Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[jimbob]

As Bill Maher famously said: "Atheism is a religion in the same way that abstinence is a sex position."

When will the religious ever stop making the absurd claim that atheism is a religion.

However it is possible to have an atheistic religion. I'd guess that scientology would come close.

ETA: Better put by Hans below

Well, I suppose it took quite long before that one came up ...

Luckily, we've been there before so the answer is easy:

1) Atheism is not a religion by any useful definition of the term 'religion'.

2) There are, however, some religions that don't involve an actual 'god' concept, and those are, at least technically, atheistic religions.

3) There are, as in any walks of life, some people who pursue their atheism with something like religious zest. But that makes them fanatics. It does not make atheism a religion.

Hans

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

As Bill Maher famously said: "Atheism is a religion in the same way that abstinence is a sex position."

When will the religious ever stop making the absurd claim that atheism is a religion.

No, atheism in not a religion, but a society where only atheism is allowed, is one I would argue against even as an atheist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well that would depend then on your view of whether atheism can be a religion, a position with which I do not disagree...

Well, I suppose it took quite long before that one came up ...

Luckily, we've been there before so the answer is easy:

1) Atheism is not a religion by any useful definition of the term 'religion'.

2) There are, however, some religions that don't involve an actual 'god' concept, and those are, at least technically, atheistic religions.

3) There are, as in any walks of life, some people who pursue their atheism with something like religious zest. But that makes them fanatics. It does not make atheism a religion.

Hans

 

[Thor 2]

Well, I suppose it took quite long before that one came up ...

Luckily, we've been there before so the answer is easy:

1) Atheism is not a religion by any useful definition of the term 'religion'.

2) There are, however, some religions that don't involve an actual 'god' concept, and those are, at least technically, atheistic religions.

3) There are, as in any walks of life, some people who pursue their atheism with something like religious zest. But that makes them fanatics. It does not make atheism a religion.

Hans

I agree with this but with the following provisions.

2) Rather than being described as "atheist religions" you could say they were religions which atheists could embrace.

3) There are some also who are not fanatics but realists, who care about stuff most of the complacent ones in society don't, or won't, think about. The atheists who care about women's rights to control their own bodies, sexual orientation plus gender and transgender equality, and so on. So many just shrug these things off as it doesn't directly impact on themselves.

 

[kellyb]

Well that would depend then on your view of whether atheism can be a religion, a position with which I do not disagree...

I'm fine with that, especially in the context of when it's the belief fused to the government and forced upon the population.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I agree with this but with the following provisions.

2) Rather than being described as "atheist religions" you could say they were religions which atheists could embrace.

Which would be the same. They are religions that don't imply gods.

3) There are some also who are not fanatics but realists, who care about stuff most of the complacent ones in society don't, or won't, think about. The atheists who care about women's rights to control their own bodies, sexual orientation plus gender and transgender equality, and so on. So many just shrug these things off as it doesn't directly impact on themselves.

That is not the stance I refer to. You can care about women's rights, etc. without being a strong atheist. In fact you can be religious, too. Suppression is not inseparable from religion.

Hans

 

[Thor 2]

Which would be the same. They are religions that don't imply gods.

It is the subtle implication in the term that bothers me. "Atheist religion" as if that is a religion spawned by atheism. I think if we were to have a survey, the number of atheists who believe in other, godless woo, would be small.

That is not the stance I refer to. You can care about women's rights, etc. without being a strong atheist. In fact you can be religious, too. Suppression is not inseparable from religion.

Hans

Yes I agree, however the runs are on the board for religion's suppression of human rights etc. I think some may feel opposed to suppression but their religious conviction is in conflict with this feeling.

Yes also, people can suffer suppression that is not religiously inspired, very many other motivations can be identified, such as lust for power and wealth. I have yet to see a good argument demonstrating atheism as a motivation however. The Big Dog's have to conflate atheism with Communism to manage this, and a compelling argument it does not make.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which would be the same. They are religions that don't imply gods.



That is not the stance I refer to. You can care about women's rights, etc. without being a strong atheist. In fact you can be religious, too. Suppression is not inseparable from religion.

Hans

The ironic thing is that our anti-religion poster mentioned “control of women’s bodies” in a thread about the repressive atheist regime in China, the home of single births, forced abortions, etc.

Anti religious suppression is not the only thing the unyielding Marxist atheist regimes in China excelled at.

 

[Aridas]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There are metaphysical implications in such a stance. Read up on metaphysical naturalism if you get a chance.

There are certainly metaphysical implications. Just like there are metaphysical implications for theism. I strongly suspect that you do not appreciate how limited those implications are when it's just that, though. An atheist can very easily be an idealist of many stripes, for example, just not of a theistic variety of idealism.

Exactly correct! How much influence is at play here is the question I am raising.

Is it worth pointing out the difference between intrinsic and assigned? If a group declared that "puke green" is evil and should never be used for anything, should "puke green" bear any responsibility for that? No, such would be absurd. Yet, that's exactly what you and so many others have tried to do with atheism. How much influence is there? Exactly as much as the group arbitrarily adds. On the other hand, if something like a Holy Book to a group tells them to burn witches and they proceed to burn witches, there's a very reasonable case to be made about their action of burning witches being supported by that religion.

If they were real atheists rather than just sino-atheists, in what way would they act differently?

You're that intent on making a fool of yourself?

The latter, obviously, as per observations of what is going on in China.

Which means that you're using a highly misleading and inaccurate choice of description, at very best, if that was taken in isolation. Not taken in isolation, it's pretty clear that it's not actually the very best case that's happening here.

Again, not my point. Let me hopefully steel-man the conversation:

A political group, declared atheists, gain power. They believe that religions are false because there are no god or gods, and they believe that religions are a danger to social well-being. So they decide to limit and then probably remove religions in they can.

They are acting on the idea that they regard religions as a danger to society rather than to some pure idea of atheism.

I think we are all on the same page at this point.

People then think that I am arguing that "they are doing this because they are atheists!" But I am not arguing that. I'm asking how the metaphysical beliefs behind atheism -- the idea that the universe is all there is -- influences their actions.

Short answer? It doesn't. At all. That's the realm of more direct values and philosophies. It may be worth reminding you of the is-ought problem here. With that said, it certainly can be used as a cheap justification, in much the same way that pretty much any banal, trivial truth can be used as cheap justification.

I see the statement that it is "atheism vs theism", "science vs superstition" and "materialism vs idealism" as an indication of thought processes behind their actions, which is ultimately about control.

And I see it more as cheap justification to latch onto as part of something more akin to tribalism and a means of control than a particularly principled stance.

The fact that we see the same atrocious behaviour in other governments with state-sponsored atheism is possibly significant.

The fact that we see the same behavior in other governments with "strongly" state sponsored religion is equally significant, in every way that one could validly draw a connection.

It's a bit like how some pro-Communists in the West defend Communism. You point out to them how communist governments lead to totalitarian governments and they will say "Oh, that's not REAL Communism! Real communism just means the people own the means of production. We've never had real communism, only people who just wanted to exert totalitarian control!" But that just ignores the connection between communism and the development of totalitarian impulses.

Mmm. This is a little bit off, honestly. "Pure" communism is classless and stateless. It's entirely true that we've never had a country that is a truly communist country, but the actual connection between communism and totalitarianist impulses is not even close to as strong as you seem to think. There are plenty of other problems with real communism, yes, but that's not actually one of them. There is very certainly a strong connection between anyone pushing for one-party rule/countries with one party rule and totalitarianism, on the other hand.

So that's the point I am making: what is connection between the metaphysical beliefs behind atheism and what is happening in China? Is there a connection? I think there is. I'm not saying "they are doing awful things only because they are atheists", but rather "they are doing awful things, and atheism is one aspect of the reasons behind it." The idea that all officially-declared atheist governments behave that way suggests some kind of connection.

Already dealt with in more detail above. No connection that would validly lead to atheism being treated as an aspect behind it, though.

 

[kellyb]

The ironic thing is that our anti-religion poster mentioned “control of women’s bodies” in a thread about the repressive atheist regime in China, the home of single births, forced abortions, etc.

Anti religious suppression is not the only thing the unyielding Marxist atheist regimes in China excelled at.

China is very much atheist, but not at all Marxist by any western definition of the word "Marxist". For real. Pretty sure the works of Marx are actually banned in China when it comes to the non-elites.

 

[LSSBB]

China is very much atheist, but not at all Marxist by any western definition of the word "Marxist". For real. Pretty sure the works of Marx are actually banned in China when it comes to the non-elites.

Yeah, for a while they've been trending toward being the world's largest capitalist dictatorship.

 

[kellyb]

Yeah, for a while they've been trending toward being the world's largest capitalist dictatorship.

Something like that.

I think the case could be made that they're fascist, since every aspect of the capitalist economy is so fused to the government, too.

 

[LSSBB]

Something like that.

I think the case could be made that they're fascist, since every aspect of the capitalist economy is so fused to the government, too.

I think you could definitely make a case for that.

 

[David Mo]

I'm fine with that, especially in the context of when it's the belief fused to the government and forced upon the population.

This is not a religion. This is a dictatorial politics.
Religion: belief in gods or supranatural. Atheism, just the opposite.
A dogmatic ideology is not religion.

 

[David Mo]

Something like that.

I think the case could be made that they're fascist, since every aspect of the capitalist economy is so fused to the government, too.

Chinese system is fascist in other aspects too. For example: a socialist rhetoric and a capitalist practice.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes, and how would you investigate whether their theism had anything to do with the oppression? If the officially theist nation's official mouthpiece claimed "it is theism vs atheism!", would that count as evidence contributing towards that idea?

I'll let TBD answer that one:

You can't use official Chinese goverment outlets as evidence for anything. This is hilarious, 'k?
Oy vey.

 

[David Mo]

Yes, and how would you investigate whether their theism had anything to do with the oppression? If the officially theist nation's official mouthpiece claimed "it is theism vs atheism!", would that count as evidence contributing towards that idea?

You cannot make theism responsible of anything if you are not able to stablish a direct link between it and a particular effect.
Theist was not the cause of the Inquisition, but a particular kind of theism called "Christianity".
Descartes was theist and I doubt very much you can blame him to be responsible of the Inquisition.
Theism against atheism is mainly a philosophical dispute, not a political one.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It is the subtle implication in the term that bothers me. "Atheist religion" as if that is a religion spawned by atheism. I think if we were to have a survey, the number of atheists who believe in other, godless woo, would be small.


Yes I agree, however the runs are on the board for religion's suppression of human rights etc. I think some may feel opposed to suppression but their religious conviction is in conflict with this feeling.

Yes also, people can suffer suppression that is not religiously inspired, very many other motivations can be identified, such as lust for power and wealth. I have yet to see a good argument demonstrating atheism as a motivation however. The Big Dog's have to conflate atheism with Communism to manage this, and a compelling argument it does not make.

Apparently religion is about power, wealth and control of the masses, right?!! Chinese Communism is about that, thus it is a religion. Their God is the material universe and so on.
The problem you run into at the end is that religion is not an unnatural, special negative. Religion is a natural phenomenon just like Communism and religion in its authoritative version is no different that authoritative Communism. They share the idea of Objective Authority and are about power, wealth and control of the masses.

That has nothing to do with atheism, though.

Well, as for the highlight, I doubt it.
All objective morally/ethical claims are woo including all such political ideologies.
All claims of Knowledge however derived are woo, including we we Know that there is no creator god and what reality really is.
All claims of that you only need Science/scientism and that it is possible to have evidence for all beliefs are woo.
All claims of a single factor explanation of what reality is, are woo.
All claims of free will and that the mind/consciousness/I is something in itself, are woo.

So you can have an atheist, which holds the following woo-beliefs:
Objective morality/ethics and such a political ideology.
A claim of Knowledge and a belief in Scientism.
A claim that reality is X and nothing else.
A belief in free will and so on.
That doesn't make that atheist more reflected than a theist. They just hold different woo beliefs.

Stop doing that, Thor 2.
The only thing an atheist is, is the lack of belief in a certain kind of god(s). That doesn't make the atheist more reflected that a theist overall.
Just as you have checked the belief in god(s), now check your belief in the superiority of atheism.

There is more to being a skeptic, then just being an atheist. If you want to spread atheism, go for a forum about that. Here you also get skepticism including about your beliefs and not just theists' beliefs.

 

[David Mo]

Is football a religion?
Are videogames a religion?
Is politics a religion?
Is nationalism a religion?

Please, please. Don't play with words. Religion is religion. Atheism is just the opposite.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Is football a religion?
Are videogames a religion?
Is politics a religion?
Is nationalism a religion?

Please, please. Don't play with words. Religion is religion. Atheism is just the opposite.

Yes and some forms of philosophy and political ideologies function like some religions.
They have positive metaphysics (that is supernatural, right?!!), they have a methodology of Objective Authority just like some religions, they have dogma, fidelity and so on. They can have cults of worship, "saints" and even some times Holy Sites and rites.
Atheism is not a religion, but we are debating politics, atheism and religion.
Politics and religion go hand in hand because they are about how we live our lives and how we view reality.
Atheism is nothing but a personal belief, unless you are a fanatic about atheism. Then it can become politics.