It means the values you use to discredit religion.
IOW if you are offering a critique (never mind whether its about religion or not) you are using values.
If you had no values, you couldn't offer a critique or antithesis or whatever
Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires
- Thread starter Arkonos
- Start date
IOW if you are offering a critique (never mind whether its about religion or not) you are using values.
If you had no values, you couldn't offer a critique or antithesis or whatever
nice trolling
Let me explain it so maybe even you can understand then.
No two two moments in time are exactly the same. There may be similiarities between events that happened in different centuries but that is not a repetition.
Let me explain it so maybe even you can understand then.
No two two moments in time are exactly the same. There may be similiarities between events that happened in different centuries but that is not a repetition.
Death is death, whether it is by small pox, rabies, stab wound, or radiation.
When you start using words like "contrast", you start using values
It's not an atheist value to do so.
Just because an atheist offers critique on religion doesn't make it an atheist value.
That would be the same as saying that's it's a religious value to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people.
You don't think labeling something as a "magical thinking" is an attempt to claim the high ground?
Do you think there are other values aside from morality?
Maybe so, but without religion it would be one less reason. If people are reasonable about religion, it's not due to religion but the degree to which they don't follow it.
All I can say is that atheists cannot use faith to justify immoral actions, and I think that's a start.
In practice, atheists tend to follow secular humanist values and respect science, but I acknowledge such values are not inherent to simply not believing in god.
Not moral high ground though. Magical thinking is not immoral by default.
Atheist critiques certainly do utilize atheist values. Its what distinguishes them from theistic critiques.
IOW the very nature of offering a critique of religion where there is a direct need to invalidate the bearing of god (or the associated practitioners) is precisely what an atheist critique is all about .
On the contrary, its not to hard to find arguments (usually lodged by atheists) that according to religious value certain person can and have flown airplanes into buildings for the express purpose of killing thousands of persons.
Atheist is not a denomination. It's not like we go to atheist worship houses where we worship nothing. Seriously if anyone critiques a religion it's his own choice. An atheist is just a person that doesn't believe in the supernatural. There are no values connected to that other than non-belief.
Yes persons did fly planes into buildings for religious reasons (among other reasons), but that doesn't mean it is a religious value to do so. If it was, we probably wouldnt have many tall buildings.
Yes persons did fly planes into buildings for religious reasons (among other reasons), but that doesn't mean it is a religious value to do so. If it was, we probably wouldnt have many tall buildings.
well certainly faith in god is not on the cards, but I think you would have a hard time explaining how one can act in any fashion (moral or otherwise) without relying on a foundation of faith.
not really
As Schroeder has pointed out, atheists were scientifically retrograde until at least the mid eighteenth century, and suffered from their reputation as scientifically unserious.[4]
....
At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html
I think you are missing the blatantly obvious.
There are a swag of derivative values that atheists call upon to contextualize theistic claims as fiction, fantasy and hallucination.
Your posts are full of them.
yet its not at all difficult to categorize the claims within the confines of an ideology
Atheists may be said to defend their position in two broad ways. First, by bringing forward good reasons for disbelieving religious claims; second, by offering naturalistic explanations of religion.
Instead there is the common atheist soundbite that religion causes violence - an atheist precept so common that one can even commonly encounter theistic critiques to the contrary.
If a child grew up without never knowing about religion or other types of non naturalistic thinking (do you like this word better?), what do you think the child would grow up as? Christian, Moslem, tree-worshipper?
and it's not an ideology either...
Faith in what?
Yea i didn't get that either. I've witnessed this phenomenon before. One of my religious friends said to me: "You believe in nothing?? Huh?? But you MUST believe in SOMETHING!!!"
I have a difficult time coming up with an answer for questions like these. It's like there is some sort of lack of understanding. I have never been religious so i guess it's difficult for me to understand that some religious people don't understand atheism (if that makes any sense).
I have a difficult time coming up with an answer for questions like these. It's like there is some sort of lack of understanding. I have never been religious so i guess it's difficult for me to understand that some religious people don't understand atheism (if that makes any sense).
well they certainly wouldn't grow up to offer critiques of religion.
Not all atheists are vocal about their non-belief. Just like not all moslems fly aeroplanes into tall buildings.
It certainly has all the key aspects of an ideology
- a host of derivative points and meanings
- ideas about how to shape society
- base ideas for contextualizing the claims of religious practitioners and the bearing of god
How on earth is what you are advocating not an ideology?
An ideology is much more than being vocal. Its a code by which one leads at least part of one's life or a world view. IOW if one has a world view that expressly avoids any involvement of another group of people or entertaining what they hold as pivotal or valid (for a host of derivative reasons), one has an ideology.
Talking about a type of imagined atheism where one doesn't have the knowledge base to lodge some sort of critique of religion is a category that certainly doesn't involve you or any other atheist poster on these boards