The Religious Atheist

[iceaura]

But, its not necessary for me to agree with them. Its called having an opinion.

And suddenly all opinions are equally respectable?

The Southern Baptist definition of Muslim, for example.

My own opinion is that your take on the theistic nature of, say, the Navajo religion, is poorly informed and rather obviously motivated. Your fundie religion requires spirituality itself to involve deity by necessity, the one inextricably bound with the other, and this requires you to view other people's religions and beliefs in a certain culturally bequeathed light, one of obviously narrow focus and blinkered field. You then become vulnerable to even quite ridiculous claims and assertions that happen to align with these required views.

It is not necessary for you to agree with the carefully considered thinking of traditional Navajos about their own religion, or agree with many thoughtful self-described Jews about whether or not they are Jews, or agree with various atheistic Buddhists and Daoists and Confucionists and Animists and Christians about whether or not they are Buddhists or religious or whatever;

but a glance at the track record of these kinds of long-distance and ignorant judgments - made by non-Muslims, anyway - shows that normally they are, in hindsight, kind of embarrassing at best.

It's possible that Islam, due to its inerrant Quran and perfect validity, renders its believers immune to the pitfalls of cultural bias and fundie belief. But appearances around here fail to support such a claim - the failure being flagrant, IMHO.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like I said, you may think that believing in a kind of supernatural power or even spirituality is atheism. Thats your right. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like I said, you may think that believing in a kind of supernatural power is atheism.Thats your right. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

 

[iceaura]

Like I said, you may think that believing in a kind of supernatural power or even spirituality is atheism. Thats your right. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

Nobody expects you to agree with something apparently impossible to even recognize within the intellectual confines of your fundie religion.

We do expect you to respect other people's beliefs, as you wish your own to be respected. In particular, we think it reasonable to expect some minimal consistency from you in your assertions made about other people's beliefs -

if angels and djinns and other such spiritual beings are deities then Islam is a polytheistic religion, for example. If Confucian ancestral ruler worship is a theism, then Korean ancestral ruler worship is as well. If Animist spirit worship of the Homeland and Founding Spirits is theism, then even Stalinist reverence for the Motherland or History begins to slide into the category, let alone the theistic beliefs of most Russians of the time - and the Nazi mysticism is a slam dunk theistic ideology even without the overt Catholicism;

or in the other vein, if the founders of Zionism were atheists (which is bullshit anyway but let it go), and atheists aren't Jews because the Quran says so, then you can't blame the evils of the foundation of Israel on "the Jews" without contradicting the Quran.

These are, as you put it, matters of "common sense".

 

[S.A.M.]

We do expect you to respect other people's beliefs, as you wish your own to be respected

Agreed I'll give exactly the same respect I receive

e.g.

impossible to even recognize within the intellectual confines of your fundie religion

you can't blame the evils of the foundation of Israel on "the Jews" without contradicting the Quran.

Sure I can. They are the Jewish state. They have no difference between nationality and religion. They represent the Jews. Jews claim Israel. The ones who don't are still associated with it as Jews. The Jews who do not associate with Israel get more respect and press from ME than the MSM. I am willing to announce that all Zionists are not Jews. No prob,but according to you, I should recognise their beliefs about themselves. Their belief about themselves is that they are a race of people. So I recognise them as the Jewish race, but not as the Jewish religion

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I don't know them so I couldn't say. I just know they are non-theists. It would also depend on how you define "religious."

From living in South East Asia I can tell you that the average person, even the so called non-religious Vietnamese, identify Buddha as God. When someone says "During this holiday we place the food on the alter because Buddha descends at 6am and blesses the household" I understand they are speaking of a God. When someone says to me "Even if someone does something bad to me out of revenge I will be alright because as long as I live Buddha has to take care of me", I understand they are speaking of a god. Why the belief in ghosts? Why the burning of incense and show of respect in front of a spirit house? Not that you have to have a system of demons and ghosts to have a god too but it seems that no matter Buddhas original intentions he has now related to as a god. I have met few indigenous to this part of the world who engage in an abstract intellectual dialogue and practical methods of Buddhism. The people who do that are always from the West. Studying and practising methods for release from suffering or angst or stress is not the same as being born into a tradition.

 

[Tyler]

Like I said, you may think that believing in a kind of supernatural power or even spirituality is atheism. Thats your right. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

Well that's just kind of poor English. Atheism means without a belief in a deity. Daoists are religious. Many of them don't believe in deities. It's arguable that Daoism does not, in fact, require a belief in anything supernatural.

So, I guess you're right, you're free to believe what you want. But on this one you'd just kind of be wrong. At least going by the common usage of religion, deity and Daoism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheism means without a belief in a deity

You cannot be without a belief in deity unless you are brain dead or too feral for abstract cognition. Everyone who lives in society has a belief in a deity. They believe there is one, or they believe there isn't one.

 

[John99]

hmmm....those two sentences contradict each other. agnostics would not fall into either category so that isn't true either.

 

[S.A.M.]

Agnostics are just people who have no position on God. They are outside the scope of any discussion on God.

 

[quadraphonics]

S.A.M.'s statements are total fail.

 

[TFL]

Agnosticism has nothing to do with gods. It deals with truth values.

You can be an agnostic atheist.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you think no knowledge can be obtained about God you cannot hold a position on about God's existence. Its illogical to have a position on something when you dismiss the possibility of cognitive content.

 

[glaucon]

If you think no knowledge can be obtained about God you cannot believe that God does not exist.

Knowledge is required for belief??

hmmm

 

[S.A.M.]

Belief is the position that no evidence is necessary, it does not deny the possibility that there can be evidence. In fact, most beliefs are based on the possibility of fruition at a later date.

 

[glaucon]

Belief is the position that no evidence is necessary, it does not deny the possibility that there can be evidence. In fact, most beliefs are based on the possibility of fruition at a later date.

Close enough.
However, your statement I referenced above has the direct corollary that belief requires knowledge.
You'll need to rectify that somehow...

 

[S.A.M.]

Okay, I modified it so its less sloppy.

Actually all these concepts require more detailed explanation but I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. And I doubt anyone here reads long posts anyway.

 

[TFL]

Everyone who lives in society has a belief in a deity. They believe there is one, or they believe there isn't one.

Agnostics are just people who have no position on God. They are outside the scope of any discussion on God.

You're contradicting yourself here.

And I doubt anyone here reads long posts anyway.

I do.

 

[S.A.M.]

I have yet to meet a real agnostic.

 

[glaucon]

Okay, I modified it so its less sloppy.

Actually all these concepts require more detailed explanation but I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. And I doubt anyone here reads long posts anyway.

Fair enough.
I was just trying to point out that you cannot say that one can't make statements of the knowledge of a A without necessarily believing in A.

Belief and knowledge usually (I hope..) being regarded as two very different things..