Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I like banana bread with walnuts instead of pecans.
A life lived in fear,
is a life half lived.
Glen McGuire
is a life half lived.
Glen McGuire
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Me too, but pecans are good too.
Nobody is 'ranting'.
I think we already established that defined philosophies (including religious faiths) include a broad similarity (very broad!) of outlook in each, while 'atheists' do not fit that rubric, and cannot be properly confined to any type of broad similarity type statement (we can say things like 'all/most Buddhists believe X' but we cannot do that for atheists). This is because the lack of something is not a defining characteristic of anything in particular.
I know a fair bit about Christianity in its various manifestations - but I'm more familiar with some types and less so with others. I am fairly familiar with more varieties of Judaism, although I don't know too much about the varieties of Hareidi and know almost nothing about Karaites (but they are a tiny minority group, after all). I know only a bit about Muslims - more than most, apparently, but only superficially. About Buddhism and Hinduism, I know relatively little. Sikhism is attractive and so is Baha'ism (to me). All I know about Jains is that they don't want to kill anything at all, even ants.
I discussed reincarnation with a Hare Krishna-ite once.
AFAIK, all these are - to some degree at least - faith based and theistic (although there are some definite quibbles about Buddhism and theistic as a description).
So - actually, here's a point:
Are non-theistic Buddhists (and that's the base type I believe) 'atheist'? Or are they something else? I think most Buddhists believe in a spiritual world with spirits and powers, they just don't believe in an actual god. Is that correct? I don't know exactly how that works either. Is 'atheist' even a term that would be useful in a Buddhist context? What I've seen used is NON- theist, which isn't exactly the same thing. I think.
anybody?
Nobody is 'ranting'.
I think we already established that defined philosophies (including religious faiths) include a broad similarity (very broad!) of outlook in each, while 'atheists' do not fit that rubric, and cannot be properly confined to any type of broad similarity type statement (we can say things like 'all/most Buddhists believe X' but we cannot do that for atheists). This is because the lack of something is not a defining characteristic of anything in particular.
I know a fair bit about Christianity in its various manifestations - but I'm more familiar with some types and less so with others. I am fairly familiar with more varieties of Judaism, although I don't know too much about the varieties of Hareidi and know almost nothing about Karaites (but they are a tiny minority group, after all). I know only a bit about Muslims - more than most, apparently, but only superficially. About Buddhism and Hinduism, I know relatively little. Sikhism is attractive and so is Baha'ism (to me). All I know about Jains is that they don't want to kill anything at all, even ants.
I discussed reincarnation with a Hare Krishna-ite once.
AFAIK, all these are - to some degree at least - faith based and theistic (although there are some definite quibbles about Buddhism and theistic as a description).
So - actually, here's a point:
Are non-theistic Buddhists (and that's the base type I believe) 'atheist'? Or are they something else? I think most Buddhists believe in a spiritual world with spirits and powers, they just don't believe in an actual god. Is that correct? I don't know exactly how that works either. Is 'atheist' even a term that would be useful in a Buddhist context? What I've seen used is NON- theist, which isn't exactly the same thing. I think.
anybody?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Non-theistic Buddhism is more philosophical than spiritual. It is usually a western version that takes the main tenets of Buddhism, like the eightfold path, and the practices of self control, mindfulness, and meditation, and leaves behind the magical thinking. I have found some teachings of Buddhism very appealing.
The famous Atheist Sam Harris, actually has some Buddhist like thoughts and practices. He wrote an article once urging all Buddhists to drop the religios aspects of their practice and focus on the parts that are most helpful in the here and now.
The Dalai llama is actually very non- theistic and appeals to many westerners, but he still believes in reincarnation and other non materialist teachings.
The famous Atheist Sam Harris, actually has some Buddhist like thoughts and practices. He wrote an article once urging all Buddhists to drop the religios aspects of their practice and focus on the parts that are most helpful in the here and now.
The Dalai llama is actually very non- theistic and appeals to many westerners, but he still believes in reincarnation and other non materialist teachings.
Last edited by Turtle on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I think there is a confusion of terms that is partly the a-theists' fault, partly society's fault. A-theism is not really a thing. You don't practice it. Atheists have not protested the term atheism strongly enough. An atheist can practice humanism, Buddhism, utilitarianism, communism, etc. They are positive examples of practices. One just does not practice atheism. It is a negative, a non thing. Atheists can practice all kinds of isms, they don't practice theism, that is what makes them atheist. They are defined by what they DON'T do. That is what matters.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
okay - it is still a bit confusing - I mean, if someone says 'I'm Methodist' then I kind of know what they 'think'. But if someone says 'atheist' I am in the dark, pretty much. It doesn't have much of a handle, you know?
BTW, has anybody ever met an Asatru (Asatruan?) ? I conversed with one online for a while on b'net, but never got a clear picture of any of those reconstructed northern European pagan faiths. How accurate can a reconstruction of an extinct faith that didn't leave any texts really BE, anyway? This would include Druids, Asatru, and all the varieties of Odin/Thor etc. Apparently there are quite a few of them.
Some people lump them all into 'neo-pagan' or 'witches' but that is clearly (well, sort of clearly if you've talked to any of them) - that's not really valid.
What do you think? Would a genuine ancient druid (or whatever) recognize the reconstructed varieties? Does that make the reconstructed versions 'wrong' or simply a variant on the same theme?
And - following on to the secular/atheist original theme of the thread - why do people adopt these new/old ideas anyway?
BTW, has anybody ever met an Asatru (Asatruan?) ? I conversed with one online for a while on b'net, but never got a clear picture of any of those reconstructed northern European pagan faiths. How accurate can a reconstruction of an extinct faith that didn't leave any texts really BE, anyway? This would include Druids, Asatru, and all the varieties of Odin/Thor etc. Apparently there are quite a few of them.
Some people lump them all into 'neo-pagan' or 'witches' but that is clearly (well, sort of clearly if you've talked to any of them) - that's not really valid.
What do you think? Would a genuine ancient druid (or whatever) recognize the reconstructed varieties? Does that make the reconstructed versions 'wrong' or simply a variant on the same theme?
And - following on to the secular/atheist original theme of the thread - why do people adopt these new/old ideas anyway?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
Isms and philosophies of all kinds provide structure and comfort in a world that can be admittedly confusing and chaotic. They help us deal with day to day life and teach us how to face death. When humans do not have a particular philosophy and find themselves floundering, they invent one or co- opt one. It seems to be one of those things we do to help us get through life long enough to pass on our genes and raise our young.
Today, resurrected ancient religions and philosophies are quite popular, but from what I see, they are very modern versions with similar symbology and very different practices. Many of them have spiritual sounding names for very ordinary concepts. I know a pagan who told me recently that "magick" is really just a form of self care.
I imagine the form of Judaism you practice is quite modern. Most Christains probably don't realize how modern their version of Christianity is compared to past versions.
Today, resurrected ancient religions and philosophies are quite popular, but from what I see, they are very modern versions with similar symbology and very different practices. Many of them have spiritual sounding names for very ordinary concepts. I know a pagan who told me recently that "magick" is really just a form of self care.
I imagine the form of Judaism you practice is quite modern. Most Christains probably don't realize how modern their version of Christianity is compared to past versions.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I think you are right, turtle. Belief-sets (philosophies, religions) certainly provide structure and meaning. Personally I don't know how a person can live without a defined (somewhat!) structure and meaning, but I also understand that - very largely - we define these for ourselves (that is, humans 'find' meaning in life).
It is even possible for an individual to decide that 'life is meaningless' and THAT is still a 'meaning'. I don't think it is possible - long term, anyway - for a society to work based on 'life is meaningless'. I think that eventually such a society would be CREATING a meaning for their society. Why do we get up in the morning? Or go to work? Because we see some kind of reason (meaning) in doing so, I think.
The first things babies do is try to discover 'meaning' in the chaos - what can I rely on, what is true, do certain actions result in repeatable consequences, and so on. (how many times does it take to drop the darned bowl on the floor, anyway, before we figure out that it ALWAYS falls down? Or maybe watching mom pick it back up - over and over again - is fine entertainment!)
It is even possible for an individual to decide that 'life is meaningless' and THAT is still a 'meaning'. I don't think it is possible - long term, anyway - for a society to work based on 'life is meaningless'. I think that eventually such a society would be CREATING a meaning for their society. Why do we get up in the morning? Or go to work? Because we see some kind of reason (meaning) in doing so, I think.
The first things babies do is try to discover 'meaning' in the chaos - what can I rely on, what is true, do certain actions result in repeatable consequences, and so on. (how many times does it take to drop the darned bowl on the floor, anyway, before we figure out that it ALWAYS falls down? Or maybe watching mom pick it back up - over and over again - is fine entertainment!)
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
I haven't seen the show, chrisso, but I hear it is a good one.
It seems to me that a society needs BOTH sets of mind (or the full spectrum, really) in order to properly thrive.
It seems to me that a society needs BOTH sets of mind (or the full spectrum, really) in order to properly thrive.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
So here is a question that popped up for me. If atheist do not share things in common, have no commonality, or have no things in common interest then who goes to these Atheist themed/hosted rally events, conferences, and conventions? And why would they ever want to go to a common event, join for a common cause, or gather to hear a common speaker or topic when they by definition the group has no defining characteristic or anything in particular in common? It is a lack of commonality that defines them (or so I am willing to accept) so it seems NOT rational or reasonable to host any event for atheist. That would seem to suggest there is an interest group of some kind in order for such events to be successful.'atheists' do not fit that rubric, and cannot be properly confined to any type of broad similarity type statement (we can say things like 'all/most Buddhists believe X' but we cannot do that for atheists). This is because the lack of something is not a defining characteristic of anything in particular.
In fact a great Atheist is quoted as saying where one is gathered in the name of atheism then there is no vacancy.
BTW, I had some pumpkin spice cake dessert at work and when I complimented the person she says loudly "It's called 'better than sex' cake...so what did you think". I thought it was very good but I did not detect any nuts, pecans or walnuts.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else
There's even an atheist CHURCH, and I have to say, I find that really funny.
I suppose 'atheists' are kind of like other single interest groups - like, say, 'golfers' or 'birdwatchers', and they get together with other people with that interest for mutual support and to talk about scores or something. But outside of golfing or birdwatching, they may have next to nothing in common.
I think that people who are in any kind of minority (as atheists are) might also get together for support, because they may not know many others, and they have at least that one thing in common. Sort of like those families how have a child with something weird and rare.
I suppose 'atheists' are kind of like other single interest groups - like, say, 'golfers' or 'birdwatchers', and they get together with other people with that interest for mutual support and to talk about scores or something. But outside of golfing or birdwatching, they may have next to nothing in common.
I think that people who are in any kind of minority (as atheists are) might also get together for support, because they may not know many others, and they have at least that one thing in common. Sort of like those families how have a child with something weird and rare.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.