False Equivalents

This guys has a way of cutting through the bovine scatology of religious and philosophical manipulation.

Wandering Monk said:

the recent appalling developments in Brunei.
​

]

Click to expand...

What happened?

Estro Felino said:

What happened?

Click to expand...

In 2013 the sultan imposed sharia law on Brunei. Under the new law, an adulterer could be stoned to death, a thief could face a severed limb, drinking alcohol could lead to flogging.

The sultan later tried to justify laws requiring stoning to death people who engaged in adultery or anal sex.

Watch the vid.

Wandering Monk said:

This guys has a way of cutting through the bovine scatology of religious and philosophical manipulation.

A reflection on the use of false equivalence and ‘levelling’ tactics, with special reference to the recent appalling developments in Brunei.
​

Click to expand...

Excellent video.……….

Wandering Monk said:

This guys has a way of cutting through the bovine scatology of religious and philosophical manipulation.

A reflection on the use of false equivalence and ‘levelling’ tactics, with special reference to the recent appalling developments in Brunei.
​

Click to expand...

Theramintree is always worth watching. He has deep insights through personal history and study of psychology.

Btw: Tegmark is just paraphrasing Feynman. Talk:Richard Feynman - Wikiquote

Wandering Monk said:

This guys has a way of cutting through the bovine scatology of religious and philosophical manipulation.

A reflection on the use of false equivalence and ‘levelling’ tactics, with special reference to the recent appalling developments in Brunei.
​

Click to expand...

I had to stop watching the video at the atheism/religion thing.

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.
I also agree that theism...AS THEISM...is not a religion.

However, some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

....especially one form of atheism, which can best be described as a form of 'anti-theism." These folks have meetings, have web-sites, engage in real persecution, (well, verbal abuse, certainly, and in the case of, say, Stalinism, very physical and fatal abuse) and, when thinking in terms of 'doctrine,' the 'the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists' is a pretty solid statement of doctrine.

The point is, what I run into is this fallacy of composition that many atheists seem to love; the corollary to the "no true scott' fallacy. You know the one: "No True Scott' says that if one member of the group lacks any property other members of the group have, then it is 'no true' member of the group? Now the definition of Scott' is 'someone who is a citizen of Scotland"...but anybody who doesn't drink Scotch is no true Scott?"

Well, I keep running into atheists (Including the guy in the video) who commit the corollary... where the claim is that if ANY subgroup of the larger one has a property, then the WHOLE GROUP does. What's weird here is that even in the video he acknowledges that this isn't true for theists; one can be a theist and not belong to a religion....so where does he get off claiming that it is impossible for ANY atheist to be a member of a religion...or a group that looks, and acts just like a religion? I'm sorry, but no.

Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.

I had to stop watching the video simply because of that.

Do I think that ALL atheists, or even atheism in general, is religious? No. Not even close. Do I think that NO atheist is religious simply because of the "A" word? Not a chance.

dianaiad said:

....so where does he get off claiming that it is impossible for ANY atheist to be a member of a religion...or a group that looks, and acts just like a religion? I'm sorry, but no.

Click to expand...

Did we watch the same video because I never saw that claim made anywhere

danieldemol said:

Did we watch the same video because I never saw that claim made anywhere

Click to expand...

The claim was in the entire presentation, where he acknowledged that "theism" as a whole was not a religion, even though most theists belong to one, but went on and on about how atheism was not a religion....and did not make the corresponding acknowledgement that if there are theists who are not religious, there are atheists who can be. That was indeed the classic fallacy of composition, where he assumes that if any subgroup has a quality, ALL subgroups have that quality. I.E.,...if atheists in general don't belong to, or act, religiously, then none do. Nowhere did he acknowledge that atheism would allow for that.

And it does.

For instance, Buddhists are atheists. aren't they? At least, they are in the sense that there is no 'creator deity' in a pantheon to worship? Yet there are few groups more religious or dedicated to their beliefs. Which are, IMO (and pardon my effrontery here) darned good ones.

One of the more screaming objections I have run into over the years, when I point out just how murderous an atheistic government can be (usually when someone claims that the world would be 'Imagine" perfect if only we could get rid of religion and the religious) is that the dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that committed those atrocities weren't really atheistic; they had substituted the worship/adoration of the dictator/leader for the worship of a god, and so WERE TOO religions.

Except of course that theism is the belief in a supernatural deity, and even Mao's followers didn't go quite that far with him. What they were doing was making my point for me; atheists can be religious. They simply substitute a different object to worship. The human race itself, perhaps, or a specific leader, or a philosophical concept....it's a religion.

ATHEISM in general is not a religion. Most atheists are not religious. However, I have found that the atheists who get all excited about theism and go about battling the notion of theism...act and look very much like 'church' people. Religious.

I don't think it's a problem. Everyone is entitled to their opinion/convictions. My only point is the hypocrisy involved in going 'eeewwww!!!!!" when it is pointed out that if it looks like a religion, walks like a religion, advertised and recruits like a religion, argues like a religion, and in some cases, wants to force its opinion on others by law like some religions....then y'know what?

It's a religion.

dianaiad said:

ATHEISM in general is not a religion. Most atheists are not religious. However, I have found that the atheists who get all excited about theism and go about battling the notion of theism...act and look very much like 'church' people. Religious.

I don't think it's a problem. Everyone is entitled to their opinion/convictions. My only point is the hypocrisy involved in going 'eeewwww!!!!!" when it is pointed out that if it looks like a religion, walks like a religion, advertised and recruits like a religion, argues like a religion, and in some cases, wants to force its opinion on others by law like some religions....then y'know what?

It's a religion.

Click to expand...

What this sounds like to me is, "When people behave very badly in certain ways they look religious."
Is that really what you meant to express?
Tom

dianaiad said:

I had to stop watching the video at the atheism/religion thing.

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.
I also agree that theism...AS THEISM...is not a religion.

However, some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

....especially one form of atheism, which can best be described as a form of 'anti-theism." These folks have meetings, have web-sites, engage in real persecution, (well, verbal abuse, certainly, and in the case of, say, Stalinism, very physical and fatal abuse) and, when thinking in terms of 'doctrine,' the 'the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists' is a pretty solid statement of doctrine.

The point is, what I run into is this fallacy of composition that many atheists seem to love; the corollary to the "no true scott' fallacy. You know the one: "No True Scott' says that if one member of the group lacks any property other members of the group have, then it is 'no true' member of the group? Now the definition of Scott' is 'someone who is a citizen of Scotland"...but anybody who doesn't drink Scotch is no true Scott?"

Well, I keep running into atheists (Including the guy in the video) who commit the corollary... where the claim is that if ANY subgroup of the larger one has a property, then the WHOLE GROUP does. What's weird here is that even in the video he acknowledges that this isn't true for theists; one can be a theist and not belong to a religion....so where does he get off claiming that it is impossible for ANY atheist to be a member of a religion...or a group that looks, and acts just like a religion? I'm sorry, but no.

Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.

I had to stop watching the video simply because of that.

Do I think that ALL atheists, or even atheism in general, is religious? No. Not even close. Do I think that NO atheist is religious simply because of the "A" word? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Don't know where you are looking but...

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

To me the two are mutually exclusive.

columbus said:

What this sounds like to me is, "When people behave very badly in certain ways they look religious."
Is that really what you meant to express?
Tom

Click to expand...

No.

And you are doubling down here.

When I see atheists criticize the things they don't like about religion...that they are guilty of themselves...and figure that the religion is guilty of the 'bad behavior' because it's a religion (as you just did) but figure that if an atheist does it it's suddenly not bad behavior, I get annoyed.

Behavior is behavior. It doesn't change its nature because of the group which engages in it. If attempting to pass a law making it illegal to sell booze in a store on Sunday is 'bad,' then attempting to make it illegal to NOT sell booze on Sunday is also 'bad,' and for the SAME REASON, whether the 'religion' does the first and the local American Atheists does the second.

What you seem to be doing is claiming that 'religious' = 'bad.' It's not, and you can't use them as synonyms.

ChristineM said:

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Don't know where you are looking but...

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

To me the two are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

Except that of course Budhists do not believe in a 'personal god.' Yet nobody with an ounce of sense calls them 'non-religious.'

The point is, if an atheist has all the same attitudes as his religious target, belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically, attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target (the theist wants to make the atheist do something, the atheist wants to make the theist do something) and so forth, then from where I sit, they are the same.

What really gets me is this atheist notion that 'religion' is all bad and all religions do the same thing....where atheistic groups don't do any of the things they criticize the theists for.

From where I sit, people who are out to force others to their own point of view are exactly alike, theist or a.

.....and, if the atheist ascribes all the 'bad' behavior to 'religion,' and yet engages in precisely the same behavior, then BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION, they are religious.

Atheism is defined in the video as a lack of belief in God or gods.

Theramintrees uses these markers in his definition of religion at the 6 minute mark:

Doctrine
Ritual
System of worship
Symbolism
Scripture
Mythology
Sacred Objects or Concepts
Faith

dianaiad said:

Except that of course Budhists do not believe in a 'personal god.' Yet nobody with an ounce of sense calls them 'non-religious.'

The point is, if an atheist has all the same attitudes as his religious target, belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically, attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target (the theist wants to make the atheist do something, the atheist wants to make the theist do something) and so forth, then from where I sit, they are the same.

What really gets me is this atheist notion that 'religion' is all bad and all religions do the same thing....where atheistic groups don't do any of the things they criticize the theists for.

From where I sit, people who are out to force others to their own point of view are exactly alike, theist or a.

.....and, if the atheist ascribes all the 'bad' behavior to 'religion,' and yet engages in precisely the same behavior, then BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION, they are religious.

Click to expand...

I sense a lot of misplaced anger here...

It is often said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy, a way of life. And people who say that are often Buddhist and often have far more sense than some,

The point is that atheism is defined, people are not. Just because some will seek agreement does not make them religious.

If anyone ascribes bad behaviour to another then proceeds to mimic the same behaviour themselves does not make them religious but a hypocrite.

dianaiad said:

What you seem to be doing is claiming that 'religious' = 'bad.'

Click to expand...

No, he's claiming that that is what you seem to be saying, and I agree. That is the message I hear every time I read that I am religious for being an atheist. I always see a theist that resents atheists for transcending religion, one who knows that many if not most atheists not only reject religion for themselves, but who also believe that religion damages people, that the world would be better off without it, and who wants to insult the atheist by trying to tarnish him or her with a label the theist understands is derogatory..

dianaiad said:

I had to stop watching the video at the atheism/religion thing.

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.
I also agree that theism...AS THEISM...is not a religion.

However, some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

....especially one form of atheism, which can best be described as a form of 'anti-theism." These folks have meetings, have web-sites, engage in real persecution, (well, verbal abuse, certainly, and in the case of, say, Stalinism, very physical and fatal abuse) and, when thinking in terms of 'doctrine,' the 'the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists' is a pretty solid statement of doctrine.

The point is, what I run into is this fallacy of composition that many atheists seem to love; the corollary to the "no true scott' fallacy. You know the one: "No True Scott' says that if one member of the group lacks any property other members of the group have, then it is 'no true' member of the group? Now the definition of Scott' is 'someone who is a citizen of Scotland"...but anybody who doesn't drink Scotch is no true Scott?"

Well, I keep running into atheists (Including the guy in the video) who commit the corollary... where the claim is that if ANY subgroup of the larger one has a property, then the WHOLE GROUP does. What's weird here is that even in the video he acknowledges that this isn't true for theists; one can be a theist and not belong to a religion....so where does he get off claiming that it is impossible for ANY atheist to be a member of a religion...or a group that looks, and acts just like a religion? I'm sorry, but no.

Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.

I had to stop watching the video simply because of that.

Do I think that ALL atheists, or even atheism in general, is religious? No. Not even close. Do I think that NO atheist is religious simply because of the "A" word? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's all really that simple.
Atheism isn't a religion. Atheists can be religious. Full stop.

ChristineM said:

I sense a lot of misplaced anger here...

Click to expand...

Anger? well, annoyance, at least.
Misplaced? Not a bit.
I HATE hypocrites

ChristineM said:

It is often said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy, a way of life. And people who say that are often Buddhist and often have far more sense than some,

Click to expand...

'philosophy?'

I know of no philosophies that have monasteries, ceremonies, holidays, etc. Buddhists do.

So do the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions.

Here's the disclaimer again: I am NOT saying that 'atheism is a religion." It's not, any more than theism is.
I am NOT saying that all atheists actually belong to a religion. They don't. The VAST majority of them do not, and wouldn't know what to do with an 'atheist' religion if one were presented to them.

I AM saying that some atheists belong to groups or philosophies that look and act exactly like the sort of religion they are out to rid the world of, and that simply being 'atheist' does not absolve them of that behavior, nor does being 'atheist' mean that in spite of the way they behave, they aren't actually engaging in that behavior.

American Atheists, for instance.....if you go to their website, and whenever you see 'religion,' you substituted any specific religion, and whenever you see 'atheism' you substituted any other specific religion, you would see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between that website and any church based website, except for some of the base doctrine.

It talks about supportive communities for those who leave religion....which rhetoric, frankly, could be taken word for word from any number of 'counter-cult' churches that say the same thing about THEIR groups, aiding people who are either 'coming to Christ," or "getting out of (insert whatever group they don't like here, JW, Catholicism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists...whatever...)...

Looks exactly the same to me. Same rhetoric, same invitations, same attempts to get laws changed....I see no difference except that the THEISTS are up front about it, and the atheists are pretending that they aren't really doing this stuff.

Just....own it, OK? Atheists who are doing this, stop pretending that your poop smells better than the guy next to you in the latrine.

ChristineM said:

The point is that atheism is defined, people are not. Just because some will seek agreement does not make them religious.

Click to expand...

.....if it walks like a duck....

ChristineM said:

If anyone ascribes bad behaviour to another then proceeds to mimic the same behaviour themselves does not make them religious but a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Absolutely agreed.

However, I'm not wrong in pointing out that a big part of that hypocrisy is that even as they get on their 'less holy than thou' soap boxes and consider being called 'religious' a serious insult, they continue to act exactly like the religions they claim to utterly despise and be opposed to.

lewisnotmiller said:

Yeah, but it's all really that simple.
Atheism isn't a religion. Atheists can be religious. Full stop.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I do believe that this is what I said.

I am arguing against the claim that atheists, simply by virtue of BEING atheists, cannot be religious.

dianaiad said:

Agreed. And I do believe that this is what I said.

I am arguing against the claim that atheists, simply by virtue of BEING atheists, cannot be religious.

Click to expand...

I'm a non-religious atheist, and I agree with you. My atheism and my non-religiousness aren't one and the same. An atheist can certainly be religious. And some can treat their beliefs in a religious manner (bundling atheism in amongst a bunch of personal beliefs and treating them in a religious fashion, I mean).

Who is arguing that atheists can't be religious, though? Someone here, or just more a general point you're making?

dianaiad said:

Anger? well, annoyance, at least.
Misplaced? Not a bit.
I HATE hypocrites




'philosophy?'

I know of no philosophies that have monasteries, ceremonies, holidays, etc. Buddhists do.

So do the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions.

Here's the disclaimer again: I am NOT saying that 'atheism is a religion." It's not, any more than theism is.
I am NOT saying that all atheists actually belong to a religion. They don't. The VAST majority of them do not, and wouldn't know what to do with an 'atheist' religion if one were presented to them.

I AM saying that some atheists belong to groups or philosophies that look and act exactly like the sort of religion they are out to rid the world of, and that simply being 'atheist' does not absolve them of that behavior, nor does being 'atheist' mean that in spite of the way they behave, they aren't actually engaging in that behavior.

American Atheists, for instance.....if you go to their website, and whenever you see 'religion,' you substituted any specific religion, and whenever you see 'atheism' you substituted any other specific religion, you would see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between that website and any church based website, except for some of the base doctrine.

It talks about supportive communities for those who leave religion....which rhetoric, frankly, could be taken word for word from any number of 'counter-cult' churches that say the same thing about THEIR groups, aiding people who are either 'coming to Christ," or "getting out of (insert whatever group they don't like here, JW, Catholicism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists...whatever...)...

Looks exactly the same to me. Same rhetoric, same invitations, same attempts to get laws changed....I see no difference except that the THEISTS are up front about it, and the atheists are pretending that they aren't really doing this stuff.

Just....own it, OK? Atheists who are doing this, stop pretending that your poop smells better than the guy next to you in the latrine.



.....if it walks like a duck....



Agreed. Absolutely agreed.

However, I'm not wrong in pointing out that a big part of that hypocrisy is that even as they get on their 'less holy than thou' soap boxes and consider being called 'religious' a serious insult, they continue to act exactly like the religions they claim to utterly despise and be opposed to.

Click to expand...

Looks like anger to me, so many words.

Being a hypocrite needs neither religion or atheism, the only requirement is to be human.

And if a religion cannot cope with criticism then the problem is with the religion.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. You may make up all sorts of bull to discredit atheism but the fact remains that atheism is the disbileaf or lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.