14 Nov 12
Originally posted by KellyJayNo it cannot!
7. Your love of baseball can be a relgion, ...
You wont get any tax breaks for a "church" devoted to football!
You can say "His religion is football" that is using a metaphor,
it's eqivalent to saying "He is devoted to football as if it were a religion"
As I pointed out recently, Jesus didn't think Simon was a rock!
He wasn't re-defining the word rock. Metaphor!
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI can't take your arguments seriously if they're based on semantic horseplay.
Religion does not require a god, gods, or God. Go back and read the diff of
the word I've been posting. Those that suggest a god is required are not
reading the meaning of the word, instead they are ignoring it.
Kelly
Being an axe murderer, for example, is neither consistent nor inconsistent with being an atheist. You can't say the same of any recognized religion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59You know, I have been discussing these issues and talking/listening to so many people on
Quality!
Is that yours or "borrowed"??
this subject that I really couldn't tell you.
It's not knowingly quoted from anyone, but I can think of any number of people who might
have said it or something along those lines.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, here is the definition Webster gives for 'Bachelor':
Webster:
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
That is how it is defined, not my words, Webster's and by that Atheist without
a god are a religion.
Kelly
Definition of BACHELOR
1: a young knight who follows the banner of another
2: a person who has received what is usually the lowest degree conferred by a 4-year college, university, or professional school <bachelor of arts>; also : the degree itself <received a bachelor of laws>
3:
a : an unmarried man
b : a male animal (as a fur seal) without a mate during breeding time
According to the first entry of this definition, a young married knight could qualify as a bachelor, while an older unmarried man would not. According to the second entry, a devoted married man and father just out of college would qualify as a bachelor. According to the third entry, the Pope would qualify as a bachelor. According to the fourth entry, a married, horny but out-of-town businessman would qualify as a bachelor. But if I were to insist that married knights and Popes were bachelors, you'd rightly accuse me of using the term strangely, non-standardly, etc. You'd rightly respond that if I'm right at all, I'm only right "in a limited sense".
Do you see the problem? Definitions from dictionaries cannot track how terms are actually used, nor do they present clear necessary and sufficient conditions for the appropriate use of terms. Definitions really don't define, they just suggest.
But if you insist, look at the first few entries for 'religion' (you know, the ones that are listed above the one you cite). Then look up the entry for the term 'religious'. If we take those more primary entries seriously, then it's just a conceptual falsehood that atheists are religious. You can't both insist upon using dictionary entries and then cherry pick the entries you want.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrOhhh no you can't derive anything scientific from atheism.
Oh, you can derive all sorts of scientific and moral conclusions from atheism.
"I don't believe in God(s), therefore I shouldn't entertain God(s)-based explanations for empirical phenomena..."
I don't believe in God(s), therefore I shouldn't take seriously normative ethical theories that explain goodness/rightness/virtue and their contraries on the bas ...[text shortened]... pistemically certain. So all worldviews end up being at least partially faith-based.
"I don't believe in God(s), therefore I shouldn't entertain God(s)-based explanations for empirical phenomena..."
Yeah, but that's a really sucky and unscientific rational for not entertaining god(s) based explanations for phenomena...
Science and it's methodologies result in not believing in gods or accepting god based explanations and thus results in atheism.
To then use that atheism to not accept god/s as explanations is circular/recursive.
I don't accept god/s as explanations because gods have zero explanatory power, and there is no evidence for their existence.
This results in my atheism, and is not a result of it.
"I don't believe in God(s), therefore I shouldn't take seriously normative ethical theories that explain goodness/rightness/virtue
and their contraries on the basis of properties of God(s) (e.g., Divine Command Theory, Thomist Natural Law Theory, etc.)"
Well my reasons for not accepting right and wrong being determined by a god or gods work independent of gods existing, however...
Again, secular ethics builds on principles that have nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of a god or gods.
The "Euthyphro dilemma" neatly encapsulates this....
If morals are determined by god declaring things to be good or evil then necessarily god could declare ANYTHING to be moral.
There are some/many things that I for one could never accept as being moral, but more than that, if you define morality as being
about promoting well-being and happiness for people in a society. Then you can objectively measure the results of an action and
determine objectively which actions lead to a better society as measured by the well-being of the people in it.
As there are thus things that I/we can't accept as being moral regardless of a deity or deities declaring them to be so...
Morality CAN'T come from gods.
So morality/ethics must be built upon something else.
Which means that it's irrelevant whether gods exist or not when determining what is or is not moral.
Atheism is not a foundation of secular morals, secularism is.
I'm pretty sure what Kelly is driving at, when talking about systems of belief that are colored by atheism, is that atheists will take
as relevant or epistemically available only explanations or justifications that don't make reference to God(s).
Ok, you are right, an atheist will not accept an explanation or justification that includes god/s.
That is not (or shouldn't be/ isn't in my case) because I/we are atheists.
I don't reject god's as justifications because I don't believe in them.
I reject god's as explanations/justifications because the evidence tells me that they don't exist and often tells me that something else
is the cause.
I reject gods because I am a rationalist and skeptic.
Saying that I reject gods because I am an atheist is circular.
I AM an atheist BECAUSE as a skeptic I reject gods.
As I say, My atheism is a result, not a foundation.
You are welcome to try to find something, but I don't think there is anything I believe or derive from my atheism.
It's all derived from something else. [rationality, skepticism, science, consequentialism (ethics/morality), materialism (in the sense that I see no evidence
for anything other than the material world, rather than wanting to shop the planet into oblivion, or only caring about money/stuff).]
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith that logic, all theists are not members of a religion called theism either, right?
I am not sure that anyone is claiming that a god is required. However that is not the same thing as saying atheism is a religion (it is not). Atheists may be religious about their atheism, or have religions of their own, but this does not make all atheists members of a religion called atheism.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour statement below is defintely wrong:
Wow are you wrong.
[b]First off, Secularism, the idea that government should be secular (ie not religious) is supported
by Many religious people. In fact the number of religious people who support secular government
almost certainly outnumbers the number of atheists in America.
The idea of secularism is enshrined in your constitution.
It ...[text shortened]... w versions which have words added and/or meanings added/changed/corrected.[/b]
The incorrect statemen by googlefudge, "The idea of secularism is enshrined in your constitution. It's the principle that no religion will be forced down anyone's throats by government."
This is NOT in the Constitution of the United States of American.
15 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is so ... predictable and amusing ... that Atheists would try to hammer a square peg into a round hole by insisting that the US Constitution explicitly (or implicitly) supports secularism and denounces religion. The bible-believing Founding Fathers are surely turning over in their graves. What the Founding Fathers were getting away from, among other things such as high-taxation, was the government using (any) religion as a pretext for controlling the behavior of its citizens. The idea was freedom OF religion and of course, freedom not to practice any religion at all. It is not, nor was it ever implied to be, a document demanding secularism and the end of religion on any level. Back then, it was routine for our elected officials to practice their faith, even while "on the clock" inside government buildings. Clearly there was no intent to expunge religion from the political arena.
Your statement below is defintely wrong:
The incorrect statemen by googlefudge, "The idea of secularism is enshrined in your constitution. It's the principle that no religion will be forced down anyone's throats by government."
This is NOT in the Constitution of the United States of American.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it doesn't follow in the slightest. In fact, 'religious' and 'religion' have subtly different meanings, but that is not the problem here.
So it must follow that theists are not religious if theism in not a religion, right?
To give an analogy, its like saying 'since the US education system is not a school, none of its members are scholars'.
Most theists are members of a religion, and many are religious.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidWho made that claim? Where in this thread does anybody say that the US Constitution denounces religion?
It is so ... predictable and amusing ... that Atheists would try to hammer a square peg into a round hole by insisting that the US Constitution explicitly (or implicitly) supports secularism and denounces religion.
The bible-believing Founding Fathers are surely turning over in their graves.
And the non-bible believing Founding Fathers? I believe there were a number of them.
What the Founding Fathers were getting away from, among other things such as high-taxation, was the government using (any) religion as a pretext for controlling the behavior of its citizens.
Sounds like secularism to me.
The idea was freedom OF religion and of course, freedom not to practice any religion at all. It is not, nor was it ever implied to be, a document demanding secularism and the end of religion on any level.
Oh I get it now. You simply don't know what secularism is. Here let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeFor every scientific explanation 'P explains X' there is a possible parasitic theistic explanation of the form 'God makes it the case that P explains X'. So, no considerations drawn purely from the results of scientific inquiry could strictly entail atheism. If atheism is not entailed, but rather inferentially justified by scientific inquiry and it's correlative methodologies, then it will require the support of some ancillary premises. Typically, these premises are variations on some principle of parsimony or elegance along with some other stuff that is supposed to jointly constitute good abduction or inference to the best explanation. But if you require such an ancillary premise, a theist may legitimately object "Wait! You're building in a presumption against God-based explanations by forbidding reference to additional entities!". If you take parsimony or elegance to rule out God-based explanations from the start, then you essentially have a priori epistemic commitments that both presume atheism and inferentially support your purportedly neutral scientific methodologies.
Ohhh no you can't derive anything scientific from atheism.
"I don't believe in God(s), therefore I shouldn't entertain God(s)-based explanations for empirical phenomena..."
Yeah, but that's a really sucky and unscientific rational for not entertaining god(s) based explanations for phenomena...
Science and it's methodologies result ...[text shortened]... op the planet into oblivion, or only caring about money/stuff).][/i]
I'm not a consequentialist. I think it's an awful framework for a variety of reasons. Let's not talk about it. Here, though, I just want to note that it does not follow from "there are things [you] can't accept as being moral regardless of a deity", that "morality can't come from gods". This inference is just invalid. The Divine Command theorist will say you are question-begging. The Natural Law theorist will deny that the Euthyphro objection applies. In any case, there is no general valid inference pattern of the form "I can't accept P, therefore not P".
These are quibbles, though they may be interesting is pressed. I agree generally with your view here. My atheism is not foundational. It's the result of a bunch of independent inferences all pointing to the bankruptcy theism as a research project.