Topic: Are You Religious?

[arthwollipot]

However, I refuse to become a militant athiest or get into people's faces about it

The militant atheists now have your details and your unwillingness displeases them.  They will kick down your door in the dead of night and haul you away to...


No, wait.

Militant atheists are one of the fevered dreams of wankers who use trite labels instead of evidence to discredit positions with which they disagree.
Find me someone for whom the rejection of faith claims has been key impetus to their deciding to lead a violent revolution and I will accept that militant atheists are a thing. 
To the Catholic Church, a militant atheist is any atheist who does not keep their atheism secret and who they cannot set on fire, so I don't think you will have a lot of choice in whether or not you get called a militant atheist when someone messes with science.  It will, indeed, be on.

I described myself as a "militant" atheist at one time. It didn't mean I was picking up an AK or cooking up bombs in my garage. It meant that I actively sought out religious arguments. I often see people come along to a discussion involving some aspect of religion in society and say "oh, well of course it's all bullshit." I used to do that myself. A "militant" atheist actively proselytises.

I agree that the term "militant" is entirely the wrong one for this kind of behaviour (for a while there I was toying with the term "atheist evangelist"), and for the record, I don't do that any more. If someone asks, I answer. I rarely see a need to bring it up in casual conversation.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Find me someone for whom the rejection of faith claims has been key impetus to their deciding to lead a violent revolution and I will accept that militant atheists are a thing. 

I think the closest I can think of is Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying the U.S. military should wage a war against all of Islam.  Does that count?

An excellent example, but was it her realisation that the faith claims of Islam were bunk or her experiences as a radical Muslim, and the subsequent death threats and the murder of her colleague, that formed the key driver for her current position?
What is her position regarding the claims of Scientology?  Buddhism?

She and Sam Harris are militant, but are they militant and atheists or militant because they are atheists?  Either way, if the term militant atheist is valid, I don't think it will be applied correctly in Zhakarov's case, though I am sure it will be applied if Zhakarov attempts to defend their position to theist relatives.

[IrishJazz]

I don't see either atheism or theism as being essentially morally superior

I wonder if you can even rightly make that generalization with there being so much variation within both atheism and theism (I guess less in atheism, but plenty within theism as a whole). Wouldn't you concede that certain branches of theism are downright morally reprehensible (the most facile example that comes to mind at this instant are the Westboro Baptists)?

The key is the word "essentially."  Westboro is ignorant and reprehensible.  So were the actions of ideological atheists under Stalin and Mao.  But in the latter case, the key word is "ideological" not "atheist." 

The belief or non-belief in gods does not carry any particular moral significance.  How would belief in Zeus/Jupiter- a second or third generation god who had a taste for pretty girls and did whatever he damn well pleased drive morality in the average Greek/Roman?  The conflation of morality and religion is a relatively modern innovation.  In the dim and distant past the deities were viewed as hidden, powerful, essentially self-interested actors.  You gave them a bit of your harvest to keep them from paying too much interest, they didn't care how you got the field or who was buried under it.

[Plastique]

The key is the word "essentially."

I thought that might have been the case. But you're right, we seem to be moving in the direction of modern theism having definite moral implications.

[Jolimont]

No, but I used to be.

[Zakharov]

She and Sam Harris are militant, but are they militant and atheists or militant because they are atheists?  Either way, if the term militant atheist is valid, I don't think it will be applied correctly in Zakharov's case, though I am sure it will be applied if Zakharov attempts to defend their position to theist relatives.

Agreed.  When I say "Millitant Atheist" I mean an "In your face, you are an idiot for being religious" Atheist.  If my family tries to argue with me about it, I will defend my position using the same logic that led me to arrive at it.  But I'm not going to go out and actively try to get into debates with people.  That's just a dick move, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, you spelled my name wrong.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Agreed.  When I say "Millitant Atheist" I mean an "In your face, you are an idiot for being religious" Atheist.  If my family tries to argue with me about it, I will defend my position using the same logic that led me to arrive at it.  But I'm not going to go out and actively try to get into debates with people.  That's just a dick move, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, you spelled my name wrong.

In a family of Catholics I don't doubt that the debates will come to you.  Remaining percussive is a good defence against spurious charges of bullying.

My apology for spelling your name incorrectly.

[benschwab]

Who believes in god here, and if you do, can you pinpoint a specific rationale for why you think it's more likely your god exists rather than not? How do you reconcile belief in god with skepticism?

Glossing over the fact that a religious belief system might not require the Abrahamic concept of a God, I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Are you asking me to give you a reason to believe in a particular religion or are you asking me for reasons why I believe in a particular religion?  Those two are very different things.

I think fundamentally any reasoning justifying a religious belief is entirely subjective.  If one can obtain objective evidence or reasoning to believe in a particular religion then it by definition ceases being a supernatural belief and begins being a natural belief.  If that is the case then science and other tools can be used to asses the claims and I would say these questions stop being (purely) religious questions.  Scriptures, sermons, discussions, and other activities involving discussing religious beliefs, dogma, and theology can help one find his or her answers but ultimately the religious answers one finds is up to the individual.  I think people who try to present objective evidence or reasoning for a belief in a particular religion is doing both science and religion a disservice.

My position of religion can be accurately summarized as fallows:

If believing in a particular religion helps one to become a better person then that is a good thing and that persons belief is rational.

If believing in a particular religion hinders one in becoming a better person then that is a bad thing and a belief in that religion would be irrational.

If believing against a particular religion (or all religion) helps one to become a better person then that is a good thing and that persons belief is rational.

If believing against a particular religion (or all religion) hinders one in becoming a better person then that is a bad thing and a belief in that position would be irrational.

If believing something in between (or any other option) helps one to become a better person then that is a good thing and that persons belief is rational.

If believing something in between (or any other option) hinders one in becoming a better person then that is a bad thing and a belief in that option would be irrational.

-----

The reaction to any one completely subjective belief system is highly individualized.  One may be able to make broad generalizations but only if one respects the limitations of broad generalizations.  What one person should believe in really depends on that person and I can only try to answer that question for myself.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

LOL, here we go again.  There are a boatload of threads that touch on this.  Like Goodthink said, there are christian atheists, in addition to the deists and christians.

Threads that touch on Beleth's beliefs, you mean?

Wait... what the hell is a Christian atheist?

Threads about religious skeptics, christian atheists, etc.    Search for  < christian atheist >   or < religious skeptic >  and you'll find most/all of them. 

Febo/Kwisatz Haderach is a christian athiest and has discussed it at least a couple times, I think.  He is not a believer, but enjoys the community.  Others may also like the ritual.

Actually, I'm more a fan of the rituals and mythology than the community.  Community you can get anywhere -- church, school, work, gaming club, skeptical conference, etc... but Christian ritual and mythology are unique to Christianity.

You might say that "Christian Atheists" are people who see going to church is kind of like going to a "Christian Mythology Convention" in the same spirit as Star Trek or Comic Book conventions.

[Dionysus]

You're basically a Trekkie?

Do you worship? Trekkies are massive nerds, but I don't think they actually worship Captain Kirk.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You're basically a Trekkie?

I am a trekkie.

I'm also a Christian.

I'm also an atheist.

Do you worship? Trekkies are massive nerds, but I don't think they actually worship Captain Kirk.

Some do.  I've attended Star Trek convensions almost as long as I've been going to church, and I find that there is just as much -- if not more -- irrational blather and idiotic ideology among geeks as there is in mainstream religion.

I do not "worship" god in any literal sense.  I often sing hymns and say prayers that contain worshipful language, and I find it inspiring, in the say way I find a speech from Tolkien or one of the better written Trek episodes inspiring.

[Dionysus]

So, "Christian" is just a label you've co-opted to describe your fandom? That makes a bit more sense grammatically. It's like a Star Wars fan calling himself a Jedi.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So, "Christian" is just a label you've co-opted to describe your fandom?

No, "Christian" is a label that has historically been used to describe people who are part of Christian communities and/or participate in Christian rituals and customs, and study Christian mythology and tradition as part of their attempt to understand their place in the universe.  No co-opting involved, I simply use the word Christian to mean what it means.

Recently -- like in the past 100 years or so -- some religious extremists have co-opting the word "Christian" to mean " people who believe in the specific interpretation of Christian mythology that I believe", but that does not change what the word has meant for almost 2000 years.
 

That makes a bit more sense grammatically. It's like a Star Wars fan calling himself a Jedi.

No, it's not like that at all.  There is no history of Jedi culture, Jedi rituals, Jedi traditions, Jedi mythology, etc.  The concept of "Jedi" is  a small part of the ever-evolving mythology of science fiction/fantasy within geek/pop culture, but that does not make it equivalent to Christianity.

[Dionysus]

So, "Christian" is just a label you've co-opted to describe your fandom?

No, "Christian" is a label that has historically been used to describe people who are part of Christian communities and/or participate in Christian rituals and customs, and study Christian mythology and tradition as part of their attempt to understand their place in the universe.  No co-opting involved, I simply use the word Christian to mean what it means.

Recently -- like in the past 100 years or so -- some religious extremists have co-opting the word "Christian" to mean " people who believe in the specific interpretation of Christian mythology that I believe", but that does not change what the word has meant for almost 2000 years.

Yeah, no. "Christian" comes from the Greek "Christianos," which was invented to describe the gentiles that worshiped Jesus. It's specifically used to denote a follower of Christ (Greek: Christos, derived from the Hebrew: Messiah), not just someone who participates in rituals.
 

No, it's not like that at all.  There is no history of Jedi culture, Jedi rituals, Jedi traditions, Jedi mythology, etc.  The concept of "Jedi" is  a small part of the ever-evolving mythology of science fiction/fantasy within geek/pop culture, but that does not make it equivalent to Christianity.

"Jedi" are people who follow a certain set of principles and beliefs within the Star Wars universe. Fans call themselves Jedi when they simply admire the principles and beliefs of the Jedi but don't believe in the Force themselves. They're not actually Jedi, but they've co-opted the term to describe their enthusiasm. That's exactly what you're doing.

There's nothing wrong with this, but let's speak plainly.

[arthwollipot]

"Jedi" are people who follow a certain set of principles and beliefs within the Star Wars universe. Fans call themselves Jedi when they simply admire the principles and beliefs of the Jedi but don't believe in the Force themselves. They're not actually Jedi, but they've co-opted the term to describe their enthusiasm.

The problem with calling oneself "Jedi" is that the Force doesn't work.

Most of the time

.