• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theological Parodies

Random

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by this?

I mean that science doesn't invent things or make accurate predictions about things, it is only the tool by which PEOPLE do these things. Science is on a losing streak by being set up to emcompass and replace religion and dominate popular philosophy, as it has no moral or intellectual case for attainment to that kind of authority.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Random said:
I mean that science doesn't invent things or make accurate predictions about things, it is only the tool by which PEOPLE do these things. Science is on a losing streak by being set up to emcompass and replace religion and dominate popular philosophy, as it has no moral or intellectual case for attainment to that kind of authority.
If atheism is a religion then why does it lack this authority? Why doesn't this lack of authority make it not a religion?
 

Random

Well-Known Member
If atheism is a religion then why does it lack this authority? Why doesn't this lack of authority make it not a religion?

There is a difference between faith born of the religious impulse, and the elevation of a pseudo-ideology to religious status. Scientism is pretend religion because it cannot satisfy the impulse, and so is Atheism - which after all, is merely the disbelief in deities. I once believed in the non-existence of God too, but I never sought substitutes in Science or the Arts to make up for the void, the "gaps in the soul" (so to speak).
 

Fluffy

A fool
Random said:
There is a difference between faith born of the religious impulse, and the elevation of a pseudo-ideology to religious status. Scientism is pretend religion because it cannot satisfy the impulse, and so is Atheism - which after all, is merely the disbelief in deities.
I'm quite happy with the label "pretend religion". As long as we agree that "religion" and "pretend religion" are distinct concepts and that atheism and Christianity fall into separate categories then this is just semantics. You say "pretend religion", I say "not religion". What's the difference?

Random said:
I once believed in the non-existence of God too, but I never sought substitutes in Science or the Arts to make up for the void, the "gaps in the soul" (so to speak).
What do gaps in the soul feel like and will a person who is not religious (or pretend religious) always feel them?
 

Random

Well-Known Member
I'm quite happy with the label "pretend religion". As long as we agree that "religion" and "pretend religion" are distinct concepts and that atheism and Christianity fall into separate categories then this is just semantics. You say "pretend religion", I say "not religion". What's the difference?

Admittedly none, if you're happy and have no reservations about accepting substitutes for the real thing, or time to entertain notions of "authentic fakery".

Fluffy said:
What do gaps in the soul feel like and will a person who is not religious (or pretend religious) always feel them

I guess...if you've never had those gaps, you're one of the luckiest people alive. It is an abstract, emotional concept. Gaps in Consciousness would more accurately describe it, I think. That feeling there is something hidden you're not aware of, but it is like a "splinter in your mind". It's something subjectively experienced, but I believe it forms the basis of the afforementioned religious impulse. :)
 

Fluffy

A fool
Random said:
Admittedly none, if you're happy and have no reservations about accepting substitutes for the real thing, or time to entertain notions of "authentic fakery".
Yeah but surely this boils down atheism is wrong + theism is right vs atheism is right + theism is wrong. You, being a theist, will see pretend religion as fake whereas I, being an atheist, will see religion as fake. Either of us could be unknowingly accepting a substitute.

I suppose one difference is that I merely see religion as factually wrong and not wrong in any other sense whereas you appear to be the antithesis of your perception of Dawkins.

Random said:
I guess...if you've never had those gaps, you're one of the luckiest people alive. It is an abstract, emotional concept. Gaps in Consciousness would more accurately describe it, I think. That feeling there is something hidden you're not aware of, but it is like a "splinter in your mind". It's something subjectively experienced, but I believe it forms the basis of the afforementioned religious impulse.
smile.gif
Oh yeah I think I know what you mean. Mine pushes me in the way of Buddhism and Taoism. Mysticism as well to a lesser extent.
 

Random

Well-Known Member
Yeah but surely this boils down atheism is wrong + theism is right vs atheism is right + theism is wrong. You, being a theist, will see pretend religion as fake whereas I, being an atheist, will see religion as fake. Either of us could be unknowingly accepting a substitute.

Yes, that's true.

Fluffy said:
I suppose one difference is that I merely see religion as factually wrong and not wrong in any other sense whereas you appear to be the antithesis of your perception of Dawkins.

That's also fair comment.

Fluffy said:
Oh yeah, I think I know what you mean. Mine pushes me in the way of Buddhism and Taoism. Mysticism as well to a lesser extent.

You make me want to be Atheist again. Stop making so much sense, damn you! :p:D
 

Fluffy

A fool
Random said:
That's also fair comment.
I think we both share the same goal in one sense since neither of us wish to see an atheism full of Dawkins. I just think that if you leave the ear-boxings to other atheists then you'll see better results.

Random said:
You make me want to be Atheist again.
Yeah I feel that way about theism sometimes.

Random said:
Stop making so much sense, damn you!
tongue.gif
biggrin.gif
Its not me! Its those damn Buddhists :).
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between faith born of the religious impulse, and the elevation of a pseudo-ideology to religious status. Scientism is pretend religion because it cannot satisfy the impulse, and so is Atheism - which after all, is merely the disbelief in deities. I once believed in the non-existence of God too, but I never sought substitutes in Science or the Arts to make up for the void, the "gaps in the soul" (so to speak).
Mind if I expound on the highlighted? I'm beginning to think I'm stuck on the same point, but I think it's important. Atheists want theists to understand them, but they, in turn should understand theists and, more importantly, their own humanness.

It is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average person unless it becomes emotionally activated. This is why so many godless people are almost disparate to show that they, too, are “spiritual.” (I've seen in in RF and I'm sure you have, too.) They want to make atheism and science emotionally appealing. Maybe they sense that the power of an idea lies not in its reality or reasonableness, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and the universality of its ready and simple application.

Science and reason serve the divine purpose by weakening those religions that are largely dependent on fear and superstition, but more significantly, they also undermine godlessness's sense of purpose and direction. “To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.” (Urantia Book) Where is the human appeal in this? Is this p[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]essimistic? [/FONT]Yes. Realistic? Absolutely! Deny or obscure its hidden emotional impact and you deny the reality of your humanity and reveal to others your emotional immaturity--an inability or unwillingness to meet life on its own terms.

Karl Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses” and for some it is, but people enamored by the power of science and the certainty it affords in material things are no less stupefied. They may profess optimism, a deep-seated sense of purpose and a fulfilled life, but a cursory glance reveals it to be delusion based on sentiment--using emotion, as it were, to deny or obscure the emotional impact of their own logic.
Religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience. Authentic religion is part and parcel of human existence, not something that is acquired to embellish existence or to gloss over ignorance and insecurities. Even at its most primitive, religion is not one concern alongside others, not just another attribute alongside others like “ethical,” “artistic,” or “scientific.” It's a way of living. Authentic religion “does not allow a person to be also religious.” (Paul Tillich) To isolate a part of life and call it religion (or “spiritual” or "emotion") is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Even the very concept of religion effectively destroys the reality toward which it is supposed to point. It it for this reason the God of worship claims all allegiance or none.

The inherent weakness of secularism is that by discarding religion, moral philosophy must rely on sentiment-derived values for its foundation and politics and power to enforce it. But if history is any indication, anything can be emotionally activated and rationalized. “When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything.” (GK Chesterton) The usual justification is, “That's the way it has always been.” And, in a sense, it's true, but religious-like loyalty to an emotionally-charged ideal or faith in transcendent goal above and beyond the temporal order has always being in the mix. Which should we prefer? People can rationalize all they want, but it won’t change human nature.

I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record (assuming you're old enough to know what a record is).
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Evangelism ("religion is irrational and stupid, join the winning side now!"),

Fanaticism ("theists suffer with delusions and are mentally ill, they need to be locked up away from rational, sane people...like us")

Uncritical acceptance of external authority (eg. Science, Secularism, Democracy, Materialism)

Those are just to name a few...

Those are not earmarks of atheism.

Man....that was easy!

edit: I think I have the gist of how this works. Distort the meaning of a term, when someone contradicts your meanings you stake a claim to being superior in mystical experience, discount all traditional concepts and dismiss others as not being enlightened. Next thing you know...you'll be on Oprah!
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Those are not earmarks of atheism.

Man....that was easy!

edit: I think I have the gist of how this works. Distort the meaning of a term, when someone contradicts your meanings you stake a claim to being superior in mystical experience, discount all traditional concepts and dismiss others as not being enlightened. Next thing you know...you'll be on Oprah!
Here's a suggestion: read the book Godless or read posts written by atheists in RF.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Here's a suggestion: read the book Godless or read posts written by atheists in RF.

You mean like my own. Gee thanks.

Once again you provide nothing at all. What a meaningful and insightful statement you provided.

Go read an Ann Coulter book. No thanks. I'm too busy reading some excellent books by some theologians, anthropologists and historians. If I find some time to read a book by some hack, two bit political commentator ... I might let you know.

edit: have some frubals because I don't have any cookies.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
You mean like my own. Gee thanks.

Once again you provide nothing at all. What a meaningful and insightful statement you provided.

Go read an Ann Coulter book. No thanks. I'm too busy reading some excellent books by some theologians, anthropologists and historians. If I find some time to read a book by some hack, two bit political commentator ... I might let you know.

edit: have some frubals because I don't have any cookies.
I found time to read Dawkins. :flirt:
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
The book is actually about liberalism as a religion, but to a large extent it also applies to atheism. Dennett is akin to a high priest, the movement to squash any debate about evolution is akin to religious dogma, etc.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Evangelism ("religion is irrational and stupid, join the winning side now!"),

Fanaticism ("theists suffer with delusions and are mentally ill, they need to be locked up away from rational, sane people...like us")

Uncritical acceptance of external authority (eg. Science, Secularism, Democracy, Materialism)

Those are just to name a few...

I don't know what things are like in Ireland, but in Colorado Springs, home to such organizations as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, your characterization of atheists as Evangelical Fanatics with an uncritical acceptance of external authority sounds more like what any local fundamentalist preacher might mindlessly spout for a Sunday sermon than it sounds like an accurate characterization of the majority of atheists.
 

Random

Well-Known Member
I don't know what things are like in Ireland, but in Colorado Springs, home to such organizations as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, your characterization of atheists as Evangelical Fanatics with an uncritical acceptance of external authority sounds more like what any local fundamentalist preacher might mindlessly spout for a Sunday sermon than it sounds like an accurate characterization of the majority of atheists.

Yes, I understand that, but Ireland is not America in that regard. The fundie Protestants are all up North, and thankfully don't impact the culture down South much @ all. Ian Paisley is the closest thing to James Dobson we have, and though he thunders, he never explicitly mentions Atheism or bothers with the Creationist/Evol debate.

I was once an Atheist too and a strong one @ that, and although certain events changed that, I never considered it an ideology or dogmatic adjunct of something else (like Sciene or Evol) and I never thought it was mandatory to overturn, discredit and destroy theism to achieve some sort of torpid victory for "Reason".

New Atheism, as a movement, is militant; you cannot deny this. Yet when theists recognize this and respond in kind, no criticism or characterization of Atheism is accepted by Atheists, even on the grounds of reason. If they can't agree on what they're supposed to believe and are trying to promote, why is everyone taking them so seriously (not least, themselves...)? Despite this, they most often act like what they accuse religionists, as I illustrated from my POV in the previous post you quoted. This forum is awash with religion bashers, God-haters, professional cynics, and quasi-intellectuals who attack anything they percieve as deviant from the new emergent norms of "Science and Reason", whilst failing mostly to understand those things in depth and believing in them simply as alternatives to the challenges of spirituality. which are too abstract (it seems).

I don't know where all of this is going, I really don't. If atheists won't accept any criticism of their position, then what? Believers who do the same will be criticized, and are! It's just absurd.

For a long time now, I have been saying this forum provides a Box with a ever churning merry-go-round in it.

What is being promoted is -

"Science vs Religion" (When the two are not mutually exclusive by any means).

"Evolution vs Creationism" (When there is no longer any debate in scientific circles about the issue @ all...why then in RF?)

And of course, constant "Theist vs Atheist" pseudo-battles that get nowhere, only lead to hurt feelings and misunderstandings; a playground of pomposity, where the most vicious and uncaring poster can confidently post senseless drivel and have everyone frubal him or her and post support simply because he has "Atheist" in his religion profile, and that's the coolest thing ever. Apparently.

It just goes on and on. I despair of it, maybe it's just me - I don't understand it.

Anyway, peace, I'm outta here to cool off...

Conor
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I don't know what things are like in Ireland, but in Colorado Springs, home to such organizations as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, your characterization of atheists as Evangelical Fanatics with an uncritical acceptance of external authority sounds more like what any local fundamentalist preacher might mindlessly spout for a Sunday sermon than it sounds like an accurate characterization of the majority of atheists.
Sort of like how many atheists portray Christians. Imagine that!

It's always easy to see how you, or your side has been wronged. It's far harder to see that the "other side" ain't that much different in their general outlook. We are all subject to our human frailties and that includes demonizing those who don't agree with you unfortunately. It takes a real effort to see that these gross generalizations are just that: gross, but in a different way.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
New Atheism, as a movement, is militant; you cannot deny this.
You underestimate the power of the human mind to justify it's bias towards others. Denial: not just another river in Egypt. It's a way of life for all those of any belief who want to justify their beliefs at the cost of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to break it.
 
Top