I've been away, so I've not responded, and I feel rude as I was addressed directly. But on a side note, I'm only responding to this post for now, sorry if I've missed anything others have posted since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!
You have me a bit confused here because in a previous post you argued and provided a definition showing how atheism can be one big religion. You then provided an additional argument regarding its uniformity amongst people. So I'm a bit confused now as to what that definition and argument was for if it wasn't for atheism. From what I'm gathering, you're suggesting forms of atheism are likely to be religious but atheism in general is not religious. In other words, the sum isn't equal to its parts. I can live with that depending on the situations but your definition of religion comes back from my memory and it allows certain forms of atheism as well as atheism in general to be religious. I'm confused by this, can you please explain your position?
|
Have you never argued something you either didn't particularly think through, or later decided to reform/review what you previously said? I'll admit I'm guilty on
TH of sometimes just jotting down thoughts in posts without totally thinking them through... And I'm fine with changing my argument if it seems it needs to change. There's no point sitting there and continuing with something I no longer think makes sense?
My actual position on the topic is, I don't think it really particularly matters. It's semantics. Whether or not Atheism, or sects of Atheism, are effectively a religion or not, doesn't change how they are in practice. I suppose the only real worth of the discussion is to bring light to how some types of atheism are. Because, like organised Religion, organised Atheism can be used dangerously, or blindly with particularly doctrine some sects may require of 'followers', and I suppose likening it to religion may at least aid as an illustration. Another thing, particularly if you are religious, I suppose comes from frustration. But it is usually over specific types of atheists. The range of atheists is highly varied, and I'm sure, even as an atheist yourself, you've meet types of atheists you would not really identify with.
Quote:
|
True, it is a possibility however the scientific view isn't required to be adopted by atheists. It commonly is but even if it is without really understanding it, this same phenomenon of believing in something or adopting a certain mindset without fully understanding what it is occurs in other beliefs as well.
|
I'm not disagreeing this happens in other beliefs/mindsets as well. But this was my response to someone suggesting most Atheists adopt a scientific approach. I think the approach we take to these sort of issues probably have more connection to your education, enviroment and intelligence than the specific belief you are taking on. It was a criticism of Atheism as a concept, but a criticism of generalising individual atheists.
Quote:
|
Agreed, the universe cannot be explained by simple studies. If I recall, you're studying psychology. As a fellow psychology student, you're aware that psychology has many explanations for the same observed behavior. So if we cannot understand ourselves or "lower beings", then it's not likely we're going to understand an area that's all theory (i.e. theoretical physics).
|
I want to make a thread on this topic, because I think it's pretty interesting, particularly as a psychology student. But i wasn't suggesting lets go from the one extreme to the other, rather I think, at least for the study of mental life, you need a combination. The essay I wrote was on something called the 'Systems Approach'... or systems thinking. Which is about relationships, patterns, non-linear equations, etc. But this is another topic. I'll get round to making it.
Quote:
|
The ones that are more intelligent (only know a few, mostly through online forums) seem to adopt a view of being more scientific in a sense that they adhere to some reductionism by analyzing the individual parts of their belief (or other beliefs). But if one is to be entirely devoted to theism and no science, then even when they're older and more educated, they still take the theist approach Xujhan mentioned.
|
Ignoring those who are religious because of parents, etc.... we will call them blind faith people (I know some think all religious people are having blind faith, but I assume you get the type I mean)... If someone is devoted to a religious belief, they tend to have reasons for such a conviction, or enough evidence for themselves to believe. I think that essentially, if these reasons were shattered, most of them wouldn't keep holding on to religion for the sake of religion alone. I think it's a complicated issue, and I think it's one that may be hard to understand to many.
Though you cant be devoted entirely to theism and have no science unless you are totally mentally inept. Unless by that comment you mean no devotion to science, as oppose to no use/belief in any science, so they can pick and choose and throw whatever they don't like away without justification?
Quote:
|
True but the same is said for beliefs in a god(s) so if there is a problem with it, then the belief in a god(s) shares that exact same problem. When things like this are essentially universal, then to me it's fairly useless to point them out as though they're unique to a certain group. If you can put a certain spin on it then by all means go ahead but stating a problem that's universal and a given as being unique is rather pointless.
|
What I meant was more... the belief there is no God only exists because others believe there is a God. This is a slightly different example, bu I find it hard to explain what I mean, so it might help. Generally, human beings are sexual creatures. People don't go around identifying explicitly really as 'Sexual', unless they are maybe very sexual.... like if you were asked your sexuality, you would probably just mention your orientation.... but I've noticed in groups with knowledge of Asexuality, or even individuals who identify as asexual, some people are feeling the need to assert they are sexual, not asexual, even though by default, you'd be sexual. I suppose this illustration is sort of meant to comment that, particularly if there is no God, then not believing in him is the natural default, and you only need to point that out because others have a God.
I don't really see it as a massive problem myself, because on the flip side, if you are a theist, and you believe there is a God, then the default may not be atheism. For example, in Christianity, the knowledge of God is meant to be in people. But I have seen some Atheist get quite annoyed by being told they have a belief, because they don't see it as 'I believe there is no God', rather 'I do not believe in a God' (there is a difference here).
Basically I was trying to voice the opinions of people I've talked to in the past. But I have no strong investment in such a discussion.