Religion had good intentions, but nature has better

[Confused Ape]

It was very late (my time) when I made my last post and something occurred to me overnight. Words are human inventions and they can change meaning over time. There are a lot of articles on this subject such as this blog on the Oxford Dictionaries site. I'll just pick one example from it.

Whatis the strangest change in meaning that any word has undergone?

To call someone a bully was, in the sixteenth century, to effectively say ‘good fellow’ or ‘darling’: it was a term of endearment that could be used to either sex. It was only in the seventeenth century that this mate became someone who showed off his good deeds, and a century later the intimidating tyrant of the weak.

In this forum we insist that atheism means nothing more than a lack of belief in deities. It's a very useful definition here because it covers everyone who rates themselves as 6 or 7 on the Scale Of Theistic probability. Outside this forum, however, we've had the New Atheist movement which was eventually referred to as New Atheism

New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1]

A simple lack of belief in deities can't be any kind of ideology but a social and political movement can be turned into one. Some atheists associated the movement as being part of atheism itself and tried to invent Atheism The Ideology.

Having intellectual/philosophical discussions about atheism in this forum keeps us amused. When it comes to the outside world, however, we can only hope that some atheist nutcase doesn't decide to go on a 'religious people killing spree' and declare that they did it in the name of atheism.

[John V]

Religion had good intentions to make humans feel certain and safe, but nature has it's way regardless.

From a materialist point of view, everything, including religion, is necessarily a part of nature.

[abaris]

From a materialist point of view, everything, including religion, is necessarily a part of nature.

Why would that be? It didn't grow on a tree after all. It's man made just like any other ideology.

[JuliaL]

I dream of starting the First Church of the Strong Atheist.
I fully acknowledge that the dogma of the FCotSA contains a single positive, definite, unprovable claim that no deities exist. This separates FCotSA from weak, passive (gutless) atheism.

I want the tithes and 501( c)( 3) tax breaks.

[Anomalocaris]

Religion: invented to explain the unknown, subverted to control the gullible.

Religion wasn't invented to explain the unknown. It was invented to pretend the unknown has an unchallengeable received explanation that so happen to improve the status of the con man making the pretense.

---

Religion had good intentions to make humans feel certain and safe, but nature has it's way regardless.

From a materialist point of view, everything, including religion, is necessarily a part of nature.

For the Christian whenever he is caught in a lie he pretends a lie can be made true by the simple expedient of asserting it is out of bounds of rigorous verificatory investigation. In other words he call it supernatural.

[John V]

Why would that be? It didn't grow on a tree after all. It's man made just like any other ideology.

Man is part of nature. Therefore, anything man makes is also part of nature.

[abaris]

Man is part of nature. Therefore, anything man makes is also part of nature.

So my computer is a part of nature. Should be easy on the environment then. No need to pay any attention when it's time to throw it out.

[John V]

So my computer is a part of nature.

Yes, your computer is a part of nature, just as a bird's nest is part of nature.

Should be easy on the environment then. No need to pay any attention when it's time to throw it out.

How do you reach that conclusion? Nature is anything but "easy on" itself.

[abaris]

Yes, your computer is a part of nature, just as a bird's nest is part of nature.

Care to back that up? Other than making up a claim and doubling down on it.

In other words, if your car breaks down, you're one of those people sinking it in a lake, because, you know, they're part of nature anyway. No harm done.

[John V]

Care to back that up? Other than making up a claim and doubling down on it.

I thought the logic was obvious. Nests, beaver dams, etc. are things made by animals from materials found in nature. They are considered natural.

A computer is a thing made by an animal made from materials ultimately found in nature. It is therefore also natural.

In other words, if your car breaks down, you're one of those people sinking it in a lake, because, you know, they're part of nature anyway. No harm done.

That doesn't follow at all. You'd certainly agree that an animal carcass is part of nature, but I wouldn't put it in my water supply. Considering something's potential harm to my environment does not indicate that the thing is not a part of nature.