There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. It both requires study of theological arguments, epistemology, metaphysics, and religion. In order to be without gods he must first have gods to be without. In some sense he never leaves religion, always keeping one foot in its sphere.

Religion is about control, that seems to be the nutshell here. — Darkneos

Religion doesn’t answer how to live so much as tell/force you to live as such or else. — Darkneos

Even Christ wasn’t exactly a good guy in the book itself. There is a reason a lot of atheists say they became atheists by reading the Bible. — Darkneos

:100:

That's so... epistemic. Gross. :D

Our two theories of dogma could align. Also, I'm open to changing mine. I mostly just wanted to open up a conversation on what we mean by dogma, since it seemed important to understanding one another. What do we mean by dogma?

The way I'd rephrase mine to be as short as yours -- dogma is a primary belief in a web of beliefs that fulfills an important social function that is not truth-functional.

I think ‘radical’ depends upon your foundational beliefs. It’s one of those words. The Bishop here disdainfully called them 'maverick' priests.

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations — Jamal

I offer the Mormons as a counterexample of a Protestant denomination with a hierarchical structure, with its President afforded the status of prophet, much like the Catholic Church, thus providing an authority outside its sacred texts.

Branch Davidians being another, but that didn't end well.

I mean, it kind of depends on the kind of atheism one is listening to or supports. For instance, Bertrand Russell, on the whole, seems much more levelheaded than, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.

This is partly explained by the time periods they grew up in, as well as personal temperament. The argument you list here is quite an accurate description of a vulgar kind of atheism, which needn't be the only variety one pays attention to.

In my own case, getting rid of religion was quite freeing, it just didn't make much sense to me and the questions I asked were never answered, or answered very poorly. So that sense of liberation can certainly cause some to think that others would feel the same if they had the same experience, which needn't follow.

Of course, once you realize that for some, a belief in some kind of God sustains them through very brutal circumstances, to condemn that is to be a jerk.

One major issue is that there is nothing like a "spiritual equivalent" in science, and this is a need people tend to have, as temporal, fragile, self-conscious beings. Until some kind of rational belief system(s) is developed, these issues will remain in some fashion.

:up:

I think it is pertinent to the idea of resistance to present evils. So, Merton was a quietest when measured against 'Liberation Theology' and Bonhoffer resisted the Nazis when others did not.

The altar of sacrifice turns out to be a moving target and timing is key.

No it really isn’t.

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. It both requires study of theological arguments, epistemology, metaphysics, and religion. In order to be without gods he must first have gods to be without. In some sense he never leaves religion, always keeping one foot in its sphere. — NOS4A2

This is a wild misunderstanding of atheism.

It’s a non position. Also you don’t need gods to be an atheist.

Like…this is just wrong

It would seem kinder to the author to assume he wasn't claiming that Jesus said "I am the truth, the truth and the truth" but drew a distinction between "the truth" and "the way" and "the life." Regardless, though, it's clear that Jesus is portrayed as claiming he alone is the way, the truth and the life. — Ciceronianus

I would prefer to believe that Christ was speaking from a universalist perspective, rather than proclaiming the requirements of a sectarian religious affiliation ("Yo! Christians! Form a queue to the right! Others - outer darkness!'). The question is, does the ‘I’ in Jesus’ statements about himself refer to that particular individual at a specific time and place? Recall the statement of God’s identity in Exodus,’I AM THAT I AM’ (Ex 3:14) and Jesus 'Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 48). Advaita Vedanta would interpret those statements as affirmations that 'the Truth, Light and Way' just IS the Self (Ātman) which is the ground of being of every individual, to which it is the task of their religious discipline to awaken. (The fact that Christians might not concur is irrelevant from a philosophical perspective.)

What do we mean by dogma? — Moliere

Dogma is not only religious. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.' Political orthodoxies have their dogmas, as do many other disciplines - Soviet Communism was notoriously dogmatic. Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom. In itself it is not necessarily problematic, but becomes so when it is allied with authoritarianism, which is often is.

it kind of depends on the kind of atheism one is listening to or supports. — Manuel

Listening to many of the voices on this forum, you'd be convinced that the history of religion is the history of evil and that all we can do is struggle to free ourselves from it. What that doesn't see is what calls forth the need for religion in the first place (because anthropology and history have shown that it is utterly ubiquitous in human culture). That is invariably depicted by atheism as a kind of sense of dependency which also needs to be thrown off. This is a quote from an analysis of the philosophy of religion of Josiah Royce which I think captures more of the original impetus towards spiritual belief:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa (path of sorrows) through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

And that quote is by itself perfectly sensible, not everybody has a constitution to think that all there is, is this universe here, following some laws and blind chance let us to be here. I mean, there's a lot we do not know, so I suspect even this scientistic version is bound to be missing crucial information.

Is this life enough? I don't think we can seriously say that to the face of many, many people who live in the most miserable and wretched conditions we can imagine. Because it isn't - or shouldn't be at least.

For others more fortunate, we can agree with Descartes and say:

"I have no cause for complaint on the grounds that the power of understanding or the natural light which God gave me is no greater than it is... I have reason to give thanks to him who has never owed me anything for the great bounty that he has shown me, rather than thinking myself deprived or robbed of any gifts he did not bestow." (Italics mine)

Of course, non-religious people would call this "nature", not God. But it's a valid perspective.

Even with this, some people won't be satisfied, and that's OK too.

"I have no cause for complaint on the grounds that the power of understanding or the natural light which God gave me is no greater than it is... I have reason to give thanks to him who has never owed me anything for the great bounty that he has shown me, rather than thinking myself deprived or robbed of any gifts he did not bestow." (Italics mine)

Of course, non-religious people would call this "nature", not God. But it's a valid perspective.

Even with this, some people won't be satisfied, and that's OK too. — Manuel

Too bad he’s wrong about that. It’s not a valid perspective but rather a naive one.

Dogma is not only religious. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.' Political orthodoxies have their dogmas, as do many other disciplines - Soviet Communism was notoriously dogmatic. Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom. In itself it is not necessarily problematic, but becomes so when it is allied with authoritarianism, which is often is. — Wayfarer

That’s kinda a misunderstanding of what dogma is. Especially trying to liken it to molecular biology.

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. — NOS4A2

It depends on how one uses the term. For instance, I use atheism as the claim that 'theistic claims' are not true – without asserting anything about g/G, simply demonstrating that 'what theists say about their g/G' is incoherent and/or false (which, if that's the case, entails that 'theistic deities' are fictions). Anyway, in the main, atheism is not a "theological position" any more than celibacy is a sexual position.

Listening to many of the voices on this forum, you'd be convinced that the history of religion is the history of evil and that all we can do is struggle to free ourselves from it. What that doesn't see is what calls forth the need for religion in the first place (because anthropology and history have shown that it is utterly ubiquitous in human culture). That is invariably depicted by atheism as a kind of sense of dependency which also needs to be thrown off. — Wayfarer

It effectively is as you can find thousands of examples of that, even to this day. Religion was an old form of trying to understand the world but as time moved forward it became evident that it wasn’t as more scientific explanations proved better. But given that power structures are entrenched in our society that operate on it and people don’t like change it persists.

It served its purpose for a time but now needs to be let go.

It effectively is as you can find thousands of examples of that, even to this day. Religion was an old form of trying to understand the world but as time moved forward it became evident that it wasn’t as more scientific explanations proved better. — Darkneos

They're not equivalent. Science provides a wealth of quantitative data, better adaption to circumstances, and so on, but it is not concerned with existential truths.

Ok.

:up:

I would argue that religion isn't either. Religion is more about making their truths reality.

Though IMO there are no existential truths, just opinions.

One major issue is that there is nothing like a "spiritual equivalent" in science, and this is a need people tend to have, as temporal, fragile, self-conscious beings. — Manuel

Nature works. Just go out in the woods, or walk along a beach; gaze at stars or learn about coral reefs. Our earliest conscious, reasoning connection to the universe was through the earth, air, water and other life all around us. Urban civilization creates artificial barriers between our inner life and the sources of life. We need to reconnect for full physical, mental and spiritual wholeness. We don't need supernatural or philosophical intermediaries.

Amen! I'd add, develop some expertise in some aspect of interacting with the natural world, whether that be fly fishing, growing bonsai trees, sailing, or motorcycle maintenance.

You don't need to tell me about it, I very much agree with that.

But just because it may satisfy me or you, doesn't mean it will work equally well with everyone, for some it doesn't cut it.

I mean, sure mountains, beaches, jungles, the night sky, are all wonderful, but if one's child dies from starvation or one's whole family was killed, then these things have more limited utility.

I still feel the inclination to some philosophical framework, it does provide me with the "religious" equivalent, and is very interesting, at least to me.

But sure, nature can be great, on occasion.

Nature works. Just go out in the woods, or walk along a beach; gaze at stars or learn about coral reefs. Our earliest conscious, reasoning connection to the universe was through the earth, air, water and other life all around us. Urban civilization creates artificial barriers between our inner life and the sources of life. We need to reconnect for full physical, mental and spiritual wholeness. We don't need supernatural or philosophical intermediaries. — Vera Mont

From a certain standpoint nothing is alive, it's all just matter and how it's arranged. That what looks alive is just an illusion since it's really all just matter, nothing dies matter just rearranges.

Also that reconnection isn't a real thing it's just a fantasy we made up in our heads.

But just because it may satisfy me or you, doesn't mean it will work equally well with everyone, for some it doesn't cut it. — Manuel

It actually does. The Japanese, some of the most modern-stressed people in the world, prescribe forest therapy for burnout, grief, recovery from illness.

Shinrin-yoku (森林浴)—which literally translates to “forest bath”—is the Japanese practice of “bathing” oneself in nature with the intention of receiving therapeutic benefits.

but if one's child dies from starvation or one's whole family was killed, then these things have more limited utility. — Manuel

As do the gods, whose followers cause most of this suffering. The cruelties of humans to one another compensated-for by clinging to gods made in the image of men? Limited, at best. And limiting, in that the believer also surrenders his own agency in return for scant solace. As for natural disaster, I find it more spiritually and rationally acceptable that bad things just happen in an unreasoning, amoral universe than that a god causes them to happen as punishment for something a distant ancestor may or may not have done. Maybe that's just atheist dogma....

I still feel the inclination to some philosophical framework, it does provide me with the "religious" equivalent, and is very interesting, at least to me. — Manuel

Is that a spiritual yearning, though, or an intellectual desire to make sense of things?

Also that reconnection isn't a real thing it's just a fantasy we made up in our heads. — Darkneos

What isn't?

I don't think it's possible to reasonably construe these statements otherwise, so I don't believe this is the result of a literal, fundamentalist interpretation which can be considered a reaction to "atheist dogma." It isn't necessary to be an atheist to maintain that such statements are the foundation for the intolerance which has characterized Christianity during the 20 centuries of its existence (which is also characteristic of other religions which make claim to being the one true faith). — Ciceronianus

Maybe you have this mixed up though. Jesus was anti-religion. He rebelled against the Jews. You must recognize that there was no Christianity at that time, so he was not promoting a religion called Christianity, he was simply rebelling against religion. So when, if, he said "I am the truth", then it was in an anti-religious context.

I don't think it's possible to reasonably construe these statements otherwise, so I don't believe this is the result of a literal, fundamentalist interpretation which can be considered a reaction to "atheist dogma." It isn't necessary to be an atheist to maintain that such statements are the foundation for the intolerance which has characterized Christianity during the 20 centuries of its existence (which is also characteristic of other religions which make claim to being the one true faith). — Ciceronianus

Interpretation is everything in this context. Within the religion, it really doesn't matter at all what Jesus himself said, it only matters what those who came after him, and constructed the religion said he said. But since Jesus himself spoke in an anti-religious context, it is important to understand what Jesus himself said rather than what the religious people said he said, because they are not speaking from an anti-religious context. So it's really not the statements made by Jesus which are the foundation of intolerance, unless we're talking about intolerance of religion (which is an equal form of intolerance), it is the statements of others which are. The most difficult thing about understanding the New Testament is to discern what Jesus actually said, and did, when all that is provided is hearsay.

An interesting and paradoxical thing about many fundamentalists I have known is that they are not particularly familiar with the Bible - apart form a few frequently recycled quotes. Pastors may in theory have the same status as others in the congregation, but generally hold a degree of power over interpretation and the culture of their church, often through charisma or personality. — Tom Storm

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. — Jamal

An interesting fact about many of the churches of Southern Appalachia is that they're entirely unaffiliated with any denomination. Unlike major denominations with founding theologians and stated ideologies, these rural churches lack that. They were formed by traveling pastors, often with limited education, with fire and brimstone speeches in their distinctive barking voice, with the powers of heaven causing wild gyrations, speaking in tongues, and protecting them from the serpents they handle.

The religion of the common man.

It actually does. The Japanese, some of the most modern-stressed people in the world, prescribe forest therapy for burnout, grief, recovery from illness. — Vera Mont

I don't think we disagree on the large picture, but we seem to differ on the scope of the solution. That's right, Japan has the highest, if not one of the highest, suicide rates in the world. And nature can provide much needed help and relief.

What I am saying, is that it may provide a complete relief for some - for some period of time anyway - maybe for most. But what I'm adding, is that even if those people get relief from nature, it is not enough to ward off suicide, or waves of meaninglessness or depression for many.

It's a fantastic help, but not a total one, for man's conditions. For nature is beautiful and also lethal.

As do the gods, whose followers cause most of this suffering. The cruelties of humans to one another compensated-for by clinging to gods made in the image of men. As for natural disaster, I find it more spiritually and rationally acceptable that bad things just happen in an unreasoning, amoral universe than that a god causes them to happen as punishment for something a distant ancestor may or may not have done. May that's just me.... — Vera Mont

I don't disagree that it is easier to handle in this way for us, which doesn't make it easy.

I've seen cases of people who live near, often in nature, for all effects and purposes, that live pretty harsh lives, they have no income, no healthcare, no way to feel meaningful in life, because they have virtually no opportunity to get out of poverty and telling them you have mountains and rivers and hills, isn't going to help much.

I very much think it's circumstance dependent.

Is that a spiritual yearning, though, or an intellectual desire to make sense of things? — Vera Mont

I kind of take existence and the world to be a kind of (secular) miracle, so in this specific case, I cannot disentangle them. Most people would consider it an intellectual desire, but for me, it goes a bit beyond that.

:up:

Anyway, in the main, atheism is not a "theological position" any more than celibacy is a sexual position. — 180 Proof

:100:

Though IMO there are no existential truths, just opinions. — Darkneos

:up:

I would argue that religion isn't either. Religion is more about making their truths reality. — Darkneos

This is too simplistic. Organized religion is inevitably political, that is, concerned with control, like any collective ideology. I believe there are also countless people who are religious in various personal senses, and provided they don't attempt to foist their own beliefs on others I can see no harm in that.

Some people are simply not satisfied with this life; they just can't accept that this life is all there is. If it makes them happier and healthier, and hence more socially benevolent, to believe something for which there can be no evidence for or against, what's the problem?

Religious institutions should be judged, not on the basis of their doctrines, but on the basis of their actions. Are they more beneficial overall than otherwise or not, and do they stand in the way of socially progressive and inclusive values and environmental healing and sustainability or not: those are the salient questions.

:up:

This is too simplistic. Organized religion is inevitably political, that is, concerned with control, like any collective ideology. I believe there are also countless people who are religious in various personal senses, and provided they don't attempt to foist their own beliefs on others I can see no harm in that.

Some people are simply not satisfied with this life; they just can't accept that this life is all there is. If it makes them happier and healthier, and hence more socially benevolent, to believe something for which there can be no evidence for or against, what's the problem?

Religious institutions should be judged, not on the basis of their doctrines, but on the basis of their actions. Are they more beneficial overall than otherwise or not, and do they stand in the way of socially progressive and inclusive values and environmental healing and sustainability or not: those are the salient questions. — Janus

Except it is that simple, sorry you can't accept that. Religion overall has been a net negative for society, it's stagnated progress, and as we have seen recently it has reversed it in some ways.

It was useful for a time but if people aren't satisfied with this life, that is their problem. Life has more than enough in it but people don't know how to see it. It doesn't make them happier or healthier as it's more like a drug that you have to keep pumping to feel like it's all ok. But look at stuff like Buddhism which works to peace by accepting things as they are rather than trying to make them what we want them to be.

You're kinda just proving my point on why it's not good.