No. You are playing the believer’s game of trying to claim that atheism is a religion. I’m surprised it took you this long to bring it up.
My response is a proper answer to your question.
SCOTUS does. And they did by giving leeway where religious objection exists (something atheism CANNOT have) Pat is just pissy about his analogy being garbage and getting called on it
Edit: an analogy Pat brought up as when I wasn’t even talking to him rofl
Ding ding
Lolol. Yeah it definitely seems like I’m the one in a mood. Given your shitty in asked for analogy being impossible by definition
There’s the exposed nerve again. I brought dumb up because atheists fundamentally cannot have religious objections… (They don’t have a religion)
LOL. Cute. If I was, my being a bigot wouldn’t be due to being an atheist. Atheism doesn’t preach intollerance and biggotry like Christianity does
It’s very low energy for me. I can’t fathom why you’re still going when you’re the one who brought it up. Hell I wasn’t even talking to you
Feel free to let it go and no respond. I’m not the one who can’t figure out atheism isn’t a religion, and therefore cannot give religious grounds for anything
For me, this is a conceptual disconnect. There are many “religions” that are academically referred to as “atheistic religions”. Religion is not a belief and in most of the world, the word “religion” is not the same as the word for belief in a supra-rational reality or God. The word religion means the things that someone practices religiously. Maybe what you are saying makes sense given a less academic but more “Murican” use of the word religion but I think it would be better to say that atheists do not have a faith. Still, atheists would certainly agree that there are different levels of rationalism that have validity in providing knowledge, for example, instinctual knowledge which might lack apparent rationalism. Therefore for a theist to say that they have a instinctual, or intuitive, or emotional knowledge of their belief system, or their faith does not fundamentally delegitimize it.
Was Soviet Socialism a religion? I would say, yes. It even may be rightfully described as being a “faith”. Maybe that makes it theistic too.
You present atheism as a passive state, the absence of theistic beliefs, but I don’t think that that is true for anyone. If you take a wholly evolutionary view, you still are bound to admit that people have an instinctual “awareness” of the existence or presence of the existence of a super-consciousness. These could certainly be conceived of as being illusory and merely pragmatic from an evolutionary perspective. What atheists do, IMO is simply to ACTIVELY weight rational sources of knowledge substantially higher on the knowledge value meter than they weigh instincts and non-rationally substantiated knowledge sources.
So is atheism a passive condition as you imply (“not religious”) or is it an active condition of evaluating different sources of human knowledge and placing a higher weight on what is considered to be “rational”. This raises a conundrum since most atheists hold to a view of a deterministic universe in which humans lack any degree of non-deterministic free will. If we lack non-deterministic free will, then we don’t chose to weigh sources of knowledge at all, and we can’t call come sources “rational” or legitimate, since they would be deterministically bound, and therefore inevitable. Adding the term “rational” or “true” or “legitimate” to a piece of “knowlege” that was inevitable would be outside the bounds of rationalism because there would be no conceivable test to distinguish between inevitable conclusions that were “rational” from those that were “irrational” or “true from untrue” or “legitimate from illigitimate”. So someone who believes that there is no such thing as non-deterministic free will, or that free will is an illusion, but who also holds that their views are “true” or “rational” is making a extra-rational appellation that is not justified by rationalism.
Of course if someone does believe in non-deterministic free will that raises other issues of extra-rational knowledge.
Face it you couldnt make a case for the Roe vs Wade ruling using that standard. And you just used the same standard that a judicially conservative judge uses. And by that standard Roe vs Wade is a horrible ruling. You are correct, a right is a right. They don’t come in degrees or classes
Very much so agreed.
I’m perfectly happy to include “atheist” in the religion section of a questionnaire. I’m just not happy with the thought that someone is defending their actions as their ATHEISM provides a disagreement with a topic (like the baker’s religion telling him he can’t be involved in a gay marriage).
Atheism is silent. On every single imaginable topic save ‘does God exist.’
And you’d probably be able to snif out a member based on whether or not they followed the teachings of Soviet Socialism, right? Which teachings do you use to snif out an atheist? Rather (and much more pertinent to Pat’s example), can you think of any teachings of atheism that promote and require discrimination?
I’ve never heard an atheist talk about the existence or presence of a super-consciousness. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Members of faith’s are not prohibited from following this same line of thinking. They often times do in aspects of life in which their religion is silent. Why would you call this an atheist condition?
I am saying that atheists may have feelings that there is a supernatural presence at times, but they weigh their rational knowledge more and attribute their “feelings” to an illusion of evolutionary psychology. Atheism is not necessarily a LACK of those feeling but an act of placing them low on the totem pole of sources of knowledge.
I will add that if free will is an illusion caused by evolutionary psychology, it is an expensive and worthless illusion that flies in the face of evolution.
Not saying this is impossible, just that it’s not rooted in atheism.
As an atheist I’d say it’s a lack of those feelings (irt a supernatural presence). I’ve also never met an atheist that acknowledges supernatural entities/presences in their decision making.
BUT, I’m fully willing to acknowledge that many modern day morality points were established/hashed out by religion.
This is surprising. I am referring to something like the god gene hypothesis. Geneticist claims to have found 'God gene' in humans - Washington Times
Most biologist I know are atheists but believe that evolution has provided for religious or mystical experiences or feelings as a tool in social evolution-groups of hominids that believed that there was a god watching and potentially judging them tended to have more social order, group fitness.
There’s a pretty big difference between the hypothesis of the good Gene and the belief in a God. Also I may be out of my depth, but isn’t the godGene hypothesis supposed to identify a person’s willingness to be swayed by religious viewpoints?
I’ll readily acknolwedge religion has been a great tool for human development. I’d also say if a biologist believes the god actually exists, they’re not an atheist
I never brought any such thing up.
Again show me where I said atheism is a religion.
You’re going nuts over something I never said. So the joke is on you.
You can make up something and attribute it to me. Otherwise, prove I said it.
Lol I’m not going nuts over anything. I was talking to someone else, you brought up an impossible hypothetical, I pointed out it was impossible, you dug in and won’t let it go
If it were an illusion we would not be able to act contrary to our own nature… but that’s a whole different discussion. And a long one.
It’s not a impossible hypothetical. You just don’t like it.
Feel free to produce a court case where someone claimed they could discriminate based on their religious grounds, citing atheism.
I’ll wait
Yes, in that it agrees that there is only one animal that can write laws.
Atheistic or secular/non-theistic?
But, you are talking about system, a set of rules and ethics, whereas atheists don’t have one set of rules to guide them. There is no central authority like the Kremlin or the Vatican.
i.e. superstition.
And guess what, believers do as well. This is why most believers, in this country at least, go to the doctor when they are sick, vaccinate their kids, and fasten their seat belts even when they are driving to church.
1 Like