Joel Richard Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Has anyone ever considered that the best environment to teach the concept of freedom, virtue and UPB might be in the framework of a religion? It may provide a beacon to new Athiests that are confused about what to do without a god and guide them away from statism. Or has youtube made religion redundant?
Mister Mister Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Can you elaborate what you mean - "in the framework of a religion". Religions teach ehtics through conclusions, usually backed up by threats and lies. UPB is a methodology based on the human mind's natural ability and tendency to Universalize standards and principles. It doesn't need to be taught "explicitly", only demonstrated, as part of a conversation, rather than a lecture, and kids will get it. Does that make sense? 2
Jamesican Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Personally, I view atheism as a religion. Religions don't have to involve deities or any divine presence, just a shared system of beliefs.
WasatchMan Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Personally, I view atheism as a religion. Religions don't have to involve deities or any divine presence, just a shared system of beliefs. religion noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group Full Definition of RELIGION 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Can you please explain to me what definition of religion would make the lack in a belief of god (aka atheism) , a religion? 1 1
luxfelix Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Are you, perhaps, referring to a space for ceremony (non-religious marriages/baby introductions/etc.) and assembly? That physically going to an environment to discuss topics would be more engaging, insofar as it includes the more present use of our senses (real-time conversation for example)?
Matt D Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Has anyone ever considered that the best environment to teach the concept of freedom, virtue and UPB might be in the framework of a religion? It may provide a beacon to new Athiests that are confused about what to do without a god and guide them away from statism. Or has youtube made religion redundant? I will admit I've felt the temptation to start a religion around secular ethical principles. I came to the conclusion that it won't work. Scientists don't worship science, they submit their investigations to the scientific method. Similarly, a philosopher doesn't worship rationality, he submits his thinking to reason and evidence. Atheists generally don't like it when religious people spew relative vomit like, "your non-belief is a belief just like my belief" If you're talking about a community where other people live their lives according to rational principles, you're in one! But if you want to start your own that sounds great. I'm just not sure I understand why you'd call it a religion other than to garner attention and controversy.
Joel Richard Posted May 25, 2015 Author Posted May 25, 2015 At the heart of my question is that I'm starting to believe UPB and the freedom movement is the key to everything we need to know about life the universe and everything. I don't expect much disagreement on this view but it ties in strongly with my previous personal quest with god before my faith started to erode. I spent ten years in guilt ridden doubt. I think if there was a strong public voice of hope without a God we could really help a lot of people. The feeling of true virtue is one that is elusive in religion but as an Atheist it feels real. So much so that I think we have something to give that is too important to depend on the internet alone. I would call it a religion because it primarily would focus on personal anarchy. Therefore, has many similarities to religion. A guide to live life in virtue like religions claim to do. It wouldn't hurt to bring the issue of freedom on an equal footing in terms of importance as that of a hypothetical God. Worshipping freedom... Would that be going to far? I don't know.
DCLugi Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Personally, I view atheism as a religion. Religions don't have to involve deities or any divine presence, just a shared system of beliefs. Can we say that Logic is a system of shared beliefs? 1
Joel Richard Posted May 26, 2015 Author Posted May 26, 2015 Can we say that Logic is a system of shared beliefs? Yes, I think it is helpful to label it in this way. Not all people are able to use logic to take them to the rightful conclusion that is UPB. They need help. Scientists don't worship science I don't think we want to appeal to scientists or philosophers. We want to spread philosophy to the masses so that they can achieve true virtue. It is in its essence what religion has tried to do except it was predicated on lies. I'm simply suggesting we do the same pursuit using the truth. The reason religion is suitable for UPB is to facilitate the path of learning. In order to learn freedom, at some point you need to make the leap of faith that freedom is the answer. Without the leap of faith, you will find uncertainty and make no progress. You will hide in fear of the unknown, constantly making up excuses about how an Anarchy would not work. The more I learn about the benefits of freedom the closer I come to eliminating the need for "faith" and the more it becomes a certainty. It's a very spiritual journey. I think the term religion is useful for those who are making the transformation from statism to realism.
Troubador Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/11175092/Britains-atheist-church-now-pulls-in-crowds-from-Berlin-to-Ohio.html
shirgall Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Can we say that Logic is a system of shared beliefs? This is a line of "reasoning" that allows the local religious school to label Logic as an atheistic dogma. Logic works whether you believe it or not.
Joel Richard Posted May 26, 2015 Author Posted May 26, 2015 This is a line of "reasoning" that allows the local religious school to label Logic as an atheistic dogma. Logic works whether you believe it or not Still though, if truth happens to be a shared belief why can't a shared belief be true? It has to go both ways doesn't it? I'm not concerned about being labelled as dogma. I think that will happen no matter what we do. Logic can only be effictively communicated to someone who follows the same 1st principles you do, otherwise disagreement is innevitable. I would focus primarily on the NAP and UPB. Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/11175092/Britains-atheist-church-now-pulls-in-crowds-from-Berlin-to-Ohio.html The main goal would be to increase the number of people that will have the tools to see the gun in the room. It's the first step.
shirgall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Still though, if truth happens to be a shared belief why can't a shared belief be true? It has to go both ways doesn't it? Calling it a belief cheapens its explanatory power. It's like going topless in order to be taken seriously. 2
Joel Richard Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Calling it a belief cheapens its explanatory power. It's like going topless in order to be taken seriously. lol. I love this analogy. I'll think about it.
neeeel Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 knowledge is a subset of belief, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Epistemology But I agree that calling it a belief may not help things.
shirgall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 knowledge is a subset of belief, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Epistemology But I agree that calling it a belief may not help things. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." Just remember that since this term originated in 1854, and its authors considered this coining "the true birth of philosophy" that there might be some axe-grinding in the wikipedia article. Even wikipedia says that beliefs are statements of faith. One does not utilize faith to justify a logical proof. One uses well-defined axioms and well-defined operations.
DCLugi Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Belief is a tricky word. It seems to show up when proof isn't required.
neeeel Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 As I understand it, axioms are things that we just accept as true, but cant show that they are true? Where does that leave things like logic and maths? Perhaps we shouldnt descend this thread into a discussion of knowledge and epistemology though
shirgall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 As I understand it, axioms are things that we just accept as true, but cant show that they are true? Where does that leave things like logic and maths? Perhaps we shouldnt descend this thread into a discussion of knowledge and epistemology though Possibly, but my usage here is the mathematical one, where an axiom is the definition of an abstract structure. The idea is to generate a minimal set of axioms and operations and that all other rules are derived (that is, proven) from these. They aren't beliefs, they are basic definitions like "Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another."
TruthBeTold Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I think a church based on rationality is highly needed for the future of this movement. It should draw upon the most effective aspects that churches based on mysticism use to keep themselves prolific generation after generation. Religion is a virus, and what we need to start using the same mechanism to start spreading truth over falsehood and myth. First and foremost, there need to be central locations to congregate and learn on a regular (weekly) basis. The gatherings are the core of the social dynamic which keeps the community united against outside influences. Much of these gatherings right now are being held online, informally. There are some events like libertarian conventions (ex PorcFest) which gather people together, but its not local and its not frequent enough to develop a true sense of community. There also need to be traditions such as holidays, songs, ceremonies, etc. These things trancend generations and become something people look forward to experiencing over and over again, so they preserve them. What really frightens people right now is that the creation of such a "church" inherently relies on a few people organizing and "running" it. From the inside and outside of the movement, this is seen as "culty" (even though we know it is far less culty than traditional religions or statism itself). Even still, I would give anything for this sort of church for my family.
DCLugi Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I think a church based on rationality is highly needed for the future of this movement. It should draw upon the most effective aspects that churches based on mysticism use to keep themselves prolific generation after generation. Religion is a virus, and what we need to start using the same mechanism to start spreading truth over falsehood and myth. First and foremost, there need to be central locations to congregate and learn on a regular (weekly) basis. The gatherings are the core of the social dynamic which keeps the community united against outside influences. Much of these gatherings right now are being held online, informally. There are some events like libertarian conventions (ex PorcFest) which gather people together, but its not local and its not frequent enough to develop a true sense of community. There also need to be traditions such as holidays, songs, ceremonies, etc. These things trancend generations and become something people look forward to experiencing over and over again, so they preserve them. What really frightens people right now is that the creation of such a "church" inherently relies on a few people organizing and "running" it. From the inside and outside of the movement, this is seen as "culty" (even though we know it is far less culty than traditional religions or statism itself). Even still, I would give anything for this sort of church for my family. What would be the difference between a church and a meetup group? The word church is already taken. 1
Mister Mister Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I would just like a place to meet with people and sing together once a week 1
Jamesican Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Can we say that Logic is a system of shared beliefs? I guess so. If it fits the description of "a system of shared beliefs" then sure. religion noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group Full Definition of RELIGION 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Can you please explain to me what definition of religion would make the lack in a belief of god (aka atheism) , a religion? Buddhism is considered a religion and many sects have no affiliation with deities.
WasatchMan Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Buddhism is considered a religion and many sects have no affiliation with deities. But a deity is not required for a religion according to the definition. Buddhism would fall under the part of the definition that said "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" Atheism, however would not. Atheism is only a word because the majority of society is theists, and all it means is a lack in a belief in theism. There are no aunicornists, or abigfootists, because society does not believe these things exist in general.
Jamesican Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 But a deity is not required for a religion according to the definition. Buddhism would fall under the part of the definition that said "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" Atheism, however would not. Atheism is only a word because the majority of society is theists, and all it means is a lack in a belief in theism. There are no aunicornists, or abigfootists, because society does not believe these things exist in general. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreedupon by a number of persons or sects:
WasatchMan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreedupon by a number of persons or sects: I don't understand your point in sending me this definition... Atheism still does not fall under this definition for atheism is a lack of a belief in god, and not a fundemental belief in anything. If atheism could be considered a religion, than everybody would have to be considered to belong to thousands of religions. Every religion that you lacked belief in would become a new religion.
notjam Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Has anyone ever considered that the best environment to teach the concept of freedom, virtue and UPB might be in the framework of a religion? It may provide a beacon to new Athiests that are confused about what to do without a god and guide them away from statism. Or has youtube made religion redundant?
MrNlul77 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Has anyone ever considered that the best environment to teach the concept of freedom, virtue and UPB might be in the framework of a religion? It may provide a beacon to new Athiests that are confused about what to do without a god and guide them away from statism. Or has youtube made religion redundant? If I understand you correctly, I had a similar idea. Ive never been religious in my life but ive been to religious youth groups, community center's and churches for other reasons than worship. Having atheist places like these, with an emphasis on spreading UPB to the public is a step that I believe is important and a vital step for freedom. Exposing people to UPB/reality/truth and helping them learn how to think is the only way freedom will ever be a reality for the world. Im eternally grateful to Stefan, his work has made the world/my life a better place, it just saddens me that the board is so boring and that UPB is hiding out on the internet and only really has any contact with people who are looking for it. Since I woke up to reality, ive encouraged the people I know and have met to visit FDR; however, if people could happen upon it in everyday life that would have a far greater impact. 1
Joel Richard Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 Some people are entirely content being part of a corrupt system as long as they think they are getting a good deal. Those are not the people we want as early Anarchist's. They don't have what it takes to join a movement this early in the game. I only thought of religion because it does tend to emphasize community. There are definately other ways to do this but I really believe that what we learn about freedom is of the same magnitude of importance as the origin of the life the universe and everything. These topics are what religion tries to address only with made up shit.
Nathan Metric Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 To answer the original question, I have thought long and hard about how UPB could be "religiotized" if you understand what I mean. We without a doubt would have to have a different idea of God. "God" would have to be a metaphorical/mythological equivalent of the universe itself. Representing the universe as an intentioned entity rather than an accidental machine. Science would explain the universe in a accidental, mechanical fashion awhile the religious would explain in the world in terms of entities and intentions.
MrNlul77 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Some people are entirely content being part of a corrupt system as long as they think they are getting a good deal. Those are not the people we want as early Anarchist's. They don't have what it takes to join a movement this early in the game. I only thought of religion because it does tend to emphasize community. There are definately other ways to do this but I really believe that what we learn about freedom is of the same magnitude of importance as the origin of the life the universe and everything. These topics are what religion tries to address only with made up shit. Those people are exactly that, part of the corrupt system and its not them we want as part of the movement. I refer to people who are clueless due to lack of education, understanding, awareness and apathy. Most people are good inside, they can feel/see the current system is wrong but have no idea what to do about it or where to go to find the truth, theyre trapped in the invisible cages. Sure, it would be easy for anyone to look for and find the information should they want/try to; however, most people don't as they don't have the belief they could do anything to change the system, they believe it is what it is and always has been, they support the current system through their ignorance and continue in bondage trying to make the best of it. It's my belief that secular/non governmental Youth groups (especially) and community centres centred around promoting logic, reasoning, morals and a universal standard of ethics (UPB) are the way forward. The information to empower people to think for themselves, to question reality, their beliefs and opinions is not in society to the extent that its having a major impact. I believe that most people when confronted with their lack of morality and virtue will want to change for the better (disgarding the socio/psychopaths/corrupt). I understand freedom is not about telling people what to do; however, having the information in people's faces giving them the opportunity to stumble upon it in their everyday lives is vital as, when people have to go out and look for the information, they are less likely to do so, as such the movement is suffering due to lack the of enquiry. Religion, as I see it, tends to be about worship ( evidently and ultimately its about control through threats/coercion) and following the teachings/commandments of a deity(mythical being), this clearly doesn't fit with idea of freedom. The community aspect of religion comes about through common beliefs, (FDR Community). In my mind, even if people knew nothing (relatively) but accepted the rationality,logic and reasoning for a Universal standard of secular ethics (UPB), then freedom would be possible. Some people would still study science if they chose, but it's not imperative for freedom. As far as I'm aware( I could be wrong), the reason Stefan does all these podcast is in the pursuit of truth, happiness and virtue, also to lift the lid on the immorality of past/present systems and practices, aswell as the cause and effect of the initiation of force, and to awaken people to the cages we can not see.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." Just remember that since this term originated in 1854, and its authors considered this coining "the true birth of philosophy" that there might be some axe-grinding in the wikipedia article. Even wikipedia says that beliefs are statements of faith. One does not utilize faith to justify a logical proof. One uses well-defined axioms and well-defined operations. Belief in axiom.
shirgall Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Belief in axiom. What kind of dressing livens up a word salad?
Ansedar Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 This is a very interesting concept I've been thinking a lot, make a "church" with an "atheist religion" for people that leaves it's own religion to share morals, but I'm not really sure if it's the way to do it. I know for fact that most persons don't understand logic the same way as many others do, religion since does not requires a big deal of logic it's just simpler and deceive a person into thinking it's a good thing, moreover if: a) the person doesn't have a natural understanding of logic; b)have difficulties making up it's own moral values; c)and/or have been indoctrinated for a long time with certain beliefs. Now let me define two terms which i believe don't yet exist: "natural atheists", get to the point of knowing that the better solution to whether the existence of God is true or false is just to approximate the answer to the default or "false", while "non natural atheists" come to the conclusion that there's no God because other atheist told the person so. [i'll just keep using the defined "natural and non-natural-atheist" terms]Natural-atheists therefore in contrast to non-natural-atheist can make their own morals, but who gives morals to non-natural-atheist? Here's the thing: what I call "non-natural-atheists" are more likely to use their emotions to resolve problems, the problem of using emotions to resolve problems is that it works best within a family or group of known people, where there's a leader that takes decisions. To prove this I invite you to look at people, even in tv shows, mainly the very stupid ones (like some reality shows) when a problem arises RARELY you see someone sit and think about what's happening, but mostly you'll see a person in a very emotional state either of anger, hate or disgust (the top 3 that come to my mind right now). Also remeber that are not religions that create hatred, but people in the religion institutions that hate, in analogy: is not the gun that kill the man, but the person behind the gun that pulls the trigger... So how do you control a non-natural-atheist into not using at least negative emotions to resolve problems? Here's some videos of people that prefer emotions over logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTsR86Uk5zw Fortunately we still have the constitution and laws enforced by the state, but those can't in any way cover all the possible situations of conflict between people, so again the question is: is there a simple way to apply UPB for those who cannot use logic as good as others do?
Recommended Posts