atheist paradox

[ricketyclik]

Look to the word: a-theism. Without theism. Without deity. That's all. Many beliefs can exist without a belief in a deity (or deities).

[Broken_Erika]

[onejayhawk]

Yes, yes, we've all read about the Nacirema. You're very clever.

I have been called clever before. Usually, I find it more flattering because in this case, it is unwarranted. I made no reference to Nacirema. Please enlighten the rest of us.

No. They do not act like a religion. Atheism simply isn't one. I fail to see how they act like a religion. They don't have organized leaders leading anything. Atheism is not organized. And what seminaries or missionaries? Are you kidding me?

The principle of a leap of faith is central to what makes a group into a religion, as opposed to a sports club or a political action committee. Atheists have that requirement. To be an atheist it is necessary to reject the existence of God. Mere doubt is insufficient. An affirmative belief is required. In the vernacular, a leap of faith.

The seminaries are informal and are embedded in colleges. Groups of professors and instructors who pass on their beliefs in their lectures and writings. Missionaries are more obvious. Professors proselytizing their classes is a favorite, but there are lecture tours and small group work.

Look to the word: a-theism. Without theism. Without deity. That's all. Many beliefs can exist without a belief in a deity (or deities).

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, I am comfortable calling it a duck. It is not the first time a name is in direct contradiction of the intent.

J

[spambot]

Challenged how? It's the definition. As noted above, there is a separate group for those to whom it does not apply.

PS Has no one heard of a pipe organ? Bells and whistles have largely been digitized recently, but the intent is there.

J

I think Elok was telling a joke.

[Lorizael]

I have been called clever before. Usually, I find it more flattering because in this case, it is unwarranted. I made no reference to Nacirema. Please enlighten the rest of us.

Huh, you'd think a person lecturing others about the core features of a central component of human culture would be familiar with a classic paper in the anthropological literature from 60 years ago. It's almost like your knowledge of what constitutes ritual and dogma is severely limited and you're only using the words as a rhetorical tool to bludgeon those whose beliefs differ from yours.

[onejayhawk]

Huh, you'd think a person lecturing others about the core features of a central component of human culture would be familiar with a classic paper in the anthropological literature from 60 years ago. It's almost like your knowledge of what constitutes ritual and dogma is severely limited and you're only using the words as a rhetorical tool to bludgeon those whose beliefs differ from yours.

More than that, I married a sociologist. Of course, I am familiar though I think the concept is a bit derivative, see Erewhon. See also, my team name in our fantasy football league.

However, I made no reference to the paper and you did not properly frame your reference for a public forum.

J

[Sava]

Huh

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Lorizael]

More than that, I married a sociologist. Of course, I am familiar though I think the concept is a bit derivative, see Erewhon. See also, my team name in our fantasy football league.

However, I made no reference to the paper and you did not properly frame your reference for a public forum.

J

My reference was intended to be opaque and obnoxious. You can tell how effective it was at changing your beliefs. It did make me feel better, though.

The point is, people who go "atheists have a kind of 'priest' too" never actually seem interested in a rigorous discussion about what religion really is. The extent of their analysis is squinting at distinct phenomena and declaring them the same through a particular lens. And they only ever go this far because the whole point is to score points against atheists. Hah, you're just like us! So much for your arrogant nonbelievingness!

But like, I've been on the internet for 20+ years and I am sooooooo bored of those dumb arguments. If you want to have a real conversation about the universals of religion in human culture, I am totally on board. But the "atheists are the real fundamentalists" ****fest got old a long time ago and never seems to go anywhere.

[Jon Miller]

What is your take on the simulation hypothesis? It seems to be mostly put forward and considered by atheists (both strong and weak) and yet seems to be equivalent to theism.

JM

[Lorizael]

There's probably a lot of overlap between atheists and techy/nerdy types. You almost never hear proponents of the simulation hypothesis arguing that the claim implies anything about how we should live or what's important.

[onejayhawk]

My reference was intended to be opaque and obnoxious. You can tell how effective it was at changing your beliefs. It did make me feel better, though.

The point is, people who go "atheists have a kind of 'priest' too" never actually seem interested in a rigorous discussion about what religion really is. The extent of their analysis is squinting at distinct phenomena and declaring them the same through a particular lens. And they only ever go this far because the whole point is to score points against atheists. Hah, you're just like us! So much for your arrogant nonbelievingness!

But like, I've been on the internet for 20+ years and I am sooooooo bored of those dumb arguments. If you want to have a real conversation about the universals of religion in human culture, I am totally on board. But the "atheists are the real fundamentalists" ****fest got old a long time ago and never seems to go anywhere.

Congratulations.

My statement was intended to be understandable without being condescending. Since you wish to avoid civil discourse, good evening.

J

[Lorizael]

Since you wish to avoid civil discourse, good evening.

I don't. I want more people at poly having interesting discussions. I certainly don't want to drive you from the thread. But I am a cynical bastard about certain topics in a way that probably discourages genuine discussion.

My statement was intended to be understandable without being condescending.

It has never been my experience that people who argue "atheism is a religion too" are interested in having a real conversation. If you are, my apologies.

[Jon Miller]

There's probably a lot of overlap between atheists and techy/nerdy types. You almost never hear proponents of the simulation hypothesis arguing that the claim implies anything about how we should live or what's important.

Well, it does seem odd if you consider atheism outside of it's response to Abrahamic religions.

A couple years ago there were a number of stories about a group from Silicon Valley trying to break the simulation and other such things, which seems a step towards religion (from the pure theistic hypothesis).

JM

[Giancarlo]

The principle of a leap of faith is central to what makes a group into a religion, as opposed to a sports club or a political action committee. Atheists have that requirement. To be an atheist it is necessary to reject the existence of God. Mere doubt is insufficient. An affirmative belief is required. In the vernacular, a leap of faith.

No. It's not a religion. You're not quite grasping what atheism is. I think you are probably religious and have jumped to your own clouded conclusions. By the way, atheists aren't making the inference that a god exists. A religion is centered on a DIETY, not a lack of. Therefore this is why your argument has completely collapsed.

The seminaries are informal and are embedded in colleges. Groups of professors and instructors who pass on their beliefs in their lectures and writings. Missionaries are more obvious. Professors proselytizing their classes is a favorite, but there are lecture tours and small group work.

Prove it. You seem to be repeeating something you saw on a particular news station (or rather an entertainment station known as Fox "News". There are no seminaries. You made that up. You don't have the slightest bit of proof for any of these statements, except mere fear mongering. Professors proselytizing their classes is a favorite? Prove it. Or are you too busy watching Sean Hannity flapping his gums? Next thing I'll see is you declaring that the LGBT community is a religious group (and I'm willing to bet you would).

You're intellectually dishonest, just like kidiot.

You try to elevate yourself but you fall flat on your face and not in a good way.

[Lorizael]

A couple years ago there were a number of stories about a group from Silicon Valley trying to break the simulation and other such things, which seems a step towards religion (from the pure theistic hypothesis).

Seven billion people out there. Some of them are gonna do weird ****.