BrandorKP posted:

What is an alternative being offered here? Gaining weight trusts in something concrete and specifically defined. This is what consistently bothers me. A profession of faith in X, paired with an assertion that the profession of faith in X is not religious.

Miltank posted:

'Nature' as it is used means specifically what we are not. The fallacy isn't that the 'natural' world exists, it is that we are somehow separated from it. We are not an invention or creation of nature, we are and everything we do still is nature.

e: skyscrapers and garbage dumps are just as 'natural' as forests and rivers.

BrandorKP posted:

This is where I'm not being fair. An alternative is always being offered. The FFRF ads I'm posting, the offered alternative is transparent in those ads. It's easy to see. It's not as easy to see in the posters in this thread. But it's there, because it's always there. Because "it's it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else. There is always an object of faith, there is always something being presented as you should trust in this as opposed to trusting in that.

I'm posting a case (the FFRF ads) where it is drat easy to see, illustrative of this point, and I'm being pretty harsh about it. Am I'm being less harsh to Christians? ( I think not)

Thing is, what I'm saying is can be simplified to: It's ok and necessary to doubt whatever we trust in! And it is ironic for atheists to not acknowledge that.

CommieGIR posted:

Yes, they are natural. But while we created the meaning of 'nature' and defined the word 'nature', any other species could come along and create a word to describe the natural phenomenon without any need for it to be religious or metaphysical.

BrandorKP posted:

This month's FFRF ad.

Miltank posted:

What does some other species have to do with the FFRF using nature as religion? I think I might not be tracking your argument here.

Nessus posted:

It sounds like a distinction is being made between "nature, in the sense of the greater material reality which includes us, sea otters, heat vent worms, heat vents, stars, and cosmic black holes," and "Nature, in the sense of a deistic conception of an underlying order suitable for religious epiphanies and veneration of some kind without any of this Jesus poo poo." There were real efforts to try to replace Christianity with a sort of Nature-worship in the latter sense, particularly in revolutionary France, so I don't think it is entirely incorrect to say that a parallel is being made there when someone decides to talk about "our real creator - Nature."

I do think it would be perilous to assume that rejecting religion will necessarily make one more rational and more enlightened in and of itself. (This, of course, has little bearing on whether or not the school textbooks should celebrate a particular strain of Protestant Christianity.)

VitalSigns posted:

What is the point of posting this poo poo?

"Some random organization published some ads riffing on America's civic religious slogans, checkmate all atheists in the world this proves atheism is a religion "

CommieGIR posted:

Once again, confusing 'Faith' meaning 'Trust' versus 'Faith' meaning 'Religious'

BrandorKP posted:

Bitterandtwisted,
I'm usually (but not always) taking my understanding of faith and what religion is from here: http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Faith-Perennial-Classics-Tillich/dp/0060937130). My the whole justification of thinking of things "as religion" is taken from "On a theology of culture" an essay in this book http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Culture-Galaxy-Books-Tillich/dp/0195007115. I also often use ideas from Christ in Culture: http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Culture-Torchbooks-Richard-Niebuhr/dp/0061300039. A good explanation of some of these ways of analyzing culture can be found in "Film as Religion" http://www.amazon.com/Film-Religion-Myths-Morals-Rituals/dp/0814751814. This is a good book in so far as it describes it's methodology at the start in a excellent way, but it then goes on to do very forgettable film analysis.

BrandorKP posted:

There is trust in a set of beliefs relating humanity to an order of existence or being. And don't give me that well it's just an epistemology crap, epistemologies always imply ontologies.

Black Bones posted:

Brandor obviously considers those definitions of trust/faith to be essentially the same thing, it isn't really that confusing.

BrandorKP posted:

CommieGIR posted:

Don't you see, VitalSigns? We are just being duped, its another religion!

VitalSigns posted:

Oh well if I'm religious anyway by believing that penicillin works, I guess now I have to accept Mohammed hung out with an angel and wrote the Koran with him, and Joseph Smith found some gold plates that nobody could see but him.

Black Bones posted:

Brandor obviously considers those definitions of trust/faith to be essentially the same thing, it isn't really that confusing.

CommieGIR posted:

Because they are not using nature as a religion, anymore than any other species that might observe Earth bound natural biology to be religious.

down with slavery posted:

I feel pretty much the same way (as an atheist) and am pretty surprised people are so hostile to the concept

Miltank posted:

Aliens wouldn't conceptualize nature in an unrational way and therefore neither do atheists.

down with slavery posted:

I feel pretty much the same way (as an atheist) and am pretty surprised people are so hostile to the concept

CommieGIR posted:

Not hostile, but failing to acknowledge that using the word 'faith' in NO WAY implies it also means 'religion' means you are either really bad at basic English definitions or you want them to mean the same thing for the sake of proving a point.

In this case, he's trying to do the latter.

nopantsjack posted:

Can we make up a more interesting backstory though? Its cool how religions have so much fluff but the canon stuff is pretty dull. I sorta get the argument that we don't need to prove facts cause maybe facts don't exist so anything is possible but why not go from "God made the universe" and apply what you see from the world to embellish that theory rather than copy some old book.

What if the devil killed god ages ago and is pretending to be him? Then all us atheists are gonna be sitting pretty in corpse-heaven while you guys goes to hell. Or he's imprisoned Him in some castle and the tower of Babel was actually an operation to rescue him that got propaganda'd out by the satanic bible.

I dunno if you're gonna lean on a belief system in order to handle an irrational universe then you may as well make it new and interesting.

e: I can never tell if people are being ironic or not either. People who are really into Theology sound exactly like me explaining my theories on Game of Thrones lore. "Ah, but a dragon is a double-edged sword, as we can see from reading the prequel short story A Princess and Two Hares,"

I get faith, I don't get trusting old establishment books.

CommieGIR posted:

Not what I said at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8MzWncFfQ

BrandorKP posted:

Oh I am definitely being honest, but I'm not being fair.

quote:

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

-One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
-Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
-Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
-References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

BrandorKP posted:

But it's there, because it's always there

BrandorKP posted:

And it is ironic for atheists to not acknowledge that.

Miltank posted:

You are claiming that the FFRF is using a rational definition of the word nature right? I disagree.

VitalSigns posted:

What is the point of posting this poo poo?

rudatron posted:

But you're assuming that that alternative must also be grounded in faith, and that seems kind of misguided. It is possible to be irreligious and retain 'faith', but your claiming it is necessary - I don't agree with that.

rudatron posted:

You're right that the logic of faith is similar, but I don't think that that logic must always apply.

CommieGIR posted:

I bet you do.

BrandorKP posted:

Ever solve complicated engineering or physics problems?

down with slavery posted:

I feel pretty much the same way (as an atheist) and am pretty surprised people are so hostile to the concept

BrandorKP posted:

Ever solve complicated engineering or physics problems?

Sometimes looking at a problem in two dimensions and setting the frame of reference in way that simplifies everything, eventually makes solving the problem in three dimensions with a problematic frame of reference easier. One can work out methodology, how the problem can be addressed in the simpler case and then apply that to the real problem.

It's real easy to see what I'm talking about in those FFRF ads, it's a simplified version of the problem.


Then we have faith communities, groups of people that identify with by a common professed faith in, trust in X (whatever X is). Now that's not an organized religion, it doesn't have a hierarchy or and organizational structure, but it's definitely religion using most definitions of religion.


I think applies if we think, or have an ideology, our communicate with language. In the case it doesn't apply all we have is left is "feeling" and but that's usually understood as religious too.

down with slavery posted:

I mean, I don't really see the problem with equating the heavy belief in science/logic/rationality as a religion. I get that it really grinds your gears, but I mean, who cares? It doesn't make your positions any less valid, it doesn't make your arguments any weaker, it's just a better way to view the world, especially if you're actually interested in having discussions with religious people who don't take kindly to "god isn't real, lmao"

BrandorKP posted:

This is where I'm not being fair. An alternative is always being offered. The FFRF ads I'm posting, the offered alternative is transparent in those ads. It's easy to see. It's not as easy to see in the posters in this thread. But it's there, because it's always there. Because "it's it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else. There is always an object of faith, there is always something being presented as you should trust in this as opposed to trusting in that.

Miltank posted:

Aliens wouldn't conceptualize nature in an irrational way and therefore neither do atheists.

Trent posted:

I just cannot believe how christfuckingly stupid this whole derail of yours is.

No one is using nature as a mystical force from which humans are apart. Yes, it is obviously true that we made up the word nature, but even if we hadn't, nature would still exist. The word describes a necessary reality. It follows from the cogito, even. Something exists. Unless you're going to try to explain how it's simulations all the way down, there exists a reality. We may understand literally zero percent of it accurately, but knowing that nature exists is not needing to understand it. And no one at ffrf is worshipping it and EVEN IF THEY WERE, that wouldn't change the definition of atheism.

Miltank posted:

Your definition of order would be useless even if this were true.

CommieGIR posted:

He's been doing this the whole thread.

Who What Now posted:

however, intentionally misrepresenting what the FRFF is saying and attempting to mislead your audience by doing a bait-and-switch where you start by just referring to the FFRF

Who What Now posted:

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what other people do or do not believe.

CommieGIR posted:

Please define the word religion, and present in context the root Latin it comes from.

BrandorKP posted:

I am in no way misrepresenting what they have to say, just pointing at it. It speaks for itself.

BrandorKP posted:

I am in no way misrepresenting what they have to say, just pointing at it. It speaks for itself.

BrandorKP posted:

Thing is nobody is unbiased. No one can escape having their ideology affect their beliefs and arguments and how they present facts. Edit: and that's part of the point I'm making.

BrandorKP posted:

And I'm not, fortunately. Edit: I'm commenting on how they believe.

Who What Now posted:

You also don't get to dictate to people how they believe.

BrandorKP posted:

]And come on now. You're going to tell me these ads are satire?

BrandorKP posted:

re- again, or to go over again (and this prefix might originate with this word, apparently)

lego to choose
or
ligo to bind connect, link, join

It's probably sloppy of me to like both lego and ligo. But to go over again and again the choices we make binding and connecting things, well that's pretty good description of religious dialogue, both internal and ecumenical. In my personal context that usually refers to a "set of beliefs relating humanity to an order of existence or being"

quote:

Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[10] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[11]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is an interpretation traced to Cicero, connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[12][13] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[14]

quote:

The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligo "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re- (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[3][4]

The problem with these etymologies, regardless of whether one favours lego or ligo, is that the now-familiar prefix re- "again" is not attested prior to its occurrence in religio and is itself in need of an etymological explanation. For this reason, it has been suggested[according to whom?] that this productive prefix originates in the very word religio, where it arose by dissimilation of an earlier reduplicated *le-ligare, thence as it were *le-ligio,

quote:

In this sense, religio might be translated better as "religious scruple" than with the English word "religion".[7] One definition of religio offered by Cicero is cultus deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."[8]