Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[xi0]

I'll look into deism further. A quick google search didn't really click with me though.

Basically that God exists because it's the best explanation for what we have, but not necessarily as a personal God of certain religions, and things like divine revelation aren't necessary to believe that one exists.

I mentioned it before, but I feel like from a rational perspective, if there is a "creator" and everything that exists does so because of someone or something's will, than Deism probably has the best explanation conceptually for what that would be like.

 

[ninjabot]

Tbh I'm still not sure how I feel about this label. I'm sort of at a place where I feel like if a creator does exist, Deism makes more sense than anything else. Who or what is responsible for us being here doesn't require glorification.

I'm way too progressive to force a title onto someone that they themselves didn't choose, but I'd have to ask how you define atheism if you think your world view isn't atheistic enough to warrant carrying that moniker.

You lack a belief in a deity, and you don't practice any organized religion, correct? Colloquially nowadays atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods, and you've more than met that criterion... but you don't have to take the title if you don't want to.

And I agree with you about Deism making more sense than any other god claim. It's why I'm an agnostic atheist specifically. I lack a belief in a god or gods, yet I'm not asserting that a god can't or doesn't exist. Only that I'm not convinced one does.

--- Double Post Merged, May 8, 2022, Original Post Date: May 8, 2022 ---

Religion acknowledges people are held accountable for their choices and decisions. It has a moral code.

Atheism says people can do whatever they want without consequences or accountability.

No, it doesn't. Atheism is simply a single response to a single question: the question of whether or not you believe in a god. It says nothing else about the character of the person who identifies as an atheist, not even their moral compass.

That's why atheists don't refer to their atheism when making moral choices. They refer to their sense of empathy or reason. There's a reason so many of us subscribe to Secular Humanism. It's because even though there's no such thing as objective morality, human beings can come to objectively good outcomes by agreeing on a standard. For us humanists, wellbeing is the focus of a moral society. It makes it easy for everyone with that standard to determine what actions are good and what actions are bad because practically everyone on the planet can agree on what constitutes wellbeing.

Promote as much wellbeing in the world amongst as many human beings as possible, while limiting the amount of harm inflicted upon as many humans as possible too. Doing so without the fear of god motivating you to do so is far more morally righteous than someone only doing what they think is moral because of their fear of how their god might react otherwise, because there's no coercion involved.

 

[xi0]

I'm way too progressive to force a title onto someone that they themselves didn't choose, but I'd have to ask how you define atheism if you think your world view isn't atheistic enough to warrant carrying that moniker.

You lack a belief in a deity, and you don't practice any organized religion, correct? Colloquially nowadays atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods, and you've more than met that criterion... but you don't have to take the title if you don't want to.

And I agree with you about Deism making more sense than any other god claim. It's why I'm an agnostic atheist specifically. I lack a belief in a god or gods, yet I'm not asserting that a god can't or doesn't exist. Only that I'm not convinced one does.

Well.... here goes I guess

Philosophically, I don't like that a label is required for this subject, as if it's a natural and biological facet of who a person is when it simply isn't. Humans are animals, the search for meaning is emergent behavior for evolutionary reasons. If we truly are alone in the universe as intellectual beings, "Meaning" itself really only exists as long as we exist. No other organisms require such a thing. If that is the case, how we apply our beliefs we gain from said "meaning" is the only thing that matters, not the beliefs themselves.

So yeah, this is pretentious way to avoid committing to labels but it doesn't really seem pointless to me in the end. In effect my viewpoint is probably antitheist or agnostic atheist as you've stated, but I just don't care about the terminology because it's all so pointless IMO. This entire topic exists because humans are incapable of accepting randomness as an explanation for anything pertaining to our existence.

 

[Sanity Check]

There are no denominations of atheism

Denominations of atheism

Epicureanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cult of Reason - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secularism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

et al

 

[xi0]

Denominations of atheism

Epicureanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods; rather it denies their involvement in the world.

Not atheism

Cult of Reason - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A cult from over two centuries ago? Is this sort of specificity relevant? Who practices this today?

Secularism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

et al

Separating Religion from the State says nothing about theism or atheism. Taking steps to ensure that religious freedom exists and preventing theocratic rule is not exclusive to atheism, it exists for the benefit of all religions.

 

[z.5]

et nada

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy, not a religion - in fact, as far as I recall, it doesn't even deny the existence of gods. All it does is state that they have no involvement in the world

Secularism demands that religion doesn't play a role in a state's affairs. It doesn't state gods don't exist either, merely that your specific god or your specific beliefs shouldn't be forced upon anyone else - you are still allowed to worship whatever/whoever you want

And as for the Cult of Reason - this was a poor attempt to replace God, to draw power away from the Catholic church (an entity that was seen as dangerous to the newly formed Republic/an old power structure that needed to be removed/replaced)


Out of interest, I clicked on the link for 'atheistic religion' (a term I will happily admit to have never heard before) to see what was there...

Yeeeah... Those 'denominations' (as you call them) are denominations in classification only, not in any religious definition of the term

In fact, many aren't even specifically related to atheism

Take feminism or capitalism, for example
There are feminists/capitalists who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Hardly seems like 'religions' in the common usage of the word

 

[Sanity Check]

Claiming a lack of belief in God, is the same as claiming God is real

Its commentary on the status of deity figures which is a defining point of all religions.

For atheism to not classify as religion, it must say nothing about God and deities.

It must have no stance or opinion relating to God.

 

[xi0]

Claiming a lack of belief in God, is the same as claiming God is real

Its commentary on the status of deity figures which is a defining point of all religions.

For atheism to not classify as religion, it must say nothing about God and deities.

It must have no stance or opinion relating to God.

Do you believe in Apollo?

--- Double Post Merged, May 9, 2022, Original Post Date: May 9, 2022 ---

If you don't, would you say your lack of belief in Apollo is a religion?

 

[Sanity Check]

Do you believe in Apollo?

--- Double Post Merged, May 9, 2022, Original Post Date: May 9, 2022 ---

If you don't, would you say your lack of belief in Apollo is a religion?

Saying anything about apollo = religion.

Having any stance on religion (even a lack of belief in religion) = religion.

 

[xi0]

Saying anything about apollo = religion.

Having any stance on religion (even a lack of belief in religion) = religion.

We could debate what constitutes a religion until we're blue in the face, but these statements wouldn't really be supported by anyone else.

It seems like your issue is you're conflating the concept of atheism with other things atheists might be. That doesn't alter what atheism is though.

 

[z.5]

It seems like your issue is you're conflating the concept of atheism with other things atheists might be. That doesn't alter what atheism is though

You think?

To me it seems more a method to

1. Generalise and therefore be able to paint all atheists with the same brush (one dyed in the paint of the most militant/anti-theist atheists)
2. Shift the burden of proof
3. Avoid all the issues that 'belief' brings to the table (such as proof) by claiming that all sides are [fundamentally] the same

If any view, even the lack of a view, on any subject is a religion then the word loses all useful meaning

It must end up becoming pretty difficult to keep track of all the religions you are a member of

 

[xi0]

If any view, even the lack of a view, on any subject is a religion then the word loses all useful meaning

Isn't the whole "words lose their meanings" something constantly cried about these days too? Quite the "post-modernist" approach, ironically.

It must end up becoming pretty difficult to keep track of all the religions you are a member of

Yeah it's like Hitchens or Dawkins or whoever said, everyone is an atheist, some just go one God further.

 

[M3J]

Personally, I feel like he's just trolling and saying whatever for the lulz.

 

[ninjabot]

Personally, I feel like he's just trolling and saying whatever for the lulz.

That's exactly what he's doing. Look at his last response. "Saying anything about religion is a religion."

Even worse, he can't recognize he's doing the same things that Kent Hovind and Frank Turek. Kent Hovind claims that Evolution is a religion so that he can paint it as an "us vs. them" type of war while simultaneously making religion seem as valid as evolution. Equal to evolution as a way of understanding how man appeared on Earth. Frank claims that he "Doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist", which flat out shows that faith is a negative thing or at least an insufficient path to truth, and that it's really the Atheists using blind faith while Christians are the rational, scientifically sound group.

Projection of the highest degree.

His intention is to try to shackle us with the same level of ignorance that HE thinks that WE think religious people have. And it's so fucking disappointing because Brandish just proved to us we can have productive conversations despite disagreeing, and Sanity Check isn't interested.

Only two theists here, and exactly 50% of the theist interaction is fucking trolling. Does he think this is helping his cause? Does he think this makes theists look good?

 

[Sanity Check]

Sunday

Let's discuss one of the most successful attacks on religion ever made by atheists.

For many years jews and christians claimed to be monotheistic, worshipping only one God.

Atheists attacked this claim.

Atheists: how can you be monotheistic worshipping only 1 God if you pray to Jesus and the holy spirit?

Christians: honestly, I do not know the answer atheists.

...

Catholicism: we don't know the answer either, let's call it the trinity and say God, Jesus and the holy spirit are the same thing.

...


Most seem satisfied with that.

But I think there could be a bit more to things that we're missing.

That was one round religion lost by allowing themselves to be goaded by critics imo.

 

[z.5]

Not sure why that'd be so successful of an attack

Why should it matter if Christianity is monotheistic or not?
If there is one God, I can't see how there being one, or two, or three, more is any more shocking

And, tbh, considering the Catholic god's long list of attributes, being 3 in 1 is a rather less impressive ability than some of the other things it is/can supposedly do

 

[Sanity Check]

Its a successful attack.

As it is an occasion where abrahamic religion altered itself to cater to the demands of critics.

The bible is attacked for containing indentured servitude, cannibalism, incest and other things.

But none of those aspects were ever amended, edited or altered to suit critics.

The trinity however was.

 

[z.5]

Of course they were amended - or 'better understood'

How many Catholics condone slavery, for example?
I've heard all sorts of reasons why it was previously 'allowed', in the Bible, but not now. All of which [all those I've seen/heard/talked to] conveniently seem to sidestep God having a change of heart


Unless you mean the Bible was edited to allow for a trinity of 1?

In which case, I dunno (I've read maybe 2 or 3 different versions of the Bible - far from making a dent into that long list). But there are certainly an awful lot of different versions of the divine, unchanging, words of God

 

[M3J]

Sunday

Let's discuss one of the most successful attacks on religion ever made by atheists.

For many years jews and christians claimed to be monotheistic, worshipping only one God.

Atheists attacked this claim.

Atheists: how can you be monotheistic worshipping only 1 God if you pray to Jesus and the holy spirit?

Christians: honestly, I do not know the answer atheists.

...

Catholicism: we don't know the answer either, let's call it the trinity and say God, Jesus and the holy spirit are the same thing.

...


Most seem satisfied with that.

But I think there could be a bit more to things that we're missing.

That was one round religion lost by allowing themselves to be goaded by critics imo.

Where and when have atheists attacked this claim? Are you making this up?

 

[xi0]

Sunday

Let's discuss one of the most successful attacks on religion ever made by atheists.

For many years jews and christians claimed to be monotheistic, worshipping only one God.

Atheists attacked this claim.

Atheists: how can you be monotheistic worshipping only 1 God if you pray to Jesus and the holy spirit?

Christians: honestly, I do not know the answer atheists.

...

Catholicism: we don't know the answer either, let's call it the trinity and say God, Jesus and the holy spirit are the same thing.

...


Most seem satisfied with that.

But I think there could be a bit more to things that we're missing.

That was one round religion lost by allowing themselves to be goaded by critics imo.

How exactly can this be called a "successful attack" when the concept of the Trinity has existed for as long as proper Christianity has existed? This isn't some recent thing lol. No Atheist I know is using the Holy Trinity as some sort of gotcha to disprove the validity of monotheism...

The bigger "attack" that people use is often against Catholics and that fact that they "worship" Mary or other Saints, since many would consider that going against the 10th Commandment.