Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[Bubbles]

.

[Hope]

Christianity basically  is not about good vs evil but about living forever and pOwer

Do you have any evidence for this, Rose.  I notice that you rely on ideas in your OP that have absolutely no relation to Jesus' original teachings, nor to the position of the Christian Church for the first 300+ years of its existence.

[Outrider]

I'm not sure this is any different from any other formalised religion. Religious ideas are about trying to explain the world in the absence of sufficient information, but the formalisation of them is about people trying to build social cohesion - that's a form of control.

Some of them are more blatant about the control element than others, some non-religious ideas do the same thing - superstitions, institutionalised racism, traditions etc.

I don't think Christianity stands out amongst the other religious movements in this regard - whilst there have been some quite egregious examples of it, there have also been Christian movements that were quite accepting of other ideas as well.

O.

[ippy]

These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.

ippy

[Hope]

These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.

Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?

[Shaker]

Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?

Certainly not atheism. You know all that that entails, or at least should do.

[Outrider]

These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.

Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?

In theory, perhaps, though I think some would be more difficult to leverage than others.

Atheism would be as difficult as theism - it's a single point, which means it lacks the breadth and subtlety to exert control.

Taking it further - from theism to a full-fledged explicit religion - makes it easier to encroach in more areas of life. How you'd do that with atheism I'm not sure.

Secularism could be seen as a form of control - the denial of public space for religious views - but it's as much a compromise between equally intransigent control-mechanisms as anything.

Ultimately, any 'rules' - be they legal, social, traditional, whatever - are an attempt at control. The art, I suppose, is to pick the least intrusive - I'd suggest that secularism is way less intrusive than giving authority to any one religious movement over others.

O.

[Hope]

Certainly not atheism. You know all that that entails, or at least should do.

Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker.  If one is a means of social control, surely the other is too.  It certainly was in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and other such places.

[Outrider]

These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.

Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?

Sorry, additionally - they aren't 'only' a means to social control, indeed that's probably not the intention of very many of them at all, initially.

Individual rules and tropes within them may be generated with that in mind, but in principle they are exactly what they say they are: theism is, merely, accepting the premise there is at least one god. After that you build rules and regulations by accepting or rejecting particular claims people have about what they think given gods might want, and those rules become social constraints - that's not the point, it's the consequence.

O.

[Shaker]

Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker.

No it isn't.

Atheism is a conclusion. 

Naturalism is a worldview.

Scepticism is a worldview.

Rationalism is a worldview.

These tend, on the whole, to go hand in hand with atheism, and generally speaking where you find the latter you'll find at least one, some or all of the former, but atheism itself isn't a worldview. It's a stance on the existence of gods which is based on some other thing which is a worldview.

If one is a means of social control, surely the other is too.

That doesn't actually follow. I can explain why, if needed.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note I don't think theism is a world view either.

[floo]

A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!

[Hope]

Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker.

No it isn't.

You would seem to be at odds with the Oxford Dictionary:

world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world

the Free Dictionary:

world·view
1.  The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

2.  A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.

Merriam-Webster:

worldview
the way someone thinks about the world

Wikipedia

A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung  composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). The German word is also in use in English.

It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?

[Shaker]

Thanks for defining the term 'worldview,' whose meaning I already understood.

Now go back and read my prior post again and try to understand why you've spectacularly missed the point.

[Hope]

A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!

I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.

[Hope]

Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?

NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either.  I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.

[floo]

A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!

I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.

So do I unfortunately!

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?

NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either.  I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.

Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world


Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.


the Free Dictionary:

world·view
1.  The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

It isn't the overall perspective from which one can see or interpret the world


2.  A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.


It by defition is not only not a set of beliefs, but isn't even a belief. It's a lack of a belief

Merriam-Webster:

worldview
the way someone thinks about the world

It isn't the way anyone thinks about the world

Wikipedia

A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung  composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). The German word is also in use in English.

It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.



And again it is a simple lack of 1 belief - it in no sense can be comprehensive.


Theism while at least manging to be a belief isn't comprehensive unless you add on multiple other beliefs.

[Andy]

I've created a thread for this.

[Hope]

Thanks for defining the term 'worldview,' whose meaning I already understood.

Now go back and read my prior post again and try to understand why you've spectacularly missed the point.

I've missed the point, I accept; that point being that you and others will make every effort to avoid allowing your understanding of the world to be deemed as anything other than a conclusion; a conclusion on which you base your understanding of the world.

You mentioned that you believe naturalism to be a world view.  That it might be,  but then I can argue that I believe in naturalism but not as the sole arbiter or reality.  I have therefore come to a different conclusion to you regarding the nature of naturalism - suggesting that naturalism isn't the underlying element but a means of reaching that element.

[Shaker]

I've missed the point, I accept; that point being that you and others will make every effort to avoid allowing your understanding of the world to be deemed as anything other than a conclusion; a conclusion on which you base your understanding of the world.

The conclusion of atheism follows from the worldviews of naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc., not - as you seem to be arguing - vice versa. Naturalism (and the rest) is the worldview; atheism inevitably falls out of that worldview. My understanding of the world is predicated on naturalism (and the rest), not the atheism which is a consequence of it.

You mentioned that you believe naturalism to be a world view.  That it might be

Is.

but then I can argue that I believe in naturalism but not as the sole arbiter or reality.

So therefore your worldview incorporates supernaturalism as well, and can't be considered wholly naturalistic.

I have therefore come to a different conclusion to you regarding the nature of naturalism - suggesting that naturalism isn't the underlying element but a means of reaching that element.

No. See first response above.

[Hope]

Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world


Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.

Yes it is, NS.  It's conception of the world is as being without a deity.

It isn't the overall perspective from which one can see or interpret the world

Yet that seems to be the central element of how an atheist interprets the world - as running without the intervention of a deity.

It by defition is not only not a set of beliefs, but isn't even a belief. It's a lack of a belief

A neat semantic trick, but as there is a lack of belief in a deity, there is a belief in some other form of dynamic for life.

It isn't the way anyone thinks about the world

Not according to many posts here which seem to suggest that reality (aka the world) is not reliant on a deity to exist

[Andy]

Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world


Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.

Yes it is, NS.  It's conception of the world is as being without a deity.

Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?

[Hope]

The conclusion of atheism follows from the worldviews of naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc., not - as you seem to be arguing - vice versa. Naturalism (and the rest) is the worldview; atheism inevitably falls out of that worldview. My understanding of the world is predicated on naturalism (and the rest), not the atheism which is a consequence of it.

Yet there are many - scientists amongst them - who regard "naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc." as legitimate but still don't come to the conclusion that you do, suggesting that these are not core understandings but means to a core understanding.