Religion
Related: About this forumTrue (non) believers
On the eve of a global atheist convention in Melbourne, Stephen A Russell talks to three of our most outspoken non-believers — and finds that atheism is a broad church.
12 Apr, 2012 11:16 AM
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Apparently God created atheists, too. The voice of the non-believer has become increasingly loud. In the 2006 census, almost 19 per cent of Australians declared they followed no religion compared with just 13 per cent in 1991. The nation now has an officially secular leader in nominally atheist Prime Minister Julia Gillard – though Fiona Patten of the Sex Party has described her as “non-practising.”
This weekend, a hotbed of ungodly thinkers and non-believers gather at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre for the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia.
To help you see the light, the AFA has paid for a fleet of Melbourne buses to be emblazoned with the Woody Allen quote, “If God exists, I hope He has a good excuse”.
The speakers, young and old, from religious and secular backgrounds, and with a diversity of views and opinions, are a varied bunch with one thing in common: they don’t believe in God. Atheism, it seems, is a broad church indeed.
http://www.thecityweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/true-non-believers/2519421.aspx
Long article.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Is it really so difficult for the religious to understand that it's possible for people not to have a religion? Is it really so hard to see that someone with no creed, no holy text (or anything else), no focus of worship, and no observance whatsoever lacks religion?
I've also never seen anything but irony in a religious person attacking atheism by trying to paint it as religious.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)we just have a personal relationship with Reason.
I'm stealing that.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)When I think about it, it's actually doubly ironic.
-The irony of religionists using "religion" as an insult.
-The irony of progressive and "tolerant" Christians attacking something they consider another religion.
You know, I never thought of it that way.
Thanks for that. Really takes that edge off the insult. Hell, it turns it completely around.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)My fave is those religionists who poo poo science to the hilt...
then try to give their mythologies credence by dressing them up and supporting them in a scientific format... like a proof.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so they do have a point.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)a non-religious person as a concept.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)etc., in the name of said non-religion, then your concept may become a realistic one.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Democratic party is a religion?
Comic books are a religion?
Kind of dilutes the meaning of the word doesn't it? I would think those that are religious would want to keep the meaning something special rather than something you can throw against anything and make stick.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)i don't think it does. Atheism is not the opposite of religion.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I never said atheism is the opposite of religion. It's the opposite of theism. Religion is the adhering of people to a specific set of beliefs that revolve around the supernatural.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)around here, when it's clear that state atheism officially replaced all religion at that time? Are you suggesting that he was a supernatural being?
edhopper
(33,591 posts)Someone somewhere said, is a poor argument.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It's a simple question with a one-word answer.
And you misstate the Stalin argument. He replaced himself in the place of a god. He wanted to be treated like a religion. That does not make it a religion. But have fun with your strawman.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)your contention and the mendacious ramblings of some atheists in this forum.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't understand your unwillingness to answer (actually I do, but you won't admit why it is) a very simple question. You gave a definition of what you thought religion was and I am trying to figure out what would be included. It seems to me that by your definition, gay rights would be a religion. Do you think it is a religion?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)However, we both know that the courts have not declared it as such, but for the purposes of the First Amendment have declared atheism to be treated as such. And I have already shown that there have been atheistic religions in the past, e.g. The Cult of Reason and the Church of Humanity, and the Komsomol churches in Russia.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Anything can be considered a religion. Good definitions need exclusivity as much as inclusivity.
tama
(9,137 posts)which is a descriptive instead of normative field, does not agree with your statement about meanings of words. And neither does cognitive science and neurology. See e.g. Lakoff's 'Women, Fire and Dangerous Things'.
And as Hume said, no should from is. The "need" for strictly analytical definitions as requirement for "meaning" is a normative attitude to be explained socially and psychologically etc., not description of objective reality of linguistic communication.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Trust me. And you are wrong to say that the "standard view of general linguistics...does not agree." There are strands of linguistics that would disagree. At a basic level are you talking about pragmatic of semantic linguistics? I don't think you will find anyone arguing that I can just make up a word or completely change the definition and hope to be understood on the basis of that word. Certainly there are contextual realities that affect our understanding of meaning, but that is certainly limited on the Internet and if I use the word "chair" instead of "table" at a restaurant, even the contextual meaning is going to make it hard to understand what I am talking about.
tama
(9,137 posts)And as far as I know, Lakoff's views about connotative networks and fields centered about prototypical examples are today well accepted, in tune with de Saussure and also cognitive science and neural network models. But I accept that I shouldn't have said "standard view", as I can't claim there is such a thing to begin with.
Prototypical examples are not same for all speakers and connotative family resemblances are meaningfull enough to make the word "religion" meaningfull in the context it was used. But there is also whole other subcontext of emotional connotations and reaction mechanisms here at play, conserning also the meaning of "meaning".
so in the context of that, doesn't saying that gay rights is a religion mean that the meanings we have surrounding that word are meaningless. I could say burritos are a religion. Or desks. Or anything, then.
tama
(9,137 posts)and I would understand that you have religious attitude to burritos - and that you are funny guy.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Methinks there is something in that absence.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Most everyone reading along gets the point.
tama
(9,137 posts)AFAIK there is no strict definition of the object of study, but it is generally understood and agreed that all religions relate some way or other to the so called "spiritual experience".
Perhaps by some stretch perhaps denial of or opposition to spiritual experience could be a component of a world view that could be called (anti?)religion. But that would have little to do with atheism in general, as self-identified atheists can also meditate and take psychadelic drugs etc.
Worship (and claim of patent right) of Reason by some socially organized group sharing a common ideology and belief system that denies and/or actively opposes spiritual experience, perhaps that would be getting closer what some might consider a religion or distortion of...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)on positivism and reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_humanity
"Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Could it be that as positivism has been losing popularity also among scientists (e.g. Steven Weinberg's 'Final Theory' chapter "Against Philosophy' was in fact against positivism), positivists are now hiding behind the terms atheism and skepticism and dare not speak their name? Or could the positivist self-denial have something to do with rejection of introspective attempts to gain knowledge?
PS: the implied positivistic proposition of this post is based on the argumentum analogicum 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck", with additional hypothesis that the proposition gets tested and falsified if and only if the duck becomes self-consciouss of being a positivist duck. After that even matters can proceed in number of ways.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)the fact that much atheistic thought resembles the Logical Empirical model, which excludes anything not observable or experiential, such as intuition or a priori knowledge, etc. means that it still has a following even if not admitted. Your duck.
edhopper
(33,591 posts)It IS a religion. All hail King Kirby!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Please...
where are the atheist sects? the atheists in robes from the 11th century? the huge lavish buildings just for atheists to congregate in? the atheists prayers (and who do they pray to?) etc...
and of course the tax exemptions!
Trusting in something (science... because it works) is not the same a believing in something
rug
(82,333 posts)The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) is a registered charity which promotes rationalism, humanism and science in a quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/
This is a huge lavish building.
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/venue/
Can't speak for the robes but don't forget the Converts' Corner!
http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)It's available for hire. Nothing atheist about it. Atheists one day, Anglicans the next, stamp collectors after that.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)which is telling atheists that they don't belong here.
Be happy to listen to your explanation.
Do I have to be LGBT to post in the LGBT group?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.
tama
(9,137 posts)but host policy makes Science Group into safe haven group for materialist orthodoxy and/or positivist secular religion. And I guess that makes you happy.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)And this group is about religion. Your chosen topics have their own space if you wish to post them, and it isn't the science group.
tama
(9,137 posts)and no reason has been given why discussions about views of so far three (to my knowledge) biologists who don't share the belief in current materialist orthodoxy of classical reductionism have been locked.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)"current materialist orthodoxy of classical reductionism"
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)isn't science and doesn't belong in the group.
But I'm not there much, and I'm not a host, so I'm just guessing. Why don't take it to H&M and see if you can find out?
the first lock was against peer-reviewed article by a biologist whose name I have forgotten, and the reason given was IIRC that the theory or hypothesis was not mathematical enough - which sounded strange. Second lock was against Sheldrake's new book, which is critical of materialism and belongs to the area of philosophy of science - which is as important as empirical evidence for a self-corrective process. Third one was about links to three articles by Mae-Wan Ho that were critical of role of genes in science, which I posted (two other discussion were started by others) because they contained what I considered interesting empirical data that I hoped could be critically discussed. I don't know if they were peer reviewed and I doubt that host even bothered to take a look at the content before locking. In two latter cases no TOS-based reason for locking was given.
On a more general note, peer-review process is hardly objective and can be easily misused for ideological and political purposes, and can and should be criticized if and when used as pretext for cencureship.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)and from what I've seen, most of the the very emotional criticism of DU3 peer-review process has been from self-claimed atheists and skeptics.
But this is not about peer-review process but about host using peer-review process as excuse to protect positivist religion from being criticized and discussion about alternatives to positivist orthodoxy and turning science group into safe-haven for positivist religion. And that is betrayal of scientific ideals.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)
that the ID controversy is extremely politicized and emotional issue in US. As an outside observer, it's easier for me to say more generally that science classrooms should teach critical and skeptical thinking not afraid of asking also the Big Questions, instead of accepting any scientific theory or paradigm as the final word of science, including that of materialistic reductionism and positivism. And there is lot of room between biblical creationism and materialistic reductionism for rational and empirical inquiry.
IIRC a good definition of intelligence is ability to hold several conflicting ideas simultaneously, so also science classrooms should teach intelligence instead of authoritarian acceptance and blind faith in any theory.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)
tama
(9,137 posts)like General relativity, String/M theories etc. quantum gravity theories?
Yes I think so, and even more importantly how the various theories relate to each other. As a product of your science education system, what current basic theories can you name and what can you tell about how they relate to each other?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I was expecting some "other way of knowing" since you discredit materialism and empirical studies as being inadequate.
is the logical fallacy of excluding introspective and intuitive qualitative methodologies from empirical studies in obsession about quantitative methodologies.
Einstein was not a positivist: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
LAGC
(5,330 posts)But when it comes to well-grounded scientific theories, I don't think we need to spend a bunch of time trying to debunk them. (Take climate change as an example.)
Otherwise you end up with a bunch of woo-woo and not real science.
Which is why I suspect your thread was locked in the Science group.
tama
(9,137 posts)was about pattern formation in biology, how cells differentiate into various organs working as organic wholes - and that's anything but well understood phenomenon in science but one of the biggest open questions.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)It sounds like the main reason it was locked is because the author you sourced is "an HIV denier, an evolution skeptic, and all-round nutbag."
I imagine if you found a less biased source that didn't have all the pseudo-intellectual baggage, you'd be more likely to generate a more productive discussion.
I mean, it is kind of hard to take someone seriously when they are so skeptical of widely understood scientific notions such as evolution and HIV.
that a rational skeptic accepts such argumenta ad hominem uncricically and unskeptically, without rational inquiry based on evidence. And especially as basis for shutting down scientific evidence based dialogue.
I don't know who the author is, the claim of those biases is made by the poster who made the ad hominem argument, and he didn't provide any evidence nor logic for his claims and argument. Just a classic character assassination instead of participation in dialogue. All I was interested about was the content of the articles linked. And that was censured.
PS: Who the fuck is laconisax or anybody else to condemn what is science and what is pseucosciense? If we take should take laconisax as authority, what are his scientific and philosophical credentials and why should we trust his judgements and hand power of and ability of misuse of power to him?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)....google is your friend.
Last edited Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:12 AM - Edit history (1)
told not much else that she/he is not a friend of Monsanto.
Edit to add: I checked wikipedia only after I had posted, and the first answer of argumentum ad hominem. And I've also been around long enough to know that when there is objection to content, character assassination instead of discussing the content is a standard modus operandi. And that those that object to content tend to be rather unskeptical of the character assassination masterpieces.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)For example, unspecified "quantum" mechanisms promising to overturn all of an entire field tend to be pseudoscientific.
When the criticisms of the current theory to be overturned are based on a fundamental ignorance of that theory, it's even more likely to be pseudoscientific.
All that's needed to work it out is a basic understanding of the science involved, an ability to think critically, and the small amount of time to work out the implications of the proposed hypothesis.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Hell, the whole thing is based on the idea that genotypes have no relation to phenotypes--in other words, heredity has nothing to do with how a person (or other species) appears, acts, or may be susceptible to various ailments.
It's laughably false on its face and the suggested alternative mechanism given is...drumroll...quantum mechanics.
Forget the fact that the source is a crackpot, the content is demonstrably false and suggested by the classic, "there are unanswered questions, therefore quantum."
It's a perfect thread for CS or thunderbolts.info and I suggested so.
tama
(9,137 posts)the claim is that genotype ALONE don't explain phenotype, as that hypothesis has not been answering the expectations.
And it's only natural and logical not to exclude quantum, currently the most fundamental theory of physics, when searching for theories that combine biology and physics.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Your first paragraph illustrates that you don't understand what a phenotype is and how it's related to a genotype.
Your whole second paragraph illustrates a complete lack comprehension when it comes to science and the relation between fields.
BTW: there's a certain amount of hypocrisy on display in your posts when you rail against science as "reductionist" while praising the most reductionist theories in science.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You posted pseudoscience, I locked it.
If you want to whine about having off-topic material locked, do it in H&M. Don't try to threadjack someone else's thread.
tama
(9,137 posts)is totally subjective and arbitrary.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)H&M is where these things get discussed. Tale it there.
tama
(9,137 posts)argued that Religion forum is the right place to discuss the religious and scientific significance and meaning of turning Science forum into safe haven of the positivist religion.
But I'm also getting tired of arguing.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You are hijacking a thread with more asinine bullshit.
