Ustwo

Not quite. One thing I've learned is that most hippie types try to deny human nature. Harmonious social behavior doesn't mean necessarily working together for a common good. It can mean working for yourself for your own good in ways which don't cross that moral line in your group.

Group selection would be more of a hippie thing and thats been long rejected by evolutionary biologists.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ourcrazymodern?

The concept of evolution has also evolved, has it not?

Theism will exist for as long as we do, since it's more plastic, being an idea.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

tecoyah

Evolution however, evolves due to new data creating further growth of the theory, Theist doctrine does not evolve, it is re- interpreted as culture changes.

One theory depends on science, and discovery....the other requires nothing but human imagination.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

roachboy

see, i dont know about that opposition, tec.
and i'm not a believer at all in this whole god business.
but if you look at how various christian denominations change over time, they are continually adapting to and being adapted to changing circumstances--the meanings ascribed to the main signifiers that order the tradition are continually being reworked--so a mainline old-school catholic's understanding of this god character would be very different from a charismatic's understanding, if only because of the relative importance of the notion of the holy spirit, what it does and where it does it. this is a pretty big torsion and has only developed since the early 1970s...go figure.

a seemingly unrelated example---i am still struck by walking over the pnt d'alma a bunch of times during the last year i was living in paris and seeing this huge, odd shrine to diana spenser (whatever) develop--lots of little pieces of paper were attached to it, many of which had notes written on them that effectively treated diana as already a saint and asked for her intercession with the god-guy on their behalf.

i think this kind of stuff happens all the time at the local level...differentially as a function of the particular context--but still. so for example in alot of southern hemisphere contexts you have a far more dynamic type of catholicism--particularly at the level of saint-creation--than you have in the north--and FAR more dynamic that the vatican's official understanding of the church to be.

so i'm not sure that the distinction helps separate what scientific knowledge might produce from what "religious" knowledge might produce, nor do i see it designating a helpful general description of the social space occupied by science as over against that occupied by "religion"...what i do see is an index of different political constructions of the two areas--first on your part, tec--and secondly as a reflection of aspects of the internal ideologies of these respective zones of activity (this is a compressed restatement of what i was arguing above--hope it makes sense)....but neither is a description of how either space operates.

you can see a ton of conservatism within scientific communities, particularly if you see them in terms of longer-term history.
you can also see a ton of dynamism in religious organizations/movements.
you can see these areas as engaged in quite similar dependencies on central orthodoxies at some periods and as engaged in accelerated rethinking or overthrowing of them in others.

seems to me that the distinction lay more in the types of claims generated.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tecoyah

Excellent points...but I will focus on this one, as I am in the midst of a whiskey tasting.

While the claims do indeed make the evolution of both possible ( nothing changes without new data), Scientific disciplines tend to use physical information found by means of sampling the reality we know, and touch regularly. This may be the unseen (quanta/micro) or the macro world we deal with daily. Theist reality falls back to scripture by default, as there is nothing other than the ancient writings to rely upon. The Gods no longer speak to us....unless you follow the Falwell doctrines. Science speaks every day.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

filtherton

I think that maybe atheism is down for the count. At least as far as this thread is concerned.

Ustwo

When did that happen?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Tophat665

Like any religion, atheism will continue long past the point rational people have concluded that it requires an unwaranted leap of faith.

Nevertheless, so long as someone suggests that there may be something out there that cannot be measured and has some impact upon humanity, there will be an atheist there to say, "Be serious."

On the plus side, I have never had an atheist knock on my door while I was in the tub and try to hand me a copy of the latest Dawkins essay, so they have that going for them.

/ Now watch the atheists fulminate that I called it a religion, and note the dead certainty, the fiery rhetoric, and the affronted air of Pat Robertson on a Vegas "fact-finding" mission.

Can't we all just agree that whether or not there is a God, it's just not going to matter to some people, and will consume the entire life and being of others, and that's just the way the human psyche is?

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ustwo

And just who would be doing this fulminating? Calling atheism a religion is rather wrong, I suppose for some its a cause, for me its just what I think. I'm not part of any organization, I don't have a creed, I don't give any money, I don't have a shrine, I don't say prayers, I don't focus on being one with nothing, and I don't have a picture of no-god on black velvet in my living room. There really isn't anything to tie it accept to say that it requires 'faith' to say there is no god because we can't know, but even I as an atheist admit I am not 100% sure, I just see it as very highly unlikely. It is the theist who has the 100% certainty.


The problem isn't people who believe in a God, the problem is the stupid things they try to do to each other and me in the name of this God, which is why I can't say I mind a growing atheist movement.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

It's not fulminating, it's really us just shaking out heads. Are gentiles a type of jew? Are civilians a type of military officer? Are women a type of man? Of course not.

Look up "religion". That way you're not incorrect in the future concerning what "atheism" really is.

filtherton

It happened when the atheists stopped responding to any of the points i was making.

Infinite_Loser

I thought the answer was going to be that most studies show a downward trend in the number of people who consider themselves atheists since (Approximately) the 1970's. My mistake.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

And on the subject of atheism as religion, i think that there is more than one way to be an atheist. There are many who have essentially deified the scientific process- whose comfort with the world very much requires both the existence of some sort sort of innate order (a faith based position) and a mechanism capable of making absolute sense of this order (the means for humanity's salvation)- and in this sense, i think it could be argued that such folk are essentially religious. Such religiousness isn't the result of atheism, though. It more seems like a simple transposition of the common motivations for religious belief into a different framework: science.

Ustwo

The winner of a debate isn't the last one talking

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

It also isn't the one who gets "too busy to respond" to every post.

Baraka_Guru

This makes much sense. I like this. The important difference, however, is that there is a lack of focus on the supernatural or what cannot be seen. Science focuses on what could be and then seeks to validate it. It's as though the predominantly scientific-minded (via, to some degree, atheism) picked up the torch of knowledge (and, therefore, the authority to postulate it as well) from the predominantly religious-minded. What each were seeking is essentially the same, it's just that the latter have been "blessed" with the tools to better see and discover this knowledge, and, moreover, to record and archive it.

I think a movement toward atheism is a natural and necessary process that the mind needs to undergo in order to continue making sense of the universe. And I think you've described atheism wonderfully, filtherton.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Since the OP is awol, what questions did you feel were neglected that weren't answered in the other thread?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

Well, i did ask you to clarify and sedecrem to offer your definitions of the phrase "critical thinking". It seems like something that should be obvious, but despite having a pretty plain definition the word "logic" constantly gets abused in these discussions.

Ustwo

Using all available information based on observation to answer a question as best we can.

I can get more formal if you think it will help.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

Science should focus on what could be and its validation, but science only really enters into the picture when validation is somehow a possibility. I think that speaking strictly from a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because everything is natural. Even if there existed such a class of phenomena, the unverifiability of an idea doesn't necessarily mean it lies in the realm of the supernatural, if that were the case we'd be talking about theoretical physicists with the same level of reverence that we reserve for ghost hunters (no doubt that some folks do). If god, or ghosts exist, then it would only mean that our understanding of the natural laws as they are currently formulated are deficient.

This being the case, science and theology aren't necessarily at odds, provided the theology in question is adaptable to advancements in scientific knowledge. This also means that atheism isn't necessarily some sort of advanced process, just another way of looking at things.

Thank you.

This definition doesn't necessarily preclude using critical thought as a means of coming to the conclusion that god exists.

Ourcrazymodern?

(((The universe loves me, or else I wouldn't be here.). The idea we have of personalizing a creator hasn't helped us)). The same ones who made up god thought it was a good idea to inhale the smoke of burning weeds.)))

IJUHP!

Can we pretend knowing what we don't?

I wouldn't question those who know, unless I felt the need to question what they know.

Our world muddles onward, aware or not...

Then it flies.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Tophat665

Sometimes I get confused whether I am posting here or Fark. I was rude and inflammatory, and I apologize.

Atheism is not a religion, but some atheists behave like the second worst type of religious people - not the killers, but the ones with dead certainty.

The reason Atheism is not religion is that it is an explicit rejection of the supernatural, while religion is an explicit acceptance thereof. Will's list of opposed pairs does make that point clearly. Now one could get all Taoist on that, but there's no need. If it looks like a lizard it doesn't matter how much it waddles or quacks, it won't be a duck.

With that said, it is the religious like behavior - the absolute certainty which can only come from faith - which bugs me. I don't believe that it is really arguable that absolute certainty requires faith. Faith being the belief in what one cannot know. I don't know if there's a God, but I do not see enough data (and this is unfortunately complicated by the current theist conception of god as essentially unknowable in a rational way) or have sufficient experience to rule it out. My argument is that neither do you.

That's also my argument to the religious: you have no data to rule it in.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ourcrazymodern?

I am just a duck.
People will think what they will.
Theism will grow.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Tophat665

That makes perfect sense. Just don't send me the bill.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

roachboy

these a/theism threads are kinda funny, if you think about it.
they're like two rows of bugs sitting across a huge table from each other, spraying raid in the general direction of the bugs opposite.

no your worldview should die.
no...yours should die.
no yours.
no yours.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Plan9

Ooo... like the crusades.

...

Religion, or lack thereof, used to be a leading cause of death at one point in our species colorful history.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Dolores Haze

I love you.

filtherton

That sums up a lot of threads in politics, too.

Willravel

I don't want anyone's world-view to die.

tecoyah

Sometimes...it still is, but we hide it much better now...heh

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Infinite_Loser

Since the end of the 18th century/beginning of the 19th century the majority of wars are no longer fought because of religious differences, but rather differences in political ideologies between two or more governments. I guess that means that government is inherently bad and should be done away with.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

roachboy

or you could just as easily argue that nationalism is nothing more than a displacement of christian style ideology.

this is a stupid game because all statements are reversible and no=one places their actual beliefs at stake when they play on a messageboard. it's more likely the contrary, that playing these tedious little games is a form of affirmation of the position you started from, no matter what gets said in response.

so all that seems to happen is demonstration after demonstration of the limits of syllogisms, those little automatic logic operations in which no matter how crappy the statements are which are introduced into the machinery, you can still use the machine to generate internally consistent results. and that you can confuse with a logical argument, because at the level of mechanics, it is.


that said, statements like the one i bit above still make me laugh and laugh.

=========================
obviously.
for alot of folk political views serve the same function that for others religious views serve.

the problem underpinning both is basically what, in a more cynical moment, i'd probably call a servile relation to ideology.

and the trick with servility is that it is a way of life and so is transposable from space to space---and that there's no way to call that sort of thing into question in a debate, which is most often a space for repeating that servility and even managing to get some pleasure from it--and if there wasn't pleasure, there'd be more persuasive power behind any ideology. folk believe in god or dont because it gives them pleasure, even if only aesthetically--folk believe in neoliberalism because it makes them feel all manly, they believe in democratic socialism because it makes them feel compassionate on and on.

the real political problem is relations to ideology. you cant argue for or against a relation from within a framework that presupposes one.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Even early Greek philosophers railed against commonly accepted beliefs. It is in questioning everything that we learn the most.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pig

regardless of your side of the a/theism aisle, i would argue that the question 'is atheism a religion' isn't appropriate. the question is, i think: are some people dogmatic in their beliefs.

atheism is not, by definition, a religion. it's a categorization for people who do not believe in theistic viewpoints.

people can be, and are, dogmatic in their approach to atheism. and theism.

both sides can find common ground when they don't memorize the rules, but rather question them, and use them and discard them as appropriate.

at least that's my take, at this particular point in time.

edit: holy shit, did i forget some words and some grammar.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

jorgelito

Sounds pretty reasonable to me pig. I would add that while atheism is not religion, some atheists are pretty religious about it.

pig

See, I would argue that using the term 'religious', although i think i understand what you're saying, is a problematic assertion. That requires certain tenets of being a religion.

Once again, I return to blind dogma.

The best scientists I know will readily admit when they don't know something. If religious people would say "I don't know" more often, then that would diffuse a lot of the debate. If they would say "I can't reconcile the differences in my text or teaching and these findings from science" I think that would go a long way. If people would recognize the difficulties involved in the debate, that would go a long way. It's the assertions of unassailable knowledge and certainty in things that none of us can truly be certain of which causes the problems, I think.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Baraka_Guru

Religious 1: Devotion to a deity.
Religious 2: Being extremely principled.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tophat665

Oh, I don't know, there are a lot of world views that really ought to be phased out. Radical Islam. Fundamentalist Christianity. Thinking that there is any relevance whatsoever to Amy Winehouse. Political Graft culture. Corporate Greed Culture. And so on and so on and so on.

You've nailed it, piggy my friend. Dogmatic is the word I wanted and you came up with it. Danke. Rooted in faith unexamined.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ourcrazymodern?

God came and tickled me, and I had to laugh...
The rest is hysterical.

...or is that historical?

Does anyone else think we're thinking about the past, or more truly about beliefs that came from there?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Tophat665

The past is a foreign country, and we only know of it from the reports of the folks who've been there. It would be just like the afterlife, except that no one comes back from the afterlife. The fact of the report from the afterlife is enough to prove that the report is of something else.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.