I take modern science as an example. Most of the theories put forward by, say, physics are pointless (can life continue without us knowing if String Theory is correct? Almost definitely). Modern physics, for the most part, is not terribly practical, but that is not the point of science. No, science is meant to push back the boundaries of human understanding. That science is embraced so devoutly is an indication that the one of the reasons religion came into being (a need to understand the world) is still active in modern humans. I am not claiming that science is a religion, but that the wants and needs of modern humans mirror their ancestors’ quite closely, and if the desires which created religion still exist, then it is a good bet that evolution will throw up some kind of religion to meet those needs. The modern phenomenon of new age cults is a by-product of the fall of traditional religions-in the absence of the traditional method to relieve the needs of a people, new avenues for this release is created.

Let me use an anecdote to illustrate my point. I once heard of an atheist who decided to go along to a medium because ‘there is something in it’. That an atheist replaced her traditional belief with a form of ancestor worship could be used as a metaphor for modern man: we can no more rise above our evolutionary desire for religion/whatever than we can rise above our evolutionary desire for sex-it is possible, but only for a very few.

I'm saying that secular atheists don't need to look towards made up stuff such as superstitions and supernatural beliefs in order to find meaning in their lives.  See number 1 again, you only find that in religion not in freethought communities.

There is absolutely no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit...to put it bluntly.  People believe in strange stuff because it fills the evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives; it just so happens that many people (now and as long as humans have contemplated life philosophically) don't have to look outside of themselves to made up gods in order to feel that their lives are important.

religion is about gods, supernaturalism etc....to say that finding meaning in life is solely a religious concept is to call all volunteer and community activism organizations religious and that's just silly and makes the world religious lose all useful meaning nor is it common usage.

Hmm...   What some theists have in common with some atheists is an experience of certainty, or near certainty.  

Theists have only holy books and personal experience to base a sense of certainty upon.   Atheists have only a lack of evidence to base a sense of certainty upon.  It seems reasonable to label a sense of certainty based upon a lack of evidence as faith, whether the certainty (or near certainty) is held by theists or atheists.

Not all theists and atheists experience this sense of certainty.

I'm not sure it makes sense to label atheism a religion, but it is indeed interesting how similar some theists are to some atheists.  Life can be an irony rich experience.

Does it require faith to experience near certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns?

I'm nearly certain that your definition of 'faith' is broader than mine, while your definition of 'certainty' is narrower.

But I have faith that you're not playing the semantics game just to annoy me.  

Quote from: "elliebean"Does it require faith to experience near certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns?

Imho, yes, it does require faith to achieve near certainty, because it's possible to make a coherent case that invisible pink unicorns currently do exist, and are actually very close at hand.   Seriously.

In any case, we don't know what we don't know.  Thus, a sense of certainty seems more about our psychological needs, ie emotion, than it is about science.  

Should we install a pink unicorn detector on the space station?   No, there is currently no data to suggest this is a useful way to spend money.

Should we rule out the possibility of pink unicorns in an adamant, condescending, near certain universal kind of way?  No, there is no data to suggest we know enough about reality to take such a position.

Sounds to me like you've defined all the meaning out of your words. I was just making sure, er...certain.  

Btw, I'm not an expert in optics, but in order for something to be pink, doesn't it have to be visible?

Quote from: "elliebean"Sounds to me like you've defined all the meaning out of your words. I was just making sure, er...certain.  :-)

Exists:  has mass and weight, and takes up space.

Something that has all these qualities exists right now, inside of YOUR house!   And mine too.  

We don't need faith to see this, logic will do.

We need faith to insist that we KNOW that such a thing could not possibly exist.

In my happy fun loving but serious too opinion.

Hmmm...never heard anyone claim it takes faith to disbelieve in the IPU...

I know an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room with me right now because if it were it would produce sounds, leave behind tracks, and I would not be able to walk through the space it occupies.  Not to mention that something can't be invisible (ie produce no color wavelength) and be pink (a color wavelength).

There is also a difference between justified and unjustified certainty as well as the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or in other words believing in stuff just because you like the idea is absolutely not the same level of justified certainty as not believing in something because there is no evidence of it...faith isn't justified at all.
 
(Typed with my thumbs excuse typos)

Quote from: "Typist"Should we rule out the possibility of pink unicorns in an adamant, condescending, near certain universal kind of way?  No, there is no data to suggest we know enough about reality to take such a position.

What if people told you to worship the unicorn and to give money to it, to live by certain rules it had written down for them, under penalty of eternal, mind rending, unimaginable torture? What if there were thousands of other groups of people, all saying similar things for their own colours of unicorns, many of the things they tell you to do being mutually exclusive? Would you still think it reasonable to seriously consider all of them as possibilities?

Quote from: "Whitney"Hmmm...never heard anyone claim it takes faith to disbelieve in the IPU...

Congratulations!   You can tell your grandkids you were there at the birth of the IPU Religion!  :bananacolor:

Seriously, the faith is in an assumption, unsupported by evidence, that any of us are in the position to state with something like certainty, that there is no IPU.  

QuoteI know an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room with me right now

I propose you don't know that, and that there is actually an IPU in the room with you right now.   I'm not filing an application for grant money :-)

Quote from: "SSY"What if people told you to worship the unicorn and to give money to it, to live by certain rules it had written down for them, under penalty of eternal, mind rending, unimaginable torture?

I would smile and ignore them.

Quote from: "Whitney"There is absolutely no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit...to put it bluntly.  People believe in strange stuff because it fills the evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives; it just so happens that many people (now and as long as humans have contemplated life philosophically) don't have to look outside of themselves to made up gods in order to feel that their lives are important.

religion is about gods, supernaturalism etc....to say that finding meaning in life is solely a religious concept is to call all volunteer and community activism organizations religious and that's just silly and makes the world religious lose all useful meaning nor is it common usage.

I am afraid that you have just proved my point. ‘There is no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit’ and there is’ an evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives’ is a contradiction in terms. Any meaning people take out of their lives is complete bullshit, and yet almost every human who has ever existed has proscribed to this myth (that includes atheists). Finding meaning in your life is not a religion, but it comes from the same evolutionary instinct which creates religion-if you think your life has meaning then you are one step away from being religious! Of course most people deny that life is meaningless, but most people fear the abyss.

How would you define supernatural? I can’t tell you how Bolshevism is a belief in the supernatural if you do not tell me what it is (my definition would be utterly pointless-you would disagree).

As for certainty: nothing is certain.  I can’t be certain that there is no oil under my garden because I have never checked, but I believe it is not worth my effort checking.

Quote from: "Dagda"I am afraid you are wrong. From what I can gather from my brief sojourn into psychology the current theory about the development of religion is that it is an evolutionary development in humans which was used to fulfil various psychological needs. These needs circled around the very basic (a social bonding) to the more complex (giving meaning or an aim to life).

The point you continue to ignore is that religion distinguishes itself from social bonding or philosophical pondering because religion specifically introduces the idea of god or gods and a means by which all people can bond (we're all God's children) or to explain philosophical questions (We're doing God's work).  The deity or deities is what makes religion religion and not something else.

Quote from: "Typist"I propose you don't know that, and that there is actually an IPU in the room with you right now.   I'm not filing an application for grant money just presenting a fun riddle to chew on.

If it were a riddle then it would be fun...I already pointed out how I know it's not in the room.

Quote from: "Dagda"I am afraid that you have just proved my point. ‘There is no evolutionary need to believe in bullshit’ and there is’ an evolutionary need to have meaning in their lives’ is a contradiction in terms.

A real human psychological need isn't bullshit, how people may choose to fulfill that need is.  Sigh...I give up, you have no clue what you are talking about and are a waste of my time.

Dagda, interesting posts, well put, thanks.  

QuoteFinding meaning in your life is not a religion, but it comes from the same evolutionary instinct which creates religion-if you think your life has meaning then you are one step away from being religious! Of course most people deny that life is meaningless, but most people fear the abyss.

This is interesting.  Is this another way of saying the human mind has a profound need to "know"?   That seems a reasonable proposition.

That seems to be the motivator driving both atheism and theism, a commonality that is usually denied in the passionate quest for philosophical victory.   The need to know, to have an explanation, a story, to explain whatever question arises.    A very human quality, eh?

Quote from: "Dagda"Any meaning people take out of their lives is complete bullshit, and yet almost every human who has ever existed has proscribed to this myth (that includes atheists).

How do you _KNOW_ that lives have no meaning, to a degree of certainty that allows you to label any other view "complete bullshit"?

Is this declaration of "knowing" essentially the same as theism and atheism?    That is, a very human need to have "the answer" even in the face of a near complete lack of data?  Wouldn't we have to understand reality to an exhaustive degree to really be able to say with finality that life has no meaning?

Would it be more accurate and precise to say this?  

"It is my inclination, my belief, based on faith, that life has no meaning."

Quote from: "Whitney"If it were a riddle then it would be fun...I already pointed out how I know it's not in the room.

Yes, I understand, you said...

QuoteI know an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room with me right now because if it were it would produce sounds, leave behind tracks, and I would not be able to walk through the space it occupies.

What I'm trying to get at is that belief, especially certainty, can easily become a box, a prison of a sort.    Truth seeking scientists would not welcome the confinement of such a prison.

Once we declare that something exists or doesn't exist, especially if we are somewhat adamant in our declaration, we are to a significant extent no longer objective observers.  We have a horse in the race, a stake in the game, something to lose if we turn out to be wrong.   If our business interests are involved, (say we publish books on the topic for a living and are known as an authority) then the prison is even stronger.  

If I write a book declaring that invisible pink unicorns are absurd, I'm quite unlikely to welcome theories and evidence that maybe they do indeed exist.   If I find myself in that position, I'm no longer a scientist seeking the truth, and have begun to enter that zone where, as example, atheism might be called a religion.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The point you continue to ignore is that religion distinguishes itself from social bonding or philosophical pondering because religion specifically introduces the idea of god or gods and a means by which all people can bond (we're all God's children) or to explain philosophical questions (We're doing God's work).  The deity or deities is what makes religion religion and not something else.

Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

Quote from: "Typist"How do you _KNOW_ that lives have no meaning, to a degree of certainty that allows you to label any other view "complete bullshit"?

Is this declaration of "knowing" essentially the same as theism and atheism?    That is, a very human need to have "the answer" even in the face of a near complete lack of data?  Wouldn't we have to understand reality to an exhaustive degree to really be able to say with finality that life has no meaning?

Would it be more accurate and precise to say this?  

"It is my inclination, my belief, based on faith, that life has no meaning."

I do not know that life has no meaning (I believe it does) but all the availed evidence points toward life being devoid of meaning. Any action I care to take will lead to dust. No effect is lasting and as such in the grand scheme of things you could say that I may as well have not committed the action at all as no matter how I performed the action, the result is the same: dust. This seems to be a truth as far as temporal actions are concerned, therefore I conclude that life has no meaning as far as we can fathom. The average human being seems to be unable to psychologically cope with this knowledge (even Nietzsche went insane), and so we create psychological barriers so that we can continue to operate in day-to-day life. Religion or pseudo-religion is the preferred method of humanity to attempt to block the view of the abyss.

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The point you continue to ignore is that religion distinguishes itself from social bonding or philosophical pondering because religion specifically introduces the idea of god or gods and a means by which all people can bond (we're all God's children) or to explain philosophical questions (We're doing God's work).  The deity or deities is what makes religion religion and not something else.

Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

But when you reference Taoism, you're trying to reference only the philosophy while ignoring the fact that traditional Taoism is polytheistic.  Even Buddhists revere and venerate the Buddha to the point where in some holy texts he is referred to as an omnipresent foundation of everything that exists.

So, again, religion is distinguished as religion because of the existence of god/gods.

Dagda, I'm enjoying your posts, thanks.   Intelligent and articulate, good reading.

QuoteI do not know that life has no meaning (I believe it does) but all the availed evidence points toward life being devoid of meaning. Any action I care to take will lead to dust.

Yes, our bodies all die in the end, no matter what we do, that's a well established point of fact.  

However, it seems a leap of faith to jump from this known fact, to an evaluation of something nobody has any data on, what if anything happens after the body turns to dust.   To be clear, I'm not claiming to know, rather, claiming none of us know.

I suggest converting "life has no meaning" to "we don't know if life has meaning or not".   Stick with the facts.

QuoteThe average human being seems to be unable to psychologically cope with this knowledge (even Nietzsche went insane), and so we create psychological barriers so that we can continue to operate in day-to-day life.

Yes, you're surely on to something here.   As human beings, it's our nature to need to know, to have explanations for everything.  

Some of us invent meanings as a shield, some of us declare there is no meaning.   Both parties seem to be doing the same, creating a story based on very little data, so that we can have some sort of explanation to fill the void.  

I sense you are trying to be rigorously honest and brave by squarely facing what seems a hard truth, life has no meaning.   I suggest there is an even more challenging truth for us as human beings.

We simply don't know.  It may even be true that we can't know.

It might be true that we have the ability to ask all kinds of questions that we'll never be able to answer.   A sense of humor is required!  

QuoteReligion or pseudo-religion is the preferred method of humanity to attempt to block the view of the abyss.

Yes, indeed.  Religion is the longest running show, humanity's biggest project, and thus is interesting whatever the merits of it's various claims.

Thanks for the thought provoking comments.

Quote from: "Typist"a well established point of fact

OMG, Typist knows something! ;)

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Ah, but there are religions (Taoism etc) which do not have a god/s in their mythology. Yes religions serve the supernatural, but we have still to agree as to what the supernatural is-as far as I am aware no-one has provided their definition of supernatural yet. Religions do not require god/s.

But when you reference Taoism, you're trying to reference only the philosophy while ignoring the fact that traditional Taoism is polytheistic.  Even Buddhists revere and venerate the Buddha to the point where in some holy texts he is referred to as an omnipresent foundation of everything that exists.

So, again, religion is distinguished as religion because of the existence of god/gods.[/quote]

Well I suppose that under that definition Bolshevism et al is not a religion (however earlier in the thread people seemed to agree that religion does not need a god and that is where my argument came from). Perhaps it would be better to describe it as a pseudo-religion? Same psychological reflex after all.

Quote from: "Typist"Dagda, I'm enjoying your posts, thanks. Intelligent and articulate, good reading.

Thank you very much. In the same manner your certainty about uncertainty is quite refreshing.

Quote from: "Typist"However, it seems a leap of faith to jump from this known fact, to an evaluation of something nobody has any data on, what if anything happens after the body turns to dust. To be clear, I'm not claiming to know, rather, claiming none of us know.

I suggest converting "life has no meaning" to "we don't know if life has meaning or not". Stick with the facts.

I suppose you have me there. Of course as I said (I think) I don’t proscribe to this philosophy, but I am a great admirer of Nietzsche. However I would say that if we assumed that the materialist world-view is correct (there is nothing but the material world) then there is no meaning to life. Then again current scientific breakthroughs in the field of Noetics and other areas seem to be suggesting that this may not be the case-of course it is early days yet and the assumptions of the materialists may yet triumph. Maybe triumph wasn’t the right word, but you get the point.

At somewhat of a tangent it is interesting (at least I find it interesting) that the great critic of Christianity Nietzsche actually convinced me that I should believe in God. I surmised that life was rather meaningless without the spiritual sphere, and so I found myself praying. I stress that this is MY thought process, and you might disagree with me, but that is how my subjective reality works.

QuoteHowever I would say that if we assumed that the materialist world-view is correct (there is nothing but the material world) then there is no meaning to life.

You know, I blindly assumed I knew what "meaning to life" meant until entering this thread.  Now I'm scratching my head a bit, which is good, thanks.   Meaning to life, what does that mean exactly?  Not sure I know...  

I spent a glorious day in the woods today, and had a chance to ponder your meaning of life reflections.   Here's what popped up.

Maybe a meaning of life could be that there is a 100% absolute no kidding no excuses never fail, not even once in a million years, guarantee that sooner or later we all get that which we've been reaching for in one way or another our whole life.  

Dust.  Nothing.  Death.  End of separation.  Reunion?

Love is a big topic for us.  What is love?  A form of death, a surrender of ourselves to someone else.

Sex is an even bigger topic!  :-)

QuoteI surmised that life was rather meaningless without the spiritual sphere, and so I found myself praying.

Ok, here's my tangent.  I surmise that divisions between material and spiritual are man made concepts, that may be useful for discussion, but don't accurately reflect reality.   To me, if there is a God, it's just a part of the natural world we don't understand yet.

QuoteI stress that this is MY thought process, and you might disagree with me, but that is how my subjective reality works.

These kinds of discussions require some care, eh?   Everybody is entitled to have their personal inclinations, which are really nobody else's businesses.  Sometimes these personal inclinations become global proclamations, at which point they are open to public analysis and challenge.  

Example:   "I see no meaning to my life" is different than "there is no meaning to life".   One statement should be respected, the other is fair game.   An ongoing challenge for all us to keep the two separate.  Please forgive this typist when I mess it up.

Quote from: "elliebean"OMG, Typist knows something! :-)

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "elliebean"OMG, Typist knows something! :-)

What the hell are you talking about?

Quote from: "Dagda"Well I suppose that under that definition Bolshevism et al is not a religion (however earlier in the thread people seemed to agree that religion does not need a god and that is where my argument came from). Perhaps it would be better to describe it as a pseudo-religion? Same psychological reflex after all.

Religion is philosophy with a god.  You can personally prefer the term 'pseudo-religion' to philosophy, but that doesn't mean when you say 'pseudo-religion' you're not just talking about philosophy with a different name.  I accept that atheism may be considered a philosophy, but it can not be considered a religion just the same as I accept that communism, bolshevism, etc can be considered philosophies but, because there are no gods involved, they cannot be considered religions.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

Religious doctrines are the teachings/lessons/rules of a religion, the religion is the god-based philosophy which follows the teachings.  Catholicism isn't a doctrine, but it is bound by the doctrines of the religion.  Saying religion is doctrine is like saying a forest is trees.  It's a gross over-simplification.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Religion is philosophy with a god.

Rubbish. Religion is a doctrine, a systematized set of universal principles that are not to be questioned or debated.

Both of you are wrong.

Pinko - Religion is a philosophy with a god, afterlife, or some other supernatural belief.

I_am_I - Unitarian Universalism is a religion which encourages their members to explore various paths to god and encourages healthy debate (recently they apparently have been trying to push atheists out of their flock though).  Also, your definition would make rules some parents give their children a religion in themselves.....

Religion is not philosophy.
Philosophy is not religion.
Also...
religions are not philosophies
and philosophies are not religions
But...
there are things about some religions that are also covered under certain areas of philosophy;
there are philosophical notions incorporated into some religious doctrines;
an area of philosophy can spring up from within (and usually only functions within) a particular religion,
and I suppose a religion could arise out of a particular philosophy.
Beyond that, I see very little of either having much of anything to do with the other.
And science would just as soon never speak to either one.

They're not even the same kind of thing. Philosophy is a process by which ideas are postulated, questioned, examined, debated, and either accepted or refuted; religion is a cultural/social construct whose doctrines and traditions are irrefutable. In philosophy, you start with an idea and then try to prove it wrong to find out if it's true. In religion, you start out with what you accept as Truth and then try to come up with ideas in order to justify it.


But then again, I'm kinda buzzed.

nvm.

It's hard to draw the line but... I think religion, or at least theology, is philosophy. Science is also philosophy. Philosophy is sophisticated thought, with interest in fields such as epistemology and ontology. Both of these are the topics of theology and science. I agree with one and not the other but I won't deny theology its status as philosophy. Or in other words, I disagree with the likes of Kant but he was a philosopher by any measure.

Quote from: "Whitney"Pinko - Religion is a philosophy with a god, afterlife, or some other supernatural belief.

I agree with your expansion of the definition, I'm just not certain it's necessary.

QuoteReligious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things­â€"at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.

Link (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=belief-in-the-brain).

Quote from: "Typist"I spent a glorious day in the woods today, and had a chance to ponder your meaning of life reflections. Here's what popped up.

Maybe a meaning of life could be that there is a 100% absolute no kidding no excuses never fail, not even once in a million years, guarantee that sooner or later we all get that which we've been reaching for in one way or another our whole life.

Dust. Nothing. Death. End of separation. Reunion?

Love is a big topic for us. What is love? A form of death, a surrender of ourselves to someone else.

Sex is an even bigger topic! :-)

Oh, no. Nietzsche famously declared ‘God is dead’, but he despised secularists with a passion (in his mind the only thing worse than a priest was a secularist). He convinced me that I (personally) could not find meaning in a world without a god-head/collective consciousness thing. Very interesting philosopher. I have come to an atheist forum because there is nothing better than to meet people who don’t agree with you- that way your ideas grow stronger.

Quote from: "Typist"Ok, here's my tangent. I surmise that divisions between material and spiritual are man made concepts, that may be useful for discussion, but don't accurately reflect reality. To me, if there is a God, it's just a part of the natural world we don't understand yet.

Probably right about that.

Quote from: "Dagda"However, for an Epicurean the idea that at the end of life (all life) is oblivion and nothing else would be quite the thing.

In another context Newton said, "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."  

We're all aware of the survival instinct.   Maybe there is an oblivion instinct to balance that, and make the system whole?   I don't mean a desire for eventual oblivion at the end of life.  I mean an ongoing moment to moment desire for oblivion throughout our life, just like the survival instinct.

What is it exactly that we want to survive?   "Me", a concept in our head.   Our thoughts, our opinions, our identity, our memories, the "me".  Survival instinct instructs the "me" to keep existing at almost all costs.  

But we seem enthusiastic about killing our "me" on an ongoing basis too.  

Why do we love a hilarious joke, and laugh hysterically?   For a moment or two in the hilarity, our "me" is gone.  Why are we so eager for all kinds of stimulations?  When our mind is overwhelmed with input, our "me" is pushed aside for just a bit.

When a rocket is fired in to the air, gravity is still pulling steadily on the rocket, even as the rocket rises higher and higher.  

I sense this inner desire for oblivion is like that.   It's always there, quietly and patiently pulling us back towards the ground we came from, it's effects hidden under the noisy survival melodramas of the "me".  The trajectory of a rocket is determined both by the "life force" applied to it, and by the "gravity of oblivion" pulling it back towards Earth.  

 I sense our lives are like that.  Two opposing forces operating in tandem, at the same time.  

Not the kind of dualistic polarity our minds so love to create.  Black or white, live or die, zero or one, science or religion, right or wrong, etc etc.

Instead, a wholeness.  We want to live, and we want to die, both, at the same time.  Nature.  A circle.   We want both life and death, and we get both.  

And maybe that's a meaning to life?   We're getting exactly what we want, what more meaning do we really need?  

It seems religious people are trying to explore and understand these kind of factors, and have been for a very long time.  They use religious concepts and language, because that is how their particular type of mind prefers to frame the issue.

But others with a different frame of mind can approach the same kinds of reflections without messing around with religion, or so it seems here.  

Anyway, this is what the pink unicorn under my bed told me to type.   I have no idea what any of it means....

Proposition: Humpty Dumpty was once real. He was a living, animated, sapient egg, who unfortunately came to an untimely end. He lived sometime in the middle ages. Upon his demise, the Monarch of the kingdom Humpty Dumpty called his home, rushed to the scene, along with all his minions. Alas, he was too late, and could provide no assistance.

It is a sad tale.

Do you believe this proposition? If not, you are an antidumptiest. Does it take an act of faith to be an antidumptiest?

Proposition: At the center of the earth, small green crystal otters live. They direct the planet earth in it’s orbit around the sun. Without these small green crystal otters, the earth would spin off out of its orbit, and we would all die. (Important note: at the center of Venus, there are no small green crystal otters. In Venus, they’re beavers!)

Do you believe that? Do you think it takes an act of faith not to believe it?

Faith is believing in something without evidence, or with insufficient evidence. A logical conclusion is believing in something because of evidence, or not believing it because of lack of evidence.

QuoteA logical conclusion is believing in something because of evidence, or not believing it because of lack of evidence.

Yes.   Believing there is no God without evidence, or with insufficient evidence, is faith.

In order for a lack of evidence of XYZ to be meaningful, we would have to show that the tool being used to collect data, could find XYZ if it was there.

If I take a ten dollar pair of binoculars, and try to find distant galaxies, it proves nothing about galaxies if I find no galaxies.

What is the evidence that the human mind could currently find an intelligence so large that it could create billions of galaxies, if such an intelligence exists?    

There is no such evidence.  We can't find a single cell of any kind of intelligence anywhere in the universe, except on earth.   We are using a ten dollar pair of binoculars.   The resulting data is worthless.   For now.

Yes, what you say is true, but the logic you are espousing depends very much on what you call “God.”

For example: God â€" the intelligence that created the universe.

Think just a second about what this definition does not mean: All of the statements below are entirely consistent with this theory:

1) Such an intelligence once existed, when the universe was created, but it exists no more.
2) Such an intelligence still exists, but it exists outside of our universe, and is therefore, sublimely unaware of our existence.
3) If made aware somehow, it would feel supreme indifference, not that it would be able to do anything about it in any case.
4) Such an intelligence can, and does, make mistakes.
5) Such an intelligence, although it knows far more than we do, doesn’t know everything.
6) Such an intelligence isn’t inherently good. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad.
7) Such an intelligence is not a single entity â€" it is a race of beings.

If such an intelligence once existed, then it would have created this universe some 14 billion years ago. Fourteen billion years is long, long time. Given that span of time, I find it unlikely that such a being would still exist. If it does exist, I find it much more reasonable to suppose it is a race of beings, not just one. If they do exist, they probably don’t know about us, and if they do know about us, they probably don’t care.

All of these statements, of course, are merely suppositions, but they are suppositions based on known scientific facts. Fact: the only known method of moving from simple life to complex life is the process of evolution. Species evolve, not single organisms. These gods, if they exist, must be the product of an evolutionary process. This is why it is far more likely that there are (or were) many, not just one.

Now, the Christian version:

God â€" a male. Creator of the universe. Always existed, always will exist. Created a universe which for nearly 14 billion years did not include man (unless you are a fundamentalist, and you believe that God created the universe 5,000 years ago). The universe spans 156 billion light years, but God is only interested in the beings living on the third plant of a rather unimpressive star on the fringe of one of the estimated 125 billion galaxies that exist.

And he cares about what you do, at night, in your bedroom.

He knows everything, he is all powerful, and he is all loving.

He can do anything, and everything, except eliminate suffering in the world. Ah well, them’s the breaks.

The Christian God is self-contradictory. No being can be all knowing, all powerful and all beneficent. It’s simply not possible, therefore, the Christian God â€" as they define him â€" simply cannot exist.

Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

Quote from: "mzuniga"If such an intelligence once existed, then it would have created this universe some 14 billion years ago. Fourteen billion years is long, long time. Given that span of time, I find it unlikely that such a being would still exist. If it does exist, I find it much more reasonable to suppose it is a race of beings, not just one. If they do exist, they probably don’t know about us, and if they do know about us, they probably don’t care.

All of these statements, of course, are merely suppositions, but they are suppositions based on known scientific facts. Fact: the only known method of moving from simple life to complex life is the process of evolution. Species evolve, not single organisms. These gods, if they exist, must be the product of an evolutionary process. This is why it is far more likely that there are (or were) many, not just one.

That's interesting speculation, thanks for that.   I enjoyed it.  A race of beings, that's good.  

Quote from: "mzuniga"Now, the Christian version:  Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

Please understand I'm not drawn to the Christian God myself.   I'm just trying to follow the logic trail, ok?

There is no evidence that our common sense is adequate to the job of understanding Gods, should they exist.   We can't even find a single tiny shred of _any kind of life _anywhere except on this one tiny planet.   A 100% failure rate at finding intelligence elsewhere.

The faith is an assumption that our logic and common sense are adequate to do the God calculation.   Many atheists believe this just as blindly and passionately as many Christians believe in their God.  

Many readers will absolutely hate this fact.   Here's why.  They aren't actually interested in exploring reality, but in finding someone to be superior too, just like many theists.  The dividing line between theists and atheists is mostly man made illusion.

Quote from: "mzuniga"Not believing in his existence is not an act of faith â€" it’s just plain common sense.

I'll go even farther than that. I'll call it simple logic.

(I'm really only an amatuer at this. I'll be most happy for any experts to correct me here.)

Okay. Let's define "idea" as a formulated thought or opinion.

1. All ideas are formulated in the human mind.
2. God is an idea.
3. God was formulated in the human mind.

It seems valid to me. Of course I'm saying here that ideas are innately human, since I've seen no evidence that anything but humans can have ideas. Certainly it is only humans who can effectively communicate ideas so that works for my argument. And there is absolutely nothing that I'm aware of to show that God was ever anything more than an idea. So, if God is nothing more than an idea formulated in the human mind then...

Well, you see what I'm driving at.

QuoteThe dividing line between theists and atheists is mostly man made illusion.

Oh I like that!!!! Oh that’s so good. I’m just gonna have to steal that from you and use it sometime  

You understand of course (it just dawned on me that perhaps you didn’t realize it when you wrote it) that it has a double meaning.

QuotePlease understand I'm not drawn to the Christian God myself. I'm just trying to follow the logic trail, ok?

Yes, I understood that. If I came off as being a bit brash, or offensive, I’m truly sorry. That was not my intention.

QuoteThere is no evidence that our common sense is adequate to the job of understanding Gods, should they exist.

Yes, this is true. However, this statement also implies that there is no evidence that our faith (if you’ll pardon the expression) in the veracity and validity of logic is warranted.

If logic is valid, then the Christian God, as he is defined by the Christians, cannot exist. This is not a faith, it is simply an application of logic. But if logic is invalid, then all bets are off.

But, as I look around, I notice that logic works. It really does, and it has been working for a very long time now. I have seen misapplications of logic, of course, and I’ve seen mistakes in logic, but those can be corrected. So, because of that evidence, I trust in logic.

Is that a faith?

Others may disagree, but I think not. But then again, thinking about it, I only disagree because I say that my argument is based upon verifiable evidence (that logic works) which is simply an application of logic! So we can go round and round. The problem is, going round and round in this manner really gets us nowhere, if you see my drift.

Quote from: "mzuniga"Yes, I understood that. If I came off as being a bit brash, or offensive, I’m truly sorry. That was not my intention.

No worries.  I dish it out, so I have to be a good sport about taking it too.  Not a problem.   If I get upset, my little mess to clean up.

QuoteYes, this is true. However, this statement also implies that there is no evidence that our faith (if you’ll pardon the expression) in the veracity and validity of logic is warranted.

Logic is good for what it has been proven to be good for, right?   We have clear evidence that logic is good for building space shuttles, bridges, etc.

On the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it.  Yet.

QuoteIf logic is valid, then the Christian God, as he is defined by the Christians, cannot exist. This is not a faith, it is simply an application of logic. But if logic is invalid, then all bets are off.

My guess is that logic is not invalid, but incomplete, a work in progress, within one tiny creature on one tiny planet etc.

QuoteBut, as I look around, I notice that logic works. It really does, and it has been working for a very long time now. I have seen misapplications of logic, of course, and I’ve seen mistakes in logic, but those can be corrected. So, because of that evidence, I trust in logic.

Me too, I'm a major logic weenie, to a compulsive degree.   As you've seen, I'm trying to show the limits of logic, with logic, and thus fall in to the same problem as everybody else.   I could be completely wrong.  

QuoteIs that a faith?

It's not faith to believe logic can build good bridges.  We have evidence.

It is faith to believe logic can understand Gods.  We have no evidence.

QuoteThe problem is, going round and round in this manner really gets us nowhere, if you see my drift.

I do get your drift.  Thought about this a lot, being the blowhard that I am.

We can document that it gets us to fun, and some ego buzz, in the moment of going round and round.   Fun is good.  

And...

If we go round and round enough to realize we aren't getting anywhere, and maybe never will, that might open the door to some new perspectives.

Quote from: "Typist"On the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it.  Yet.

Oh brother. Where did you come up with the notion that logic is intented to "discover" anything?

Maybe, at this point, it would be a good idea for you to tell us what exactly you mean when you use the word logic, because so far I don't see that you have any grasp on the concept at all, seeing as how you have yet to make one single logical argument.

Hi J!

QuoteOn the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it. Yet.

Okay, I have a couple of problems with this statement.

The first is that we can’t use logic to discover extraterrestrial life. The only thing that logic is going to do in this area is give us a probability for its existence. There actually is a formula for this, but it’s filled with so many unknowns that it’s essentially useless. This is not a limitation of logic, it’s a limitation of our data gathering abilities.

You also say that we can’t discover alien life. But the truth is, we really haven’t looked. First, we have this terrible “northern hemisphere” bigotry in the US and Europe, where most of this kind of work is done. If we ever get hit by an asteroid, I’ll bet it comes at us from the southern hemisphere, a portion of the sky we rarely look at (and if you think about it, we’re talking about half the entire universe here!)

Second, the only way we can look for extraterrestrial life is to send and receive light waves. Light has a problem in the Universe, in that it’s limited to the speed of light. Put it this way, assume that the way two intelligences can communicate is through radio waves (which as you know, are also limited to the speed of light). We’ve only been able to understand radio waves for the last hundred years or so. The universe is roughly 14 billion years old, so we’ve only been listening for 0.00000007% of the universe’s existence. The universe spans 156 billion light years, we can only “see” 100 of those from the time of the invention of radio. So, we’ve only looked at (listened to) 0.00000006% of the universe.

Put it this way. Imagine someone dropped a penny somewhere in Shea Stadium. You walk into Shea Stadium, go up to the upper balcony, and with a magnifying glass, you look at just the tip of the skrew that holds the back of seat 24A in Section 309 to the cement floor.

You don’t find the penny.

Did you really expect to? There could be a whole batch of rolls of pennys on every seat in the Stadium and you still wound't find one.

QuoteIt's not faith to believe logic can build good bridges. We have evidence.

It is faith to believe logic can understand Gods. We have no evidence.

Ahh, see, here’s the problem. How do you know we have evidence that logic can build good bridges? How do you know those bridges even exist?

There is no spoon, as they say in the Matrix.

If you hold that logic can tell us about architecture, then you should also hold that logic can tell us about God, or at least the Christian concept thereof.

Put it this way, can the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? No, of course not, you say. Why not? Because a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time. If it’s pink, it’s not invisible. If it’s invisible, it’s not pink.
This is simple logic. Contractions do not exist, says Rand. A thing that is self-contradictory cannot exist.
 
God is said to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving, all at the same time. This is self-contradictory, and it’s simply not possible.

Atheist: If God is all loving, he would see to it that no suffering existed in the world.
Christian: God didn’t put suffering in the world, man did.
Atheist: Did man create the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, or the tsunami that pummeled so much of India?
Christian: (Annoyed) You know what I mean.
Atheist: Actually, I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s move on. You are saying that God gave us free will, and because of free will, we introduce suffering, right?
Christian: (self-satisfied) Yes!
Atheist: So, why didn’t God, create man such that he has free will but wouldn’t create suffering?
Christian: How can you do that? You can’t have free will without suffering, otherwise, it wouldn’t be free will!!!
Atheist: I have no idea how to do that, but I’m not God. If God can do anything, then he can create free will without suffering.
Christian: How could he? It’s not possible.
Atheist: Then you’re saying there is something that God can’t do, so he isn’t all powerful.
Christian: (Stymied)

You just simply can’t have it all. You have to give up one of the omni’s for God to actually exist. If you give up one of the omni’s, it doesn’t take long to discover you actually have to give up all of the omni’s, and suddenly, we’re talking about the God that I presented as the first option in my previous post. And that’s an entirely different discussion.

The only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

I hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

Quote from: "mzuniga"You just simply can’t have it all. You have to give up one of the omni’s for God to actually exist. If you give up one of the omni’s, it doesn’t take long to discover you actually have to give up all of the omni’s, and suddenly, we’re talking about the God that I presented as the first option in my previous post. And that’s an entirely different discussion.

The only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

I hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

Well, no. Logic is only a tool, and as far as it goes it's a good one. But just because there is definitely such a thing as false logic does not mean that logic is flawed, no more than being unfortunate enough to buy a lemon of a car means that all cars are lemons.

What logic can do very well is address supernatural ideas as human contructs. That's not to say that logic can disprove anything supernatural, but it can make a strong argument that ideas that require a supernatural state of existance to be valid are most likely, if not certainly, nothing more than human inventions, whether those ideas are based on superstition or on some established religious doctrine.

QuoteWhat logic can do very well is address supernatural ideas as human contructs. That's not to say that logic can disprove anything supernatural, but it can make a strong argument that ideas that require a supernatural state of existance to be valid are most likely, if not certainly, nothing more than human inventions, whether those ideas are based on superstition or on some established religious doctrine.

I guess that what I am saying (or trying to say anyway) is that logic can and does disprove the existence of God as he is defined by Christian theology. This does not disprove the general concept of a god, however. Logic cannot do that. I cannot disprove, for example, the existence of Zeus, because there is nothing that I am aware of that is self-contradictory in his definition.

If you remove the self-contradicting aspects of the Christian God, then that concept of a god is no longer disprovable by logic. But then, it ceases to be the Christian concept of God.

And you do make a very good point, in that beyond simple proof and disproof, there is also the concept of likelihood. Based on the consistency of what we know and observe, we can make probabilistic estimates as to the veracity of claims.

Is it possible that some intelligence created our universe? Yes it is possible. Is it probable? Based on what I know and observe, I would say no.

And really, this comes back to the original question. Because my estimate is based on probablities that are backed by observation and logic, it is not a faith. It is a logical conclusion. It doesn't mean I'm right. But it is not a faith because all it would take is for someone to show me the error in logic, or to present evidence that disputes the logic to make me change my mind.

I like Carl Sagan's idea: show me a message encoded in the number PI, and oh yeah, I'm a believer!

Logic can't do much more than present an argument, and the better the logic the better the argument. Once the argument is presented then I guess it's up to the philosophers to decide whether or not that argument is worthy of any serious consideration.

Myself, I'm content with being convinced that all this God stuff is just a made-up fantasy. I've been so convinced for going on thirty years and I have yet to see anything that would cause me to be convinced otherwise.

Quote from: "mzuniga"If you hold that logic can tell us about architecture, then you should also hold that logic can tell us about God, or at least the Christian concept thereof.

We have a long experience of creating buildings using logic.   We have no history of discovering any form of intelligence anywhere in the universe beyond this planet.   If we can't find a single cell of life beyond earth, upon what logical basis do we claim our logic and data is currently capable of coming to a conclusion on a subject as large as God?

QuotePut it this way, can the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? No, of course not, you say.

No, um, I don't say that.  I've said repeatedly (you may have missed these threads) that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, right now, in your house.

QuoteBecause a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time. If it’s pink, it’s not invisible. If it’s invisible, it’s not pink. This is simple logic.

No, respectfully, it is a simple assertion.

QuoteContractions do not exist, says Rand. A thing that is self-contradictory cannot exist.

Again, this assumes that the dualistic nature of the human mind is an adequate guide to all phenomena in the universe.   May I remind us that we didn't even know 99% of the universe was there only 100 years ago?
 

QuoteGod is said to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving, all at the same time. This is self-contradictory, and it’s simply not possible.

Again, the assumption that human logic can understand everything.

QuoteYou just simply can’t have it all.

That could be true, but you simply don't know it.  You just think you do.

QuoteThe only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

Apologies, but one doesn't follow from the other.   It could be that logic is a tool that is great for some things, but not other things.   Have you ever tried to show a 3 month old baby you love it, using logic?

QuoteI hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

Well, it's fun, or we wouldn't be doing it here, right?

And, if we see the limits of one method, we may then go on to explore other methods.  If we never see the limits of the first method, we may remain stuck in it forever.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-fc%2Ftomato.gif&hash=d882d07365499ab08d978d5d5e848329edd029c9)

Sorry everyone I'ma huntin' wabbits...

Typist, I think I must have miscommunicated. I think we may actually be saying the same thing, or at least, close to the same thing, but somehow, the ideas are getting confused.

I’ll try to explain, but bear with me, this is a complex concept. Well, actually, it is a simple concept, but it’s difficult to explain.
When I said logic could be flawed, I didn’t mean a particular piece of logic could be flawed. That of course can happen, but it isn’t what I meant. I meant that logic itself, the very process, could be invalid.

Logic is the systematic process based upon principles of combining bits of knowledge to deduce or infer greater knowledge. In formulating a logical statement, we use such things as sequence, numerability, consistency of properties, cause and effect. We begin with simple concepts that grow in complexity as we combine our elements.

For example, suppose you have caller ID. I phone you, and you notice that the number I’m calling from is in the Chicago area code. During our conversation, I tell you I’m calling you from New York. There is a contradiction. Using the principles of logic, you realize that contradictions do not exist. To eliminate the contradiction, you can deduce one of two things:

1) I am lying. I really am in Chicago, and for some reason, I am attempting a subterfuge trying to convince you that I’m not.
2) I’m a hacker, and I am somehow routing our telephone conversation from New York through Chicago, to you, so that your phone reads as if I am in Chicago, but in reality I am in New York.

Both of these statements are consistent with what we know of physical properties and the state of modern telephony.

Using logic, one thing you cannot infer is that I am in both Chicago and New York at the same time. Given what we know of physical properties, a physical person or thing cannot be in two places at the same time.

But, what if logic is invalid? Not the two deductions I made above, but the very process of logic itself. If logic is invalid, then why can’t a physical entity be in two places at the same time? Well, there is nothing to say that it can’t. There are no rules. Things don’t have to make any sense, because it is only with the existence and validity of logic that anything can make sense. That’s what we mean when we say “it makes sense.” We are saying that the statement is consistent with logic.

Now, here comes the hard part:

Either logic works, or it doesn’t. If logic works, then it always works, and it always works everywhere. This is because logic is the application of known principles based on the properties of reality.

The real problem with the statement “either logic works, or it doesn’t” is that it is a logical statement. The statement itself assumes that logic is valid! If logic itself is invalid, then the very statement “either logic works, or it doesn’t” is invalid.

So, when you say, logic works for architecture but not for God, what you are actually saying is that logic itself is invalid. In such a case, I would say the only thing wrong with your statement is that “logic works for architecture” is actually incorrect, or at the very least, unsupportable. I would say it would be more accurate to say “logic appears to work for architecture.” That the appearance is remarkably consistent, so consistent that it appears to always work for architecture, is beside the point.

If logic is invalid, then the statement “a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time” is indeed just a matter of opinion, just as you say. But if logic is valid, then this statement is not simply an opinion. It is the necessary result of the properties of reality.

Now, I maintain that logic is valid. I maintain that because of its unerring consistency with perceived reality. However, I readily admit that that very statement is based upon the assumption that logic is valid.

But I submit that this is philosophical hyperbole. If logic is indeed invalid, then there are no rules â€" or at least, we cannot deduce what the rules are, since logic is our only means of deduction, and by definition, that is invalid. Everything then is an illusion; however, I perceive that within my illusion, the principles of logic appear to be consistent nonetheless. In other words, it’s a remarkably consistent illusion.

If logic is valid, then reality is consistent. Our perceptions confirm this.

Illusion or reality? Since both appear to be equally consistent, then does it really matter?

Do you see where I’m coming from?

Now, back to our original question (and I think you just made me change my mind here), is this a faith?

I submit that atheism is not a faith, because it is â€" in my case anyway â€" a logical conclusion based on perceived reality. But that logical conclusion is based on my belief (just another word for faith) that logic is valid.

You cannot use logic to validate logic! You can’t say logic is true because logic says so. It’s like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so. It’s a circular argument (which, amazingly enough, is a logical argument  You can go crazy thinking about this stuff).

So, I formally recant my previous assertion (sort of): Ultimately, yes there is a faith involved. It is the faith in the validity of logic.

The reasons why atheism is neither a religion nor faith-based have been covered in this thread and elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that believers genuinely see atheism as faith-based. It seems to me more likely that it is merely a cheap point-scoring exercise.

However, the thing I find interesting is the fact that theists will use their own condition, that of the religious faithful, in an attempt to insult the faithless. What they are tacitly saying when they attempt to paint atheists as religious is, "Sure, I may be an idiot, but so are you!"

I know you are but what am I? lol

In my experience, "believers" are not that confident in the existence of their god.  They are more superstitious than faithful.  If they can't draw other people into their shaky system of illogical belief, they start using non sequiturs.

Faith is what gets suckers into trouble. Faith is what the con-man depends on to make his living. Faith is what causes people to lose money on the stock exchange. Faith is why the divorce rate is so high.

Faith never designed and constructed a skyscraper or composed a symphony or painted a masterpiece. Faith has definitely, however, led to the slaughter of millions upon millions of human beings.