Rant all you want, but you are not applying consistent logic. Christians are choosing to belong to the same religious grouping as other Christians. Atheists aren't choosing to belong to any religious grouping. By being an atheist I am not in any way choosing to have anything common with any other atheist other than 1 thing, not believing in God. Westboro Baptists and Southern Baptists have A TON of stuff in common. Episcopalians and Westboro Baptists have numerous specifics thing in common besides just believing in God.
They all believe Jesus was the son of God.
They all believe his and gods teachings are found in the bible, to some extent.
They all believe in the necessity of certain similar religious rituals.
They all believe in they can talk to God via prayer and that he sometimes answers back.
They all believe "good" people as defined by their religion will go to heaven.
Hey all believe "bad" people as defined by their religion will go to hell.
I could go on.
Meanwhile ALL atheists believe ______? There's really nothing you can fill in that blank without a putting a negative in front of it and even then, there's only one thing.
Heck, I even know atheists who have "religious" beliefs, like belief in an afterlife. As an agnostic atheist who embraces secular humanism I have a lot more in common with a modern Episcopal or liberal Jew than I do with a Stalinist communist when it comes to morality and ethics. philosophically, I probably am equally unrelated to Stalinists and westboro baptist. However, the same can't be said for other Christians and westboro baptists. Their vinn diagram of beliefs have some small but significant overlaps. Those small similarities are distinct enough to assign a meaningful (but not very refined) category to them, Christianity. My vinn diagram with Stalin is just a barely touching tangent. The similarity between me and Stalin ais more like the similarity between the KKK and the Nation of Islam, and not even that much because they both not only believe in one God, but the SAME god and heaven/hell etc.
Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I like banana bread with walnuts instead of pecans.
A life lived in fear,
is a life half lived.
Glen McGuire
is a life half lived.
Glen McGuire
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Me too, but pecans are good too.
Nobody is 'ranting'.
I think we already established that defined philosophies (including religious faiths) include a broad similarity (very broad!) of outlook in each, while 'atheists' do not fit that rubric, and cannot be properly confined to any type of broad similarity type statement (we can say things like 'all/most Buddhists believe X' but we cannot do that for atheists). This is because the lack of something is not a defining characteristic of anything in particular.
I know a fair bit about Christianity in its various manifestations - but I'm more familiar with some types and less so with others. I am fairly familiar with more varieties of Judaism, although I don't know too much about the varieties of Hareidi and know almost nothing about Karaites (but they are a tiny minority group, after all). I know only a bit about Muslims - more than most, apparently, but only superficially. About Buddhism and Hinduism, I know relatively little. Sikhism is attractive and so is Baha'ism (to me). All I know about Jains is that they don't want to kill anything at all, even ants.
I discussed reincarnation with a Hare Krishna-ite once.
AFAIK, all these are - to some degree at least - faith based and theistic (although there are some definite quibbles about Buddhism and theistic as a description).
So - actually, here's a point:
Are non-theistic Buddhists (and that's the base type I believe) 'atheist'? Or are they something else? I think most Buddhists believe in a spiritual world with spirits and powers, they just don't believe in an actual god. Is that correct? I don't know exactly how that works either. Is 'atheist' even a term that would be useful in a Buddhist context? What I've seen used is NON- theist, which isn't exactly the same thing. I think.
anybody?
Nobody is 'ranting'.
I think we already established that defined philosophies (including religious faiths) include a broad similarity (very broad!) of outlook in each, while 'atheists' do not fit that rubric, and cannot be properly confined to any type of broad similarity type statement (we can say things like 'all/most Buddhists believe X' but we cannot do that for atheists). This is because the lack of something is not a defining characteristic of anything in particular.
I know a fair bit about Christianity in its various manifestations - but I'm more familiar with some types and less so with others. I am fairly familiar with more varieties of Judaism, although I don't know too much about the varieties of Hareidi and know almost nothing about Karaites (but they are a tiny minority group, after all). I know only a bit about Muslims - more than most, apparently, but only superficially. About Buddhism and Hinduism, I know relatively little. Sikhism is attractive and so is Baha'ism (to me). All I know about Jains is that they don't want to kill anything at all, even ants.
I discussed reincarnation with a Hare Krishna-ite once.
AFAIK, all these are - to some degree at least - faith based and theistic (although there are some definite quibbles about Buddhism and theistic as a description).
So - actually, here's a point:
Are non-theistic Buddhists (and that's the base type I believe) 'atheist'? Or are they something else? I think most Buddhists believe in a spiritual world with spirits and powers, they just don't believe in an actual god. Is that correct? I don't know exactly how that works either. Is 'atheist' even a term that would be useful in a Buddhist context? What I've seen used is NON- theist, which isn't exactly the same thing. I think.
anybody?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Non-theistic Buddhism is more philosophical than spiritual. It is usually a western version that takes the main tenets of Buddhism, like the eightfold path, and the practices of self control, mindfulness, and meditation, and leaves behind the magical thinking. I have found some teachings of Buddhism very appealing.
The famous Atheist Sam Harris, actually has some Buddhist like thoughts and practices. He wrote an article once urging all Buddhists to drop the religios aspects of their practice and focus on the parts that are most helpful in the here and now.
The Dalai llama is actually very non- theistic and appeals to many westerners, but he still believes in reincarnation and other non materialist teachings.
The famous Atheist Sam Harris, actually has some Buddhist like thoughts and practices. He wrote an article once urging all Buddhists to drop the religios aspects of their practice and focus on the parts that are most helpful in the here and now.
The Dalai llama is actually very non- theistic and appeals to many westerners, but he still believes in reincarnation and other non materialist teachings.
Last edited by Turtle on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I think there is a confusion of terms that is partly the a-theists' fault, partly society's fault. A-theism is not really a thing. You don't practice it. Atheists have not protested the term atheism strongly enough. An atheist can practice humanism, Buddhism, utilitarianism, communism, etc. They are positive examples of practices. One just does not practice atheism. It is a negative, a non thing. Atheists can practice all kinds of isms, they don't practice theism, that is what makes them atheist. They are defined by what they DON'T do. That is what matters.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
okay - it is still a bit confusing - I mean, if someone says 'I'm Methodist' then I kind of know what they 'think'. But if someone says 'atheist' I am in the dark, pretty much. It doesn't have much of a handle, you know?
BTW, has anybody ever met an Asatru (Asatruan?) ? I conversed with one online for a while on b'net, but never got a clear picture of any of those reconstructed northern European pagan faiths. How accurate can a reconstruction of an extinct faith that didn't leave any texts really BE, anyway? This would include Druids, Asatru, and all the varieties of Odin/Thor etc. Apparently there are quite a few of them.
Some people lump them all into 'neo-pagan' or 'witches' but that is clearly (well, sort of clearly if you've talked to any of them) - that's not really valid.
What do you think? Would a genuine ancient druid (or whatever) recognize the reconstructed varieties? Does that make the reconstructed versions 'wrong' or simply a variant on the same theme?
And - following on to the secular/atheist original theme of the thread - why do people adopt these new/old ideas anyway?
BTW, has anybody ever met an Asatru (Asatruan?) ? I conversed with one online for a while on b'net, but never got a clear picture of any of those reconstructed northern European pagan faiths. How accurate can a reconstruction of an extinct faith that didn't leave any texts really BE, anyway? This would include Druids, Asatru, and all the varieties of Odin/Thor etc. Apparently there are quite a few of them.
Some people lump them all into 'neo-pagan' or 'witches' but that is clearly (well, sort of clearly if you've talked to any of them) - that's not really valid.
What do you think? Would a genuine ancient druid (or whatever) recognize the reconstructed varieties? Does that make the reconstructed versions 'wrong' or simply a variant on the same theme?
And - following on to the secular/atheist original theme of the thread - why do people adopt these new/old ideas anyway?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Isms and philosophies of all kinds provide structure and comfort in a world that can be admittedly confusing and chaotic. They help us deal with day to day life and teach us how to face death. When humans do not have a particular philosophy and find themselves floundering, they invent one or co- opt one. It seems to be one of those things we do to help us get through life long enough to pass on our genes and raise our young.
Today, resurrected ancient religions and philosophies are quite popular, but from what I see, they are very modern versions with similar symbology and very different practices. Many of them have spiritual sounding names for very ordinary concepts. I know a pagan who told me recently that "magick" is really just a form of self care.
I imagine the form of Judaism you practice is quite modern. Most Christains probably don't realize how modern their version of Christianity is compared to past versions.
Today, resurrected ancient religions and philosophies are quite popular, but from what I see, they are very modern versions with similar symbology and very different practices. Many of them have spiritual sounding names for very ordinary concepts. I know a pagan who told me recently that "magick" is really just a form of self care.
I imagine the form of Judaism you practice is quite modern. Most Christains probably don't realize how modern their version of Christianity is compared to past versions.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Everyone likes to be able to put people in certain categories based on politics, economics, religion, etc. However, there are some people who defy categorization and dogmatic conservatives tend to be very uncomfortable when dealing with such people so they either force them in a pre-existing category or make crap up about them based on their narrow experiences to make a new category for them. Atheists are one such set of people. It's really quite simple when you think about it. People who aren't religious don't and shouldn't fit in any religious category. The same is true for other types of categories. Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? He rants and raves about the stupidity and ignorance of "moderates" and undecided voters fairly frequently. I don't hear Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say bad things about moderates. Liberals can handle ambiguity better than conservatives. Their brains are just wired differently - literally. Being a conservative probably helped keep you alive as a hunter gatherer in a small clan in ancient world. But as things like agriculture and inter-city trade came into being survival became a much more complex and cooperative undertaking. Shutting yourself off from outsiders may have protected you from attack, but in complex societies it also shut you off from trade opportunities and integration of new technologies.
Anyone watch the Walking Dead? It's a great show, and a great show (it really has almost nothing to do with zombies and everything to do with human character and small group dynamics in extreme stress) for demonstrating the virtues of a conservative mindset. The show's primary hero is the ideal conservative leader and his mindset and conservative caution is shown to be only way to survive in a world full of danger and potentially hostile tribes over and over again. Now that the main group has stumbled into a semi-stable tribe there is conflict between the liberal minds of the stable "safe" tribe and the main character's who are having to adapt to life out of the "jungle" while teaching the liberal tribe that they need to ready and able to survive. because danger is just outside the walls and will eventually try to get in.
However, the show is a fantasy. We live in a complex interconnected society and with the exception of native peoples, we have for a couple thousand years now. History's march during that time has been a fairly steady march to the left, and baring catastrophe, will probably stay that way. Some people, including atheists, defy labels and conservatives need to get over it. However, if there's ever a zombie apocalypse, feel free to label me all you want as I'll be rallying 'round the family with a pocket full of shells (bonus points if you get that drop) - just like everyone else who wants to live.
Anyone watch the Walking Dead? It's a great show, and a great show (it really has almost nothing to do with zombies and everything to do with human character and small group dynamics in extreme stress) for demonstrating the virtues of a conservative mindset. The show's primary hero is the ideal conservative leader and his mindset and conservative caution is shown to be only way to survive in a world full of danger and potentially hostile tribes over and over again. Now that the main group has stumbled into a semi-stable tribe there is conflict between the liberal minds of the stable "safe" tribe and the main character's who are having to adapt to life out of the "jungle" while teaching the liberal tribe that they need to ready and able to survive. because danger is just outside the walls and will eventually try to get in.
However, the show is a fantasy. We live in a complex interconnected society and with the exception of native peoples, we have for a couple thousand years now. History's march during that time has been a fairly steady march to the left, and baring catastrophe, will probably stay that way. Some people, including atheists, defy labels and conservatives need to get over it. However, if there's ever a zombie apocalypse, feel free to label me all you want as I'll be rallying 'round the family with a pocket full of shells (bonus points if you get that drop) - just like everyone else who wants to live.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I think you are right, turtle. Belief-sets (philosophies, religions) certainly provide structure and meaning. Personally I don't know how a person can live without a defined (somewhat!) structure and meaning, but I also understand that - very largely - we define these for ourselves (that is, humans 'find' meaning in life).
It is even possible for an individual to decide that 'life is meaningless' and THAT is still a 'meaning'. I don't think it is possible - long term, anyway - for a society to work based on 'life is meaningless'. I think that eventually such a society would be CREATING a meaning for their society. Why do we get up in the morning? Or go to work? Because we see some kind of reason (meaning) in doing so, I think.
The first things babies do is try to discover 'meaning' in the chaos - what can I rely on, what is true, do certain actions result in repeatable consequences, and so on. (how many times does it take to drop the darned bowl on the floor, anyway, before we figure out that it ALWAYS falls down? Or maybe watching mom pick it back up - over and over again - is fine entertainment!)
It is even possible for an individual to decide that 'life is meaningless' and THAT is still a 'meaning'. I don't think it is possible - long term, anyway - for a society to work based on 'life is meaningless'. I think that eventually such a society would be CREATING a meaning for their society. Why do we get up in the morning? Or go to work? Because we see some kind of reason (meaning) in doing so, I think.
The first things babies do is try to discover 'meaning' in the chaos - what can I rely on, what is true, do certain actions result in repeatable consequences, and so on. (how many times does it take to drop the darned bowl on the floor, anyway, before we figure out that it ALWAYS falls down? Or maybe watching mom pick it back up - over and over again - is fine entertainment!)
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I haven't seen the show, chrisso, but I hear it is a good one.
It seems to me that a society needs BOTH sets of mind (or the full spectrum, really) in order to properly thrive.
It seems to me that a society needs BOTH sets of mind (or the full spectrum, really) in order to properly thrive.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.