Dawkins' variety - New Atheism - does have symbols. Words are symbols, as are any ideas or concepts used to stand in for a set of ideas or concepts beyond themselves.
In Dawkins' case, there's a pattern of parascientific (*) references to Darwin and evolution, science and reason on the one hand, and invocation of the evils and errors of religion on the other.
On the other hand, I would agree that it's not a system.
(*) "Parascientific" is a term coined I believe by Marilynne Robinson to mean ideas that claim the support of "science" and which sound "science-y" but which go beyond what is actually grounded in the sciences invoked. It pretty much always is grounded in STEM supremacy.
I'd say that was a song for humanism. None of the things he "imagines" are necessary for atheism (aside from no heaven which I take to be a synecdoche for god/God (I think most people take it this way)).
Dawkins' variety - New Atheism - does have symbols. Words are symbols, as are any ideas or concepts used to stand in for a set of ideas or concepts beyond themselves.
In Dawkins' case, there's a pattern of parascientific (*) references to Darwin and evolution, science and reason on the one hand, and invocation of the evils and errors of religion on the other.
On the other hand, I would agree that it's not a system.
(*) "Parascientific" is a term coined I believe by Marilynne Robinson to mean ideas that claim the support of "science" and which sound "science-y" but which go beyond what is actually grounded in the sciences invoked. It pretty much always is grounded in STEM supremacy.
I'll confess I know little of Dawkins, and it's all hearsay.
HOWEVER
By the standard you lay out here, all use of language would be religion, and I doubt you believe or mean that.
Can you give an example of Dawkins' use of the parascientific?
“[Religion is] [1] a system of symbols which acts to [2] establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by [3] formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and [4] clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that [5] the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic” (3).
@Timothy the Obscure something to work with!
Atheism
1) is NOT a system; has NO symbols; ain't [even] got no songs.
Geertz's definition of symbol: “any object, act, event, quality, or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception; the conception is the symbol’s “meaning””.
For Dawkins, the whole corpus of science (certainly his own books, as well as Darwin and others) qualifies as a symbol or system of symbols in this sense. Certainly his version of atheism is a system, one that he worked assiduously to lay out. And of course he was positively evangelical about it.
Dawkins' variety - New Atheism - does have symbols. Words are symbols, as are any ideas or concepts used to stand in for a set of ideas or concepts beyond themselves.
By the standard you lay out here, all use of language would be religion, and I doubt you believe or mean that.
The definition doesn't say having symbols is sufficient for a religion. Geertz' criterion 1 says that it has to be a system of symbols (and I've already denied that Dawkins' use of symbols is systematic). Geertz' then lists another four criteria, which are I think more interesting.
Can you give an example of Dawkins' use of the parascientific?
It's been an age since I read anything by Dawkins, and I certainly can't give citations. He also had a tendency to say controversial things off the cuff and then deny that he meant the obvious interpretation. If I remember correctly, he once said that most people basically act solely on their biological instincts, and it's only the truly rational few - the scientific elite - who can reason their way into more enlightened action.
(Then of course there's his persistent method of talking about theology as though it's a defective attempt at STEM.)
There's a wikimedia page of various symbols of atheism, including the one that ChastMastr linked to, which dates back to 1963 and the founding of American Atheists.
American Atheists has more than 230 local affiliates nationwide.
Millions of people who no longer believe stay in their churches because of the community and support the churches provide. Our local affiliates stand ready to help and are vibrant communities full of people just like you who have left behind religion.
To the extent that such people continue to participate in the same recognised practices, there's a sense in which the symbols of christianity become the symbols of atheism.
The definition doesn't say having symbols is sufficient for a religion. Geertz' criterion 1 says that it has to be a system of symbols (and I've already denied that Dawkins' use of symbols is systematic). Geertz' then lists another four criteria, which are I think more interesting.
Can you give an example of Dawkins' use of the parascientific?
It's been an age since I read anything by Dawkins, and I certainly can't give citations. He also had a tendency to say controversial things off the cuff and then deny that he meant the obvious interpretation. If I remember correctly, he once said that most people basically act solely on their biological instincts, and it's only the truly rational few - the scientific elite - who can reason their way into more enlightened action.
(Then of course there's his persistent method of talking about theology as though it's a defective attempt at STEM.)
Thanks. That's helpful.
I take it that Dawkins was not limiting his comments on theology to YEC or ID. I have my being within that milieu. He would have a hay-day.
In my experience most people who are atheists have a reason, often deeply held to be the point they decided. The death of a loved one in a car accident or the unfairness in the world for instance. Often typified by the phrase “how can a loving God allow…”
I say most because I do know some who say they are atheists but really do it for an easy life.
There's a wikimedia page of various symbols of atheism, including the one that ChastMastr linked to, which dates back to 1963 and the founding of American Atheists.
American Atheists has more than 230 local affiliates nationwide.
Millions of people who no longer believe stay in their churches because of the community and support the churches provide. Our local affiliates stand ready to help and are vibrant communities full of people just like you who have left behind religion.
To the extent that such people continue to participate in the same recognised practices, there's a sense in which the symbols of christianity become the symbols of atheism.
So you could perhaps say that American Atheists as an organization is religious in the sense laid out above, but that still doesn't mean that atheism is.
A while ago there were 'atheist churches' which borrowed some aspects of contemporary religious practice such as upbeat songs and uplifting self-help sermons. Think charismatic-lite style services with even less 'charisma' and more lite. Charismatic-00.
I mean no disrespect to charismatic Shipmates. The resemblance was more an issue of style rather than substance.
I seem to remember there was some discussion about these outfits on these boards. I'm not sure they still exist.
They did seem to offer some kind of support network for young atheists who wanted to strut their stuff rather than simply getting on with their atheism in their everyday lives.
A while ago there were 'atheist churches' which borrowed some aspects of contemporary religious practice such as upbeat songs and uplifting self-help sermons. Think charismatic-lite style services with even less 'charisma' and more lite. Charismatic-00.
I mean no disrespect to charismatic Shipmates. The resemblance was more an issue of style rather than substance.
I seem to remember there was some discussion about these outfits on these boards. I'm not sure they still exist.
They did seem to offer some kind of support network for young atheists who wanted to strut their stuff rather than simply getting on with their atheism in their everyday lives.
Or for young atheists whose family is hostile or even kicked them out of the family home. Clearly by "getting on with [one's] atheism" you mean getting on in a way that you approve. Not by leaning on others for support in difficult times. What % of your experience of Christian church is mere worship, and what % is fellowship? Do you gain any benefit at all from rubbing elbows with, and eating with, and doing good deeds with, other Christians? Why then are you so snide about atheists who have the same needs for human companionship that you do?
Seriously though, I meant no offence and didn't intend my comment to be 'snide'. It was meant to be humorous. Reading my post again, though, I can see how it might cause offence and I apologise for that.
I can understand that young atheists from very fundamentalist households might benefit from a support network but by and large things aren't difficult for atheists here in the UK outside of that context. But sure, for those in those circumstances, I can see a real need.
I wouldn't want to be an atheist in Fundamentalistville Idaho.
@Hugal made a comment about atheists opting for an 'easy life'. I'm not so sure it is an easy option, particularly if someone has gone through the trauma of losing faith to find themselves in an atheist position.
What I did find odd about the 'atheist church' model was that it somehow felt the need to emulate certain tropes from rather revivalist forms of religion. I s'pose that's the element that both intrigued and rankled me to some extent rather than the companionship/fellowship aspect.
Why not just be an atheist at the local sports club or film society?
But sure, you make a valid challenge and I apologise for causing offence.
Because the local sports club or film society is about sports or film, and not how to survive as an atheist in a heavily religionified society. Talking about the latter would be out of place.
Not sure about the revivalist stuff. Presumably it scratches an itch. Alternatively it could show which Christian tradition is producing and/or damaging the most atheists, and they bring that worship feel with them (presumably not knowing anything else). That seems the most likely.
I think there are Pond Differences at play to some extent and also demographic issues that span both sides of the Atlantic and the Western world more generally.
The UK is far more secularised than the US, of course. So less 'need', at least on the same scale, for groups like 'Fundamentalists Anonymous', for instance.
The absence of religious belief isn't socially unacceptable in 'mainstream' British society.
But clearly there is a 'need', otherwise groups like this wouldn't form in the first place.
From the media coverage around these 'atheist churches', I didn't get the impression that everyone taking part were recovering charismatics or fundamentalists of various kinds. Rather, that they were providing some kind of sense of community and buzz among young professionals in major cities where things were becoming more atomised and traditional social networks were breaking down.
That's largely where various fervent religious movements gained traction here in the UK, at least until comparatively recently. The same demographic.
I'm not so sure the revivalist style resulted from the involvement of former revivalist, rather it reflects the fact that revivalist religion tends to reflect the zeitgeist.
Take references to Christ out of revivalism and you are left with a kind of motivational self-help vibe.
Heck, I know of a former pastor who is making a living from motivational speaking in the secular marketplace.
I suspect though, that the motivation or intention behind people's involvement in such groups is as varied as that amongst churchgoers.
There's a persistent drumbeat to attempt to cast atheism in religious terms. I think this is true because the religious absolutely believe they can't be beaten on their home turf. So, the lens is religious. The terminology is religious. The authority is religious. It's terribly transparent.
There's a persistent drumbeat to attempt to cast atheism in religious terms. I think this is true because the religious absolutely believe they can't be beaten on their home turf. So, the lens is religious. The terminology is religious. The authority is religious. It's terribly transparent.
I'm not saying you can't address the actual arguments that have been made or engaged with the actual positions that have been expressed.
I just note that instead of doing so you've decided to speculate about motives without evidence.
If I were to end this post by saying "it's terribly transparent" it would be a rhetorical attempt at an as hominem straw man.
I hesitate to enter this debate. But, while I don't necessarily agree with Drumbeat, it does strike me that the actual word "atheist" is inherently religious, in the sense that a person who uses it is defining themself as "not believing in any gods". However I can't think of a more "positive" term to use in its place.
There's a persistent drumbeat to attempt to cast atheism in religious terms. I think this is true because the religious absolutely believe they can't be beaten on their home turf. So, the lens is religious. The terminology is religious. The authority is religious. It's terribly transparent.
I'm not saying you can't address the actual arguments that have been made or engaged with the actual positions that have been expressed.
I just note that instead of doing so you've decided to speculate about motives without evidence.
If I were to end this post by saying "it's terribly transparent" it would be a rhetorical attempt at an as hominem straw man.
A lot of arguments and positions emerge without pre-requisite commentary. As someone who's watched a lot of "theist vs. atheist" debates -- a lot -- and from positions of (1) having lost my own faith, and (2) living squarely in the buckle of the American Bible Belt (Mississippi) where atheism is castigated vigorously, I have a more specific, probably aggressive views.
ETA that I do appreciate the irony of a standard of evidence re: issues of religion. Thank you for that.
The thing is, people are talking as though "atheism" is some sort of unified thing, like a denomination or organization. But it's not that way. Sure some atheists are in organized Humanist groups or whatever, but most are just individual people who simply don't believe in a god. No more organized under a single banner than any other random group.
I think there are some atheists who “simply don’t believe in a god“, and are not very interested in the question, but there are also some atheists who positively believe that there is no such thing as a god, and are profoundly invested in defending and/or promoting that view. These two groups have rather different flavours!
I hesitate to enter this debate. But, while I don't necessarily agree with Drumbeat, it does strike me that the actual word "atheist" is inherently religious, in the sense that a person who uses it is defining themself as "not believing in any gods". However I can't think of a more "positive" term to use in its place.
How is not believing in gods religious? That would make it diametrically opposed from religious.
The thing is, people are talking as though "atheism" is some sort of unified thing, like a denomination or organization. But it's not that way. Sure some atheists are in organized Humanist groups or whatever, but most are just individual people who simply don't believe in a god. No more organized under a single banner than any other random group.
Of course such a group would be a humanist group, not an atheist group. Not all atheists are humanists. And there are Christian humanists on the other side.
...
So you could perhaps say that American Atheists as an organization is religious in the sense laid out above, but that still doesn't mean that atheism is.
True.
Maybe the issue shouldn't be whether atheism is a religious belief, but whether many atheists share the same need as "religious" people to belong to a group that shares their belief, for support and fellowship.
Or, whether atheists face similar problems to people who belong to religious minorities, such as isolation and feeling unwelcome.
Or whether atheists can experience discrimination and marginalisation, because of their beliefs.
...
So you could perhaps say that American Atheists as an organization is religious in the sense laid out above, but that still doesn't mean that atheism is.
True.
Maybe the issue shouldn't be whether atheism is a religious belief, but whether many atheists share the same need as "religious" people to belong to a group that shares their belief, for support and fellowship.
Or, whether atheists face similar problems to people who belong to religious minorities, such as isolation and feeling unwelcome.
Or whether atheists can experience discrimination and marginalisation, because of their beliefs.
I think there are a large number of people who look for "support and fellowship" but have given up believing that it is possible to find without also taking on a lot of other stuff they don't want.
Just look at the number of people of around my age (early 50s) who are essentially friendless.
There is sufficient egoist politics I experience in the university to worry that I would see more of the same in a much more confined space in any kind of group endeavour, be it in a religious setting or recreational sports club. I am content accepting that there isn't anything that would likely give deep social contact and I would likely run from anyone who looked like they were motivated to try.
@The_Riv and @Dafyd this is getting very close to something that is more personal attack than robust discussion of the subject at hand. Please don’t stray so close to that line.
I think there are a large number of people who look for "support and fellowship" but have given up believing that it is possible to find without also taking on a lot of other stuff they don't want.
Just look at the number of people of around my age (early 50s) who are essentially friendless.
In the case of these forums, there's a cohort of members who no longer believe in God. In their case, atheism isn't so much about non-belief as loss of belief. I imagine they value having a place they can talk about it, and talk about other issues from that perspective.
Personally I don’t see atheism as a religious stance. Atheism is the belief that there is no proof that can beyond a reasonable doubt prove the supernatural. Just like if someone said…. I believe that the sun is actually a giant alien and I told them to prove it, then they could not, and so I said well I don’t see why i should believe you. Or if someone told me they can summon a genie and fly and I told them too, then they could not, it’s not a religious belief for me to not believe them.
There just simply is no concrete evidence that anything supernatural exists. Religious beliefs is based around faith, not evidence. Atheism is based around not believing something without having evidence.
Eh, I think you're going to have to tighten your definition a bit. There is evidence for Christianity--just not evidence that you or many others find convincing. And in fact, a great deal of human life is lived with varying levels of evidence, including none at all. Think, for instance, of the relationships we begin and carry on--friendships, marriages... Think of the jobs we take, the sports we try out on the word of a friend. What exactly constitutes "concrete evidence"? How much of it do you need, and for what? This all gets pretty hairy.
If someone said there was evidence that Thor was real. I would say present it. Stories about stories or testimonies of people saying Thor came down in the clouds and crushed some man’s head with a hammer does not count. Thats just anecdotal or testimony and its testimony from people hundreds of years ago.
If I said Michael Jackson can do a moonwalk, I could then present concrete evidence to it.
There is no evidence of any supernatural claim in the Bible. Showing testimony of people who believe in a supernatural testimony , even being willing to die for it, does not count. Plenty of cults have people ready to die for what they believe in.
There are thousands of photos and videos online of Bigfoot. There are hundreds of thousands of claims of Bigfoot type created around the world going back centuries of large, hairy crazy men in the woods. There is fossil evidence of large primates that were potentially bipedal or able to stand up for a bit, such as the Gigantopithecus which stood at around 10 feet tall and weighed twice as much as a silverback gorilla. This genus is considered an extinct sister genus to Pongo, which is the orangutans. Bigfoot is often described as having orangish chestnut colored hair just like they have and presumably Gigantopithecus blacki may have had as well. Yet I, along with most others, don’t believe it. I can go to a convention with a few thousand people out of which hundreds will swear on their life that they’ve seen a Bigfoot in person, often with distant blurry photos to accompany the tale. Some even have large scars across their body to attest to what they saw. Yet most rational people don’t believe it, because when it’s asked to present solid proof, it’s not there.
So was there a man named Yeshu who was Jewish, in the first century, who inspired a Jewish sect later k own as Christians to develop? Yes. Does that mean that the supernatural claims are real? No. It’s also of interest that there is relatively little literature from that time about him. We don’t find pottery, stories, statues and so on from that period attesting to it. We find hundreds of entries in various forms from the ancient world, and almost none mention it.
So Alabama has roughly 20 species of native oak trees. I can give you a list of a handful of herbariums that has digitalized their collections proving beyond reasonable doubt they exist. The zebra swallowtail is a butterfly whose host plant for their caterpillars is the pawpaw trees. I can send videos of their eggs and caterpillars on these trees.
What’s the number one evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural claims of the gospel is true?
As for what I need, I just need anything that’s concrete for any supernatural claim. Same standard of evidence to support any natural claim is good enough for me to support , and prove, a supernatural one.
For example, if you know of someone whose prayers directly seem to predict with 100% accuracy or alter diagnosis instantly for something like stage four cancer I’ll accept it.
If someone said they went to things station and got a soda I would probably just accept it. If they said they flapped their arms and flew there and got back in 2 minutes I would not. I would then ask for them to do it again. Which they could not. I could then present scientifically why it’s not possible. Even if 4 others said they saw them do it.
What’s the number one evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural claims of the gospel is true?
You might want to figure out exactly where you want to plant your goal posts. Here, and at one spot in your previous post, you say “evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.” But elsewhere in that previous post and in your most recent post, you talk about “concrete evidence that anything supernatural exists.”
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and “concrete evidence” are not at all the same thing. And why is the standard “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”? Why not “the preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence” or some other standard? And how do you account for evidence that you may not find persuasive but that others do?
Whoa, wait a minute. I'm not here to answer any and every whacko claim you've ever heard made on behalf of Christianity. I was discussing evidence.
[deleted huge freaking miracle story right here because if I tell it on the internet, I'm endangering my family, because there are still people out there who would love to know how ... never mind. But they have guns. Fuck.]
Look. For the great majority of historical claims (that is, claims which happened in the past), you will have to judge whether they happened or not based on the testimony of witnesses. If the events are sufficiently far enough in the past, you will be relying on the written word. If they are sufficiently recent (like, REALLY recent), you might get audio, pictures or even video. But that's a really small subset of history.
You cannot demand so-called "scientific proof" of whether Jesus rose from the dead for the simple reason that this was a historical event, and like all historical events, non-repeatable. You cannot have scientific proof of what I had for supper last week, either. At most you can have judicial evidence--that is, the testimony of witnesses and if you're lucky, the aforesaid audio, video, or pictures. That's it.
Most Christian claims fall into the category of "historical event," whether you believe they happened or not. So you will need to seek out that sort of evidence, because that's what's appropriate for history. You'd have to do the same if we were discussing what Claudius died of. It's just the nature of the (historical) beast.
And if it's Christianity, that puts you eyeball to eyeball with the New Testament. Because that's where those eyewitness testimonies are.
(There are actually a few non-New Testament pieces of evidence that mention Jesus and his movement, but they aren't eyewitnesses, and why would you care, anyway? Check out the eyewitnesses first--that's the normal mode of proceding.)
So I don’t need every wacko claim answered. Just showing some basic things.
After this, I’m just not going to repeat my question. A simple question deserves a simple answer.
So I’ll make it as easy as possible.
You provide what you think is the evidence that proves the supernatural claims in the gospels. We will then see if that same line of evidence is acceptable to you as proof for other similar claims.
Is the proof that showcases the supernatural claims beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the Bible is eye witness accounts of what happened? Or interviews of people who were eyewitnesses of the supernatural accounts?
I’m about to go to bed. I’ll read responses probably tomorrow afternoon and respond. Unless it just seems like regurgitation of A,B.C,A,B,C type of discussions. If so, I’ll just float around in another thread .
Is the proof that showcases the supernatural claims beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the Bible is eye witness accounts of what happened? Or interviews of people who were eyewitnesses of the supernatural accounts?
Again, if you’re going looking for responses, the least you can do is be clear about the what and why of your standard of proof..
So I don’t need every wacko claim answered. Just showing some basic things.
After this, I’m just not going to repeat my question. A simple question deserves a simple answer.
So I’ll make it as easy as possible.
You provide what you think is the evidence that proves the supernatural claims in the gospels. We will then see if that same line of evidence is acceptable to you as proof for other similar claims.
Is the proof that showcases the supernatural claims beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the Bible is eye witness accounts of what happened? Or interviews of people who were eyewitnesses of the supernatural accounts?
Okay, if you want to go there: There's a long thread called The boring thread on how we know what we know about what Jesus said and did. It's exactly what it says on the label--long, boring, and full of info on the historical/textual evidence for what Jesus said and did, that is, the New Testament. If you want to know what I consider decent evidence, go read that. I wrote the bulk of it (people replied and commented, natch) because I was getting tired of having folks demand to have all the evidence repeated while standing on a single foot, as it were.
Comments
Dawkins' variety - New Atheism - does have symbols. Words are symbols, as are any ideas or concepts used to stand in for a set of ideas or concepts beyond themselves.
In Dawkins' case, there's a pattern of parascientific (*) references to Darwin and evolution, science and reason on the one hand, and invocation of the evils and errors of religion on the other.
On the other hand, I would agree that it's not a system.
(*) "Parascientific" is a term coined I believe by Marilynne Robinson to mean ideas that claim the support of "science" and which sound "science-y" but which go beyond what is actually grounded in the sciences invoked. It pretty much always is grounded in STEM supremacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_whirl#:~:text=The atomic whirl is a,not on the atomic orbitals.
I'd say that was a song for humanism. None of the things he "imagines" are necessary for atheism (aside from no heaven which I take to be a synecdoche for god/God (I think most people take it this way)).
I'll confess I know little of Dawkins, and it's all hearsay.
HOWEVER
By the standard you lay out here, all use of language would be religion, and I doubt you believe or mean that.
Can you give an example of Dawkins' use of the parascientific?
For Dawkins, the whole corpus of science (certainly his own books, as well as Darwin and others) qualifies as a symbol or system of symbols in this sense. Certainly his version of atheism is a system, one that he worked assiduously to lay out. And of course he was positively evangelical about it.
(Then of course there's his persistent method of talking about theology as though it's a defective attempt at STEM.)
From their website: To the extent that such people continue to participate in the same recognised practices, there's a sense in which the symbols of christianity become the symbols of atheism.
Thanks. That's helpful.
I take it that Dawkins was not limiting his comments on theology to YEC or ID. I have my being within that milieu. He would have a hay-day.
Corrected quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
I say most because I do know some who say they are atheists but really do it for an easy life.
So you could perhaps say that American Atheists as an organization is religious in the sense laid out above, but that still doesn't mean that atheism is.
I mean no disrespect to charismatic Shipmates. The resemblance was more an issue of style rather than substance.
I seem to remember there was some discussion about these outfits on these boards. I'm not sure they still exist.
They did seem to offer some kind of support network for young atheists who wanted to strut their stuff rather than simply getting on with their atheism in their everyday lives.
Or for young atheists whose family is hostile or even kicked them out of the family home. Clearly by "getting on with [one's] atheism" you mean getting on in a way that you approve. Not by leaning on others for support in difficult times. What % of your experience of Christian church is mere worship, and what % is fellowship? Do you gain any benefit at all from rubbing elbows with, and eating with, and doing good deeds with, other Christians? Why then are you so snide about atheists who have the same needs for human companionship that you do?
Seriously though, I meant no offence and didn't intend my comment to be 'snide'. It was meant to be humorous. Reading my post again, though, I can see how it might cause offence and I apologise for that.
I can understand that young atheists from very fundamentalist households might benefit from a support network but by and large things aren't difficult for atheists here in the UK outside of that context. But sure, for those in those circumstances, I can see a real need.
I wouldn't want to be an atheist in Fundamentalistville Idaho.
@Hugal made a comment about atheists opting for an 'easy life'. I'm not so sure it is an easy option, particularly if someone has gone through the trauma of losing faith to find themselves in an atheist position.
What I did find odd about the 'atheist church' model was that it somehow felt the need to emulate certain tropes from rather revivalist forms of religion. I s'pose that's the element that both intrigued and rankled me to some extent rather than the companionship/fellowship aspect.
Why not just be an atheist at the local sports club or film society?
But sure, you make a valid challenge and I apologise for causing offence.
Not sure about the revivalist stuff. Presumably it scratches an itch. Alternatively it could show which Christian tradition is producing and/or damaging the most atheists, and they bring that worship feel with them (presumably not knowing anything else). That seems the most likely.
The UK is far more secularised than the US, of course. So less 'need', at least on the same scale, for groups like 'Fundamentalists Anonymous', for instance.
The absence of religious belief isn't socially unacceptable in 'mainstream' British society.
But clearly there is a 'need', otherwise groups like this wouldn't form in the first place.
From the media coverage around these 'atheist churches', I didn't get the impression that everyone taking part were recovering charismatics or fundamentalists of various kinds. Rather, that they were providing some kind of sense of community and buzz among young professionals in major cities where things were becoming more atomised and traditional social networks were breaking down.
That's largely where various fervent religious movements gained traction here in the UK, at least until comparatively recently. The same demographic.
I'm not so sure the revivalist style resulted from the involvement of former revivalist, rather it reflects the fact that revivalist religion tends to reflect the zeitgeist.
Take references to Christ out of revivalism and you are left with a kind of motivational self-help vibe.
Heck, I know of a former pastor who is making a living from motivational speaking in the secular marketplace.
I suspect though, that the motivation or intention behind people's involvement in such groups is as varied as that amongst churchgoers.
I just note that instead of doing so you've decided to speculate about motives without evidence.
If I were to end this post by saying "it's terribly transparent" it would be a rhetorical attempt at an as hominem straw man.
A lot of arguments and positions emerge without pre-requisite commentary. As someone who's watched a lot of "theist vs. atheist" debates -- a lot -- and from positions of (1) having lost my own faith, and (2) living squarely in the buckle of the American Bible Belt (Mississippi) where atheism is castigated vigorously, I have a more specific, probably aggressive views.
ETA that I do appreciate the irony of a standard of evidence re: issues of religion. Thank you for that.
How is not believing in gods religious? That would make it diametrically opposed from religious.
Of course such a group would be a humanist group, not an atheist group. Not all atheists are humanists. And there are Christian humanists on the other side.
Maybe the issue shouldn't be whether atheism is a religious belief, but whether many atheists share the same need as "religious" people to belong to a group that shares their belief, for support and fellowship.
Or, whether atheists face similar problems to people who belong to religious minorities, such as isolation and feeling unwelcome.
Or whether atheists can experience discrimination and marginalisation, because of their beliefs.
Unless the non-believers had a common list of the things they didn't believe in.
I think there are a large number of people who look for "support and fellowship" but have given up believing that it is possible to find without also taking on a lot of other stuff they don't want.
Just look at the number of people of around my age (early 50s) who are essentially friendless.
There is sufficient egoist politics I experience in the university to worry that I would see more of the same in a much more confined space in any kind of group endeavour, be it in a religious setting or recreational sports club. I am content accepting that there isn't anything that would likely give deep social contact and I would likely run from anyone who looked like they were motivated to try.
You have my sympathy.
I've never heard that crack before. Did you think of it all by yourself?
Modern Wiccans are not, for the most part, an organized group. Do they count as a religion?
I see you've succeeded in moving beyond the mere possibility of an ad hominem comment. Good for you!
BroJames, Purgatory Host
BroJames, Purgatory Host
There just simply is no concrete evidence that anything supernatural exists. Religious beliefs is based around faith, not evidence. Atheism is based around not believing something without having evidence.
If someone said there was evidence that Thor was real. I would say present it. Stories about stories or testimonies of people saying Thor came down in the clouds and crushed some man’s head with a hammer does not count. Thats just anecdotal or testimony and its testimony from people hundreds of years ago.
If I said Michael Jackson can do a moonwalk, I could then present concrete evidence to it.
There is no evidence of any supernatural claim in the Bible. Showing testimony of people who believe in a supernatural testimony , even being willing to die for it, does not count. Plenty of cults have people ready to die for what they believe in.
There are thousands of photos and videos online of Bigfoot. There are hundreds of thousands of claims of Bigfoot type created around the world going back centuries of large, hairy crazy men in the woods. There is fossil evidence of large primates that were potentially bipedal or able to stand up for a bit, such as the Gigantopithecus which stood at around 10 feet tall and weighed twice as much as a silverback gorilla. This genus is considered an extinct sister genus to Pongo, which is the orangutans. Bigfoot is often described as having orangish chestnut colored hair just like they have and presumably Gigantopithecus blacki may have had as well. Yet I, along with most others, don’t believe it. I can go to a convention with a few thousand people out of which hundreds will swear on their life that they’ve seen a Bigfoot in person, often with distant blurry photos to accompany the tale. Some even have large scars across their body to attest to what they saw. Yet most rational people don’t believe it, because when it’s asked to present solid proof, it’s not there.
So was there a man named Yeshu who was Jewish, in the first century, who inspired a Jewish sect later k own as Christians to develop? Yes. Does that mean that the supernatural claims are real? No. It’s also of interest that there is relatively little literature from that time about him. We don’t find pottery, stories, statues and so on from that period attesting to it. We find hundreds of entries in various forms from the ancient world, and almost none mention it.
So Alabama has roughly 20 species of native oak trees. I can give you a list of a handful of herbariums that has digitalized their collections proving beyond reasonable doubt they exist. The zebra swallowtail is a butterfly whose host plant for their caterpillars is the pawpaw trees. I can send videos of their eggs and caterpillars on these trees.
What’s the number one evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural claims of the gospel is true?
For example, if you know of someone whose prayers directly seem to predict with 100% accuracy or alter diagnosis instantly for something like stage four cancer I’ll accept it.
If someone said they went to things station and got a soda I would probably just accept it. If they said they flapped their arms and flew there and got back in 2 minutes I would not. I would then ask for them to do it again. Which they could not. I could then present scientifically why it’s not possible. Even if 4 others said they saw them do it.
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and “concrete evidence” are not at all the same thing. And why is the standard “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”? Why not “the preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence” or some other standard? And how do you account for evidence that you may not find persuasive but that others do?
[deleted huge freaking miracle story right here because if I tell it on the internet, I'm endangering my family, because there are still people out there who would love to know how ... never mind. But they have guns. Fuck.]
Look. For the great majority of historical claims (that is, claims which happened in the past), you will have to judge whether they happened or not based on the testimony of witnesses. If the events are sufficiently far enough in the past, you will be relying on the written word. If they are sufficiently recent (like, REALLY recent), you might get audio, pictures or even video. But that's a really small subset of history.
You cannot demand so-called "scientific proof" of whether Jesus rose from the dead for the simple reason that this was a historical event, and like all historical events, non-repeatable. You cannot have scientific proof of what I had for supper last week, either. At most you can have judicial evidence--that is, the testimony of witnesses and if you're lucky, the aforesaid audio, video, or pictures. That's it.
Most Christian claims fall into the category of "historical event," whether you believe they happened or not. So you will need to seek out that sort of evidence, because that's what's appropriate for history. You'd have to do the same if we were discussing what Claudius died of. It's just the nature of the (historical) beast.
And if it's Christianity, that puts you eyeball to eyeball with the New Testament. Because that's where those eyewitness testimonies are.
(There are actually a few non-New Testament pieces of evidence that mention Jesus and his movement, but they aren't eyewitnesses, and why would you care, anyway? Check out the eyewitnesses first--that's the normal mode of proceding.)
After this, I’m just not going to repeat my question. A simple question deserves a simple answer.
So I’ll make it as easy as possible.
You provide what you think is the evidence that proves the supernatural claims in the gospels. We will then see if that same line of evidence is acceptable to you as proof for other similar claims.
Is the proof that showcases the supernatural claims beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the Bible is eye witness accounts of what happened? Or interviews of people who were eyewitnesses of the supernatural accounts?
Why is your standard beyond a reasonable doubt?
Okay, if you want to go there: There's a long thread called The boring thread on how we know what we know about what Jesus said and did. It's exactly what it says on the label--long, boring, and full of info on the historical/textual evidence for what Jesus said and did, that is, the New Testament. If you want to know what I consider decent evidence, go read that. I wrote the bulk of it (people replied and commented, natch) because I was getting tired of having folks demand to have all the evidence repeated while standing on a single foot, as it were.
Then come back and tell me what you think of it.