In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that try to imitate another work of art in order to ridicule it but miserably fails. When the attempt to ridicule doesn't fail, it's called plagiarism.
In previous articles and comments I referred to atheism plagiarizing from religion. Could it be that I should have said Atheism is a parody of religion? Religion is a life stance, so if atheism is a parody of life stance, it could be a life stance as well. I’ll let you think about it.
Stance is a morpheme meaning stand, used in several ways:
“A person's life stance, or lifestance, is their relation with what they accept as being of ultimate importance, the presuppositions and theory of this, the beliefs, commitments and practice of working it out in living.”
Under ultimate importance, we find similar concepts
Intrinsic value (ultimate importance) is mainly used in ethics, but the concept is also used in philosophy, with terms that essentially may refer to the same concept.
- As "ultimate importance" it is what is related to by a sentient being in order to constitute a life stance.
- It is synonymous with the meaning of life, as this may be expressed as what is meaningful or valuable in life. However, meaning of life is more vague, with other uses as well.
In the above, “sentient” is mentioned.
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience")
From the meaning of life :
“The meaning of life is in the philosophical and religious conceptions of existence, social ties, consciousness, and happiness, and borders on many other issues, such as symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, the existence of a or multiple Gods, conceptions of God, the soul, and the afterlife. Scientific contributions focus primarily on describing related empirical facts about the universe, exploring the context and parameters concerning the 'how' of life. Science also studies and can provide recommendations for the pursuit of well-being and a related conception of morality”
With this we can conclude that and person can still feel, perceive, conscious and still reason. It is a dichotomical fallacy that one can’t do both. It is only when our emotions control any or both that there is a problem. My article” the question of a Life stance” sure had a lot emotional comments from both parties.
Based on the above, one can clearly see that a life stances, like religion and irreligion (including atheism; explained below) focus on the meaning of life, while science has different goals.
Atheism could then logical not be a life stance if atheism doesn’t give meaning to the life of an atheist, and would not be of ultimate importance to the atheist. So under no circumstance will or should the atheist try to defend his position or stance in life. If the atheist does, his reaction would lead on to the conclusion that atheism, or his views on it would resemble a life stance.
Let such get some examples.
“Dawkins is no less critical of pseudoscience than he is of religion. He recently made his views known about faith healers, psychic mediums, angel therapists, "aura photographers", astrologers, tarot card readers and water diviners, and claimed that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic of superstitious thinking".”
“With the high regard in which religious belief is held, openly and directly attacking religion has seen Dawkins break one of the greatest taboos still in existence in the western world”
“he is generally seen to reject all theistic views, even when they support his own on evolution or secularism, and his dismissal of all the claimed good aspects of religion, which Dawkins either believes are non-existent or completely irrelevant.”
“Richard Dawkins has always been a strong supporter of women's rights and a vocal opponent of the treatment of women by religion, and thus was generally popular with feminists.”
This is to show the position of the authors of the above link and the relevance demonstrated later
“Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
- Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
- Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
· Note this isn’t the full piece, and no attempt to Obscurantism.
“He has been criticized for being intolerant of religious belief, for a virtual hatred of Islam in particular, and for positive bias shown towards eastern religions.”
“He defines a belief as a "lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person's life”
This effect has been shown to exist in the article “The question of a life stance”, as it seem to have moved a lot of atheists.
“Elsewhere he sees Islam as violent, anachronistic and opposed to important western values, notably free speech. Harris blames western liberals for being more concerned with political correctness and with avoiding accusations of racism than with defending western freedom.”
There are many more as to see that Sam Harris indeed has a position against and for certain concepts.
On the same page, it appears to have a link to assist in the “indoctrination” of ideas http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted
“He was known for his views on atheism and other social issues on which he would hold forth eruditely and at length. He was also known for taking unusually provocative positions on various topics.”
“Hitchens was unusual among pundits for simultaneously being pro-life (albeit not rabidly so), while also being rabidly atheist and a strong supporter of civil rights.”
So what can we conclude for the above?
All these links show a clear and very answers that these person, and references have a certain position, view, and is of ultimate importance, otherwise these actions of the people above would not be emotional, or based on feelings.
This means that atheism could very well be a life stance as it shares so many things with other life stances, which some atheist/s considered being synonyms with religions only. Each atheist reached his “atheism” in his own way, the same way that a person or group of persons share a similar way of reasoning of tenet. That would explain the many denominations within the Christian religion. Atheists wants to be accepted by society the same any other person want to be. The problem starts when an atheist wants others to keep their beliefs/religion private and lock behind closed doors yet want to pronounce his/her atheism in public…double standards, I think
Atheism is classified as an irreligion.
“Irreligion (adjective form: nonreligious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion”
The above persons have demonstrated that position, and affirms the conclusion of atheism could be a life stance.
Atheism followers study philosophy, and we get this…
Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge such as the relationships between truth, belief, and theories of justification.
This will explain the relationship better.
In an article “Atheism is a life stance”, another blogger said I amongst others was wilfully ignorant. I referred to rational wiki link early, which showed the bias towards faith, belief, religion, God etc.
“The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased.”
Now this is quite interesting, as the links above of rationalwikipedia shows a biased toward faith and anti-science concepts”. Therefor atheists have to admit that they too could too being willfully ignorant as well.
Atheism is something people discuss, debate, argue for, argue against, draw conclusions from, believe, disbelieve, entertain, and so on. Atheism, in other words, is a proposition/proposal/plan or scheme/ stand on a certain issue: it is something that can be either true or false, that can be the object of such propositional attitudes as belief and disbelief, and can stand in such logical relations to other propositions as entailment, consistency, and inconsistency. But one cannot discuss, debate, argue for, . . . believe, etc. a lack of something.
It is said that cabbages and tire irons was bad example of atheists as they were incapable of belief in the first place. Maybe we can suggest addition to the definition “ a lack of belief” to “ a lack of belief by those that have the capability to believe”.
1. It is a position in life the person promotes or takes in regards to a certain issue.
2. Atheists accept their atheism as being of ultimate importance, as demonstrated above
3. The presuppositions and theory of this, as there are many ways to atheism, and every atheist assume something different.
4. The beliefs – Again the examples show what their belief are, and then Atheism has told us many a time that it isn’t a belief. Guess nobody told them…
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”
Thanks to Victor
5. commitments and practice of working it out in living. Everyone in their own way…