Atheist = Closet theist

[KennyJC]

valid point except sadly here (not everywhere) the atheists seek to destroy the theists view and merely offend them rather that try to understand them.

How does that make them a closet theist? It just means they are vocal about irrationality of religion. Besides I think understanding superstition is something that any human can do wether they be atheist or not. In fact it is the holders of superstition that fail to understand it, which manifests itself as delusion. My mother constantly points out magpies as how many are seen depends wether you will get luck or bad luck. She also believes that Astrology is truth and that fortune tellers are correct in predicting the future. I understand the superstition better than she does as she simply thinks there is truth behind this nonsense.

I let her know this on many occassions also... Does this therefor make me a closet astrologist? No. Just means I have a low tolerance for her irrational set of superstitions.

 

[imaplanck.]

What reason?

.

The reason I outlined.

Im not saying that atheists like to be labelled atheists. The label is irrelevant, non-believers in god(if you prefer) dont believe because they dont believe in anything not present in reality.

Shit man I dont know what your challenge is to that really? Are you saying you are agnostic(agnostic without the label of course)?

 

[perplexity]

I see no reason to suppose that such a belief that I may or may not express should be of any concern to anybody.

Hypocrisy rules. Judge by what they do, not by what what they promise.

--- Ron.

 

[KennyJC]

I see no reason to suppose that such a belief that I may or may not express should be of any concern to anybody.

Hypocrisy rules. Judge by what they do, not by what what they promise.

--- Ron.

If nobody ever questioned irrationally held superstition then would western Europe have become a secular region? I doubt it. Indeed we might be stuck in the dark ages when the church had control.

I think collectively, the more vocal people are against religion, the less it will play a part in education, politics, law and foriegn policy etc... which can only be a good thing.

 

[imaplanck.]

I see no reason to suppose that such a belief that I may or may not express should be of any concern to anybody.

Hypocrisy rules. Judge by what they do, not by what what they promise.

--- Ron.

Yeah well I was talking about confessed athiests. You dont seem to say what you are or even know what you are. So I dont know why you would challege my little conclusion that real atheists are atheists for the reason that god is non evident.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I'm gonna start a thread on 'evidence'

 

[perplexity]

I want to know.

Why do they feel the need not only to profess but also to come here to spend their time to argue?

I have seen it suggested that those most keen to convince others are in truth plagued deeply with doubt about themselves.

My own disposition has been outlined at some length in previous postings, for anybody keen enough to know. If in need try the archive.

--- Ron.

 

[imaplanck.]

Oh OK I see what you mean.
I dont feel any need to come here and profess other than the reason to rebut the dead rat dangled in front of us i.e. the claim that athiests are closet theists

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Oh OK I see what you mean.
I dont feel any need to come here and profess other than the reason to rebut the dead rat dangled in front of us i.e. the claim that athiests are closet theists

Not all just some

evidence thread in science forum, please pop along

 

[(Q)]

You postulate that religious beliefs control the decision making process of individuals. You then further postulate that this is achieved by religious dogma.
I fail to understand how this second postulate expresses the first one in systematic terms.

I've placed the ones on each side of the plus sign, can't you take it from there?

Actually, the present instrumentalisation of creationism is likely undermining understanding (and it isn't alone). In itself, it’s simply the philosophical opinion that reality’s structure points to a creator. If science’s purpose is to explain the how and leave the why alone, creationism has nothing to do with it.

To theists, it's much more than philosophical opining, it is their how and why.

As I was pointing out to superluminal, if you pursue truth in a disinterested manner, I suggest becoming a bit more involved as there are erroneous opinions of far greater consequences than how to point out the start and end of a day.

Truth is pointing out the start and end of day, it is not the pointing out of gods.

 

[baumgarten]

If nobody ever questioned irrationally held superstition then would western Europe have become a secular region? I doubt it. Indeed we might be stuck in the dark ages when the church had control.

I think collectively, the more vocal people are against religion, the less it will play a part in education, politics, law and foriegn policy etc... which can only be a good thing.

I disagree. The more controversy spreads over religion, the more it will be on people's minds; and as important as religion is to most people, a fairly substantial contingent should be expected to react to any criticism of it with hostility. Fundamentalism is an extremely hostile, sometimes violent reaction to the rise of secular humanism in society. Most atheists and religious moderates conduct themselves in a relatively passive manner with respect to fundamentalism, never going out of their way to attack it. However, if the kind of "militant" atheism that has established itself here became popular and vocal attacks on religion were commonplace, it would probably exacerbate the problem of fundamentalism, leading to even more religious violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm

 

[geeser]

I disagree. The more controversy spreads over religion, the more it will be on people's minds; and as important as religion is to most people, a fairly substantial contingent should be expected to react to any criticism of it with hostility. Fundamentalism is an extremely hostile, sometimes violent reaction to the rise of secular humanism in society. Most atheists and religious moderates conduct themselves in a relatively passive manner with respect to fundamentalism, never going out of their way to attack it. However, if the kind of "militant" atheism that has established itself here became popular and vocal attacks on religion were commonplace, it would probably exacerbate the problem of fundamentalism, leading to even more religious violence.

so As I gather, you think that the reason theres so much religious violence, is because the religious have'nt got the intelligence to debate civilly, so they resort to violence, well I could not agree more.
it's happened throughout history.
someones a bit to clever for them burn them at the stake

 

[baumgarten]

so As I gather, you think that the reason theres so much religious violence, is because the religious have'nt got the intelligence to debate civilly, so they resort to violence, well I could not agree more.
it's happened throughout history.
someones a bit to clever for them burn them at the stake

Not really "the religious;" remember that I believe everyone has some sort of religion in the sense of having a core set of beliefs. Historically, those who are intolerant of other people's beliefs have been the ones who end up inciting violence. I guess this could be viewed as caused by a lack of capacity for clear thought, but it would be an overgeneralization and an oversimplification to call every fundamentalist stupid.

Consider the ingenuity of many terrorist leaders. The analytical abilities of the people who invent bombs and plan attacks for terrorist organizations cannot be denied, and yet their religious convictions prevent them from using those mental capacities to question the morality of their actions. Similarly, some of the most ingenious inventions of the first half of the twentieth century came from Nazi engineers, many of whom were motivated by blind racist hatred. A person's psychology cannot be reduced to simply "intelligent" or "stupid." A genius could still be made uncontrollably angry by the right stimuli.

 

[geeser]

Not really "the religious;" remember that I believe everyone has some sort of religion in the sense of having a core set of beliefs.

by that I presume you mean: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. or an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by. or is it a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.
the two former have nothing to do with atheism in my opinion, but the latter could be more nearer the mark, however it is not a code you follow blindly or a strongly held belief, it is the natural way of things you are just an atheist, we all are at first, some of us get infected by the mind virus, but luckily some of us have the good sense to return to it.

Historically, those who are intolerant of other people's beliefs have been the ones who end up inciting violence.

exactly, throughout history it's happened, the muslim is intolerant of the christian and vice versa,

I guess this could be viewed as caused by a lack of capacity for clear thought, but it would be an overgeneralization and an oversimplification to call every fundamentalist stupid.

nobody mentioned stupidity, in all other aspects the religionist is reasonably intelligent, it's just that single thing, their irrational about, and thus will kill to protect it.

Consider the ingenuity of many terrorist leaders. The analytical abilities of the people who invent bombs and plan attacks for terrorist organizations cannot be denied, and yet their religious convictions prevent them from using those mental capacities to question the morality of their actions. Similarly, some of the most ingenious inventions of the first half of the twentieth century came from Nazi engineers, many of whom were motivated by blind racist hatred. A person's psychology cannot be reduced to simply "intelligent" or "stupid." A genius could still be made uncontrollably angry by the right stimuli.

sorry thats blind religious racial hatred, anybody can given the right stimuli, Oppenheimer thought the world needed, to be made safe from tyranny, not realising the power he had unleashed, in hindsight, do you think he would have continued, if he new what could happen.
anybody could kill, however if you know that this is yours and my only chance of life, and you dont have that single irrationality, you not going to end a life, not purposely.

 

[baumgarten]

by that I presume you mean: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. or an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by. or is it a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.

If devotion or obsession were implied in my definition of religion, I would have mentioned it. I mean exactly what I said.

exactly, throughout history it's happened, the muslim is intolerant of the christian and vice versa,

This is hardly specific enough to be true. Which Muslims? Which Christians? Certainly not all of them. There are a number of fine counterexamples on this very forum; and if the majority of Muslims and Christians are indeed intolerant of one another, then the amount of religious violence in the world is surprisingly low.

nobody mentioned stupidity, in all other aspects the religionist is reasonably intelligent, it's just that single thing, their irrational about, and thus will kill to protect it.

You keep referring to religious people as if they are all potentially violent bigots. This is a rather unrealistic view.

The definition of an irrational belief generally used by atheists is the one according to classical foundationalism. It states that a belief is irrational if it is not self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible; or cannot be inferred from a belief that is not irrational. Theism is an irrational belief by this definition. As well, belief in other conscious people, or even the existence of any external reality, could arguably be classified as irrational. Yet we hear of no one persecuting or killing solipsists for their beliefs, which are evidentially more rational than those of non-solipsists. It stands to reason that there should be nothing about the irrationality of belief in God that makes it conducive to violent behavior.

In fact, most theists are not violent people, and most theists would not kill for their beliefs. Organized religions, being a kind of cohesive agent for society, actually largely discourage violence of any sort. (There are obviously some glaring historical exceptions.) On the other hand, like most animals, people do tend to become violent when they feel threatened, and most apparently religious violence actually has the underlying cause of some perceived threat. In the Middle East, calls to violent jihad are not really caused by the belief that God has arbitrarily commanded the death of all infidels. Rather, Islamic fundamentalists feel threatened by Western culture and are lashing out violently. The religious justification for such violence is simply that. It is an excuse. Were it not religion, it would likely be race.

sorry thats blind religious racial hatred, anybody can given the right stimuli, Oppenheimer thought the world needed, to be made safe from tyranny, not realising the power he had unleashed, in hindsight, do you think he would have continued, if he new what could happen.

I don't see how religion is implied here. You seem to be looking for a scapegoat. Certainly many during World War II were persecuted by the Nazis for their religious beliefs, but the justification for these actions was not of a religious nature. Many as well were persecuted solely on the basis of their ethnicity, physical health, or appearance. The Holocaust was not the product of religious fundamentalism, much more sheer bigotry of the greatest magnitude.

anybody could kill, however if you know that this is yours and my only chance of life, and you dont have that single irrationality, you not going to end a life, not purposely.

Murder is often rationalized, and quite successfully at that. Almost everyone who is not a pacifist feels that some war was justified. Without morality, which no one has yet found a sound rational basis for, it would be easy for a leader to say that X is a pestilence and would be better off dead, then have them killed. I don't think that rationality alone has much use as a deterrent to killing. It makes much more sense that people would simply have a natural aversion to violence. Think about it from a biological standpoint; a species that is too aggressive and violent is likely to kill itself off. On the other hand, an overly pacifistic species is likely to be defeated by a more violent competitor, so it also makes sense that we would have some natural tendencies toward violence, another suggestion that religion is not necessarily the root of religious violence.

 

[mustafhakofi]

If devotion or obsession were implied in my definition of religion, I would have mentioned it. I mean exactly what I said.

what you suggest is wrong, unless devotion and obsession are implied in the definition it cannot be deemed a religion.

This is hardly specific enough to be true. Which Muslims? Which Christians? Certainly not all of them.

you know well enough it was a generalisation, he could of said jew, hindi, there are after all 19 major and 270 minor religions, history shows us the hatred between religions.

There are a number of fine counterexamples on this very forum; and if the majority of Muslims and Christians are indeed intolerant of one another, then the amount of religious violence in the world is surprisingly low.

only because there are a lot more sensible people today then there were in the past, there would be more holy wars if it was'nt for common sense prevailing, any bit of religious violence is to much.
evil people do evil things, good people do good things, for good people to do evil things takes religion... richard dawkins.

You keep referring to religious people as if they are all potentially violent bigots. This is a rather unrealistic view.

but a true one, ( I 'm in fear of harm, from my brothers and cousins, only from religion can a brothers love become hatred) since history began, evil been done by religion.

The definition of an irrational belief generally used by atheists is the one according to classical foundationalism. It states that a belief is irrational if it is not self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible; or cannot be inferred from a belief that is not irrational. Theism is an irrational belief by this definition.

correct, your learning.

As well, belief in other conscious people, or even the existence of any external reality, could arguably be classified as irrational.

how so , one is objective the other subjective.

Yet we hear of no one persecuting or killing solipsists for their beliefs,

I've never come across a church of solipsists, is it possible there ar'nt to many about, those that are, are equally irrational, as any religionist.
( so we enter the matrix, wheres neo)

which are evidentially more rational than those of non-solipsists.

well they could seem more rational to religionist,
but to people who possess, sense, reason, and intellect, they are irrational.

It stands to reason that there should be nothing about the irrationality of belief in God that makes it conducive to violent behavior.

wrong, learning by example, an afterlife, absolution, etc....

In fact, most theists are not violent people,

until there beliefs are questioned.

and most theists would not kill for their beliefs.

until there beliefs are threatened.

Organized religions, being a kind of cohesive agent for society, actually largely discourage violence of any sort.

oh yes, so true, fear of god and all that.(sarcasm)

(There are obviously some glaring historical exceptions.) On the other hand, like most animals, people do tend to become violent when they feel threatened, and most apparently religious violence actually has the underlying cause of some perceived threat. In the Middle East, calls to violent jihad are not really caused by the belief that God has arbitrarily commanded the death of all infidels.

well perhaps you dont know religion to well. where is the threat in england/america to those of the terrorist persuasion.

Rather, Islamic fundamentalists feel threatened by Western culture and are lashing out violently.

exactly there religion is questioned/threatened.

The religious justification for such violence is simply that. It is an excuse. Were it not religion, it would likely be race.

rubbish, one muslim could be african and another irani, etc.. it's the religion.
the same can be said for catholics, against mormons against protestants etc...

I don't see how religion is implied here. You seem to be looking for a scapegoat. Certainly many during World War II were persecuted by the Nazis for their religious beliefs, but the justification for these actions was not of a religious nature. Many as well were persecuted solely on the basis of their ethnicity, physical health, or appearance. The Holocaust was not the product of religious fundamentalism, much more sheer bigotry of the greatest magnitude.

the nazis were a christian organization.(mitt got)

Murder is often rationalized, and quite successfully at that. Almost everyone who is not a pacifist feels that some war was justified. Without morality, which no one has yet found a sound rational basis for, it would be easy for a leader to say that X is a pestilence and would be better off dead, then have them killed. I don't think that rationality alone has much use as a deterrent to killing. It makes much more sense that people would simply have a natural aversion to violence. Think about it from a biological standpoint; a species that is too aggressive and violent is likely to kill itself off. On the other hand, an overly pacifistic species is likely to be defeated by a more violent competitor, so it also makes sense that we would have some natural tendencies toward violence, another suggestion that religion is not necessarily the root of religious violence.

firstly religion can only be the root of religious violence.

violence, can be caused by anything, but mostly it's due to some kind of religious interference.

 

[(Q)]

So you’re saying:
religious dogma increases (the degree of, I presume) the control exercised by religious beliefs over the decision making process of individual.

Excellent.

I fail to see how any of these founds this control or otherwise hints at how it comes to be. Help me out here…

Example: The Abrahamic religions consider homosexual behaviour a sin, hence many of those who closely follow those religions would vote to not allow same sex marriages, a decision based entirely on their religion.

Here again you generalize the behavior of the few upon the many.

The Abrahamic religions consider creationism as the explanation of how the universe came to be. These are not a "few" peoples' behaviour.

Does this imply that any form of statement conveying the idea that the day is starting (if day is starting) is true?

Not "any" form of statement, one supported by observation.

Humor them…. Declare yourself the king of England and I’d humor you as long as you didn’t take it too far. Hell, I’d humor you even if you told me that the flying spaghetti monster itself has crowned you. I don’t mind what you believe in as long as you walk strait.

Therein lies the problem, I too wouldn't mind if theists didn't take their beliefs too far.

Lighten up… and listen to baumgarten, he’s expounding keen observations.

I've gotten the impression baumgarten is starting from the premise that "everyone has some sort of religion in the sense of having a core set of beliefs."

There is where you should direct your comments of generalizations.

 

[baumgarten]

I've gotten the impression baumgarten is starting from the premise that "everyone has some sort of religion in the sense of having a core set of beliefs."

There is where you should direct your comments of generalizations.

My use of the word 'religion' as meaning a core set of beliefs has a simple explanation.

You have a core set of beliefs which you hold to be true and upon which you base all your other beliefs. A theist also has a core set of beliefs which he calls a religion; he as well bases all his other beliefs upon them. Whereas yours does not, the theist's core set of beliefs involves a belief in God or the supernatural; however, the meaning and function of his core beliefs - that is, to be the basis of all his other beliefs - remains the same regardless of whether that belief involves the supernatural. Therefore it is my opinion that belief in the supernatural, while involved in most definitions of the word, is actually peripheral to the meaning of religion. Religion primarily serves as a core set of beliefs, and as any atheist also has a core set of beliefs, it could be said that he as well has a religion. I believe the existence of atheistic religions (such as Buddhism) and religions that do not postulate the existence of a supernatural realm (such as Hinduism) support this position.

 

[mustafhakofi]

My use of the word 'religion' as meaning a core set of beliefs has a simple explanation.

You have a core set of beliefs which you hold to be true and upon which you base all your other beliefs. A theist also has a core set of beliefs which he calls a religion; he as well bases all his other beliefs upon them. Whereas yours does not, the theist's core set of beliefs involves a belief in God or the supernatural; however, the meaning and function of his core beliefs - that is, to be the basis of all his other beliefs - remains the same regardless of whether that belief involves the supernatural. Therefore it is my opinion that belief in the supernatural, while involved in most definitions of the word, is actually peripheral to the meaning of religion. Religion primarily serves as a core set of beliefs, and as any atheist also has a core set of beliefs, it could be said that he as well has a religion. I believe the existence of atheistic religions (such as Buddhism) and religions that do not postulate the existence of a supernatural realm (such as Hinduism) support this position.

Wrong,
Hinduism the third largest religion, venerates an array of deities, the main one being Brahman(god) these are supernatural beings.
I suggest you study the vedas.
Buddhism is atheistic, in the same sense that christianity is, all religions are based in the supernatural.
Buddism believes in past lifes and rebirth(reincarnation) this in essense is supernatural.
Atheism has no supernatural base, and no core set of beliefs, we were all born this way, Atheism just does'nt hold, what religions say are true. there is no denial of these aledged truths, theres no belief that the asserted thing/truths ever existed in the first place, and therefore, Atheism is the complete opposite of religion.
please try and understand this, it is afterall, not hard.
Atheism is not a belief system, it is the natural knowledge/understanding.

 

[perplexity]

Buddhism is atheistic, in the same sense that christianity is, all religions are based in the supernatural.
Buddism believes in past lifes and rebirth(reincarnation) this in essense is supernatural.

Wrong.

To the extent that a Buddhist believes this, a Buddhist believes that this is natural.

You may find though that those who call themselves Buddhist argue amongst themselves about it. Buddhism as it appeals to me is not so much a statement of truth, more of a way for you to find it for yourself.

--- Ron.