Anti-monotheism as a religion

9-10ths_Penguin said:

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, perhaps.

Or maybe they mean a particular system of faith and worship.

Or maybe a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

But what do you think the word means?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I got sidetracked. I’m not promoting the idea any more of calling antimonotheism, or science worship, a “religion.” I was just questioning your idea that “religion” implies a common belief system. I don’t think it’s unusual to consider the Westboro Baptist Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and people on every side of every social issue who call themselves “Christians,” as part of one religion, “Christianity,” regardless of how much they disagree with each other about God, Jesus or the Bible. I don’t see that they all have any more of a common belief system than all the people who claim that their views and what they’re promoting are “scientific.”

Jim said:

Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “faith in science.” It has its own gods, its own lore and scriptures, its own clergy, its own rituals, its own doctrines, dogmas and creeds, its own prophets and saints, its own history of crimes against humanity, and all the same psychological and social dynamics as any other religion.

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

Support your assertions:

Click to expand...

Jim said:

My view of that has changed, but I’ll try to explain what I was thinking, if you’d like to know.

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

yes, actually. You seem to be outside of the norm, so it would be interesting.

Click to expand...

It might take a lot of back-and-forth discussion, for me to find a way to explain it that makes sense to you, if that's even possible. First, I'll give some examples of what I had in mind. The "gods" of what I was calling a religion are various conceptions of "science." The scriptures are reports of academic and industry research. I'm not sure about the rituals. Maybe I was thinking more of incantations, like using lip service to "skepticism," "free thinking," "evidence," and "science" as virtue signals. Some possible examples of clergy, prophets or saints, are the Four Horsemen of Atheism. The doctrines, dogmas and creeds are the ideologies of identity factions. Do I really need to dig up examples of crimes against humanity in the name of "science"?

In calling all that a "religion," I was simply doing what other people do when they call all the things that people say and do that anyone calls "Christian" or "Christianity," a "religion." The only thing that I see that all those sayings and doings have in common is the label that people put on them, and yet people often lump them all together as one "religion." It's the same way with Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam. People lump together all the things that people say and do under one of those labels, and call that a "religion."

I was lumping together all the things that people say and do that anyone calls "science" or "scientific," and calling that a "religion." I still don't see what makes that not a religion, as much as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, other than the fact that most people don't call it a religion.

@Milton Platt I've been thinking some more about all that, and it still isn't clear to me what I was trying to say. I wouldn't lump together everything that everyone says and does that anyone calls "education" or "educational," and call that a "religion." so why was I doing that with "science" and "scientific"?

It might be because of the line that I was imagining between people who use popular religious beliefs to try to shame and intimidate people into submission or silence, and people who use popular beliefs that they think of as "science" or "scientific" for those purposes. Thinking of people who use what they think of "science" or "scientific," as followers of a religion, might help me erase that line the same ways that I've been learning to erase the lines between followers of different religions.

@Milton Platt So where before I saw debating between atheists on one side and followers of religions on the other as something separate from debating between followers of different religions, now I don't see what atheists are doing in those debates as any different from what anyone else is doing.

Jim said:

Sorry, I got sidetracked. I’m not promoting the idea any more of calling antimonotheism, or science worship, a “religion.” I was just questioning your idea that “religion” implies a common belief system. I don’t think it’s unusual to consider the Westboro Baptist Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and people on every side of every social issue who call themselves “Christians,” as part of one religion, “Christianity,” regardless of how much they disagree with each other about God, Jesus or the Bible. I don’t see that they all have any more of a common belief system than all the people who claim that their views and what they’re promoting are “scientific.”

Click to expand...

You still haven’t said what you mean by “religion.”

Jim said:

For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,”

Click to expand...

I think it is philosophically justified to use the scientific method within its proper domain to discover truth and knowledge. My complaint is that science wanders beyond the bounds of this domain, and in doing so delves into a superstitious and unfounded religious kind of belief. But of science in its proper domain, that is the only truth and knowledge we can be certain of. Everything else is speculation, perhaps based on good philosophical reasoning, but speculation nonetheless.

@milton I'm making some progress on clearing up for myself what I was thinking, to be able to explain it to you. I'm not quite there yet, but meanwhile, think about why people mostly think of Catholics and Protestants as part of one religion, but don't think of Jews, Christians and Muslims as part of one religion.

I am anti monotheistic because I am a pagan yet I am strongly support of science because I love facts. Why does it bother you that people prefer academic research over some 500 year old book filled with ramblings by a man who lacked the means to fly?

I love my ancestors and the wise ones who came before me but ultimately what they have given us has always been old and a religion that cannot progress cannot survive. We are in flux and the flow doesn't stop for anybody who is unwilling to adapt to the motions of life and our acquisition of wisdom. Prophecy need not end when our lives have not end.

The greatest mistake Muhammad could have said was that he was the last messenger of his god. That just meant the religion would naturally decline unless men took up the role to lead. The Caliph doesn't cut it apparently. Any god that claims to have ended his message is a god that is either weak or unworthy of worship.

@milton Thinking about possible differences between what people call "religions," and divisions within each one that people do not call "religions," one difference I see is that all the divisions of one religion revolve around a common collection of scriptures. Thinking about possible differences between religious scriptures and other collections of writings for some common purpose, psychology or education for example, one difference I see is that people don't think of those other writings as references for how to live a good life.

In public debates about moral and social issues, I see people using the word "science," and references to academic and industry research, in all the same ways that I see people using the word "God," and references to Christian scriptures. The more I think about it, the more parallels I find. For example, very few people on one side actually read the scriptures they appeal to as their authority, and very few on the other side actually read the research reports they appeal to as their authority. Most people on both sides depend on others to tell them what their authoritative writings say, and they choose the interpreters who say what they want to hear. I see all the same psychological and social dynamics, revolving around fallacious appeals to authority, on both sides. One difference I see between science worship and the religions is that science worship doesn't satisfy psychological and social needs as much as religions do. That might be what identity factions do. Maybe science worship and identity factions function together as a substitute for a religion in people's lives.

@Milton Platt See my post #129 above.

Jim said:

@Milton Platt See my post #129 above.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read your post.
I don't think people need to read all the actual research papers in the science fields. They do not have the expertise to understand all the implications of, say, a paper on theoretical physics.
What is important is that people understand is that science is a proven methodology (or methodologies) for understanding that natural world.
Religions rely on dogma and not factual information gained from experimentation and observation.
You can call science a religion all you wish, but that does not make it one.

Sha'irullah said:

I am anti monotheistic because I am a pagan yet I am strongly support of science because I love facts. Why does it bother you that people prefer academic research over some 500 year old book filled with ramblings by a man who lacked the means to fly?

I love my ancestors and the wise ones who came before me but ultimately what they have given us has always been old and a religion that cannot progress cannot survive. We are in flux and the flow doesn't stop for anybody who is unwilling to adapt to the motions of life and our acquisition of wisdom. Prophecy need not end when our lives have not end.

The greatest mistake Muhammad could have said was that he was the last messenger of his god. That just meant the religion would naturally decline unless men took up the role to lead. The Caliph doesn't cut it apparently. Any god that claims to have ended his message is a god that is either weak or unworthy of worship.

Click to expand...

"he (Muhammad) was the last messenger of his god." Unquote.

Muhammad was the Seal of Prophets*, which means:

~ He was last in status or rank among the prophets/messenger of G-d
~ messengers of G-d now can come only as his followers, not from the non-followers of Muhammad.
~ no truthful messenger of G-d could come in other religions.

Regards
________________
Quran
[33:41]
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 33: Al-Ahzab

paarsurrey said:

"he (Muhammad) was the last messenger of his god." Unquote.

Muhammad was the Seal of Prophets*, which means:

~ He was last in status or rank among the prophets/messenger of G-d
~ messengers of G-d now can come only as his followers, not from the non-followers of Muhammad.
~ no truthful messenger of G-d could come in other religions.

Regards
________________
Quran
[33:41]
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 33: Al-Ahzab

Click to expand...

And? I am a former Muslim, nothing new being said here.

paarsurrey said: ↑
"he (Muhammad) was the last messenger of his god." Unquote.

Muhammad was the Seal of Prophets*, which means:

~ He was last in status or rank among the prophets/messenger of G-d
~ messengers of G-d now can come only as his followers, not from the non-followers of Muhammad.
~ no truthful messenger of G-d could come in other religions.

Regards
________________
Quran
[33:41]
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 33: Al-Ahzab

Sha'irullah said:

And? I am a former Muslim, nothing new being said here.

Click to expand...

Does one agree with the contents of my post, please?
Regards

@paarsurrey , I have been told that despite that particular assurance about Muhammad, Islaam nonetheless predicts the eventual coming of the Mahdi. I seem to recall that some Muslims also expect Jesus to return around the same time.

Would that be correct?

LuisDantas said:

@paarsurrey , I have been told that despite that particular assurance about Muhammad, Islaam nonetheless predicts the eventual coming of the Mahdi. I seem to recall that some Muslims also expect Jesus to return around the same time.

Would that be correct?

Click to expand...

It is one and the same thing as both of these titles (among many others) pertain to one person, namely, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Regards
______________
[77:12]
And when the Messengers are made to appear at the appointed time —
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 77: Al-Mursalat

paarsurrey said:

It is one and the same thing as both of these titles (among many others) pertain to one person, namely, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Click to expand...

According to the Ahmadiyya perspective, correct? But clearly no other Muslim group acknowledges Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Mahdi. If they did, they would more than likely be Ahmadiyya themselves, after all.

Still, all or at least most other Muslims are expecting the coming of the Mahdi at some point (or so I am told).

LuisDantas said:

According to the Ahmadiyya perspective, correct? But clearly no other Muslim group acknowledges Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Mahdi. If they did, they would more than likely be Ahmadiyya themselves, after all.

Still, all or at least most other Muslims are expecting the coming of the Mahdi at some point (or so I am told).

Click to expand...

They will keep waiting but nobody else is to come as the one who was to come has already come. They have missed the train like Judaism people and the Christianity people did miss it before them.
Regards

You mean, by failing to acknowledge Muhammad as a legitimate Prophet?

LuisDantas said:

You mean, by failing to acknowledge Muhammad as a legitimate Prophet?

Click to expand...

I would assume that parrsurry is referring to Mira Ghulam Ahmad, was the one who was missed. Which is interesting, as no one was to come after Muhammad, according to parrsurry and because of that, the Bab and Baha'u'llah could not be considered.

Regards Tony