Everyone on RF is really an atheist.

[Jordan St. Francis]

Mad,

This is the statement that is manifestly incorrect:

The claim:
Christians regard Allah in a similar way Muslims regard Yahweh – and the same way that atheists regard both.

The former might be true, but the latter is not. Atheists do not regard God in the way that Christians regard Allah. It is not a valid comparison.

 

[themadhair]

If I wrote a Nobel-prize winning economic plan that showed the way to achieve world piece and universal economic prosperity, and if somewhere buried within that economic tome appear the word ‘atheist’ would that be the part you would focus on??

I don’t get.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

In fact, the whole point of this thread is rather ludicrous.

A Liberal probably does not well regard, or support the tenets of, conservatism, fascism, Nazism or the divine-right-of kings. Yet he continues to act like everybody should be a liberal and consistently acts shocked when governments, nations, cultures or peoples violate his ideology.

Should he not just wise up and accept that all these other groups reject his ideology in the same way he rejects everyone else?

Do not Liberals regard conservatives in a similar way conservatives regard liberals- and communitarians regard them both?

What really is the point of this thread?

 

[themadhair]

What really is the point of this thread?

You don’t consider Greek religious texts to be a source of wisdom (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

You do not consider the Zoroastrian texts to be a source of divine revelations (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

You do not consider the Hindu texts to be the only true way to live your life (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

What reasons can you give to the above questions that do not also apply to your own holy text of choice? Why do regard the above texts in a different light than your own?

Are you being deliberately obtuse by not attempting to understand the point of the OP even if such a point is flawed?

 

[ChristineES]

In fact, the whole point of this thread is rather ludicrous.

A Liberal probably does not well regard, or support the tenets of, conservatism, fascism, Nazism or the divine-right-of kings. Yet he continues to act like everybody should be a liberal and consistently acts shocked when governments, nations, cultures or peoples violate his ideology.

Should he not just wise up and accept that all these other groups reject his ideology in the same way he rejects everyone else?

Do not Liberals regard conservatives in a similar way conservatives regard liberals- and communitarians regard them both?

What really is the point of this thread?

I found the whole thread interesting. I did not agree with the OP, but I still thought it was an interesting idea. The point, I assume, was to make conversation.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

You don’t consider Greek religious texts to be a source of wisdom (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

You do not consider the Zoroastrian texts to be a source of divine revelations (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

You do not consider the Hindu texts to be the only true way to live your life (if you did you would be studying them). Why not?

What reasons can you give to the above questions that do not also apply to your own holy text of choice? Why do regard the above texts in a different light than your own?

Are you being deliberately obtuse by not attempting to understand the point of the OP even if such a point is flawed?

You know, I happen to be working toward an undergraduate degree in the study of religion and culture. So yes, I consider many different religious texts to be sources of wisdom and treasures of culture - I am currently learning ancient Greek and I have the Upanishads and Dhammapada on my book shelf.

I understand the point of the OP, and I have heard this argument, rife as it is with thoughtless rhetoric, to try and make people of religious conviction look foolish or to silence them by argument.

You are, in the first case, changing the OP to open way to a more general discussion, mainly:

What reasons can you give to the above questions that do not also apply to your own holy text of choice? Why do regard the above texts in a different light than your own?

The question is no longer why I am an atheist in regards to Zeus, but why I am an amythicist in regards to the founding of Islam. It has much less of a ring and takes atheism out of the question. The basic point could also be turned not only to religion, but to any empirically unverifiable philosophical or ideological commitment.

If we can acknowledge this noteworthy shift in terminology, then perhaps we can proceed. The only thing I set out to show was that a Christian or Muslim is not an atheist in comparison to anything.

 

[themadhair]

I understand the point of the OP, and I have heard this argument, rife as it is with thoughtless rhetoric, to try and make people of religious conviction look foolish or to silence them by argument.

To be frank, I think your insistence on taking the above stance rather than offer something substantial, as opposed to simply harping on about the use of a word that practically everyone on the thread already recognised was being used an overly general sense for the purpose of presenting an argument, is making yourself look foolish irrespective of the argument.

I think the argument is bogus, and have already posted to that effect and why I think that, but I just don’t get this whole having a brainspasm over the use of the word ‘atheist’.

If we can acknowledge this noteworthy shift in terminology, then perhaps we can proceed.

Given that I expressly reworded the argument to avoid your mind-**** over the word atheism I should ******* think so.

Seriously, I just don’t get it. Are you phobic about trying to interpret an argument if it might be aimed at questioning your faith? I don’t see why else why people on this thread have thrown a ****-fit over the use of one word here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even if you believe in only one God, and believe that not believing in any god is atheism, there has to be a few that believe that every God may be the same God- no matter what you would call him.

I'm told that is a fairly common belief among Hindus. I'm not certain that makes logical sense, given the wild variety of god concepts, but you are correct all the same.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The title of the thread is "everyone is an atheist". I think the use of that word bore significantly on the original question for debate. It is also a tool used often by atheists, if I am not mistaken, coined by Harris.

You yourself also re-defined atheism in a manner that I think is controversial and untrue, saying:

So your objection is founded upon your mistaken idea that atheism implies a denial of god (it actually implies lack of belief).

Your other point:

To be frank the idea is pretty straightforward. If you can describe parts of other beliefs as ‘erroneous’ why can you not do likewise to your own?

Is also interesting to me, because I don't see why this would fail to apply to atheism or any other world view that is not distinguishably religious. Many groups of people, outside of religion, are very serious about their beliefs and adamant about them.

The way I see it, the argument suggested by the OP intends to give a privileged position to atheism, to undermine religious conviction, all the while failing to consider how uncontroversial its basic point really is-

If you can describe parts of other beliefs as ‘erroneous’ why can you not do likewise to your own?

Should this really be asked only of theists? Or should this really be asked of anyone who is committed to seeing the world in any particular way?

 

[themadhair]

Relevant thread for discussion on the term atheist:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

More chaff from Jordan St. Francis I see.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I'm told that is a fairly common belief among Hindus. I'm not certain that makes logical sense, given the wild variety of god concepts, but you are correct all the same.

Makes sense to me. Why would there be several all-powerful Gods, why not just one?

Like Pepsi and Coke. More or less the same thing under different names.

 

[Tristesse]

Makes sense to me. Why would there be several all-powerful Gods, why not just one?

Like Pepsi and Coke. More or less the same thing under different names.

Pepsi wishes it was coke.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Relevant thread for discussion on the term atheist:
Agnostic Doesn't Fall Between Theist and Atheist

More chaff from Jordan St. Francis I see.

This is perfectly relevant place to discuss it, because the title of the thread and its main idea hinges on the meaning of the word.

 

[themadhair]

Then everyone on this thread does not understand the definition of atheist. If you believe in a god. Any at all. You are not an atheist at all. You are a theist.

Again, the point is completely unrelated to the dictionary definition of atheist.

Namely, that atheism is often considered strange or undesirable, despite the fact that a sizeable portion of mankind arbitrarily chooses a specific belief among various competing ones.

There is rarely any disputing of the right of Shintoists to doubt Jesus, or of Christians to doubt Amaterasu. So why is it considered weird for people to choose neither?

Heh... I just realized a different way to view the OP:

- all atheists on RF are really Christians... with regard to everything but the tenets of Christianity.

- all atheists on RF are really Muslims... with regard to everything but the tenets of Islam.

- all atheists on RF are really Jews... with regard to everything but the tenets of Judaism.

After all, when it comes to Zeus, you think like a Christian, Muslim or Jew, right?

More chaff from Jordan St. Francis I see. If you don’t want to answer the question in the OP or discus the idea raised then don’t. I don’t understand why you feel the need to fixate upon a specific word which isn’t even relevant to the central idea in the OP.

If you want to convince yourself into thinking this whole thread is contingent upon the meaning of one word then feel free – but it looks totally ******* pathetic from where I am standing.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You know, I happen to be working toward an undergraduate degree in the study of religion and culture. So yes, I consider many different religious texts to be sources of wisdom and treasures of culture - I am currently learning ancient Greek and I have the Upanishads and Dhammapada on my book shelf.

It is good to hear that you are working on your undergraduate degree in religious studies. I completed my degree in philosophy around 21 years ago, and I find that the body of works I studied (including the Upanishads, Baghavad Ghita, Torah and Koran) greatly helps inform my discussions on RF. Good for you.

I understand the point of the OP, and I have heard this argument, rife as it is with thoughtless rhetoric, to try and make people of religious conviction look foolish or to silence them by argument.

Wow! Not sure where you get that from. When Christians tell me that they will pray for me or worry about my eternal soul, do you consider that to be "thoughtless rhetoric" as well? I hold a position that is different than yours and this thread seeks to impart understanding of my worldview to people who do not hold it. When people say to me "How can you not believe in Jesus Christ?", I try to convey to them that I hold the same opinion about Jesus' divinity as they proabably do about the Dali Lama's divinity. It is not so different.

You are, in the first case, changing the OP to open way to a more general discussion, mainly:

The question is no longer why I am an atheist in regards to Zeus, but why I am an amythicist in regards to the founding of Islam. It has much less of a ring and takes atheism out of the question. The basic point could also be turned not only to religion, but to any empirically unverifiable philosophical or ideological commitment.

If we can acknowledge this noteworthy shift in terminology, then perhaps we can proceed. The only thing I set out to show was that a Christian or Muslim is not an atheist in comparison to anything.

At the very least, Christians do not believe in the divinity of Zeus and I think it is fair to say that many of them do not believe that the gods of the Greek pantheon exist at all. They share my opinion in this regard. Do you find the notion of a God who lives on top of a Greek mountain, who hurls lightning bolts with his bare hands and who, at least once, has had sex with a mortal to be anything other than ludicrous? Either you do find it ludicrous or you do not. Which is it?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Pepsi wishes it was coke.

Damn right.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The title of the thread is "everyone is an atheist".

Yes, and the first characters in the OP read "...with regard to one God or another." I did this intentionally because the title is more attention getting that way. I thought people would understand the purpose of the thread upon reading the OP, but apparently it does not work that way for everyone.

The way I see it, the argument suggested by the OP intends to give a privileged position to atheism, to undermine religious conviction, all the while failing to consider how uncontroversial its basic point really is-

There is a thread on RF entitled "If God proved to you that the bible was God's words". I am curious if you find this argument gives a priviledged position to Christianity and if it similarly offends you. I find it unusual to have to point this out to an RF member, but this section of RF is for debate. You will occasionally find posts that do not assume the existence of deities, just as you will find posts that DO assume their existence. I find it odd that anyone here would be offended by either.

 

[Enoch07]

If you want to convince yourself into thinking this whole thread is contingent upon the meaning of one word then feel free – but it looks totally ******* pathetic from where I am standing.

Point is you are trying to logically discuss a topic. Yet you are incorrectly using a word which is the subject of the thread. If you want to do this fine. But don't call it logical or intellectual discussion if you cannot operate within the parameters of the definition of the words you use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should this really be asked only of theists? Or should this really be asked of anyone who is committed to seeing the world in any particular way?

Everybody is an anarcho-syndicalist.

More chaff from Jordan St. Francis I see.

No, that last bit of "chaff" was from me.

Edit: and the first bit of "chaff" you quoted wasn't from Jordan St. Francis either.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Hey Beaudreaux,

You are the OP, and to be honest I read your OP without realizing you were suggesting something for debate rather than making an assertion, so I apologize for my tone thus far. To begin with, I know of several highly intelligent atheists, some of them on these boards, so its not atheism per se that has me frustrated in this case. Rather, it is the fallacy involved in the original argument. I think as the thread title showed it is catchy sounding and so gets people's attention. But the sound of it distracts from the error that it has made, even as it is used by cocky atheistic evangelicals (of the likes of Harris or Dawkins) to make theists look unthoughtful.

The phrase goes something like this: "you as a Christian reject the plethora of gods of the Hindu and Greek pantheon, I, as an atheist, simply reject one more god than you do".

Were atheism only that simple. We could pitch our tent on that level, that as you write:

At the very least, Christians do not believe in the divinity of Zeus and I think it is fair to say that many of them do not believe that the gods of the Greek pantheon exist at all. They share my opinion in this regard. Do you find the notion of a God who lives on top of a Greek mountain, who hurls lightning bolts with his bare hands and who, at least once, has had sex with a mortal to be anything other than ludicrous?

And consider the meaning of atheism in a purely superficial sense. But Classical polytheism presents a problem for us, both in India and in Greece. On the one hand, this is because there was such a deep divide between the cult of the gods in Greece and philosophy, and, in India, the gradual supplemntation of polytheism by a sublime monism.

The Abrahamic faith (more soafter its contact with Hellenism), Platonic philosophy and the philsophy of the Upanishads constitute quite a different religious phenomenon than simple polytheism. All involve a common philosophical rather than merely mythical or conventional conviction that there is a divine basis to reality. All share this basic presupposition or conviction, which they implement and interpret in a variety of ways that leads to tension between traditions and the rejection of one religion by another.

Now all the members of these respective faiths are therefore free to argue amongst one another in regards to what the nature of this divine reality is and how it factors into history and human life. They might very well reject one another for reasons which can be turned back against them- but material atheism does not share in this.

Material atheism itself constitutes a philosophy, a conviction that the basis of reality is material and that nothing beyond that exists. On this basis, all beliefs in gods or a divine reality are rejected.

The argument actually has the irony of suggesting that atheism itself is a religion- or at the very least, the culmination of the journey of the religious mind, rendering atheism more or less to be a theological statement.

I think the argument fails to see the qualatative difference between those who reject Zeus (rather, who relativze him or dissolve him in a higher conception of the divinity) on the basis of their revealed religion, or the evolution of the religious mind, and those who reject a god because they have a philosophical committment which means that God can not exist.

I do not reject divine being- I think the divine being of Zeus is to small to be what is intended by the idea of the divine. But for that reason he is partially true- a shadow if you will.

Atheists, on the other hand, do reject the idea of divine being and this is the basis of their denial of any particular god. It is arrived at for very different reasons, the validity of which I am not wishing to comment on here.