What are qualities of "inner peace" and how do you quantify the claim that "most atheists do not have it." Please elucidate. I'm curious how a self-described "Daoist" who also admits to violating the law by keeping illegal firearms qualifies and quantifies "inner peace."
Simple. I'm an anthropologist. In order to make the term "religion" useful as a descriptor, it needs to have a useful definition. By assigning the colloquial and distinctly non-academic description of "religion" to any human activity that is done repetitively or diligently, you end up with a useless definition that can be made to fit any human activity that involves at least one person. Baseball, poker, housecleaning, reading the newspaper, and picking one's nose can, thus, be qualified as religions under your loose and un-informed definition.
I agree, wholeheartedly, that the
trope of religion can be given to any human activity in order to demonstrate the participant's diligence and passion exceeds that of other, more general participants. "He person with a
religious devotion in picking his nose," is a useful description in that it separates the subject from the rest of us. We know that such a person will regularly and routinely pick his nose and perhaps with great care and attention to detail. But it would be absurd to refer to his activity as an actual "religion." The term, in this case is a
trope.
It may also be useful (I will readily admit) to refer to some atheists as
religious in their willingness to share their opinions with others. I can accept that description as adequate and accurate of myself. But it is folly to suggest that because such tropes are useful and accurate, that they equate to actually being able to define
atheism as a religion in the true sense.
The most accurate and useful definition of religion is the one that includes the perception that the participant is appeasing or appealing to a supernatural agent or agency.
Tantrums? Cursing? Please click the "report post" button on these so I can moderate these. Of course, its more likely that you're referring to those posts that dare question and criticize those deluded by various religious superstitions. If so, then, yes, rationalism
does include criticism. Those that are offended by their beliefs being questioned call it "verbally attacking" and "being rude." The rational, however, consider it to be valid criticism and inquiry. The former is offended because the rational bring up salient points to which they have difficulty
rationalizing. Indeed, they have only tautology, circular reasoning and complete and utter devotion to delusion to offer in their defense.
I don't believe in continually misspelling words and violating grammatical conventions just because I'm on the internet. But I'm no more "personally insulting you" about it than you did me in the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I'm quite calm about it. Moreover, what evidence do you have that I "believe in the big bang theory?" Could it be that you are making a logical fallacy by creating a strawman and an assumption that isn't relevant to the discussion?
I suspect it was
other considerations and
the way you said it "might not be true" that earned you bad marks in school (but then I've said I'd not insult you about your grammar and spelling, so I'll abstain from going there). But your logical fallacy continues in the belief that acceptance of the big bang as a theory for the beginning of the universe is an atheistic belief; that big bang=atheism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, the difference between those deluded by religious superstition and those who accept the big bang as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe as we currently understand it is this: those deluded by superstition admit that their doctrine cannot change -ever; those that accept the big bang admit that
it might not be true and are open to new, better explanations. Indeed, the latter are even
looking for them!
Ridicule and satire are valid and well-accepted forms of social critique and commentary. Look through any daily newspaper and you'll see political cartoons that satirize political decisions and failures. This is
ridicule. And it is very effective. I think the problem is that you confuse my comment about 'ridicule' to include out-right "bashing" of the innocent. I'm not advocating that people approach someone with a "Jesus Saves" bumpersticker next to their silly fish and shout "ha, ha! You're a Dummy for believing that nonsense!"
I am, however, advocating strongly that it is completely appropriate to apply a
Darwin Fish to the back of their car. And I find the FSM to be a fine example of parody and satire, another form of ridicule.
A wiser man still understands how to effectively use parody and satire, forms of ridicule, to illustrate the silliness of the fool.
I'm merely pointing you in directions that you might find less conflict for your "inner peace." Your baseless and inaccurate assessments that I'm a hypocrite notwithstanding, I rather hope you stay and discuss. The discussions, however, will likely be those which you claim to dislike to read.
