Coito ergo sum wrote:It's only religious if you redefine the word "religious" mean something that it doesn't mean in common English usage.
Religion tries to subsume all possible definitions in order to be as intrusive as possible in our lives. Knowing they don't have any actual reason for existence makes the God-peddlers nervous.
The same will be true of capital A atheists one day. I can almost hear them now, arguing that there still might be theists somewhere in the gaps.
Edit:
I still chuckle now and then at RD's conversation with Deepak Chopra where DC accuses scientists of hijacking QM.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend Upon the hours and times of your desire? I have no precious time at all to spend, Nor services to do, till you require.
Exi5tentialist wrote:Can anybody really claim to be an atheist? We are all brought up in an intensely capitalistic world whose ideology is inextricably intertwined, if not founded upon, patriarchal religion. Can we possibly throw off the mantle of indoctrination by religion, even if that indoctrination was not delivered directly by religion itself?
To me atheism is no more than a lack of belief in a supernatural entity. I have stepped away from theism via a sequence of two clearly identified event. A few years later I rejected deism on grounds of one concrete realisation. If anyone is interested in details, you can read about them in this post.
As for socialisation, I keep that separate from the issue of theism/atheism, no matter how much of it is tinged by religious institutions and doctrines.
That we as a society and culture, and I as an individual, celebrate Xmas and Easter has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist. I still do not believe in god(s), and that is purely what atheism is.
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's only religious if you redefine the word "religious" mean something that it doesn't mean in common English usage.
Religion tries to subsume all possible definitions in order to be as intrusive as possible in our lives. Knowing they don't have any actual reason for existence makes the God-peddlers nervous.
The same will be true of capital A atheists one day. I can almost hear them now, arguing that there still might be theists somewhere in the gaps.
Edit:
I still chuckle now and then at RD's conversation with Deepak Chopra where DC accuses scientists of hijacking QM.
I think the capital A atheists will not be needed in the future, so they will quietly go about other work. Until then they're the shock troops.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Exi5tentialist wrote:Can anybody really claim to be an atheist? We are all brought up in an intensely capitalistic world whose ideology is inextricably intertwined, if not founded upon, patriarchal religion. Can we possibly throw off the mantle of indoctrination by religion, even if that indoctrination was not delivered directly by religion itself?
To me atheism is no more than a lack of belief in a supernatural entity. I have stepped away from theism via a sequence of two clearly identified event. A few years later I rejected deism on grounds of one concrete realisation. If anyone is interested in details, you can read about them in this post.
As for socialisation, I keep that separate from the issue of theism/atheism, no matter how much of it is tinged by religious institutions and doctrines.
That we as a society and culture, and I as an individual, celebrate Xmas and Easter has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist. I still do not believe in god(s), and that is purely what atheism is.
The difference between atheism and the stuff Exi5tensialist conflates it with has been teased out by several of us now - each in our own way - including Audley Strange, Charlou, JimC, Coito ergo sum and now you. I wonder what Exi5tentialist will make of it. Will he recognise his confusion for what it is, or will he argue that we are wrong?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend Upon the hours and times of your desire? I have no precious time at all to spend, Nor services to do, till you require.
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend Upon the hours and times of your desire? I have no precious time at all to spend, Nor services to do, till you require.
Exi5tentialist wrote:Can anybody really claim to be an atheist? We are all brought up in an intensely capitalistic world whose ideology is inextricably intertwined, if not founded upon, patriarchal religion. Can we possibly throw off the mantle of indoctrination by religion, even if that indoctrination was not delivered directly by religion itself?
To me atheism is no more than a lack of belief in a supernatural entity. I have stepped away from theism via a sequence of two clearly identified event. A few years later I rejected deism on grounds of one concrete realisation. If anyone is interested in details, you can read about them in this post.
As for socialisation, I keep that separate from the issue of theism/atheism, no matter how much of it is tinged by religious institutions and doctrines.
That we as a society and culture, and I as an individual, celebrate Xmas and Easter has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist. I still do not believe in god(s), and that is purely what atheism is.
The difference between atheism and the stuff Exi5tensialist conflates it with has been teased out by several of us now - each in our own way - including Audley Strange, Charlou, JimC, Coito ergo sum and now you. I wonder what Exi5tentialist will make of it. Will he recognise his confusion for what it is, or will he argue that we are wrong?
One of those options seems far more likely than the other.
Svartalf wrote:Find me good reason to consider biblical writing as evidence.
Evidence of what? Objective fact? None. Evidence of cultural Christianity? Where else would you look?
You're making a point that is valid only if one accepts your premise that there is a god in the first place, and that it exists in conformation to biblical description... sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard, especially within the context of present discussion
Can you explain that? Why is it necessary to accept the premise that there is a God in the first place? How is that my premise anyway? What has mustard-cutting got to do with this? So many unanswered questions.
HomerJay wrote:I iz third generation non-believer, my kids fourth.
But surely there is a difference between expressed belief on the surface, and cultural belief? Has capitalism not used religion to set the foundations of our civilization? When religion disappears, does what is left automatically become non-religious? Is a religious culture without a religious heart any different from a religious culture with a religious heart? Are we not simply saying yeah, yeah we've left all that belief behind while not acknowledging that we have to leave behind everything in our culture that derives from it? When does that hard work begin?
