As I said in the video, that depends on which legal system we look at. Under US law, atheism can indeed be a religion - hence the First Church of Atheism. Under Australian law, however, atheism does not meet the definition of "religion".
If we're looking for universal definitions (which is what I was talking about in this video), then we need to acknowledge international differences in legal definitions. You stated that atheism "is a religion", and didn't qualify that statement.
Atheism has many different meanings. Some of those meet the US legal definition of "religion", and some don't. I know people who simply don't care about religion - technically atheist, but for them it isn't a religion.
No. The broadest definition of "religion" under US law appears to be the one laid out in United States v. Seeger (380 U.S. 163 (1965)), which covers any "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of [theists receiving religious exemption from the draft]". By this definition, an indifferent default atheist (ie. one who doesn't care about religion) has no religious belief according to US law.
I don't know what you mean by that - could you explain? I don't see the relevance of cases like Van Orden v. Perry (2005) and McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) to our present discussion, and I'm not aware of any instance in which a Supreme Court rule was somehow deemed unimportant in 2005. Honestly, I'm drawing a blank here.
Thank you for the link, which I found quite interesting.
It doesn't seem to contradict my position, though - plaintiff clearly held a "sincere and meaningful belief" etc, and the judgement specifically quotes that wording from US v. Seeger.
@ThinkingSpeck How can those without religion dictate what religion is? That similar to like a toddler telling an adult of how to be grown up.As an Atheist, you have no right to tell how religion are defined.
-Anything which interacts with objects inside our reality is by definition "in" our reality, including weird quantum effects. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory is not yet accepted.
-We know quite a bit about the neurochemical and hormonal bases for love, but the concept itself is an abstract concept (as are things like honour and justice).
My approach is simple. First we see how reality actually works, then we decide what to do about it...
@ThinkingSpeck [continued2] for whatever reason the Gods and mortals no longer interracted at all. & i don't see why it's supernatural for a God or Goddess to do magic, it would be if you or me did it (i suppose, except in the sense like Aleister Crowley or Alan Moore talk about for example), but why if someone like Aphrodite did it?--she's a Goddess, her 'nature', 'biology' or whatever we would call it would be very different to humans, so you'd expect she'd be v. diff. [t.b.c.3]
@ThinkingSpeck ah ok, i see. i don't want to lie to you--i still believe in the Greek gods but i'm not primarily interested in talking about that (unless you are,) it's more of an Artistic belief than anything else. so by 'supernatural' that is like for example in Christianity or Islam, a 'perfect' God outside of [our] reality in some sense, at least at the present time?
If you looked at the top of Mt Olympus, would you expect the Greek gods to be there? If not, then I don't think you actually believe in them. You might want to read up on "belief in belief".
You can love the mythology (as I do), but the question is whether your own mental model of reality includes Zeus and co living on top of Olympus.
They're supernatural anyway because they can do magic, but that's a separate question again (and at least they're testable).
@ThinkingSpeck [continued1] about the 'Golden Age', which i think was when the Trojan War was taking place and so on, when the Gods interracted with mortals for capricious reasons, then a Silver Age when the demigods had all their adventures and things, then the Age of Bronze perhaps--i'm a bit sketchy after that but it all goes downhill until eventually at the time they were writing all that down, the Gods were on some other plain of existence or for whatever reason [t.b.cont. 2]
@ThinkingSpeck i believe in something like the Theory of Forms, & the Forms are 'the Gods'--the names aren't important, call them anything but i discard monotheism because of its inconsistencies. something like Zoroastrianism is poss. but to me existence is so various that i think of them as many. imo life is very like the famous painting "In the Well of the Great Wave of Kanagawa" by Hokusai, or as Shakespeare puts it--"as flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods: they kill us for their sport."
OK, thank you for clarifying what you believe. We are tiny and insignificant and dominated by the forces of nature? I'm mostly alongside that, though I'd argue that humankind is actually rather powerful these days.
My question remains, though - why exactly do you believe that those powerful forces are intelligent agents?
@ThinkingSpeck i don't necessarily think they are--i don't even think we are necessarily, that's not how i experience my life & i believe something like that is not dissimilar to what's called 'the Holographic Universe' by quantum phrenologists (as i now call them). for all i know it may be that when one acts under an impulse such as love or anger one literally embodies that 'divine'/'Ideal' aspect. i agree with Eastern philosophies that say appearance is only 1 layer of reality
People need to use understanding when coming across these terms. Even the dictionary accounts for definitions that are watered-down based on usage in society.
However, in regards to atheism, no atheist is required to have a positive belief. To non-specifically label the whole of "atheism" as a religion is simply incorrect.
I'd also put to you that no statement of belief should be considered a truth claim of the content of said belief. Beliefs do not need to be anything more than opinions.
"To non-specifically label the whole of "atheism" as a religion is simply incorrect"
My apologies - I did say that "pretty much any definition of atheism" would satisfy the US legal definition of religion, and that is indeed incorrect. Thank you.
I just googled "truth claim" and found nothing reliable, but what I did find suggests that it usually refers to a statement of belief. In any case, I personally consider all opinions to be truth claims. How do you define the term?
@ThinkingSpeck When I consider the word "truth" I see it as objective, in that truth transcends what any individual thinks is the truth.
So the statement "I believe no gods exist." equates to "It is true that I believe no gods exist." and not "It is true that no gods exist." when I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.
I see your point, but for me "truth" has been corrupted by theists claiming (absolute) truth of their beliefs.
I think know-as-fact versus know-as-opinion is a false dichotomy - we have internal models of reality, and different parts of those models have different levels of confidence associated with them. So I'm much more confident in the theory of evolution than I am in the big bang theory, for instance. My confidence that there is no god falls somewhere between the two.
Legally Atheism is a religion. Look up Supreme Court/Atheism
bogemus 2 weeks ago
@bogemus
As I said in the video, that depends on which legal system we look at. Under US law, atheism can indeed be a religion - hence the First Church of Atheism. Under Australian law, however, atheism does not meet the definition of "religion".
ThinkingSpeck 2 weeks ago
@ThinkingSpeck seeing how I am a US citizen. That would be my response. The other countries legal status is not applicable to me.
bogemus 1 week ago
@bogemus
If we're looking for universal definitions (which is what I was talking about in this video), then we need to acknowledge international differences in legal definitions. You stated that atheism "is a religion", and didn't qualify that statement.
Atheism has many different meanings. Some of those meet the US legal definition of "religion", and some don't. I know people who simply don't care about religion - technically atheist, but for them it isn't a religion.
ThinkingSpeck 1 week ago
@ThinkingSpeck But still legally a religion in the US. Can you confirm that?
bogemus 1 week ago
@bogemus
No. The broadest definition of "religion" under US law appears to be the one laid out in United States v. Seeger (380 U.S. 163 (1965)), which covers any "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of [theists receiving religious exemption from the draft]". By this definition, an indifferent default atheist (ie. one who doesn't care about religion) has no religious belief according to US law.
ThinkingSpeck 1 week ago
@ThinkingSpeck
So 2005 When the Supreme Court rule doesn't matter?
bogemus 1 week ago
@bogemus
I don't know what you mean by that - could you explain? I don't see the relevance of cases like Van Orden v. Perry (2005) and McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) to our present discussion, and I'm not aware of any instance in which a Supreme Court rule was somehow deemed unimportant in 2005. Honestly, I'm drawing a blank here.
ThinkingSpeck 1 week ago
@ThinkingSpeck
Look at this case
419 F.3d 678: James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees
bogemus 1 week ago
@bogemus
Thank you for the link, which I found quite interesting.
It doesn't seem to contradict my position, though - plaintiff clearly held a "sincere and meaningful belief" etc, and the judgement specifically quotes that wording from US v. Seeger.
ThinkingSpeck 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThinkingSpeck How can those without religion dictate what religion is? That similar to like a toddler telling an adult of how to be grown up.As an Atheist, you have no right to tell how religion are defined.
bogemus 4 days ago
@ThinkingSpeck Also, it isn't can. It is. (in US)
bogemus 1 week ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
-Anything which interacts with objects inside our reality is by definition "in" our reality, including weird quantum effects. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory is not yet accepted.
-We know quite a bit about the neurochemical and hormonal bases for love, but the concept itself is an abstract concept (as are things like honour and justice).
My approach is simple. First we see how reality actually works, then we decide what to do about it...
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
-Conceded, ancient Greeks may not have believed their gods literally lived on Olympus.
-A god who doesn't interact with our reality at all might as well not exist.
-Magic/miracle is violation of causality, and hence supernatural. "Natural" covers everything lawfully causal and repeatably testable.
-Advanced tech is not magic, because there is a detailed scientific explanation for how it works.
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@ThinkingSpeck [continued2] for whatever reason the Gods and mortals no longer interracted at all. & i don't see why it's supernatural for a God or Goddess to do magic, it would be if you or me did it (i suppose, except in the sense like Aleister Crowley or Alan Moore talk about for example), but why if someone like Aphrodite did it?--she's a Goddess, her 'nature', 'biology' or whatever we would call it would be very different to humans, so you'd expect she'd be v. diff. [t.b.c.3]
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@ThinkingSpeck ah ok, i see. i don't want to lie to you--i still believe in the Greek gods but i'm not primarily interested in talking about that (unless you are,) it's more of an Artistic belief than anything else. so by 'supernatural' that is like for example in Christianity or Islam, a 'perfect' God outside of [our] reality in some sense, at least at the present time?
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
If you looked at the top of Mt Olympus, would you expect the Greek gods to be there? If not, then I don't think you actually believe in them. You might want to read up on "belief in belief".
You can love the mythology (as I do), but the question is whether your own mental model of reality includes Zeus and co living on top of Olympus.
They're supernatural anyway because they can do magic, but that's a separate question again (and at least they're testable).
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
@ThinkingSpeck [continued1] about the 'Golden Age', which i think was when the Trojan War was taking place and so on, when the Gods interracted with mortals for capricious reasons, then a Silver Age when the demigods had all their adventures and things, then the Age of Bronze perhaps--i'm a bit sketchy after that but it all goes downhill until eventually at the time they were writing all that down, the Gods were on some other plain of existence or for whatever reason [t.b.cont. 2]
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
Ah, so the Greeks put their gods out of reach in time rather than in space - gotcha. I hadn't really thought of it like that.
What exactly makes you think that the Greek gods exist? This is a serious question - I genuinely have no idea.
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
@ThinkingSpeck i believe in something like the Theory of Forms, & the Forms are 'the Gods'--the names aren't important, call them anything but i discard monotheism because of its inconsistencies. something like Zoroastrianism is poss. but to me existence is so various that i think of them as many. imo life is very like the famous painting "In the Well of the Great Wave of Kanagawa" by Hokusai, or as Shakespeare puts it--"as flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods: they kill us for their sport."
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
@LucyHarcarty
OK, thank you for clarifying what you believe. We are tiny and insignificant and dominated by the forces of nature? I'm mostly alongside that, though I'd argue that humankind is actually rather powerful these days.
My question remains, though - why exactly do you believe that those powerful forces are intelligent agents?
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
@ThinkingSpeck i don't necessarily think they are--i don't even think we are necessarily, that's not how i experience my life & i believe something like that is not dissimilar to what's called 'the Holographic Universe' by quantum phrenologists (as i now call them). for all i know it may be that when one acts under an impulse such as love or anger one literally embodies that 'divine'/'Ideal' aspect. i agree with Eastern philosophies that say appearance is only 1 layer of reality
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
People need to use understanding when coming across these terms. Even the dictionary accounts for definitions that are watered-down based on usage in society.
However, in regards to atheism, no atheist is required to have a positive belief. To non-specifically label the whole of "atheism" as a religion is simply incorrect.
I'd also put to you that no statement of belief should be considered a truth claim of the content of said belief. Beliefs do not need to be anything more than opinions.
robtbo 2 months ago
@robtbo
"To non-specifically label the whole of "atheism" as a religion is simply incorrect"
My apologies - I did say that "pretty much any definition of atheism" would satisfy the US legal definition of religion, and that is indeed incorrect. Thank you.
I just googled "truth claim" and found nothing reliable, but what I did find suggests that it usually refers to a statement of belief. In any case, I personally consider all opinions to be truth claims. How do you define the term?
ThinkingSpeck 2 months ago
@ThinkingSpeck When I consider the word "truth" I see it as objective, in that truth transcends what any individual thinks is the truth.
So the statement "I believe no gods exist." equates to "It is true that I believe no gods exist." and not "It is true that no gods exist." when I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.
robtbo 2 months ago
@robtbo
I see your point, but for me "truth" has been corrupted by theists claiming (absolute) truth of their beliefs.
I think know-as-fact versus know-as-opinion is a false dichotomy - we have internal models of reality, and different parts of those models have different levels of confidence associated with them. So I'm much more confident in the theory of evolution than I am in the big bang theory, for instance. My confidence that there is no god falls somewhere between the two.
ThinkingSpeck 2 months ago
@robtbo
Video description updated with the correction - it's what I get for recording unscripted at 2am. ;-)
ThinkingSpeck 2 months ago