Religious apoplogist with an unusual definition of Religion.

[Vehrec]

Not really debating help, just trying to get someone to help me wrap my brain around this girl. She goes of on Richard Dawkins for 'daring' to call her an atheist about most gods. In addition to containing the usual nonsense about science being a religion, it also contains this gem. i.e. Atheism is a religion.

Most Atheists have for all intents and purposes answered the question and moved on, only returning to it when prompted. Agnostics on the other hand, have a big gaping unknown in their worldview and ought to be looking for some sort of definitive answer one way or the other. Both of these seem to be differences in definitions, which may be hampering out attempts to communicate significantly.

Yes. You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not. I think this is why I equate athesim to fundamentalism, in some ways: both traditions claim to have the answer about god/s. I think the question about god/s is largely irrelevant and impossible to answer anyway. Also, I am coming at this from a philosophical perspective influenced by the classical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, which says, IIRC, that definitive answers to metaphysical questions A) are probably illusory, B) are unnecessary, and C) can lead to dangerous dogmatism. So what you see as a gaping hole, I see as flexibility and an ability to prioritize and not get caught up in what I consider a side issue.

This is not to say that I do not like thinking about metaphysics and so on, just that I find that particular question really old and tired. I find that it has no relevance to my life, and since what I am thinking about in terms of metaphysics, ethics, religion, etc., is how to live what I consider a good life (and what a good life might be), I wish people would just let the god question lie and stop arguing over 'the truth.'

I am willing to define materialism as a religion. I am willing to define Marxism as a religion too, if it comes to that. I know this is not a commonly accepted definition, but I think that such belief systems do and must consider religious issues, even if the conclusions they reach are, in the traditional sense a-religious or anti-religious. The fact that they are addressing non-scientific questions at all (by which I mean ones that cannot be disproved via experiment, such as ethics) makes them religions in some sense. If materialism has no explicit answer to 'why bad things happen,' it has an implicit one, which is 'the universe is random like that; deal.' I consider that a religious and ethical viewpoint.

Umm. I'm trying to think of any philosophical standpoint that could NOT fit into this girl's idea of what a religion is. I'm not having much luck with that.

[Samuel]

Yes. You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not.

Well, some of us believe curiosity is an important trait in a human being.

both traditions claim to have the answer about god/s. I think the question about god/s is largely irrelevant and impossible to answer anyway.

Er, not really. If any religious tradition was actually true and there were god/s, the Earth would look very different- anything from 40K to Pokemon.

The only reason that the questions are considered irrelevant is because we live in a universe without any of these beings so people change their beliefs to make them as unfalifiable as possible.

that definitive answers to metaphysical questions A) are probably illusory, B) are unnecessary, and C) can lead to dangerous dogmatism.

The existance of physical objects falls under empericism, not metaphysics. If a diety can interact with the real world they have physical form.

non-scientific questions at all (by which I mean ones that cannot be disproved via experiment, such as ethics) makes them religions in some sense.

Except they CAN be disproved by experiment. Marxism can be shown to be false, materialism can be shown to be false, utilitarianism can be shown to be false- all of these can be experimentally disproven. In fact that is why we have the current version of utilitarianism- because the previous versions were shown to not get optimal results.

If materialism has no explicit answer to 'why bad things happen,' it has an implicit one, which is 'the universe is random like that; deal.' I consider that a religious and ethical viewpoint.

Except materialism doesn't say that- after all, part of the reason bad things happen is because people cause them too. It does not claim the universe is random- if you were living on a death world, materialism would still hold true there even though the reason bad things happen is because the planet hates your guts.

[Formless]

I think the word she is looking for is "philosophy." That word is exactly as broad as she is defining religion as. Any definition of religion which includes both atheism and Marxism as religion is in fact just a misunderstanding of what religion is.

[Formless]

As a side note, that thread is really brain damaging to read. No one who has ever met a real atheist could possibly mistake them for religious. Really, getting so damn defensive is doing them no good and only shows them to be unwilling to think about the issue critically.

[Darth Wong]

This is a good opportunity to apply the Plain English Translation method of debate. Simply convert what the other person is saying into plain English.

Yes. You seem to assume I want or need answers to the question about god's (or gods') existence. I do not. I think this is why I equate athesim to fundamentalism, in some ways: both traditions claim to have the answer about god/s. I think the question about god/s is largely irrelevant and impossible to answer anyway. Also, I am coming at this from a philosophical perspective influenced by the classical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, which says, IIRC, that definitive answers to metaphysical questions A) are probably illusory, B) are unnecessary, and C) can lead to dangerous dogmatism. So what you see as a gaping hole, I see as flexibility and an ability to prioritize and not get caught up in what I consider a side issue.

Plain English Translation: "I believe that all metaphysical beliefs are credible by default, therefore anyone who debunks them is basically being an intolerant religious fundamentalist".

This is not to say that I do not like thinking about metaphysics and so on, just that I find that particular question really old and tired. I find that it has no relevance to my life, and since what I am thinking about in terms of metaphysics, ethics, religion, etc., is how to live what I consider a good life (and what a good life might be), I wish people would just let the god question lie and stop arguing over 'the truth.'

Plain English Translation: "No one should ever waste time arguing about things I personally consider unimportant in my life".

I am willing to define materialism as a religion. I am willing to define Marxism as a religion too, if it comes to that. I know this is not a commonly accepted definition, but I think that such belief systems do and must consider religious issues, even if the conclusions they reach are, in the traditional sense a-religious or anti-religious. The fact that they are addressing non-scientific questions at all (by which I mean ones that cannot be disproved via experiment, such as ethics) makes them religions in some sense. If materialism has no explicit answer to 'why bad things happen,' it has an implicit one, which is 'the universe is random like that; deal.' I consider that a religious and ethical viewpoint.

Plain English Translation: "Any system of thought which cannot provide a satisfying answer to everything is automatically a religion, so all systems of thought are equally credible in my eyes. Therefore, nuclear physics is no more credible than Jamaican voodoo, since it cannot provide an emotionally satisfying answer as to why bad things happen to good people".