Atheism Is A Religion By Alex Hexagon

[Clayton_Veno]

 

 

Hi Everyone I'm Back again so here is an interesting video I found today that caught my attention:

 

 

So in this video Alex Hexagon discusses Atheists (particularly on Reddit) and how similar many of them are to Theists. While I don't agree with all of the points made in his video and there certainly are problems with his argumentation, I do think that he does a fair job at underlying the many problems with many "Atheists" who In my eyes are little more than Woketard activists seeking attention under the guise of Atheism. What are your thoughts on this everyone?

[pantheory]

Pretty good critique of science in that we should not trust the science; we should believe that which makes the most sense to us based upon our knowledge and logic.  And of course atheism is not a cult. Unlike religion, atheism is an individual belief not involving groups which is the definition of a cult. Of course like religion, people can follow other people's beliefs and logic.

 

I agree with him that atheism is not the default position in that humans want to know why and how things work and came about. So "God(s) did it" has always been the simplest and best explanation for most people based upon their family's beliefs and their own education.

 

Once established, religion seems to by very difficult to overthrow since half of the scientists of the world claim to be religious or spiritual. This is also another reason not to totally trust the science since the religious-bending mind of a scientist can only degrade the science being offered sometimes making it incomprehensible 

 

 

 

 

[freshstart]

Interesting that he uses the farthest thing away from science (responses to a reddit post) as "proof" that "most, but not all" atheists are rabid, leftist, anti-christ. He's painting all atheists with a broad brush. A lot of holes in his arguments, but I do agree that some people place their "faith" in current scientific findings as if they won't change, forgetting the number of times science has done a 180 degree turn. There are a lot of very "real" phenomena in the world that are also intangible, unmeasurable (with objective scientific instruments), and therefore out of the realm of science to "verify" as "real" or "truth," yet we universally accept these things as real and perhaps the most important things that matter. Religious/spiritual beliefs have fallen into this category forever. Because some things have been a "universal human experience," I think we've always accepted them as "universal truths." Its just that now we're starting to ask deeper questions. The truth, like everything else, will evolve. . . .hopefully for the better.

[Wertbag]

I've heard most of what he rambles on about before, which mostly seems to stem from interactions with angry atheists online, then generalising all atheists under the same idea.  When you are talking about any group of a billion people there are bound to be great variation as to who they are and what they believe.  

 

He tries to make the case that religion is the norm and that its everywhere.  If religion is an organised structure, then what we should be saying is superstition is norm, and religion grows from that.  People insert spirits, gods or supernatural beings to fill  in gaps in their knowledge.  This points to humans being wrong the majority of the time (regardless of if any idea is correct, the majority must be wrong).  I would see this as a point against religion, not for it.

All studies point to supernatural ideas reducing as education increases.  As we have less gaps to insert the supernatural into, we find the natural world makes sense without it.  So to look at our ancient relatives and to say they were more religious, also tracks with education.  His belief that atheism was purely fighting back against Catholic suppression, ignores the fact that atheism arose around the world under many different governments.  As education has grown, so has atheism, and I don't think that is coincidence. 

 

This idea that atheism is a religion only works if you use the strangest definition of a religion.  There is no set rules, no set beliefs, no atheist leadership.  If they are just going to change the definition to any group with a book and a shared interest, then every fan club for every celebrity is a religion.  Its just ridiculous.

 

On 8/29/2022 at 11:31 AM, pantheory said:

Pretty good critique of science in that we should not trust the science; we should believe that which makes the most sense to us based upon our knowledge and logic.

That's the point of science, to take out individual opinion and base the findings on the facts, not personal opinion.  Basing things on our personal knowledge and logic is how you get flat earthers.  The world looks flat, I've never seen a curve, therefore logically it must be flat.  While I agree that some people jump to conclusions well before we have enough evidence to know for sure, this goes to both sides.  Theists will say "abiogenesis is impossible, science says its too hard", while the scientists are saying they are just getting started and our technology is revealing new facts constantly.  You have Christians claiming a young earth, a global flood and creation, while picking the bits of science that fit their worldview.  So to point to atheists as using the science as a shield, while ignoring Christians doing the exact same thing is pretty blind to the debates.

[pantheory]

6 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I've heard most of what he rambles on about before, which mostly seems to stem from interactions with angry atheists online, then generalising all atheists under the same idea.  When you are talking about any group of a billion people there are bound to be great variation as to who they are and what they believe.  

 

He tries to make the case that religion is the norm and that its everywhere.  If religion is an organised structure, then what we should be saying is superstition is norm, and religion grows from that.  People insert spirits, gods or supernatural beings to fill  in gaps in their knowledge.  This points to humans being wrong the majority of the time (regardless of if any idea is correct, the majority must be wrong).  I would see this as a point against religion, not for it.

All studies point to supernatural ideas reducing as education increases.  As we have less gaps to insert the supernatural into, we find the natural world makes sense without it.  So to look at our ancient relatives and to say they were more religious, also tracks with education.  His belief that atheism was purely fighting back against Catholic suppression, ignores the fact that atheism arose around the world under many different governments.  As education has grown, so has atheism, and I don't think that is coincidence. 

 

This idea that atheism is a religion only works if you use the strangest definition of a religion.  There is no set rules, no set beliefs, no atheist leadership.  If they are just going to change the definition to any group with a book and a shared interest, then every fan club for every celebrity is a religion.  Its just ridiculous.

 

That's the point of science, to take out individual opinion and base the findings on the facts, not personal opinion.  Basing things on our personal knowledge and logic is how you get flat earthers.  The world looks flat, I've never seen a curve, therefore logically it must be flat.  While I agree that some people jump to conclusions well before we have enough evidence to know for sure, this goes to both sides.  Theists will say "abiogenesis is impossible, science says its too hard", while the scientists are saying they are just getting started and our technology is revealing new facts constantly.  You have Christians claiming a young earth, a global flood and creation, while picking the bits of science that fit their worldview.  So to point to atheists as using the science as a shield, while ignoring Christians doing the exact same thing is pretty blind to the debates.

 

Yes, I agree. Sometimes our logic can be wrong, but still far better than believing in some of the obvious fantasies of the Bible IMO. From what I have read, nearly all Flat Earthers are also religious, right?

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, I agree. Sometimes our logic can be wrong, but still far better than believing in some of the obvious fantasies of the Bible IMO. From what I have read, nearly all Flat Earthers are also religious, right?

Yes, 75% of flat earthers are religious, with over half saying proof of the flat earth can be found in scripture.  But for those people that have a supernatural worldview, their "logic" will say this is completely reasonable to believe and they will outright deny science.  Our personal knowledge is limited and our personal logic is flawed.  Science can certainly be wrong, but as long as you aren't just saying "what's the conclusion" but "how did you reach that conclusion" then you are on a good track to understand why such a claim is made and what supports the truth of it.  So yes we shouldn't blindly follow science, but we should absolutely be looking for external supporting evidence rather than relying on any personal view.

[florduh]

20 hours ago, Wertbag said:

This idea that atheism is a religion only works if you use the strangest definition of a religion.  There is no set rules, no set beliefs, no atheist leadership.  If they are just going to change the definition to any group with a book and a shared interest, then every fan club for every celebrity is a religion.  Its just ridiculous.

As it has often been said, "Atheism is a religion in the way baldness is a hair color."

[Clayton_Veno]

I'm Liking the input I am seeing from everyone I agree the Video was poor and appears to me as more of a criticism of woke moron activists whom he then strawmans as being indicative of all atheists painting them with a guilt by association which is disingenuous.  

[Wertbag]

10 hours ago, florduh said:

As it has often been said, "Atheism is a religion in the way baldness is a hair color."

I also like "Atheism is a religion, the way "off" is a TV channel"

[Clayton_Veno]

48 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I also like "Atheism is a religion, the way "off" is a TV channel"

Agreed.

[older]

I don't like the word "atheism." The "ism" suffix implies some sort of belief system. I'm also uncomfortable with "atheist" for similar reasons. I'd prefer to say someone is "atheistic." Thus "a" as a prefix makes the word that follows a negative. Thus the person is not theistic.

 

On the rare occasion when I have had to define myself I'll say I'm not religious (or possibly "Not theistic."); that I don't believe in gods or spirits of any kind. That usually ends it. I've never been pressed beyond that, but if I was asked, "Well what do you believe?" I'd say I believe that most people are inherently good and try to do the right thing. That I believe in things that can be proven by tangible, measurable, independently verifiable, evidence.

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, older said:

I don't like the word "atheism." The "ism" suffix implies some sort of belief system. I'm also uncomfortable with "atheist" for similar reasons. I'd prefer to say someone is "atheistic." Thus "a" as a prefix makes the word that follows a negative. Thus the person is not theistic.

 

On the rare occasion when I have had to define myself I'll say I'm not religious (or possibly "Not theistic."); that I don't believe in gods or spirits of any kind. That usually ends it. I've never been pressed beyond that, but if I was asked, "Well what do you believe?" I'd say I believe that most people are inherently good and try to do the right thing. That I believe in things that can be proven by tangible, measurable, independently verifiable, evidence.

The problem I see with the term non-religious is that it is vague.  Many of the people who consider themselves spiritual, or "have a relationship with god, not the church" will use that term.  I don't mind using the atheist label for myself, the description you use "I don't believe in gods or spirits of any kind" fits the atheist label fine, and I find using the label removes any doubt as to where you stand.  In day to day life it never comes up and doesn't matter, but if you engage in online discussions or debates then the question will be asked more often.