It doesn't apply to many people. Within the Christian Bible, it teaches you to have more apathy then empathy. As for the Qur'an Apathy would be a good word to state what it desires, but the contents grab more of a redder emotion such as hatred, and anger. I do not mean to offend any one under Christianity or Islam with that statement. I have a knowledge of each book and I gave a generalized sum of the content within each.
One of the highlest directives of Christianity is "Love thy neighbor, as thyself." That does not sound like teaching apathy to me. Disclaimer - I am not a Christian.
Yeah, but that's only one out of many messages in the bible. For one, as sad as it is I don't see too much "Love Thy Neighbor As Yourself" happening with Christians especially if your neighbor isn't another God-Fearing Christian. But also note there are Christians that give the quote a good light. (ones who actually follow it) Secondly, there are other statements in the bible that really negates "Love Thy Neighbor" to the point of hypocrisy. I don't want to debate it much cause religious debates end up with some people starting arguments, but just yeah. The Christian bible desires Love for God, but apathy for man.
I think the denial of the existence of god can only be construed as such if one assumes that denial of the transcendental authority that guarantees the moral system ( ie. It's wrong to murder because god says so. So if you don't believe in god, then there is no reason not to kill. - not my opinion! Just sketching out the argument as I see it.) It would be the "ultimate sin" only in the sense that it potentially invalidates the entire ladder of right and wrong - for example, cultures that practice human sacrifice as a supreme virtue because they believe in a very different concept of godhood. However, I don't think that such a point of view (to deny the underlying authority is to deny the entire system) is at all logical. Simply to deny the authority that guarantees a system is not the same as rejecting its tennents. I despise Kim Jong Il, but I do feel the values of Jun-che have a lot to speak for them (a kind of Confucianism really). Equally, I am no great fan of capitalism, but I do think that free trade between nations has a lot of positives. More importantly, I think lack of faith has a logical contingency on other things (be they vices or virtues) which would mean it could never be an "ultimate" vice. Let me give you a syllogism based on a Christian set of axioms - 2 axioms - Murder is wrong. Lack of faith is wrong. Can we say - a) All murderers lack faith? No, we can't say that. History is rife with counter-examples in the form of religious murderers. b)All people who lack faith are murderers? No, we can't say this either. So logically, we cannot make a case for faithlessness to be the "prime" sin. If we could establish a logical chain that connects faithlessness to all other sins, then we might have a case for it as a prime sin, but I don't think we have one. To clarify what I see as the primacy problem with faithlessness, I think you can logically say something like "faithlessness cannot exist without skepticism" (I don't believe in god because I'm a skeptical person; that is my character flaw) or "faithlessness cannot exist without idolatry" (I don't believe in your god because I have my own) or some such. If you can't have a vice without also having another vice, then I don't think you can call it the ultimate sin.
The debate that people who do not follow a certain brand of god, or any at all (Atheists) are automatically immoral is ridiculous. When you are a child at the age of Toddler to say atleast 10, you are not looking at your religion's text and gaining all the morals from that, you definately learn some if you are spoonfed parts of the religious text. But Morals are gained from natural thought and experience and the people around you. Your parents tell you not to hit your sister cause it's wrong. Looking at violence and thinking it is wrong. The arguments Religious people give to nontheists or atheists is "I get all my morals from this bible, it is the only thing stopping me from killing you" Well the one thing stopping most of us from commiting murder or a negative behavior such as that is a conscious. Basically what a theist is saying is that they completely lack a conscious. Also the law and government is going to keep you from doing those acts because you know if you do, then you're going to jail and why waste the only life you have in jail?
Hmm...I agree with what your saying, but not with the arguments you use to say it. I think the claim that we have a natural tendency to do certain things is a dangerous one, in that it can be used to justify terrible actions and by a little checking can be shown to be quite defeasible. A huge task for Western reason has been showing us that there is a gap between the particular world an agent happens to occupy and the dictates of reason itself. This is necessary because of the strong tendency to view one's own environment as the right and just one. For instance, if you ask a group of high school or college students what the right kind of political system is for humans, they will answer, "democracy." Or, if you ask them about the prospects of a political system that is not the one they grew up in, they will say it is unreasonable and irrational. They have a hard time separating out what is just and rational from what they are familiar with. Nor can I admit fear of punishment as a valid dictate for determining moral/immoral behaviour - if I did then all those who rise up and stand against tyrants and facists would simply be lawbreakers. If the Nazi's had won the war, and tried American Generals for war crimes, I wouldn't call them immoral people even if they were convicted. The sad truth is most people simply live uncritically in an world that feels right because it's familiar to them. Anyhows, my thrust on this thread has been that no matter what your virtue/vice system might be, if you want to succeed at it, you should have a system. If your only virtue is Strength, then you are logically going to have to give primacy to other virtues - self-discipline in training etc...in order to be successful at it. I don't want to tell anyone their moral system is right or wrong, I just think that if you are going to have a system of morals, you should really have well thought through one. If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Atheism is a religion as well. It is a belief system founded on unproven (unprovable?) assumptions including the absence of a deity. This is also a very braod generalization, which is contrary to my personal experience. And I know adherents to many different religions. Also, although I am an atheist, I was raised as a Chrstian, so I am somewhat familiar with its principles.
Atheism by it's stirn definition is as follows. Atheist:. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Atheism:. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Atheism is in simple terms lack of belief in a god(s). It is not a religion. As for the quote, I have heard many Christians use it in arguments against non-theist, a most notable one being on a news debate between a Christian Preacher and an Atheist. What the meaning is Religious people believe that just because Atheists don't follow their brand of God and Bible automatically means we are immoral creatures, which is entirely not the case.
Hmm..to be honest, I would describe myself as agnostic to anyone who really wants to know, and an atheist to anyone who just asks. I don't think you can say Atheism is a religion just because it has a set of axioms - i think that is too broad a definition of the existence of god. I do agree with your other point though - in a way, most "atheists" born into religious families/societies are left in the after-dream of moral debris, which they accept to a degree because it "feels right" to them. My point was that the claim that "not believing in god is the ultimate sin" rests on the idea that if you deny the authority behind the rules, you must also deny all the rules. It was just a reduction of the argument to absurdity (as the latin goes...) by following it to its most extreme case.
The definition of religion does not necessarily require a deity. I have seen definitions for religion that do require a deity, and others that do not (American Heritage Dictinary for one). I recently wrote a paper on this very topic for my World Mythology class, in fact.
I follow the stirn dictionary term for these words, and religion being " Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." I understand what you mean such as the case with people whom follow prophets (Buddha) however according to them the Buddha would be a god and grant them an afterlife all the same. Religion is fueled by a God and Supernatural ideals.
There IS more than one dictionary. And not one is the final authority on the language. Some concepts are just too complex, or too subjective to be accurately delineated in any one definition. Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper. Atheism, and agnosticism, and other non-theistic belief systems have much in common with theistic religions. I have to accept that your definition of religion excludes non-theistic beliefs. You will have to accept that mine includes them. This is a forum on writing. So it is worthwhile to explore the fact that not all words communicate the same thing to the writer and the readers.
Technically it's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition. I do agree with you though about religion also being one of non-theistic and theistic groups, Buddhism being an example.
religion: --Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006 As I have already pointed out, there is more than one dictionary definition of religion, and not all of them restrict the term to theistic belief systems. If I write a thesis, and define religion to include nontheistic religions, then when reading that thesis, you would have to read the thesis in the context of that definition. If on the other hand, you write a thesis with a definition that excludes nontheistic religions, then I would have to interpret your thesis in the context of your definition. If one of us writes a thesis that fails to define such a key term, the interpretation becomes ambiguous to the degree that the range of possible definitions affects the argument. A thesis which argues with both sides of an ambiguous definition suffers from the logical fallacy equivocation. Establishing a definition is important for that reason. And there often is not a single "correct" definition.
But what about an act of harm to another to save so many more? Is that also evil because we have killed one person to save a thousand? For a philosopher, your sense of the 'big picture' seems a little flawed in my opinion. So to speak.
Wouldn't it also depend on the quality of the life you are ending. What if that one person is a very intelligent and fair person, or baby and the thousand of people were unintelligent homeless folk, or violent extremists? It's a difficult question.
There is no perfect answer, though I have taken another route to the "atheist/agnostic/religious" thing: freethought and 'secular' humanism. It's more about empirical evidence, reason, ethics, et cetera instead of always looking to some supposed infallible source. Both of them just seemed to fit what I wanted, so I adopted both of the terms.
Surely secularism, humanism and freethinking are entirely compatible with both atheism and agnosticism. An atheist might believe in faeries, another atheist migght believe in angels - there just isn't enough common doctrinal ground to meaningfully lump all these types of people together as a sinlge community. Also, whatever you might argue about atheism, agnosticism should definitely not be classed as a religion because it has no positive axioms whatsoever - it just means "I don't know!" - basically two agnosticists could very well have nothing in common except the fact that they remain open to the possibility, no matter how slight, of a supreme being. I would say that atheism and agnosticism are not religions because: 1)They have no commonly agreed set of principles - no creed as such. 2)They have no social organisation equivalent to a church. Now - Confuscianism, I can see you could make a case for, because it has common principles amongst adherents and a political body - or at least had. Equally so with Buddhism or Shintoism. Atheists have no common laws and don't have any kind of unified sinlge organisation. I think it was Hume who said of Berkley's idealism that as a doctrine it allowed of no refutation nor carried any persuasion. This is how I judge the entire god debate - It just isn't possible to categorically disprove the existence of God, anymore than one could disprove that we live in the Matrix, or the world is a snare made by Descarte's famous infinite evil being. Empirical evidence is phenomenal experience - think of the movie the matrix! The conditions of the possibility of experiencing reality are such as to make it impossible to say anything about the world in and for itself beyond our experience - be that Solipsism, monadism, idealism or whatever. It's entirely possible that the world was made last Tuesday, with all our memories falsified and all the evidence planted... Or reality could be a cryptograph with only what happened every 344th day being real, and the rest being faked memories. But I think these arguments,while impossible to refute logically, just aren't persuasive. Yet, I still believe a meaningful ethics is entirely possible without the recourse to a divine authority, nor being quagmired in the social norms - or reactionary impulses against the social norms of our society.
But then what falsified our memories? You raise interesting points, and I'd love to talk with you more on your philosophies. I am a Catholic; I believe in God. That is my supreme being. But I have no problem questioning myself or reasoning. One of the things that inspires the most awe and wonder is science and maths. How did we develop to creatures of such intelligence, of such reason, capable of determining what we're made of down to the ion, while others did not? If, perhaps, we did not evolve into such beings, then would things such as mathematics exist in all their complexity, or would they be just like this forum: nothing? These are all "what if" questions, I am aware. But that is what philosophy is based around - Why, what if, and all those sorts of questions. I find it unfathomable - more so than the idea of a God - that all these pieces of the puzzle fell together by chance. But then again, what is chance? It's a measure on a system of our own creation. So then, where does that leave us? Are we, our existence, things of our own creation? Do we exist because somehow or another, someone somewhere decided that we exist?
Eh... hindsight is 20/20 vision... maybe one day they'll look back on these times and laugh, wondering where the hell we got any other these ideas from. While I understand that, Onoria, that those can mean a vast variety of things, there are a lot of different denominations of Christianity as well (and people in them that have beliefs that deviate a bit from the rest). But that leads me to believe that 'empirical evidence' is one of the best ways of looking at it -- no matter what, your beliefs will be shaped by your influences, whether you're Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist. To Frost, I understand finding coming from nothing (life "evolving" from inanimate objects) quite odd... but I could never wrap my head around the concept of creation from dirt either. Or woman from a rib. Maybe all of this is focused around some common source, but due to our imperfect views and biases, it just seems so different and humans have some natural tendency to lash out when someone attacks their beliefs -- and no one ever really gets to the bottom of it. Lack of substantial evidence also doesn't help. We truly could continue this forever, haha...
Agnostics fall into two categories: those undecided about whether or not there is a drity, and those who firmly believe that we cannot know whether there is a deity. I would argue that the latter group qualifies as a religion. To take your second point first, I claim that criterion is arbitrary - a church is distinct from a religion, and very often does not even uphold the same pronciples. But what prupose is served by a religion? First, religions attempt to define the origins and nature of the universe, the world, humankind, and the natural order that relates them. I maintain that a cohesive majority subset ot atheism shares a common belief in the picture of the Universe provided by the physical sciences, punctuated by transforming events like the Big Bang, the condensation of the planets, and the evolution of life. There is even an apocalyptic story, the so-called "Heat Death" of the universe driven by entropy. Moral guidelines: atheism rejects the notion that our morality comes from the dictates of a higher being, but that they come instead from human reason, a recognition of values that deliver the greatest good and happiness to the maximum number of people. Comfort: Theistic religions often abdicate decisions to a deity, comforted by notions like "as God wills." Conversely, they are troubled by misfortune, asking why they are being punished. Atheists treat misfortune as random occurrences, and are comforted by the thought that the universe is fair in its randomness, and that there is no hyman flaw that btought on the difficulties. When they make decisions, they rely on their own strength rather than deferring to a higher power. There are many other parallels, such as answering questions about infinity, and about the afterlife. The faxt is, atheism fulfills the same human needs as any other religion, and deserves to be categoried as religion.
I suppose that we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree about this. Still, to respond to the well thought out reply by Frost, I would like to post a couple of comments. Frost defines religion by "purpose" and subdivides this into three sections. 1) Defining the nature and origins of the universe. 2) Moral guidleines. 3) Comfort. The argument centres, as I understand it, around the notion that "atheism" and "theism" play the same social functions, and therefore are both "religions". I would begin by saying that if to define religion purely by the social role it plays is to consider it from a utilitarian view point. A move which is controversial in itself. My contention is that this definition of religion is too broad, and that there is something fundamentally different between atheism and agnosticism, and say Christianity, Judaism or Confucianism. In detail - 1) Defining the nature and origins of the universe. Frost contends that - I do not concur with this. Or rather, I think the devil lies in the detail - Frost only claims a majority of atheists are basically empiricists. You can't say that only a majority of Christians believe that God made the world...sure, maybe not in seven days, but you have to believe the divine being made the world to be a Christian. You don't have to believe in modern science to be an atheist. Atheists have be around since before modern science and the big bang theory. Secondly - I think there is a difference between Philosophy and Religion. I don't think that "religion" is the right word for any organized world view based around certain principles. However, as your argument rests solely around social function we can leave that to one side. Re your second post: Whilst I agree wholly with the first part of your sentence, I absolutely do not with the second. Atheism is simply not believing in the existence of a god/gods. It does not carry with it a whole set of political principles. You could be an atheist Nazi, or an atheist Marxist, or an atheist humanist. I don't agree that all atheists share a basis for their morality in a way that all Christians share the 10 commandments, or all Confusicanists share the virtues of family order. It is precisely this lack of unity in attendent moral, social and political world view that seperates atheism from religions. I think that atheism isn't a religion because it does not have a common creed, in theory or in practice. Lastly, re-comfort. I think again you lump all kinds of atheism into a single set. A nihilist who does not believe in god would have nothing like the comfort of a woman who believes in "the great cycle of nature", but not a god per se. Yes, people do need comfort when facing death, but that role might be played by flourishing grandchildren, or the thought that all you enemies heads hang on your wall. Also, I think having a church or not having a church is as much a part of religion as having a unified creed (Yes there are all kinds of sects. of say, Christianity, but they all share certain basic ideas - ten commandments, Christ as the son of god etc.) I'm not sure of any relgion existing that doesn't have special spaces of worship and an organisation of people that run the. Confucianism is perhaps the only example of something I would consider to be a religion that blurs the lines between the distinctions made in Western languages because it is a political philosophy which includes a notion of the after-life in the form of ancestor worship.
Ok, I can live with agreeing to disagree. I will offer a counter-argument that atheism is not a single religion, but rather a number of religions having the lack of a deity in common. (Psst - I'm not Frost ;-))
Merriam Webster - underline mine. Hmm...We could bandy about dictionary definitions, but it is a rather trivial debate. What I'm worried about is that you might from this move dismiss all sciences and Philosophies as simply "religions" because they all involve organizing a world view and moral system etc. (not that I think they do). Besides the old dictionary df. of Religions needing a god (controversial with you, Cogito...ahem...at least you know it's not personal! I'll accept you have a different viewpoint on the matter of needing a deity) - there is the point that religions do need a set of beliefs. Now there's a big difference between a belief and a thought. You can have a belief with little or no evidence to support it, and no-one can argue with that. Like Mr.Bush's repeated used of the word in lines like "I believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". I think a system of thoughts is quite different to a system of beliefs. This is basically why I say I'm agnostic. I wouldn't make the categorical claim there is no god, because I have no evidence to base that on. It's merely by Occum's razor that I think that there isn't one - because I see no need to assume one to explain the universe before me. Now - what would you have to say to that argument, Cogito? In a nutshell, I recap: A religion involves a set of beliefs. Agonosticism cannot be said to have a set of beliefs - Atheism, I would argue, does not believe in god. This is different to saying it believes god does not exist. An example, just to clarify by an extreme case, would be a man living in ancient China who has never heard of god. You could say that this man does not believe in god. You could not say that he believes god does not exist. Do you see what I mean? Now, if he doesn't have a belief at the centre of his thinking, then his atheism really isn't a religion by the mirriam-webster def. With a name like Cogito, I presume you already know the problem with Descartes' famous ontological argument for the existence of god which hinges around the logical contradiction of the setence "God does not exist" - an argument that doesn't work in Japanese by the way, because existence is not a predicate in oriental languages. Oddly the ontological argument briefly persuaded the greatest English rationalist Bertrum Russell that god did exist, so powerful is the logic of it if you think about it really hard.
