The Religious Atheist
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Generally speaking?
I'd say an assumption is contingently bound to some greater argument; it can be granted (temporarily) a reliability status of knowledge purely to the extent that it serves as part of an hypothesis.
Belief is similar, yet can even be held in isolation, or when refuted, or simply by whim.
See also: the distinction between belief and faith.
well, I set out a Nativity at xmas and we say grace at meals. But we just do it cuz my daughter is a believer.
Is that what you mean?
religious atheist?
maybe we could get better results with a pick the perp sort of thing with a/theistic overtones ("who doesn't believe in applying a metaphysical paradigm to a super-conscious entity?") ... that way we could really hone our skills of arbitrary judgment
maybe we could get better results with a pick the perp sort of thing with a/theistic overtones ("who doesn't believe in applying a metaphysical paradigm to a super-conscious entity?") ... that way we could really hone our skills of arbitrary judgment
So assumptions cannot be held in isolation or on a whim?
But that contradicts the Quran's definition of "Jew", as presented by you here.SAM said:
No Torah, no Jew - so you claimed. Then you claimed no deity, no Torah. Then you claimed atheism for the founding Zionists.
Even those are not mirror-image beliefs.SAM said:
And there is a third category: they don't believe there is one.
The word-mirror would be: they don't believe there isn't one. The difference between that status and actual belief in a deity is visible from the fundie porch, we trust?
The difficulties apparently encountered by fundie theists in merely recognizing what is for others an obvious state of affairs, is really striking.
Premise 1: Daoism is a religion.
Premise 2: Daoism does not require a belief in a deity.
Premise 3: "Theist", by definition, is the belief in a deity.
-----------------------
Conclusion 1: Therefore Daoism is a religion that does not require members to be theists.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it is possible to be both religious and without theism.
Premise 5: "Atheism" is defined as "without theism", or "without a belief in deities."
Conclusion 3: It is possible to be both religious (a Daoist) and an atheist.
Q.E.D.
--------------
--------------
I'd like to point out that this argument holds perfectly well even if we use Sam's definition of "atheism"....
--------------
--------------
Premise 1: Daoism is a religion.
Premise 2: Daoism does not require a belief in a deity.
Premise 3: "Theist", by definition, is the belief in a deity.
-----------------------
Conclusion 1: Therefore Daoism is a religion that does not require members to be theists.
Conclusion 2: As Daoism does not require adherents to believe in deities, it is imaginable (and, indeed, I know some) that someone could be both a Daoist and what is typically referred to as a "strong atheist"; or, as Sam puts it, someone who holds the belief that there is no god.
Conclusion 3: Therefore it is possible to be both religious (Daoist) and an atheist.
Q.E.D.
-----------
-----------
Do you have any more questions?
Premise 2: Daoism does not require a belief in a deity.
Premise 3: "Theist", by definition, is the belief in a deity.
-----------------------
Conclusion 1: Therefore Daoism is a religion that does not require members to be theists.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it is possible to be both religious and without theism.
Premise 5: "Atheism" is defined as "without theism", or "without a belief in deities."
Conclusion 3: It is possible to be both religious (a Daoist) and an atheist.
Q.E.D.
--------------
--------------
I'd like to point out that this argument holds perfectly well even if we use Sam's definition of "atheism"....
--------------
--------------
Premise 1: Daoism is a religion.
Premise 2: Daoism does not require a belief in a deity.
Premise 3: "Theist", by definition, is the belief in a deity.
-----------------------
Conclusion 1: Therefore Daoism is a religion that does not require members to be theists.
Conclusion 2: As Daoism does not require adherents to believe in deities, it is imaginable (and, indeed, I know some) that someone could be both a Daoist and what is typically referred to as a "strong atheist"; or, as Sam puts it, someone who holds the belief that there is no god.
Conclusion 3: Therefore it is possible to be both religious (Daoist) and an atheist.
Q.E.D.
-----------
-----------
Do you have any more questions?
Correct.
You start drawing lines in the sand the moment you think a term (like dao for instance) bears an automatic parallel to orthodoxy/and/or obedience to social obligations in pursuit of a metaphysical ideal (or "dharma" for short).
You could launch on to many issues about what a daoist should be, but if you examine what being a daoist practically means (ie "who can speak for daoism") you get a variegated tapestry.
IOW a healthy portion of a/theism is about gauging the intention of the performer, and drawing conclusions about that from social paradigms are frequently inaccurate.
(now please excuse me as I reap the benefit of observing the image of successful performance in a ritualized activity where skill earns unerasable results and the swarming helmeted deniers can't quite reach you).
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. I was showing that Dao not necessitating any specific orthodoxy implies that one could be accurately labeled 'religious' and 'atheistic' at the same time.
Frankly, the very notion that Dao could have an 'orthodoxy' is completely out of synch with the Dao De Jing. It still baffles me how Daoist "priests" could manage to deal with such hypocrisy.
Again, I think you've missed the point. The proof I posted simply shows that one could be both an atheist and religious at the same time. I proved possibility. Now, I would also assert that I know some Daoists who profess to be atheists. Those people may well be lying to me - I'm not sure why they would, but anything is possible - yet that is almost irrelevant. The questions posted was how one could be both atheist and religious. Answering that question does not require that there actually be anyone who is religious and atheist (though I would assert there are such people), but just that it is logically and realistically possible.
But I also agree with you...
You've chosen to define religion as something that requires belief in a deity.
That's a distinctly Abrahamic way of understanding the word. The word that translates as "religion" in Chinese (宗教) does not in any way require deity. Frankly, as this thread shows, neither do many English-speakers require that "religion" necessitate deity belief.
What you're taking a stand on, Sam, is not some philosophical issue, but just semantics. In very large chunks of the world - China (roughly 1/6 of the world), Native American cultures, etc. - a deity is not necessary to be considered a religion.
In your vocabulary, it does. That's fine! It's perfectly acceptable to use your own cultural bias to skew the meaning of a word. We all do it. But you should know that your matter is semantic, not philosophical.
Oh, I wanted to mention...
You seem to tip-toe around neo-Platonism an awful lot. If you're suggesting that words have some "correct" meaning other than the way people use them, then you're committing yourself to a strange neo-Platonism. I think such a position is (a) bizarrely counter-intuitive, (b) extremely difficult to maintain, (c) hard to reconcile with religiosity (hence the popularity of Aristotle among theologists), (d) very favourable to facism.
Certainly there are neo-Platonists, but not many.
You seem to tip-toe around neo-Platonism an awful lot. If you're suggesting that words have some "correct" meaning other than the way people use them, then you're committing yourself to a strange neo-Platonism. I think such a position is (a) bizarrely counter-intuitive, (b) extremely difficult to maintain, (c) hard to reconcile with religiosity (hence the popularity of Aristotle among theologists), (d) very favourable to facism.
Certainly there are neo-Platonists, but not many.