Grok, is atheism a religion?

[ThatOwlWoman]

To me it sounds agnostic to say there is no evidence. He is not stating a belief one way or the other.

I don't have evidence for life on other planets, and don't know whether we will ever find any. In my mind, that makes me agnostic on the belief in life on other planets.

Does he believe nothing is real but matter and energy?

I would say that he does not accept as real and valid anything that can't be confirmed by science. Which he would probably define as the ability to observe, measure, quantify, and repeat till verified.

Yet he knows what love is, and loves me. Weird, isn't it?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I told you science and scientific theory. Religion does not mean a belief in God, but rather a set of dogma / rules that are followed in expectation of something in return, like going to heaven, reincarnation, etc. In Atheism the expectation is an understanding of the universe through science and a firm belief that science and rational thought provides all the answers.

Knowing that science is a way to examine and explain things is not a religion nor a belief system. What you are claiming is a meme built by Xtians (or other religionists) to disparage and dispute science. Science is not our enemy. It is a tool built by humans to understand, manipulate what is around us. The goal is to make life in this world hopefully better. THIS world, not some maybe-future afterlife.

 

[Nordberg]

Knowing that science is a way to examine and explain things is not a religion nor a belief system. What you are claiming is a meme built by Xtians (or other religionists) to disparage and dispute science. Science is not our enemy. It is a tool built by humans to understand, manipulate what is around us. The goal is to make life in this world hopefully better. THIS world, not some maybe-future afterlife.

TA makes up a definition of atheism and expects you to debate it like it is real. Atheism is not believing in gods. That is it. It is that simple.

 

[goat]

No, atheism is not a religion. It’s the absence of belief in gods, lacking the organized structure, rituals, or dogma typical of religions. Some argue it can function like a religion when it becomes dogmatic or community-driven, but that’s a stretch—atheism itself is just a stance on one question, not a belief system.

Grok is right about atheism lacking structure but is wrong when it comes to the countless groups that try to organize around their belief system. The atheists groups I belonged to had a wide range of social justice warriors, everywhere from naturalist, wicca/pagan who were dogmatic in community and politics.

Even Marxism is similar to Christianity through scripture, community and blind faith. Christianity may have been the first communist party.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

TA makes up a definition of atheism and expects you to debate it like it is real. Atheism is not believing in gods. That is it. It is that simple.

I've noticed that tendency. It's common on the RW, "alternative facts" and all that. There's a disturbing trend to try to classify science as a belief system like Buddhism or Xtianity. It is a tool, a discipline, not a belief system. If you try to make it out as such, odds are high that you are trying to pit it against an actual religion. "Oh, so you believe in science" is a way of saying "Oh, so you aren't a moral, Godly person like *I* am."

 

[Cypress]

I would say that he does not accept as real and valid anything that can't be confirmed by science. Which he would probably define as the ability to observe, measure, quantify, and repeat till verified.

Yet he knows what love is, and loves me. Weird, isn't it?

Thanks.

Yeah, that is kinda weird because you can't use scientific experiments to prove love, trust, loyalty, respect, humility, fairness, etc., and each of them are to some extent based on belief and a type of faith.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks.

Yeah, that is kinda weird because you can't use scientific experiments to prove love, trust, loyalty, respect, humility, fairness, etc., and each of them are to some extent based on belief and a type of faith.

He might argue that emotions are biochemical in nature, and those other aspects of being human are based on one's experiences and upbringing. I don't want to put words in his mouth though. This is a subject that he tends to shy away from. I think it's from fear of being judged negatively. His family are mostly fundies so you can imagine some of his experiences with them.

 

[Cypress]

There is a false etymology for the word "atheist" that makes a pretense of requiring people who lack a belief in any gods to be considered atheists. That means that all babies and toddlers and mentally incompetent people are atheists. No way!

The Oxford dictionary, which is the gold standard for the English language, defines atheism as the theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

[Cypress]

He might argue that emotions are biochemical in nature, and those other aspects of being human are based on one's experiences and upbringing. I don't want to put words in his mouth though. This is a subject that he tends to shy away from. I think it's from fear of being judged negatively. His family are mostly fundies so you can imagine some of his experiences with them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if love for one's children is nothing but a biochemical reaction between molecules, then it doesn't seem like we have free will to give our love freely and by choice. We would just be a collection of atoms responding to electro-chemical reactions.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if love for one's children is nothing but a biochemical reaction between molecules, then it doesn't seem like we have free will to give our love freely and by choice. We would just be a collection of atoms responding to electro-chemical reactions.

It's interesting to ponder. I would say that love is both biochemical and sustained by positive feedback, and nurtured by experience and memory.

Almost everyone who has been divorced has thought about that rush of infatuation/love for their ex when you first met. Sadly bad experiences can "kill" that feeling and replace it with fear, dislike, repugnance, etc. So of course there is free will involved. Even if the feeling of love is no longer there, the people can choose whether to stay, try to work it out and rekindle it, or cut their losses and leave.

I well remember that overwhelming rush of love caused by the massive release of oxytocin after childbirth.... for my own children, and for the grands too. Even though my "baby" is almost 40 now, to this day if I hear a newborn cry, I have a strong urge to rush over and pick her up and soothe her. Oxytocin is amazing.

 

[Cypress]

It's interesting to ponder. I would say that love is both biochemical and sustained by positive feedback, and nurtured by experience and memory.

Almost everyone who has been divorced has thought about that rush of infatuation/love for their ex when you first met. Sadly bad experiences can "kill" that feeling and replace it with fear, dislike, repugnance, etc. So of course there is free will involved. Even if the feeling of love is no longer there, the people can choose whether to stay, try to work it out and rekindle it, or cut their losses and leave.

I well remember that overwhelming rush of love caused by the massive release of oxytocin after childbirth.... for my own children, and for the grands too. Even though my "baby" is almost 40 now, to this day if I hear a newborn cry, I have a strong urge to rush over and pick her up and soothe her. Oxytocin is amazing.

Thanks for that insight.

I have a hard time understanding how protons and electrons can feel love, or freely choose to love.

I suspect the answer goes beyond chemistry, and we have yet to develop or discover the field of knowledge by which we can understand this.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks for that insight.

I have a hard time understanding how protons and electrons can feel love, or freely choose to love.

I suspect the answer goes beyond chemistry, and we have yet to develop or discover the field of knowledge by which we can understand this.

As separate entities, atomic particles don't have emotions. It takes the entire organism to experience those. It's safe to say that most animals share similar emotions to humans. Fear, love, anger, dislike, etc. evolved to help us all survive.

 

[Cypress]

I've noticed that tendency. It's common on the RW, "alternative facts" and all that. There's a disturbing trend to try to classify science as a belief system like Buddhism or Xtianity. It is a tool, a discipline, not a belief system. If you try to make it out as such, odds are high that you are trying to pit it against an actual religion. "Oh, so you believe in science" is a way of saying "Oh, so you aren't a moral, Godly person like *I* am."

I agree that science gets mischaracterized by the right-wing. For example, they will minimize the evolutionary synthesis as "just a theory". Or holler that vaccines are deadly poison.

I do happen to think there is an underlying belief system in science: a belief that the universe is rationally intelligible and predictably ordered. That belief seems to have been well borne out most particularly in physics. Some of the other sciences remain largely descriptive.

Some people think that the reason experimental science rose in the West and achieved a place of prominence is because of monotheism. The underlying assumption is that a lawful universe requires an omnipotent law-giver; and that seems to be what Newton, Galileo, and Kepler believed.

 

[Daylight63]

You don't use the federal justice system or any scientific experiment to believe your mom loves you, to believe your friends can be trusted, or to believe if your wife is loyal.

You're so busy putting science on a pedestal and worshipping it, you've forgotten how normal human life operates.

You've had decades to decide if you think deities exist, whether you believe deities don't exist, or if you simply don't know.

Decades of thinking about it is more than enough time to land on one of those three options.

I knew you wouldn't understand this. This is hilarious. You don't even know what I'm talking about.


Too funny. Here's a clue: Type I error. (Don't worry if you don't know what that means. LOL)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He might argue that emotions are biochemical in nature, and those other aspects of being human are based on one's experiences and upbringing. I don't want to put words in his mouth though. This is a subject that he tends to shy away from. I think it's from fear of being judged negatively. His family are mostly fundies so you can imagine some of his experiences with them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if love for one's children is nothing but a biochemical reaction between molecules, then it doesn't seem like we have free will to give our love freely and by choice. We would just be a collection of atoms responding to electro-chemical reactions.

A radio is just a device. Send one back to the 1850s and it's just a doorstop. Send it back to where electricity is available but before Marconi, it's an interesting white noise maker.

There's a synergistic effect when transmitters are available. Both are just devices, but add the human element, the X factor, and it becomes much more. A tool for entertainment and learning. A tool for both peace and war. FDR's fireside chats gave hope to a depressed nation. The BBC used it to pass coded messages to the French Resistance. e.g. "Jean a de longues moustaches".

Radio signals cannot be seen nor touched. IMO, the human mind, a product of evolution and a producer of biochemicals resulting in emotions, is capable of much more than our mammalian cousins. At base, we are simply animals, but at best, I believe we are capable of much, much more. Not everyone and not all the time, but it happens enough to become noteworthy of something we can't see or touch.

 

[Cypress]

A radio is just a device. Send one back to the 1850s and it's just a doorstop. Send it back to where electricity is available but before Marconi, it's an interesting white noise maker.

There's a synergistic effect when transmitters are available. Both are just devices, but add the human element, the X factor, and it becomes much more. A tool for entertainment and learning. A tool for both peace and war. FDR's fireside chats gave hope to a depressed nation. The BBC used it to pass coded messages to the French Resistance. e.g. "Jean a de longues moustaches".

Radio signals cannot be seen nor touched. IMO, the human mind, a product of evolution and a producer of biochemicals resulting in emotions, is capable of much more than our mammalian cousins. At base, we are simply animals, but at best, I believe we are capable of much, much more. Not everyone and not all the time, but it happens enough to become noteworthy of something we can't see or touch.

Nice insights.

There is undoubtedly something about the human mind and the conscience that is beyond the ability of chemistry, physics, and Darwinian evolution to explain.

I'm not sure we will even get to the point of asking the right questions if we get stuck assuming conventional principles of chemistry and evolution can explain everything.

 

[Cypress]

I knew you wouldn't understand this. This is hilarious. You don't even know what I'm talking about.


Too funny. Here's a clue: Type I error. (Don't worry if you don't know what that means. LOL)

You don't use statistics and false positives to freely give your love, respect, and trust to friends, and to believe in their loyalty. Anymore than you use legal arguments, test tubes, or microscopes to test your Mother's love.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nice insights.

There is undoubtedly something about the human mind and the conscience that is beyond the ability of chemistry, physics, and Darwinian evolution to explain.

I'm not sure we will even get to the point of asking the right questions if we get stuck assuming conventional principles of chemistry and evolution can explain everything.

Agreed. As you and I have discussed before, the subject of free will is hard to measure. Despite all the physical limitations, even if free will, at best, is only 1% of our mind, it's still free will. Over a lifetime, those 1% choices can make a difference.

FWIW, even though it varies among individuals due to differences in intelligence, education and rationality, I believe we have a lot more choice than some on this forum give us credit for having. In some ways, those who deny humans have free will may only be looking for an excuse to dodge responsibility for their actions.

"It's not my fault" is a great excuse for immature, irrational, ignorant and/or stupid people...and there's a lot of them on JPP. LOL

You don't use statistics and false positives to freely give your love, respect, and trust to friends, and to believe in their loyalty. Anymore than you use legal arguments, test tubes, or microscopes to test your Mother's love.

Perry is a good example of this.

 

[Nordberg]

I don't think you'd necessarily call it a religion, but an atheist by definition has to believe in a philosophy of scientific materialism and that nothing non-physical can exist.

Why do we have to do that? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That is it. Nothing more is required. Most atheists have philosophical beliefs, but they are not necessary.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BFIRgn9OLI

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why do we have to do that? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That is it. Nothing more is required. Most atheists have philosophical beliefs, but they are not necessary.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BFIRgn9OLI

By definition, true, but there's also a range of atheists just like there is a range of theists and people who believe there is more to existence than what we experience in the Natural Universe.