Comment by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on January 14, 2012 at 11:54pm

I am confused. I know next to nothing about Wicca, but I thought Wiccans worshipped a God and a Goddess. Or is this only some sections, as in the many breakaways of other religions? If they do, for me it is codswallop.

I do think the clothes and jewellery are interesting :) It is like catholic priests dressing up.

I think a lot of these people like the ceremony, the little community of 'close friends'.

As with catholicism and buddhism, ceremony is very big, and can be quite awesome.  If that is the case, just have a High Tea, or come to Mardi Gras, now that is 'Ritual Extraordinaire'.

Alice is right - then comes psychics, crystals, past life, re-birthers, and frigging homeopathy.

I personally don't separate morals and ethics from Atheism. I would trust an Atheist before I would trust a xian.

The same with Buddhism - actually know very little about it. Buddhism has hungry ghosts??? once again, is this only in certain breakaway groups, or whatever.

Once again, codswallop.

One can revere nature, have morals and ethics without going down the path of religion of any sort, or supernatural anything. When the opportunity arises - I say what I am,  a proud Atheist. I wouldn't hide behind any other tag.

Comment by Dennis Smith on January 15, 2012 at 7:19am

With regard to the original question, the three Abrahamic religions are the ones most prominent in the West and the ones most vocal and proselytizing with the exception of Judaism which does not seem to proselytize. Both Christianity and Islam maintain they have the absolute truth (which includes the existence of a personal deity) and if you don't believe it (including especially the personal deity part) you will suffer eternal torment. They make a point of making THAT point whenever possible and condemn anyone and anything that disagrees with their perspective. THAT, IMO, is why atheist in the West focus on the Abrahamic religions. I suppose it might be different in Eastern countries. Personally, I include skepticism along with atheism because I regard atheism as an expression of skepticism about religion.

As a result, although, for example, Buddhism does not have a personal deity, you can still be an atheist with regard to Buddhism or Hinduism or Shintoism and so on. It is true that in some of the aforementioned religions there is the belief of some in bodhisattvas and other praeternatural entities. Even though these are not monotheistic and the entities do not share the same qualities of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, they still can be argued they believe in "divine" entities like angels and saints who have "powers" to act on your behalf.

I suppose Skeptic would be a more inclusive word as it opposes all forms of superstition and non-rational belief, a category into which I would place Wicca. Wicca also, at least as I understand it, has beliefs in divine entities of some sort even if they are regarded as sort of metaphorical representations of human qualities. Like some forms f Zen there may be a belief in some sort of "force" like Mind or Tao which could be considered in the same category, although different in quality, as a personal deity. There are so many different ideas regarding "god" even within the Abrahamic religions it's hard to confine atheism to the very strict definition of not being a monotheist.

So, "no belief in any god or gods of any sort" would come close. Although what do you do with belief in "Mind" or "Tao"? Both of those could be equality "superstition" and non-rational.

Comment by 52X Max GT on January 15, 2012 at 7:48am

All of you make very good points, but in the end I think it all comes down to a geographical situation. The western world consists mostly of abrahamic religions, so it's most likely that we should come from christian, jewish or islamic upbringings. Being exposed since early childhood and raised to believe in these religions makes them a very important part of our lives even after we've stopped believing. It's usually the same religion practiced by friends and families, and it's so ingrained in our society, that we feel the need to denounce its evil ways.

In other parts of the world where the predominant religion is something other than those 3 religions, I'm sure atheists think about it the same way we think about abrahamic religions; it's just that we don't hear about it so often.

Just remember Socrates.

Comment by Albert Bakker on January 15, 2012 at 7:57am

You are right Ian Beveridge. General Relativity is a liberal conspiracy.

Einstein didn't know diddly squat, and other scientists are even more stupider.

As a brilliant electrical engineer mr. Henderson is sure to know what is really true about gravity, ontologically and everything. And that he has been on it, writing books exposing the stupidity of Einstein since 1972, and still isn't taken seriously by anyone who is taken seriously by anyone who is to be taken seriously by anyone, is about as conclusive as evidence of a conspiracy can get.

But fortunately the really, really bright people know what's going on: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/17/can-we-do-without-relativity

Even if stupid science people try their best at damage control inflicted by these far superior minds: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/11/06/absolutel...

Comment by Barry Eckert on January 15, 2012 at 8:05am

Albert, thanks for the link to Conservapedia. I knew that those people who write the drivel on that site were idiots, but had no idea that their abysmal ignorance extended quite so far.

"More stupider"? Did you crib that one from a fundamentalist Teapublican?

Comment by Albert Bakker on January 15, 2012 at 8:25am

Thanks for noticing. It is indeed not a novel innovation on my part, I've seen it somewhere but to be honest don't recall where, or the original author's political affiliations.

(Come to think of it, I might have stolen it from Futurama, I've been rewatching a bunch of episodes recently.)

Comment by Unseen on January 15, 2012 at 8:56am

@Dennis Smith   It's not absolutely true that Buddhism has no personal deity. It depends upon whether it's what might be called "old school" Buddhism, or hinayana ("lesser vehicle"), which cleaves to the original Buddhism, or Buddhism as it spread and accrued local influences. Mahayana ("major vehicle") Buddhism usually does have deities. Not a single deity, but a pantheon of deities. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example. Often, The Buddha himself is deified, though never to my knowledge does he become a theistic deity who created and runs the joint.

Comment by Unseen on January 15, 2012 at 9:09am

@Ian Beveridge  There is a huge difference between putting one's trust in science vs. religion. Science has a mechanism for correcting itself that religion does not.

While a lot of cutting edge science, like cosmology, is very speculative, I don't see people here failing to recognize that. Nobody is stating as thought it's established fact that our universe is part of a multiverse, for example. It's presented as a major theory, not an indisputable fact.

You don't have to be able to totally disprove the existence of God to be an atheist. That can't be done anyone. So what you have is a range of certainty from those who find the nonexistence of God so obvious that it's unquestionable at one end to soft atheists and agnostics who are keeping their minds open to the ide

Comment by Robert Vince Jr on January 15, 2012 at 9:41am

OK Let me chime in here on the post and the one about being forced to go to church. I believe in God but here's a big but..organized religion is nothing more than idolization of a simple idea that started this world. Simply put the God that form Judaism,Christianity, and Muslim never set out to form a religion but a way of life. A way of treating each other with mutual respect as neighbors and love of family and friends. Yes, I believe God created the earth but after he created it he allowed evolution to take over. I am not a Christian i don't believe in labels (that just starts problems) I am a spiritual person who feels a connection with both physical and spiritual beings(Yeshua). Man has taken the simpleness of God and has diluted and carved it out to fit their own power-filled agenda and use it as a way to persecute others (like you getting beat up) which is far from the teachings of love your neighbor. Thousands have let their beliefs and churches because of it. Some people I've encountered who identify themselves as Atheist actually started as believers in these structured religions (most catholic not surprised).
The bad press (so to speak) that follow the big three are of their own doing their judgmental and communistic behavior has been rampant for centuries.
I am starting to learn more about the Atheist and secular humanist views I have ordered the Atheist Manifesto to help me with this. My belief is simple there will never be a 1005 right or wrong answer to life's questions and beliefs but (and here is where organized religion screws it up) we should RESPECT each others views and leave the table with a handshake and as friends instead of bitter enemies.
As for you sister ask her if she respects you..if she answers yes then tell her to respect your decision on your personal beliefs and stop pushing hers on you because it will only put a wedge between you and her and tell her you don't want the wedge because she is family and you love her. Ask her if she was forced into her beliefs? If she answers no then ask her why is she doing it to you.

Comment by Ron V on January 15, 2012 at 9:53am

@Ian

One problem I'm having here though is that while everybody has a fair swipe at religion nobody is prepared to take on the high priests of theoretical physics! The aura of unquestionable respectability that once surrounded the religious hierarchy has now been transferred directly to science.

This is an unfair statement.  "Science" is based on peer-reviewed, validated, reproducible data/observations.  If you carefully read theoretical physicists' works, most state what the problems are with their theories with respect to theoretical, mathematical, and/or experimental issues. 

 

Religion is considered to be "mush brained" and science brilliant.

Well, please cite examples of how this is not actually a fairly accurate statement?  Many of us here who have studied religion can cite scores of examples where religion was/is simply wrong about its claims.

 

Science supposedly now explains our universe for us.

Science has many more explanations than religion.

 

The "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome strikes again!

I suppose this is specifically aimed at theoretical physics?

 

Before you wouldn't risk looking stupid by stating that you couldn't understand God - and now you won't risk looking stupid by stating that theoretical physics appears to be totally absurd and out of touch with reality.

So, the crux of the issue is theoretical physics- and I suppose more specifically quantum cosmology.  That is understandable since this involves complex math - but some of the theoretical aspects aren't that difficult to understand.  And for those of us in science, we do not acknowledge or treat these ideas anything like religious dogma.

 

We are comfortable accepting that a rather large universe comes out of nothing - even though the mathematics behind it is stunningly "mush brained" at root - when you choose to question it.

Please provide your mathematical criticism to quantum cosmological.  I am interested to see why you think quantum cosmology is mush brained.

 

I can't call myself an atheist - because I'd be claiming to be able to disprove something that is not disprovable. It's a term that's born out of absurdity. Unfortunately I see this back door acceptance of absurdity as an entry point for more absurdity - such as the blind acceptance of theoretical physics - the new religion.

I understand your view of the term atheism.  But I fail to see how theoretical physics is a "new religion."  Popularity should not be confused with religion.  And for a nice overview of science v religion-

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceReligion.htm

 

It's amazing how many religious people - members of Christian communities or bizarre cults - will tell you that they are not religious.  Yet how many people with no mathematical background whatsoever will happily accept their "Universe From Nothing" - also claiming that they have no religion?

Do you really want to beat the horse of religion versus science?

 

Instead of drooling over the proposed book "A Universe From Nothing" here on this website

This is only one of several positions on this topic.  I have not read the book yet, but I will likely read it in the future.  I have looked at other literature on quantum cosmology, however.

 

 I suggest that people should start by reading "Einstein and The-Emperor's-New-Clothes Syndrome (The Exposé of a Charlatan) by Robert L. Henderson. It's a very good starting point.

Thanks for the suggestion- I will put it on my reading list.

 

I'd like to be able to label myself "athiest" or something handy like that - but such labels seem to say more about the limitations of people's thinking than anything else. I'm against all forms of deception and self

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page