A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Atheist Activist Michael Newdow Claims That Atheism Is A Religion.
I think it really comes down to semantics. According to Wikipedia, religion is: "...a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."
Although I think that atheists who claim it is just a lack of belief are dead wrong, I do agree with them that it only makes a statement about gods. If so, then it is not a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and sometimes to moral values.
Consider an atheist who believes in an afterlife and other spiritual entities, compared to one who is a naturalist. These are almost polar opposite worldviews (and hence "religions"), even though they are both atheists.
I DO however think that NATURALISM is a quasi-religion, in that it answers some of the same questions that religion is trying to answer. That's why I will continue to maintain that criticism of naturalism and physicalism is far more fruitful than criticizing atheism per se.
Those atheists who are of a naturalist or physicalist stripe will then respond, and those who are not will not. That will keep the continuing bickering over the semantics of "atheism" to a minimum. It would be amusing, however, since the vast majority of atheists in my experience are in fact die-hard naturalists and materialists.
In short, criticizing naturalism forces them into the hotseat instead of giving them a chance to retreat to agnosticism when they need to.
I love it how atheists have it so backwards! We know that Christianity isn't a Religion its a Relationship and we know that Atheism IS a Religion because they worship themselves. But those fools never get it. How much longer can they hide there heads in the sand.
I think Martin's comment is spot on. I, too, have never encountered an avowed atheist who wasn't a materialist. There are legions of a-theists who are NOT metaphysical naturalists. But those folks never seem to identify themselves as such. Presumably that is because the word "atheist" has become synonymous with reductionist scientism in this culture.
Martin, I agree with this: "Those atheists who are of a naturalist or physicalist stripe will then respond, and those who are not will not. That will keep the continuing bickering over the semantics of "atheism" to a minimum. It would be amusing, however, since the vast majority of atheists in my experience are in fact die-hard naturalists and materialists."
I actually rather enjoy dealing with the bickering over what it is that they "don't believe" but have no reasons to give. But I also try not to relent on the Materialism issue, which seems fundamental to the arrogance of the aggressive Atheists.
And this is a good point:
"In short, criticizing naturalism forces them into the hotseat instead of giving them a chance to retreat to agnosticism when they need to."
The majority of atheists that show up here seem to be reactionaries that have an ecclesiastical axe to grind. You know, "The church, or the bible, or my mean Catholic aunt" are so so bad therefore..... there is no God.
It's the "cut the head off" theory.
The part that really puzzles me is that the history of the twentieth century evidences no diminishing of oppression and tyranny with the decline of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West.
6 comments:
I think it really comes down to semantics. According to Wikipedia, religion is: "...a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."
Although I think that atheists who claim it is just a lack of belief are dead wrong, I do agree with them that it only makes a statement about gods. If so, then it is not a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and sometimes to moral values.
Consider an atheist who believes in an afterlife and other spiritual entities, compared to one who is a naturalist. These are almost polar opposite worldviews (and hence "religions"), even though they are both atheists.
I DO however think that NATURALISM is a quasi-religion, in that it answers some of the same questions that religion is trying to answer. That's why I will continue to maintain that criticism of naturalism and physicalism is far more fruitful than criticizing atheism per se.
Those atheists who are of a naturalist or physicalist stripe will then respond, and those who are not will not. That will keep the continuing bickering over the semantics of "atheism" to a minimum. It would be amusing, however, since the vast majority of atheists in my experience are in fact die-hard naturalists and materialists.
In short, criticizing naturalism forces them into the hotseat instead of giving them a chance to retreat to agnosticism when they need to.
I love it how atheists have it so backwards!
We know that Christianity isn't a Religion its a Relationship and we know that Atheism IS a Religion because they worship themselves. But those fools never get it. How much longer can they hide there heads in the sand.
They are exposed. They admit it on TV.
Watch the video after reading this:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html
I think Martin's comment is spot on.
I, too, have never encountered an avowed atheist who wasn't a materialist. There are legions of a-theists who are NOT metaphysical naturalists. But those folks never seem to identify themselves as such. Presumably that is because the word "atheist" has become synonymous with reductionist scientism in this culture.
Martin,
I agree with this:
"Those atheists who are of a naturalist or physicalist stripe will then respond, and those who are not will not. That will keep the continuing bickering over the semantics of "atheism" to a minimum. It would be amusing, however, since the vast majority of atheists in my experience are in fact die-hard naturalists and materialists."
I actually rather enjoy dealing with the bickering over what it is that they "don't believe" but have no reasons to give. But I also try not to relent on the Materialism issue, which seems fundamental to the arrogance of the aggressive Atheists.
And this is a good point:
"In short, criticizing naturalism forces them into the hotseat instead of giving them a chance to retreat to agnosticism when they need to."
The hotter the seat, the squirmier they get.
The majority of atheists that show up here seem to be reactionaries that have an ecclesiastical axe to grind. You know, "The church, or the bible, or my mean Catholic aunt" are so so bad therefore..... there is no God.
It's the "cut the head off" theory.
The part that really puzzles me is that the history of the twentieth century evidences no diminishing of oppression and tyranny with the decline of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West.
Post a Comment