I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it.
I have read it but, being an atheist, it merely re-enforced my current views.
| danhayes wrote: |
I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists.The God Delusion is not really intended to sway anyone's beliefs, it is intended to outline supporting arguments for atheist beliefs, and argue in favour of atheist activism (speaking out against the evils of religion). As Bikerman put it, it is reinforcement. It is targeted at atheists facing overwhelming hostility (they are the most hated minority in America, for example) and who are seeking ways to defend their position, and at people who are uncomfortable with their religions already but need a solid intellectual backing before renouncing it completely. i can't see an even moderately devout religious person being swayed by it - an already-doubter-almost-apostate-anyway, sure, but not someone who is comfortable with their religion.
| deanhills wrote: |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
This is ridiculous. ^_^; If the amount of hype surrounding Dawkins makes him the centre of a religion then every big to medium name Hollywood and TV actor, Billboard charting pop artist, widely published author, etc. etc. all have their own religions. You're just mudslinging. You know the guy is opposed to religion, and you don't like the guy, ergo the best way to insult him is to attempt to show that he is what is opposed to. But of course, that's all tripe. And even worse, it's anti-intellectual tripe - the worst kind of tripe - where backwards-thinking numbskulls make fun of intellectuals instead of trying to understand them, because that would be too hard and end up challenging their beliefs so badly they couldn't rationally hold on to them.
Dawkins is simply a (somewhat) aggressive intellectual who has made some sharp and cutting points against religion (in the course of a distinguished academic career, much of which has nothing to do with his criticism of religion) that often get repeated because they are so insightful.
Of course, Dawkins is a puppy dog compared to really aggressive atheist intellectuals like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Part of the reason that Dawkins is so popular is that he is so mild-mannered, preferring dry British wit to Dennett's and Harris's out and out American plain-spoken brashness. Dawkins' amusing, sarcastic comments make better bumper stickers than - for example - Dennett's opening to Breaking the Spell where he compares religions to colon parasites.
So what if the man sells t-shirts? Everyone sells t-shirts, including the hypocritical religious institutions whose very founder decried doing business in holy places and advocated giving away all worldly possessions. Personally, i think an atheist who wants to publicly display their beliefs in the face of gross intolerance can do far better with a Dawkins t-shirt than with a "****** God" t-shirt. And if we're going make a celebrity out of someone, how is a first-class intellectual who has made enormous contributions to his field a bad choice? How is he a worse choice than any actor or musician? | deanhills wrote: |
| danhayes wrote: | I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
He, along with dozens of big name writers, have indirectly become the spokespeople for atheism...because they're not afraid to talk about it openly and have honest discussions (something the other side rarely does). I fail to see what his popularity has to do with this. If that's the case, every big name author, musician, actor/actress, etc. is the head of a religion. Bad logic. | deanhills wrote: |
| danhayes wrote: | I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. | deanhills wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. |
Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. |
In simpler words. I cannot believe any one person in the world can have all the answers, enough to say that someone has been deluded. That would have to mean that he knows more than any of us do and is less limited than any of us are.
As I am typing this posting I can only see the screen in front of me. I cannot see to the back of my head as my vision is limited to having only eyes that can look in front of me with some peripheral vision. The only part that is a little better than my limited physical capacity is my capacity to think about yesterday, today and tomorrow. And somewhere in the time of tomorrow I have this knowledge that I will pass on. I cannot predict the day. I do not have the control over time. I can only take guesses. And yes some things I can prove, but when it gets to big ticket items like the delusion of God when I cannot even know when I am going to die, what is going to happen when I die, how can I claim anything is a delusion? As long as we have this thing called death and dying and are limited in what we can see, hear or interpret, how can we not but be deluded about most of the things around us?
I think it is only when we have the ability to transcend our daily physical existence, time, space, the universe, that we can say that we are no longer deluded. Until that time it is like with Plato, we can only see shadows against the wall of a cave. | deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. |
In simpler words. I cannot believe any one person in the world can have all the answers, enough to say that someone has been deluded. That would have to mean that he knows more than any of us do and is less limited than any of us are.
As I am typing this posting I can only see the screen in front of me. I cannot see to the back of my head as my vision is limited to having only eyes that can look in front of me with some peripheral vision. The only part that is a little better than my limited physical capacity is my capacity to think about yesterday, today and tomorrow. And somewhere in the time of tomorrow I have this knowledge that I will pass on. I cannot predict the day. I do not have the control over time. I can only take guesses. And yes some things I can prove, but when it gets to big ticket items like the delusion of God when I cannot even know when I am going to die, what is going to happen when I die, how can I claim anything is a delusion? As long as we have this thing called death and dying and are limited in what we can see, hear or interpret, how can we not but be deluded about most of the things around us?
I think it is only when we have the ability to transcend our daily physical existence, time, space, the universe, that we can say that we are no longer deluded. Until that time it is like with Plato, we can only see shadows against the wall of a cave. |
You're not seriously judging a book by its cover are you? ^_^; Please tell me you're not casting judgement on Dawkins' entire book-length argument on the basis of the title.
FYI, if you care, Dawkins never asserts that God does not exist. Not once. Ever. In fact, he explicitly advocates "temporary agnosticism" (which he gives a special meaning that would take too long to explain here, but is fairly close to "weak agnosticism"). He says straight up - and this is a direct quote - "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
The "delusion" in the title is not what you seem to think it is. Dawkins is not some pulpit pounding loud-mouth pop-show pundit, the man is a serious, first rate intellectual, an academic with a stellar string of credentials and a career worthy of those credentials. He's not just name-calling - he's not just calling theists "deluded" for believing in "the God delusion", as you seem to think he is. But, to find that out, you are going to have to read the book, of course. | deanhills wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. |
You really don't know what the book is about: okay its like this:
Bill is an atheist, but he doesn't know answers to questions some other people ask him, so he thinks about converting to a religion. But then... "ooh whats that", he reads the book and knows that being an atheist suits him best. That's what I understood about the book is (also?) meant for.Well, let's let RD speak for himself. I'm sure that a small quote is both useful and within the bounds of 'fair use'.
| Richard Dawkins wrote: |
| I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are being done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realise that leaving is an option. If you are one of them then this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled. |
to the TS,
how long have you been hiding under a rock? 
enjoy the book, but don't take it too seriously like its some kind of a bible for atheists 
| redhakaw wrote: |
| enjoy the book, but don't take it too seriously like its some kind of a bible for atheists |
So you have read it have you?yes, i think it was last 2006....
might as well read it again if i have the time.
why did you ask? Bikerman?
Because I am always suspicious of people who give a one line review of a book - it makes me think they might not have read it. You don't mention Chapter 5 or Chapter 7 for example...or comment on his hypothesese about the origins of religion...I thought you might have some thoughts on this - rather than a simple one-line dismissal.
i see, well let me go with it again to give a better exchange with you if that is what you want.
to give a small thought, the entire book merely enforces the outdatedness of religion together with its doctrines and rituals when it is used as basis for morality or simply the way we live our lives, and i find it rather faulty when he suggests that atheism is an alternative option.
in the meantime, why dont you give your fair share on those particular chapters you mentioned
| redhakaw wrote: |
i see, well let me go with it again to give a better exchange with you if that is what you want.
to give a small thought, the entire book merely enforces the outdatedness of religion together with its doctrines and rituals when it is used as basis for morality or simply the way we live our lives, and i find it rather faulty when he suggests that atheism is an alternative option. |
Chapter 7 is the only part of the book that would fit this description - a consideration of the bible in historical context and a consideration of the 'changing moral zeitgeist'. The rest of the book is a rational consideration of the issues, not a rant against the 'outdatedness of religion'.
| Quote: |
| in the meantime, why dont you give your fair share on those particular chapters you mentioned |
Chapter 5 covers the origin of religion. It looks at the evolutionary benefits of religion and considers the psychological factors involved.Besides I wonder how you can be deluded if you don't believe in god, being deluded is being mislead,
so how are people deluded by NOT believing in god.
And not knowing everything is not being deluded, ignorant would fit better.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Chapter 7 is the only part of the book that would fit this description - a consideration of the bible in historical context and a consideration of the 'changing moral zeitgeist'. The rest of the book is a rational consideration of the issues, not a rant against the 'outdatedness of religion'. |
there's no question why the said issues are good reasons to treat religion a historical mistake, and the author gave detailed rationalization about it.
what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism.
Having disbelief in gods has nothing to do with how great a life you can have. to make it short
| Quote: |
| Besides I wonder how you can be deluded if you don't believe in god, being deluded is being mislead |
and you suppose that belief in a bearded man in the sky is the only cause for delusion? | redhakaw wrote: |
| what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism. |
Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative. ^_^; If you have no religion, you are, by default, atheist. (The reverse is not true. If you have religion, that doesn't make you theist. There are atheist religions. But there are no theist non-religions.)
But i have to disagree, partially. Yes, he was pushing atheism, but he was not glorifying it or putting it on a pedestal. It might look that way, but that is only because of how bad he makes the alternative. In other words, he's not putting atheism on a pedestal, he's putting religion in the gutter. He spends no time whatsoever talking about how great atheism is, or how great atheists are. He spends all of his time pointing out the lunacy and evil in religion. | Quote: |
| Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion, since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario.
what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism?
sorry for the short reply, i'm kinda busy with my work 
| Indi wrote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism. |
Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative. ^_^; If you have no religion, you are, by default, atheist. (The reverse is not true. If you have religion, that doesn't make you theist. There are atheist religions. But there are no theist non-religions.)
But i have to disagree, partially. Yes, he was pushing atheism, but he was not glorifying it or putting it on a pedestal. It might look that way, but that is only because of how bad he makes the alternative. In other words, he's not putting atheism on a pedestal, he's putting religion in the gutter. He spends no time whatsoever talking about how great atheism is, or how great atheists are. He spends all of his time pointing out the lunacy and evil in religion. |
How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ?, I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in totalTumbleweed, in case you are interested with RD's book, you might want to flip its pages to one of its chapter that contains some insights regarding Hitler and National Socialism Specifically pages 308-316.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism (I am sure there are some) does that make all of it bad? |
for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
Well most of dawins attacks were against creationist teachings not at religion. He doesn't want it to be taught as science because it had no proof and is maybe irrational at some points. | redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion... |
No, i don't.
| redhakaw wrote: |
... since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario. |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism? |
i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ... f we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ? |
Well dur, of course not. ^_^; But then again, that's not what Dawkins did. He presented a complete, coherent, book-length argument against religion. He didn't just highlight a list of "bad points", the man is an Oxford scholar for Christ's sake. ^_^; Don't you think he can do a little better than just "religion suck 'cause o' the Crusades!"?
From start to finish he undermined religion's claims, its history, its reasoning, its necessity and more. He took every "good point" that religious proponents put forward and showed what's wrong with it. But mostly his concern was with showing readers that an alternative to religion is not only possible, and not only plausible, it is even honourable. Or, in plain English, if you are in a religion and you feel something is wrong but think there's no choice but to just accept the teachings without question, you're wrong - there is another choice.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here.
And yes, i'd say it's pretty damned obvious he wants to kill religion, but then that's the point here - to sully religion, not to aggrandize atheism. He spends the entire book dissing religion in one way or another, going over its history, its claims and so on, but he never once talks about the history of atheism, its claims, and he only gives cursory descriptions of what atheism is, and how the universe is explained by atheist beliefs (and those only come up because he's bashing the religious claims about them).
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion. |
So Indi if we then take religion as being different from philosophy as having faith as its basis, then does this necessarily mean that everything that is left once all religions have been considered, has no faith as its basis? So atheism has no faith as a basis, only reason? There is no faith in atheism, just reason?
I thought (possibly mistakenly so from your previous discussions) that atheism included everything, religion, agnostic, the whole works but from a perspective of reason only? I.e. it is not a religion, or a dogma, or a philsophy it is completely holistic. It is reason in a holistic way. Atheists do not say God does not exist? They say it has not been proven that God does exist. Atheists do not say religion is bogus. They say that it is based on faith and not fact, given that it is not factual and cannot be worked through with reason, none of the content can be proven. Atheists will only embrace that which can be reasoned and proven? Fact vs fiction? Only that which you can see with the naked eye, or can prove scientifically in a laboratory? Or work out with mathematics? | deanhills wrote: |
| So Indi if we then take religion as being different from philosophy as having faith as its basis, then does this necessarily mean that everything that is left once all religions have been considered, has no faith as its basis? So atheism has no faith as a basis, only reason? |
What? O_o Of course not. How do you figure that?
Didn't i already explain to you that there are many beliefs that rely on faith that aren't religions?
Haven't also explained, over and over, that atheism is not a belief, it is a category of beliefs that have only one thing in common - no gods? Some atheist beliefs have reason as a basis, some have faith. Some are even religions!!! (Didn't i just say that, too?)
---------
As for the rest:
| deanhills wrote: |
| I thought (possibly mistakenly so from your previous discussions) that atheism included everything, religion, agnostic, the whole works but from a perspective of reason only? |
No. Atheism has nothing to do with reason. Some atheist beliefs are based on reason, some are not.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I.e. it is not a religion, or a dogma, or a philsophy. |
Atheism is a category of beliefs, some of them religions, some of them dogmas, some of them philosophies, and some of them none of the above.
| deanhills wrote: |
| It is reason in a holistic way? |
No. It has no relationship with reason (unless you use reason to find atheism... which you don't have to).
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists do not say God does not exist? |
Some. Others do say God does not exist.
| deanhills wrote: |
| They say it has not been proven that God does exist. |
Some. Others believe it has been proven.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists do not say religion is bogus. |
Some. Others, myself included (and Dawkins, by the way), do.
| deanhills wrote: |
| They say that it is based on faith and not fact, given that it is not factual and cannot be worked through with reason, none of the content can be proven. |
Some of them. Others wouldn't because they are Jain and are, in fact, in a religion. Still others wouldn't because they can't handle such deep concepts, and would much rather just have a beer.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists will only embrace that which can be reasoned and proven? Fact vs fiction? |
Some of them. Others are new age crazies. And so on....
---------
You see, you're stuck on this notion that atheists are "something", that there's some team banner or something that atheists have in common. There's not. The only thing that makes an atheist and atheist is that they don't believe in any gods. That. Is. It. Nothing else. They can be intellectual or dumb as bricks. They can be honourable or the worst kind of murdering, raping, child-molesting bastard. They can be rational or they can be space cases. They can have come to atheism by thinking deeply about it or they can simply never have heard of gods.
Atheists are not defined by "something", they are defined by "not having something". Theists are defined by something. If you took the entire human race and said, "OK, the question is 'Does God exist?' If you think yes, go over there. Everyone else stay put." Everyone who doesn't move is atheist, including those that simply didn't understand the question.
Atheist beliefs work the same way - every belief is an atheist belief... until it involves a god. We wouldn't even talk about atheists and atheist beliefs if it weren't for the fact that theists have been numerically, politically and intellectually dominant for thousands of years - it would just be taken as obvious. When you talk about beliefs you don't normally talk about the things those beliefs exclude - when you talk about polytheism you don't mention, "Oh, by the way, this only concerns multiple gods, it doesn't have anything to do with which side of the bread you butter, which end of the egg you eat first, briefs or boxers, etc...." Hell, preferring briefs or boxers is an atheist belief! ^_^; Unless you're talking about God's underwear i guess. | Quote: |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
|
how about Spinoza's god?
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
specifically 1st paragraph
| Quote: |
| i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? | redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
It's very simple. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.
Spinoza's "god" is not a god at all. Spinoza's "god" is just nature... that he has tagged a name on to. Basically he says, "Well, i think God (the Abrahamic god in his case) is a stupid idea. But nature has many of the properties we give this god: for example, it created us and it nurtures us. And i feel the same way about nature that many people feel about this god: i think it is amazing, and the more i study it the more it enthrals me with how beautiful and complex it is. So... to hell with the Abrahamic god, i'm going to call nature God."
Which is all fine and good, but simply calling something "God" doesn't automatically make it a god. If i named my hat "God" would you call me theist? i wouldn't. i know an atheist that has named his pet rat (it's some kind of rodent, not necessarily a rat, but i don't know what) "God". And he really loves his rat. Does that make him a theist? Hardly.
So no, Spinoza's "god", such as it is, does not count as theism. All it is is just anthropomorphizing nature, and making it explicit at that.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
Yes, because if they do not adhere to any forms of religion they must be atheist agnostics.
Belief in any gods is a religious belief. It cannot be arrived at by reason or observation, it must be arrived at via faith. If you had never heard of the concept of a god, and you wondered where the universe came from (for example), what would you conclude? You would conclude "we don't know", because we don't. You would not conclude out of the blue that some super-entity we had absolutely no evidence for had done it. Seriously, think about it, if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you take me seriously? Of course not, and with good reason - it's ridiculous by itself. Now if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an amazing super-entity that no one has ever seen and that has the power to create universes but that is intensely interested in who i sleep with and how... would you take me seriously? Hardly. You need the framework of a religion to even make that plausible to consider, let alone accept. How could you even even come up with the notion without a religion to begin with? ^_^;
But even less ridiculous notions of "gods" that don't require quite as much supporting framework are still religious beliefs. You don't need a church, a bible and a congregation to be a religion, you know - organized religion is not the only kind of religion; "any forms of religion" includes organized religions, folk religions, and individual/personal religions. Any belief about the nature of the universe that is held to primarily by faith is a religious belief. Gods count as a religious belief, big time.
If you can figure out some way to come up with a god without using religious beliefs, then sure, you could theoretically be a non-religious theist. But... that's not likely. ^_^; Gods require religions to even be considered as possibilities, let alone settled on as truth. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated? |
Well I'd like to add something, of course most information about what hitler believed is not entirely true, many christians pushed him away cause... well they think it will christianity look bad.
However, I don't see how. Because there are people doing bad things all the time who belong to certain groups (other than (for example) political).
But there is only one book that states that hitler wanted some neo-pagan religion. Every speech recorded (if mentioned) said something good about the christian god, jesus what ever.
And he never stated something about a neopagen religion (at least as tough he wanted to start one).
He did spoke agaisnt organized christianity however not against how his "own" christianity.Yes - there is truth in what you say. When I say he 'encouraged' neo-paganism I was referring specifically to his support and encouragement for Himmler - whose occultist neo-paganism was, and is, a matter of record.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
|
I thought it originated with the Greeks 
I would consider most if not all of Hitlers "religious" related quotes as racially motivated, and nothing more than racial propaganda ,a tool for a cause, you hear him say hes a christian so he must be a christian regardless of his actions is fallacious to me,as you point out he later attacks christianity,(I assume it had become of no use to him ? he had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ?
| redhakaw wrote: |
| ...in case you are interested with RD's book, you might want to flip its pages to one of its chapter that contains some insights regarding Hitler and National Socialism |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Specifically pages 308-316. |
Thank you both I will try to bear that in mind
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ?
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.) |
Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here. |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least 
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda.
| Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
|
I thought it originated with the Greeks
I would consider most if not all of Hitlers "religious" related quotes as racially motivated, and nothing more than racial propaganda ,a tool for a cause, you hear him say hes a christian so he must be a christian regardless of his actions is fallacious to me, as you point out he later attacks christianity,(I assume it had become of no use to him? |
As I said he was a Christian and never attacked it. And if yiu say that he used it as a toolm well there's no arguing that, but I could say the same about the pope.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.) |
Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not. |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here. |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
So what you are saying when atheist come to power the world will go into caos because they are immoral? Thats just stupid.
Atheist are immoral?
In US you have 10% atheist.
In US you have 90% religious people.
And in Prison only 0.2 % is filled up by atheists.
Atheist are immoral?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. |
...... *dumbstruck* | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| As I said he was a Christian and never attacked it. And if yiu say that he used it as a toolm well there's no arguing that, but I could say the same about the pope. |
And I would probably agree with you
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... 
proof of what ?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't) |
The point is with no religion theres still racism
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad. |
No I didnt the same as you are not saying all religious people are bad
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
So what you are saying when atheist come to power the world will go into caos because they are immoral? Thats just stupid.
Atheist are immoral?
In US you have 10% atheist.
In US you have 90% religious people.
And in Prison only 0.2 % is filled up by atheists.
Atheist are immoral? |
Again No, Given that modern people seem to have allways had some form of religion or other, wheres the proof a totally atheist society/world would be any better ..... it may stay with the exact same problems under a different guise,it may indeed be better....but I dont think I have said anywhere atheist are more or less immoral than anyone else
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. |
...... *dumbstruck* |
If I bought *making this up now* Darwins memoirs , with the intent of following his voyages, why would the book be any more than a map to me . | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion...
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't) |
The point is with no religion theres still racism |
But with religion there will be still racism around. You said this:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism (I am sure there are some) does that make all of it bad? |
You said that, so...
I responded to that.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad. |
No I didnt the same as you are not saying all religious people are bad. |
Eeh you said something like:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad? |
take this onë:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Again No, Given that modern people seem to have allways had some form of religion or other, wheres the proof a totally atheist society/world would be any better ..... it may stay with the exact same problems under a different guise,it may indeed be better....but I dont think I have said anywhere atheist are more or less immoral than anyone else. |
And this one:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
Does not compute? | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God ?
As an answer to the rest of your post ........... who on the what now ?
You seem to want to pick a fight over something .... You seem to keep implying I have something against atheists , let me say I dont , what I am saying is you dont need religion to have megalomania. | Indi wrote: |
Spinoza's "god" is not a god at all. Spinoza's "god" is just nature... that he has tagged a name on to. Basically he says, "Well, i think God (the Abrahamic god in his case) is a stupid idea. But nature has many of the properties we give this god: for example, it created us and it nurtures us. And i feel the same way about nature that many people feel about this god: i think it is amazing, and the more i study it the more it enthrals me with how beautiful and complex it is. So... to hell with the Abrahamic god, i'm going to call nature God."
Which is all fine and good, but simply calling something "God" doesn't automatically make it a god. If i named my hat "God" would you call me theist? i wouldn't. i know an atheist that has named his pet rat (it's some kind of rodent, not necessarily a rat, but i don't know what) "God". And he really loves his rat. Does that make him a theist? Hardly.
So no, Spinoza's "god", such as it is, does not count as theism. All it is is just anthropomorphizing nature, and making it explicit at that.
|
Thank you for explaining your thoughts regarding Spinoza
The reason why I brought up Spinoza is to explain that theists do not necessarily belong or practice a certain religion
Natural Pantheism is a form of Pantheism: a Theistic approach, of which Spinoza is well-known for if not heavily criticized of.
Theism is defined: the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Religion on the other hand is simply a set of beliefs and practices centered on such deities.
if you will look closely, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute, that is why we have atheistic religions. Religions are simply the practices or the code one follows to make effect one's belief or that dictates one's thoughts and actions.
Pantheists are considered theist simply because they propose that everything is god, naturalistic pantheists in the same manner proposes that all of nature is god. True that in most of the established religions teaches pantheistic views, but that does not explain that when you are a pantheist, you necessarily adhere to a religion.
another theistic approach that do not require religion is Deism, simply because it rejects revealed religion.
so to conclude, to be a theist does not necessarily to belong or to practice a religion because to be a theist is simply to propose that gods or deities exists.
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
Yes, because if they do not adhere to any forms of religion they must be atheist agnostics.
Belief in any gods is a religious belief. It cannot be arrived at by reason or observation, it must be arrived at via faith. If you had never heard of the concept of a god, and you wondered where the universe came from (for example), what would you conclude? You would conclude "we don't know", because we don't. You would not conclude out of the blue that some super-entity we had absolutely no evidence for had done it. Seriously, think about it, if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you take me seriously? Of course not, and with good reason - it's ridiculous by itself. Now if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an amazing super-entity that no one has ever seen and that has the power to create universes but that is intensely interested in who i sleep with and how... would you take me seriously? Hardly. You need the framework of a religion to even make that plausible to consider, let alone accept. How could you even even come up with the notion without a religion to begin with? ^_^;
But even less ridiculous notions of "gods" that don't require quite as much supporting framework are still religious beliefs. You don't need a church, a bible and a congregation to be a religion, you know - organized religion is not the only kind of religion; "any forms of religion" includes organized religions, folk religions, and individual/personal religions. Any belief about the nature of the universe that is held to primarily by faith is a religious belief. Gods count as a religious belief, big time.
If you can figure out some way to come up with a god without using religious beliefs, then sure, you could theoretically be a non-religious theist. But... that's not likely. ^_^; Gods require religions to even be considered as possibilities, let alone settled on as truth. |
i think i can see now why i am confused about your point/s, please answer this question:
do you find religion and faith different in some ways or are they totally the same?
Last edited by redhakaw on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:28 am; edited 2 times in total | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God? |
So you are saying he wasn't Christian because he did that, surely the Church in germany didn't support him?
O
Wait,
They did,
the church supported him.
(ooops)
even worse certain people from outside germany supported certain roman catholic groups throughout Europe supported him. Number of bishops supported him. Luckily the pope didn't support him i give you that.
and wheter you think he wasn't a true christian doesn't matter.
in that way you can reject any christian that did something bad and then say hey look all christians never did anything really bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
As an answer to the rest of your post ........... who on the what now ?
You seem to want to pick a fight over something .... You seem to keep implying I have something against atheists , let me say I dont , what I am saying is you dont need religion to have megalomania. |
You are saying one thing earlier, and then later on denying it.
You pointed to nazi's and said those were bad examples of atheism and then said that atheism possibly could be bad too.
Some goes with racism, while it has nothing to do with (non)religion.
You said in an atheist world ethics would be twisted to fit someones agenda.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
But there is only one book that states that hitler wanted some neo-pagan religion. Every speech recorded (if mentioned) said something good about the christian god, jesus what ever.
And he never stated something about a neopagen religion (at least as tough he wanted to start one).
He did spoke agaisnt organized christianity however not against how his "own" christianity. |
That's a pretty good summary of where he sat. Despite what Christian apologists try to claim, criticizing Christianity does not mean you're not a Christian. i criticize Canada all the time, am i no longer Canadian? Or let's go with ideologies - i criticize liberalism all the time, whenever i think it is being interpreted or applied in misguided ways - does that mean i'm not liberal?
It would be embarrassing to those apologists if i were to list some of the Christians that have criticized Christianity, yet they still want to keep them "on their team". But let's just go with one, for fun. ^_^ As anyone that has studied the history of Christianity knows, Martin Luther strongly criticized the prevailing Christian church for being misguided and corrupt - he thought it was so bad he went off and made his own church. Sound familiar? ^_^ So, basically, if Hitler is not a Christian because he had a problem with how Christianity was being run in Germany, then neither is Martin Luther... which means that... uh oh... all Protestants are not Christian. Nyuk, nyuk.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not. |
Well, now, careful. Just because evil will still exist in a world without religion does not mean that the world won't be better. No one, nowhere, no when, has ever claimed that religion is responsible for all evil, just some. When religion is gone, the evil that it causes will be gone - not all evil, but all the evil religion is responsible for.
But would that make the world better - or in other words, if religion goes, will we lose more good, or more evil (because religion has both good and evil aspects, but which does it have more of)?
To me, the answer is obvious. The list of things that religion takes away from humanity is incredibly long. The list of things it gives back is pretty short, and most of those can be trivially replaced.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, |
Yes, his day job is evolutionary biology, not atheism. ^_^
And sure he says that "atheism good, religion bad". So do i. But i don't want to "kill" religion. i just want it behave itself and stop trying to control my life. i want nothing to do with it, but i don't want it "killed" - if someone wants to be religious, let them, but i won't tolerate them trying to set stupid laws for me or preventing me from getting a cure for cancer because their two thousand year-old book may have an issue with how we go about finding it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
In a world without religion, people still have brains, and they don't just go along whatever someone tells them without some reason - especially if what they're being told is not in their best interests. If someone wants to make up silly ethical rules, people aren't just going to shrug and say "OK" unless the rules benefit them (or at least, don't hurt them). They won't, for example, sit back and allow people to say "the strong rule the weak" without a fight - because only a few will be strong, so the vast majority of people will be disenfranchised, and they ain't gonna take that peaceably.
By contrast, think about how easy it is to get people to follow whatever twisted agenda you want when you have religion. Once you can get people to believe you speak for God's will, you can tell them to do whatever the hell you want, from wearing silly hats to blowing themselves up (both real examples, of course). Try convincing thousands of people to wear the same hat without religion - and try convincing them to blow themselves up for no real benefit (only imaginary "heavenly" benefits).
| redhakaw wrote: |
Thank you for explaining your thoughts regarding Spinoza
The reason why I brought up Spinoza is to explain that theists do not necessarily belong or practice a certain religion |
Well of course - i explicitly said that they didn't. i said that just because theists don't belong to an organized religion does not mean they are not religious - they simply have a religion with a congregation of one. You are using the definition of organized religion for "religion". i am using the definition: "a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, held to primarily by faith".
Spinoza's natural pantheism is called "pantheism" only because he uses the word "god" to describe nature. If you use the word "nature" to describe nature, it's not really theistic at all, now is it? (It's just "natural", not "natural pantheism".) And... it doesn't really change anything about Spinoza's beliefs, now does it? (Whereas, replacing "god" with "nature" in Abrahamic or Vedic beliefs does change everything.) That's why i say Spinoza's theism is theism in name only - it's not real theism. It was his way of being an atheist without "being an atheist" (which would have got him torched at the stake at the time - atheism was a capital offence back then).
We don't need to fear burning at the stake these days, so let's call a rose a rose. Spinoza's "god" is nature. Which means Spinozist beliefs are not theist beliefs. Which means that "natural pantheism" is a misnomer.
| redhakaw wrote: |
Theism is defined: the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Religion on the other hand is simply a set of beliefs and practices centered on such deities.
if you will look closely, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute, that is why we have atheistic religions. Religions are simply the practices or the code one follows to make effect one's belief or that dictates one's thoughts and actions. |
Ah, actually. ^_^; Just to correct you - first you say religion is a set of beliefs and practices centred on deities... then you say there are atheist religions. Well, which is it? ^_^
You see, if you want the real definitions of these words, you're going to have to dig a bit deeper than Wikipedia. The definition of religion is actually very, very complex, and involves traits and a fuzzy-logic comparison. That's a bit of a pain. So the definition i commonly use is a definition that i find works by never having false negatives, at the risk of a few false positives. In other words it will sometimes say X is a religion when it isn't... but it never say X is not a religion when it is. It is, in brief: "a set of beliefs held to primarily by faith about the nature of the universe".
| redhakaw wrote: |
| another theistic approach that do not require religion is Deism, simply because it rejects revealed religion. |
Deism rejects revelation, but not religious ideas. It still accepts religious claims like that a god exists, it created the universe, it is benevolent, etc. etc. Just as with regular theism, not a one of those can be arrived at without a religious framework to build around them (in fact, i usually talk about deism implicitly when i talk about theism, because most "revealed" theists pretend to be deists when you challenge their beliefs).
So once again, if you define "religion" as "organized religion", then no deism doesn't (usually) fit. If you actually look at the real definition of religion (such as it is) - or even my short form - it fits.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| so to conclude, to be a theist does not necessarily to belong or to practice a religion because to be a theist is simply to propose that gods or deities exists. |
Yes, i know. ^_^ But:
Religion ≠ Organized religion.
Religion is a set of faith-based beliefs about the nature of the universe - therefore, as long as your belief in god is based on faith (which it must be, because there is currently no other way to come to that belief), it is a religious belief. Maybe one day someone will figure out how to come to a belief in god by means of a (legitimate) logical argument - and when that happens then it will be possible to be a theist without having religion. But today, that is not possible.
| redhakaw wrote: |
i think i can see now why i am confused about your point/s, please answer this question:
do you find religion and faith different in some ways or are they totally the same? |
Totally different! About as similar as an orange and a can of orange-strawberry-banana juice.
Faith is belief that is not based on reason or observation. Faith has nothing to do with religion, by itself. Just because you have a faith-based belief doesn't mean you have anything to do with religion at all.
Religion is a set of beliefs - primarily faith-based beliefs - about a specific thing: the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it. Religion requires faith (otherwise, it is not religion, it is science, math, philosophy, or something like that), but that doesn't mean it is faith (otherwise, a car that requires wheels is a wheel, which is obviously nonsense).
If you have religion, you have faith-based beliefs. If you have faith-based beliefs, you don't necessarily have religion.
(Or, to use my first metaphor: if faith is an orange, religion is a can of orange-strawberry-banana juice - you need oranges to make the juice, but you need a whole lot more, too... and you certainly don't need the can of juice to make an orange). | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God? |
So you are saying he wasn't Christian because he did that, surely the Church in germany didn't support him?
O
Wait,
They did,
the church supported him.
(ooops)
even worse certain people from outside germany supported certain roman catholic groups throughout Europe supported him. Number of bishops supported him. Luckily the pope didn't support him i give you that.
and wheter you think he wasn't a true christian doesn't matter.
in that way you can reject any christian that did something bad and then say hey look all christians never did anything really bad.
|