Replacing Religion With Something Else

[rug]

October 16, 2016
Posted by Jack Vance

I have seen a few posts recently on social media written by atheists lamenting the lack of progress we've made in replacing religion with something else. Some have been at least moderately critical of other atheists for not working harder to develop an alternative to religion. For the record, I do not believe any of those I have seen posting about this were associated with Atheism+, so that does not seem to be the issue here. I'm curious to know what you think. Should we, as atheists, be working to develop some sort of replacement for religion (e.g., a replacement ideology, community-based institutions that provide some of the functions churches provide)?

The desire to replace religion with a secular alternative is nothing new. There have been atheists with this goal for some time, but there never seems to be enough of them with the same vision for what an alternative might look like to make much progress. From what I have been able to gather, most of those arguing that we need to replace religion with something else believe that atheism by itself is not an adequate replacement. I have to agree with them on that point. Atheism by itself is unlikely to ever be capable of filling the void some seem to experience without religion.

As I wrote back in 2011, I do not find myself particularly inclined to think that religion needs to be replaced with anything. At least, I'm not sure I see such a need. If someone has left religion behind and really wants an alternative sort of ideology, there is always humanism. Admittedly, finding a more concrete alternative to institutions like churches is more difficult. And even though I have little interest in something along these lines, I do recognize that there are others out there who would very much like secular alternatives to churches. Perhaps the task of attempting to establish secular alternatives to religion is one which some will inevitably undertake, whether you and I choose to support it or not.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2016/10/replacing-religion-with-something-else.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

[Dawson Leery]

1. Logic and Reason.

[rug]

2. You do realize logic and reason, alone, can lead to absurd results, don't you?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

[cleanhippie]

6. Not nearly as absurd as rising from the dead, crackers into flesh, and global flood....

Just to name a few.

It's both logical and reasonable to think that using logic and reason one would get logical and reasonable results, neither of which religion has given us.

[rug]

7. No, more absurd.

What you fail to grasp is that logic is entirely dependent upon its assumptions, its givens, its "data".

As it is entirely reasonable to posit the notion of a creator ex nihilo, none of the things you predictably recite are logically absurd per se.

What is illogical and unreasonable is to consistently approach the same subject, in this case religion, with reflexive snark, rigid pre-formed opinions, and unwarrented condescension, expecting to pass it off as intellectual dialogue of any worth whatsoever.

[cleanhippie]

10. So rising from the dead and crackers turning into flesh isn't an absurd idea?

Considering how none of the claims of religion have any basis in fact or reality, your response seems absurdly reflexive.

[rug]

11. Of course it isn't.

Your argument about "lack of evidence" has been debunked many times. Rephrasing it as lacking "any basis in fact or reality" is simply the same tired argument.

Looks like you still can't tell the difference between logic and reason in contrast to empiricism.

[Lordquinton]

14. It hasn't ever been "debunked"

Just a bunch of theists claiming they don't need to provide evidence, while ignoring the fact that the god hypothesis has been chipped away at for a long time, and "you can't prove he doesn't exist" is all that's left.

[rug]

15. Here, I'll fix your post:

Just a (very small) bunch of antitheists claiming finite evidence can prove or disprove an infinite concept, while ignoring the fact that scientific hypotheses can ever be formulated to prove or disprove the concept of god and laughably assert, repeatedly, that science has any interest whatsover to do so.

Yes, debunked. Again.

[Lordquinton]

16. Nope, just underlining my point

Now, how did you come upon the concept that your god is infinite?

[rug]

17. There's something under your point but it's not a line.

Your question warrents no more than a wiki link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

And "your god" is trite.

[Lordquinton]

24. I don't have a god, you do.

Can you give me a reference point to where it states your god is infinite?

[rug]

29. If there is a god it objectively exists. If not, it doesn't.

Either way, it is not the product of lordquinton's thoughts.

[Lordquinton]

34. If a god exists, then it can be proven

if not, then it is the products of Rug's thoughts.

[rug]

35. Design the experiment to prove or disprove it.

You can't.

[Lordquinton]

39. If that's the case then neither can you

And since the onus is on the one Making the claim (or: you) then we can casually discard the claim.

Now, where did you get your information about your god?

[rug]

42. I'm not claiming the proof of god is evidence. You are.

And "your god" is as trite a phrase as the first time you used it.

[Lordquinton]

44. You're claiming that your god exists

And are flat out refusing to support it.

Therefore we can safely discard the whole notion.

[rug]

47. You claim you reject the concept of god because there's no evidence.

Yet you are incapable of describing the evidence.

[Lordquinton]

50. I dismiss your claim of a god because you refuse to back it up

Yet you are incapable of describing the evidence.

That's not how any of this works. I don't have to do anything to prove it either way, that's all on you, and all you've come up with is "You can't prove or disprove my god's existence" so really you did all the work for me. Case closed, no god.

Unless you provide evidence.

[rug]

54. I dismiss you because you cannot even describe the evidence you demand.

Go on, try.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. Oh, come on.

Your god is perfectly accurate, terse, and appropriate. Too many times, especially during the Bushista era, religion was being forced down our throats. A rabid, conservo-christian version, being funded with Federal tax dollars, pushing anti-democratic goals, and perverting the minds of millions of yute.

It takes time, effort, and a great deal of will power to drop kick religion out of one's life. The metal ruler bearing penguins, who tried to beat me out of using the devil's hand to write or draw, still face my loathing and distrust. They were actually evil, demanding absolute obedience, while trying to wash my brain repeatedly.

Your god? Bah.

[rug]

55. That's a fine example of conflating theology with politics, along with nun-induced bitterness.

A recipe for something, but not for a clear discussion of either politics or theology. Maybe someone else is interested in your problem with nuns.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

57. Wow. Talk about rude.

And you aren't even the Pundit.

Shame on you.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

52. Cuz

My God is so big! So strong and so mighty. There's nothing my God cannot do. My God is so big! So strong and so mighty. There's nothing my God cannot do. YUGE. Just YUGE!

Except cure folks through prayer. Or watch over us. Or have anything to do with our multiverse. Although he (she?) does seem to love to start a whole bunch of armed conflicts in his (her) name.

[rug]

56. You sound disappointed.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

58. First three letters were correct.

But you missed the "gusted" ending.

[cleanhippie]

18. Sure, basing things on facts and reason is old and tired!

Use those "other ways of knowing!"

[rug]

19. Ok, design the experiment to test for God.

I'll wait.

But not very long because this is old, old shit.

[cleanhippie]

20. Define your god and I will.

I'll wait.

But not very long because this is old, old shit.

[rug]

21. Define your evidence for something immaterial.

I'll wait.

But not very long because this is old, old, old shit.

[cleanhippie]

22. So you want me to prove something that is irrelevant or spiritual and not physical?

Here we go again, round and round in circles.

You make the claim your god is real (yet not really real, but kind of real in a spiritual way, amirite?) and you want me to disprove it. That's not how it works and you know it.

Define your god and let's begin.

[rug]

23. No, I want you to display a scintilla of intellectual integrity.

For millennia, god has been described as incorporeal and immaterial.

For years, you blather on demanding evidence of such an entity.

Describe what you consider to be evidence of such a concept or admit you're trolling.

Hint, only one of those choices can be made.

That is how it works. Not your lame attempt to describe my argument.

[Lordquinton]

25. Oh! Two traits of your god now.

Ok, Infinite and immaterial.

Now, how do we know those are traits of your god? What is your source?

[rug]

28. Logic.

Start with matter and work backwards.

BTW, "your god" is a really stupid phrase, even if accompanied by ominous organ music.

[Lordquinton]

33. You need to fill in the blanks a little

No where does your god fit into anything.

Like Carl Sagan wrote: "In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" --Cosmos p.257

I'm not accompanying it with anything, you're forcing your beliefs on everyone and stating it as fact with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Now, how did you determine that your god was infinite and immaterial. Logic is not a source, so maybe you should do some research on what a source is first. (Hint, it's kinda like the quote I posted above, with a reference and page number and everything)

[rug]

36. Nothing known about matter/energy indicates neither a beginning nor an end.

Everything came from something.

Now you may be incurious enough to say it is unanswerable and call it a day but most humans have more intellectual rigor than that.

But you certainly cannot say that the concept of a god is either irrational or illogical, particularly when you rest that claim solely on natural science.

[Lordquinton]

38. Nothing known points to a god, but you shove it in there

Are you really saying that the person asking questions trying to fimd how you came to your god conclusion incurious?

You have it 180° backwards. You're the one blocking who is content to sit there declaring "god did it" whole viciously attacking anywho questions your proclamation. Why is that?

Concept of a god? Nothing wrong with that. Insisting you are correct and refusing to examine that declaration is truth and passing judgement and supporting laws that hurt and kill people based on an unproven (and actually has a ton of evidence pushing back against) your idea? Downright shameful.

[rug]

43. No, I'm saying you are incurious.

You are content to accept things as unanswerable.

[Lordquinton]

45. Also incorrect

While we're playing this game of yours I'll point out you have come to your conclusion and are forcing everyone to accept it. And getting quite nasty when someone asks you to back up the claims you make for your god.

[rug]

46. The only one playing games here is you.

You can continue to play with yourself.

[Lordquinton]

51. I'm only, as usual, asking a question

one you refuse, as usual, to answer.

[Angry Dragon]

26. Your god does exist ............ in your mind and others however

Can you prove down to the smallest detail that your god that exists in your mind is the same god that exists in the mind of others
if not then each god is different and how do you prove which god is real??

[rug]

27. That may or not be true. But mewling for physical evidence won't settle it.

Nor will attempts to describe god "down to the smallest detail".

I can't believe how many internet antitheists actually consider them to be valid arguments.

[Angry Dragon]

30. I did not ask for physical evidence.

Is there a difference between internet anti-theists and real world anti-theists??

The point I was trying to present, something that you often fail to provide, is that how you understand your god is different than someone else's god makes that god different.

And just because you do not feel an argument is not valid does not make it invalid. That is what republicans often do.

[rug]

31. So, define your evidence.

The answer to your second question is Yes.

While it is true that there are many conceptions of god, it is also true that that there is a consensus of what is meant by god.

I am not a republican.

[Angry Dragon]

32. You did not address all the points I presented

I am unsure what evidence you are asking for
What is the consensus of what is god??

[rug]

37. Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

[Angry Dragon]

40. If I was interested in what someone else said I would read a book

I am more interested in what you feel or think or believe

[rug]

41. That summarizes what I think about the consensus of the concept of God.

[Angry Dragon]

49. It is still better to hear it in your words .......... takes out a lot of confusion

[Nay]

3. Two organizations that come to mind are Unitarian Universalists and the Sunday

Assembly. We belonged to the UU church for many years and felt at home there when our child was young. When we moved away, we never found another UU church that quite fit. Some are more Christian, some are more new age, and some are happy with a total mix of all. We liked the total mix.

I have never been to a Sunday Assembly, but they are sprouting up here and there and may be worth a look. They aim at atheists, agnostics, unaffiliated, and those uninterested in religion in general.

[rug]

8. I've never been to a UU service.

One impression I have is that, since it evolved from two discrete religious traditions, there is an openness to spirituality not found in, say, the Ethical Culture Society or the Sunday Assembly.

Is that a fair assumption or has UU grown far past its Unitarian and Universalist history?

[Nay]

9. In the UU church we belonged to for a long time, all traditions were honored and

taught in Sunday school. Sermons and talks were on different facets of philosophy on how to live and were drawn from any of the traditions, including atheism. Our favorite minister was an atheist. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and all sorts of New Age believers were present. I liked that.

The older UU church here is similar to the above. The newer UU church seems to be mostly Christian, although I've never attended, and that would not be the norm, as far as I understand UU. Since I'm an atheist, I tended to take the message, whatever it was, to heart and for consideration no matter what tradition it came from. The older UU church here spent a week or so surrounding and protecting the local mosque when it got bomb threats; UUers are still into social justice and religious freedom for everyone.

[Goblinmonger]

13. The new UU church make up really depends on the location.

We were members of one as the kids were growing up. The one we went to was very much NOT a Christian based and has what you talk about with all the other traditions. We went to the UU fellowship in Madison, WI and (surprisingly) they were much more Christian based. I think it depends on what the fellowship wants. UU is not a very top down organization.

[Cartoonist]

4. Meet the new boss

The problem with groups is that someone always wants to be in charge.

[rug]

5. That leaves a choice between anarchism and libertarianism.

Seriously, the best template I've ever seen for human organization, albeit on a small scale, is the Twelve Traditions of AA, especially Tradition Ten.

Tradition 10

Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

No A.A. group or member should ever, in such way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside issues - particularly those of politics, alcohol reform or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

12. Religion and belief in God is a widespread phenomenon...

... that's been observed in various tribes and cultures around the world.

I think humanity is "stuck" with it, unfortunately.

Some people are very afraid of the idea of permanent death (no consciousness), and fear is a powerful motivator.

We all make faith-based decisions on a regular basis too, and different people have different ideas about what they consider "probable"... made worse with limited information.

I embrace the uncertainty to some extent, but others seem to have a BIG problem with it. I'm agnostic (leaning heavily towards atheism), by the way.

I finally watched a recent 2-hour episode of NOVA about the migrations of ancient humans out of Africa to the rest of the world, and Native Americans are too frequently "religious kooks" in my opinion too. They didn't want old skeletons examined for their ancestral origin since their ancestors told them that all Native Americans came from this land... not anywhere else! That type of behavior is what infuriates me the most -- people who don't even want to investigate evidence because it might upset their preconceived notions!

By the way, some scientists secretly did some DNA tests on a skeleton that didn't get as much media attention as "Kinnewick Man." It was buried with Clovis points, so there was some speculation it was European in origin. The DNA showed it was "Native American." One of the scientists informed a tribal leader of the result, being very careful to only say it was related to all Native Americans while omitting any comments about their Siberian/East Asian origin (per DNA evidence too). The leader celebrated, considering it confirmation of the "American origin" crap.

I'm not trying to pick on them in particular! It's just another example of faith-based AND anti-inquiry thinking, and seeing that episode really irked me. That type of behavior is seen among all races and cultures.

[AlbertCat]

48. I find it all very egotistical

It seems to basically just be anthropomorphizing nature, this god thing. And of course the "one god" is the one that is human-looking and has a special thing for "us" ( but not "them"... Humans do like tribes.). It also can be graphed onto that fear of death and non-existence neatly. It's handy for those magical explanations of things some folks don't "get" or are difficult, if not impossible, to explain. Science and logic are difficult, don't go where you want them to, and way complicated. "God" is easier.... even with all that useless convoluted theology bunk.

"Poof" of the existence of an extreme ego-driven fantasy is everywhere.