Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.
I myself am an atheist, and I think it is not necessary to speak against religions. Instead of that we should promote atheistic views, rational and logical thinking in masses. That will work better.
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
...and now the rest of the story:
: 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
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
Atheism always has been a religion. It really fits even more definitions, but that argument takes more time than I have, so we will leave it with this. Either way, it's a religion.
So, even though you yourself provided a definition, you didn't even understand it. You might as well say black is white, up is down, etc.
Point being .... there may be a dozen different ways to define ... lets say "blue" ? Ya don't have to qualify with the whole dozen definitions in order to rightfully be called blue ... only one will do.
I would say that the actions of the fanatical Atheists does adhere to A definition of RELIGIOUS behavior. I have one neighbor who religiously goes fishing every weekend. Another friend who religiously promotes his beliefs on Jogging and all that health food stuff.
Some Atheists religiously speaking out against religious people? Hypocrites speaking out against hypocrites. I could go on and on but why?
It is SOooo easy to see the hypocrisy in others yet SOoo difficult to see our own; kinda like the back side of our knees, it is possible only with special effort which some of us don't take, too easy to see the back side of your knees than my own. Too bad we don't listen to what other people can see that we can't.
So which one of the less common meanings did you intend?
Because if you specify that, the question answers itself.
Either of the ones in bold are the easiest to explain, so I would go with them first. If you purport atheists don't have a "belief" or "faith" you imply they know first hand things they don't. They hear them, read them, and choose to take them on faith. For most, what has been commonly called "Scientism" applies directly, although it seems most athiests protest and seek to deny it because they don't want to acknowledge having a religion.
Can you tell any of us atheists in what what atheism fits the definition of religion? None of those match anything I believe.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
We don't have meet ups with other atheists, we don't have "worship groups" we don't have dogmatic practices or any other rules that we must follow in order to be "true" atheists.
You calling atheism a religion is more of a way of saying you are biased towards atheism and want to insult us somehow by calling us a religion because you think it hurts our feelings. The only thing it does is shows us your complete lack of intelligence in understanding the meaning of words.
"with ardor and faith" is the key word that makes atheism the opposite of a religion, since atheism is not a belief system it's the lack of a belief in a God. It's no more a religion than not believing in UFOs or Faeries or Ghosts is a religion. It isn't about faith, it's about evidence, and if you don't have evidence for the existence of something you can't have a belief in it, and since evidence is opposite to faith atheism is not a religion, we have a lack of faith in God, not a faith that their is no God. Is there a God? I don't really know, but I know enough to say that the existence of a God, the need for a God in our universe, as defined in every religion on Earth, is unlikely. It's not a faith and it's not about faith. It's about someone having a claim about something and being skeptical that the claim is true, basically, we don't believe you until you can provide evidence.
I'm an atheist, but if you provide me with evidence for your God I will believe in God. Atheism challenges specifically the question of God, we don't blindly believe in your God nor do we blindly believe there is no God, all though, we can unblindly say whether or not a God is likely given the current evidence we have of the universe (the difference between strong and weak atheism) Now many atheists in our world are weak atheists, meaning they don't believe in God because there is no evidence but believe that there may be evidence out there that could prove whether or not one exists, they are agnostic atheists... Others, like myself, have seen enough evidence to at least say, there is no definition of God that is likely responsible for existence and probably doesn't exist at all. If you can not only give me a definition and give me evidence for why you believe such a being is real and is irrefutable I would change my mind but considering my research into the subject I don't think you are likely to do that or logically be able to do that, or sanely. One of the main reasons is the definition people often give is God is not a physical being and can only be perceived through the holy spirit and so on... problem with that is you can imagine such a thing, you can make yourself believe anything of any fantasy you could possibly imagine and think that it's 100% real and be 100% convinced it's truth. However, you will never convince any skeptic at any time that what you believe in is anything but fantasy. It's how people believe they are abducted by aliens, or see ghosts, or have out of body or near death experiences or report big foot or loc ness monsters or the chupacabra, etc.... all which have been traced and explained away. Especially the Chupacabra which I can tell you has an origin in 1992.
In conclusion, Atheism is the lack of a religion and saying otherwise is like I said to Eric, WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
"with ardor and faith". It's interesting you use these words to make your point. Since it is with ardor that atheists square off against theists; passionately arguing in defense of their belief. Because, whether or not the passionate defender of atheism chooses to accept it; a stand on the non existence of God is no more provable than the opposite stand. Both sides have faith in their own judgment. Faith in their own experience. It is a firm faith in their own ability to reason which brings them to the table to argue in defense of their belief.
Sorry, your opening line throws atheism into the realm of religion. Many recognized religions revolve around things other than God. You can't simply say 'I don't believe in God, therefore I am not religious'. We can't all ignore the faith and ardor within atheistic arguments.
The believer is incapable of understanding arguments and evidence, or lack thereof, stating emphatically that their faith in gods have equivalent status in reality as anything else. They are then compelled to assert the understanding others have of the world around them is faith based beliefs.
"Faith in no God", Emile, is misleading phrasing. You say "faith" but in actuality, atheists don't have "faith."
What is faith, especially in terms of religion? Faith is the belief in something against reason and logic, the belief that something is true even without any evidence. It's the cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions - that any questioning of validity of religious claims is met with accusations of "lack of faith."
Recognizing science, however, does not take faith. First, because we don't have to believe the supernatural like gods exist by default. I don't believe in Santa just because there's no "proof" he doesn't exist, or fairies, or leprechauns. While we might admit - rightly so - that there are a lot of things in this world we don't know about, and almost anything might have a chance, no matter how miniscule, or being true, that doesn't mean we have to entertain it as a reasonable claim.
Second, science is the opposite of faith. If I say I am partial to the Big Bang Theory, it's not "faith" because scientific theories are the result of evidence, which comes from experimentation and observation. It takes no faith. Furthermore, any (good) scientist or interested person SHOULD recognize that theories can be proven wrong - the nature of science is to evolve and hopefully get closer and closer to the truth. If tomorrow, scientists realize that the Big Bang theory is illogical, and the, I don't know, Giant Cat theory is the new result of analysis, I will say, "okay." No faith involved, only recognition of the latest scientific achievements.
In your ignorance you ignore the facts of the definitions of various words. First, faith is to atheists, the stupid affirmation of the absurd, belief without evidence. I can't believe a God exists any more than you can believe you've been abducted by aliens. Have you? And if you say no, how do you know? Is it faith? If you say yes to that then our conversation is over because you are not only willfully ignorant but completely dishonest.
As far as Ardor, that is not a fundamental trait of religion, yes I am passionate about many many things, I love scooters, circuits, psychology, astrophysics, music but that does not make any of those things a religion, what about equal rights for all people, or justice, I am very passionate about those topics.... religion? still no. To say that being an atheist, and fighting off the religious extremists who try and create laws that are religious based, is a religion then you ARE willfully ignorant and dishonest
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's usually a duck no matter if it knows it, or not. Ducks are stupid that way.
Unless you think a rooster is a duck and haven't learned the difference.
I suppose that point might hold water...until the duck quacked. Then, only the duck doesn't understand it's a duck. Everyone else hears the quacking. And, maybe that's the problem. It's a delusional duck who is hard of hearing with a bit of a speech impediment. What should we do? Let it continue in it's delusions, or attempt to bridge the communication gap? I suppose we could appease it by pretending it's a new species, but would dishonesty be good for the duck?
When atheist churches start springing up then it is a kind of religion. There is a church called, "Sunday Assembly".
"The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that meets to hear great talks, sing songs and generally celebrate the wonder of life. It’s a service for anyone who wants to live better, help often and wonder more."
Is the Girl Scouts a religion because they gather, hang out, and try to do good? Is school a religion?
Some people choosing to enjoy the community or feel-good element of church without religion, does not make atheism a religion.
Again, atheism is, by definition, NOT a religion.
Girls scout don't exactly make their group exclusively for non believers. It has nothing to do with countering religion.
Why should the Sunday Assembly be restricted to atheists if they are just gathering and trying to do good? Why emphasize that they are godless?
Atheism in its true sense is usually just a lack of belief in God. Those atheists don't care and they certainly don't try and deconvert Christians. They find that as appealing as trying to disprove Spiderman.
There are atheists, however, that "worship" science and reason. Then is becomes a cult. This is how all religions start. There are atheist churches out there:
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.
The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
But, it's not a church. Nowhere does it say it is a church. Do you know what a church is?
"With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.
The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
Congratulations Claire, you found ONE internet site. You do realize that this site merely mocks and ridicules churches, don't you? Kinda like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
That is their religion. To ridicule Christians. It's kind of like Muslims trying to debunk Christianity and Christianity trying to debunk Islam.
The springing up of these church, or movements to pacify you, is a carefully concocted plan by Freemasons from way back. Religion is losing its power and so this is where science dictatorship begins:
“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”
- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116
Huxley was a Freemason. They are based on the occult by the way.
Another influential Freemason Albert Pike laid on the plans for World War 1,2 and three:
lbert Pike's letter to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871:
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists , and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
I don't know much about War War 1 but the Nazis were destroyed in World War 2 and Israel did become a sovereign state.
We know that the western world is at war with Islam. The western world are pro-Israel and are thus Zionists. The atheists and nihilists have been "unleashed". Thanks for carrying out Pike's desires even though he despises atheists. The atheist movement will definitely help people be disillusioned with Christianity. They will be fooled into believing Lucifer is the way. Then Christianity and atheists will be done away with. So atheists like you are very instrumental to these evil people. They want people like you to disillusion Christians. And Christianity, too, is also very useful to them. The Pope is advocating the dissolution of Christianity by urging the world religions to merge.
Good one, Claire. You sure know how to dream up some doozies.
Ah yes, "science dictatorship"... hilarious. No problem, Claire, just get rid of your computer, internet connection and all the other things in your life "science dictatorship" has provided for you and go live in a cave. You'll have no problem with "science dictatorship" or hypocrisy.
The rest of your post is just nonsensical word salad.
I'm not dreaming it up. Read what PIke said. I'm just reporting on what HE said. Anyway, naive people like you are very useful to evil people. They just cooperate without question.
You are not understanding. Science dictatorship refers to the worship of logic and science. It is something people feel negates the existence of God. We owe a lot to science but there is another science that enslaves people. Huxley was a Freemason.
An example is that the "first science institution" was the Freemasonic "British Royal Society" which was responsible for science propaganda and so whatever came from that was a Freemasonic belief. For example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on the occult idea that man can evolve from an unenlightened state to god-like. The Lunar Society that preceded and influenced the "British Royal Society" had an interesting member, Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. A chief science writer, Jonathan Tennenbaum, wrote:
“Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.”
And I agree it is a cult because atheists cling onto it because they are terrified of the alternative: intelligent design.
Interesting. You always moan at people who personally attack you and are condescending when you cannot even take the plank out of your own eye.
Belittle and put your head in the sand all you like and think you are right all the time. It won't change the truth.
Excellent contradiction there, Claire. Well done.
Complete nonsensical gibberish that defies reality, facts and evidence.
Calling your ideas nonsensical word salad or gibberish is not the same thing as someone attacking you personally, Claire.
There's a difference between worshiping science and using it as a tool for propaganda and using science to provide empirical evidence.
What exactly in that comment is gibberish and lay out why it is gibberish? How does it defy facts and evidence?
You are insulting me which is condescending. The point is you cry about personal attacks when you don't treat people with respect.
Is this not a personal attack?
"Actually Emile, that post describes you perfectly, the uneducated laymen."
I didn't you personally attacked me in this post.
So you make a nonsensical claim of a "scientific dictatorship" based on the writings of the same guy who wrote Brave New World, easily one of the worst-written and most unoriginal novels of the 20th century, and you're expecting us to take you seriously?
The Nazi Party was founded as the nationalist and antisemitic German Workers' Party in January 1919. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ]
And Albert Pike wrote of Nazis in 1871, 50 years before the first Nazi? "This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed..." Seems someone is dreaming here.
Wow wilderness that wiki is really a bad one. But I do note that it says "associated with" as a disclaimer as to it's truth. Nazi's did not form with anti Semitic sentiment. That came after several years of prosperity under the Nazi's. Yes "Nazi's" are "associated with the holocaust and Adolf" but that was not in the foundation.
One could easily have attacked the notion of a workers party as early as Marx who died in the late 1800's. Please this does not mean I accept any of these notions -- just getting it straight.
Sometimes they are - you just have to accept and understand that.
So where is it basically wrong? The only real thing I pulled from it was that the Nazi party was formed in 1919 - that before that the term was not used. An even in 1919, it still wasn't called Nazi, but "German Workers Party".
Were there Nazi's (by name, not just ideology) present before that? Because the whole point of the post was that some yahoo 50 years prior did NOT write about Nazi's as there were no Nazi's. Not unless he was pulling a Nostradamus, giving predictions that are then interpreted to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, and Claire did not indicate that. She specifically quoted Pike as using the term Nazism, with the term not existing for another 50 years. According to Wiki, at least - did I do a baddie by accepting that at face value?
Talk about paranoid delusional conspiracy theories! Wow!
When I join a club is that a religious practice? I am or was in a Scooter club not too long ago and we would talk about scooters or the community of scooterists, organize rides and events and do all sorts of scooter related and community and social related things in relation to our scooter enthusiasm. Does this mean Scootering is a religion?
Merely calling a group of people a religion who like or believe in the same thing, even if they get together to talk or even celebrate about this or any particular topic is really the most ignorant thing I can think of.
A religious practice specifically deals with a Deity(ies) and it's desires and dogmas for your life and the world.
Atheism is just a word to describe one particular aspect of my belief which is I don't believe in a God(s) of any kind. The fact that I might (but haven't) meet up to talk about or even celebrate this idea (which to me is silly in general) doesn't make my anti-religious beliefs a religion.
I think the mere subject (sorry Jain) is completely idiotic and the people who think atheism a religion are complete and total morons.
Scootering has nothing to do with being a "godless" congregation. The atheis mission is to deconvert the religious.
Buddhists don't worship a god but it is a religion. Religion can be defined as:
... is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence
And so atheism is a world view relating to the order of existence. It espouses that human existence did not come about with the help of God. This is where belief comes from.
And when atheists start demanding religious protection like Christians then it strongly suggests religion.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_arti … religion-1
Really? Seems more that there is no mission for atheists other than to show just how ridiculous religious beliefs are and how dangerous they can be to societies.
Then atheists still have a mission that which other religions have.
I don't have that mission.... I don't feel it's my responsibility to educate the uneducated idiots of the world as to what reality is. Do you know why? Because those people will be left behind in this scientifically run world we live in. Everything we have, everything that makes life better, everything that improves upon Humanity comes from one place and that has nothing to do with any God of any kind. It comes from humanities use of science to actually fix the problems that exist within our society.
As an atheist, my only mission is to live my life better every day without the necessity of any God, just the understanding of what is real. I care about what is real enough to question everything put to me that is claimed as something real.
Do you care anything for reality to question your view of reality like we do?
It doesn't look like it.
to me atheism is the only answer for religion...
Yes, Jainismas, I agree: you atheists should offer what you are very good at: teaching rational and logical thinking to those who have the ears to hear.
However, you mention" masses." Is this *urge to convert* what theists and atheists have in common? the compulsion to educate the virtual masses of people/citizens of society who we imagine are actually paying attention and/or who we consider
n e e d s a v i n g ?
Atheism by definition can never become a religion. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity..Now when it comes to the actions of some atheists, which you have stated is synonymous with the actions of Christians, Those actions are not completely relevant to the philosophy of atheism as a whole. Just as religion isn't sentient, The philosophy of atheism is not sentient either and should not be blamed for the actions of someone acting in a certain manner
An organised group of individuals with a common theistic belief is no different to an organised group of individuals with a common non-theistic belief, or anti-theistic belief, in an anthropological sense. Functionally a religion is no different to a Justin Bieber fan club, humanist society, or a political party. The only difference is the specific belief that acts as the common denominator, which in turn determines the degree of cost members of that group are willing to incur to be part of that group. With the examples I've given this would range from subscribing to a newsletter at one end of the spectrum, to dying in a military conflict at the other.
Organised religions are essentially social groups. They engender solidarity among those within the group. Being part of a social group enhances an individual's chances of survival. The adherence to certain beliefs and practices (which are usually costly to an individual) are an indicator of an individual's commitment to that group. They are the cost of membership if you will. They give assurance an individual is one of "us" (as opposed to one of the "others") and therefore worthy of the benefits associated with being in the group. So in terms of their social and biological function, Christianity, the Democratic Party, the Humanist Association, and the 'Bieber fever' club are functionally equivalent.
It's as bad as religion. Notice there are billions of Christians quietly living their lives. They get defined by the few idiots on TV. Notice there are billions of Muslims quietly living their lives. They get defined by a few idiots with bombs.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of atheists quietly living their lives and they get defined by a few idiots too.
There is a kind of movement among atheists to try and create a value system that is universal among atheism. For instance, Sam Harris wrote a book called The Moral Landscape which makes the claim that ethics can be based on science despite the fact that this has been debunked by philosophers for a couple hundred years and was picked apart pretty convincingly by philosophers after publication, the book remains pretty popular among certain atheists.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Magic of Reality which makes epistemological claims based on an extreme scientific empiricism. Never mind that the claim is illogical and that science only functions through the acceptance of certain axioms and a certain degree of logical induction, this book is also popular in certain atheist circles. I have also seen books that make certain metaphysical claims based on atheism which is also nonsense.
Being an atheist says nothing about ones positive beliefs about ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. . It does however say something about what we do not believe, which is that these things come from God. The attempt to link ethical, epistemological and metaphysical beliefs strictly to atheism is an attempt to turn atheism into a kind of ideology and one could say that it is a kind of religion. Philosophers often refer to this movement as sciencism.
Of course the fact that none of these claims hold water shows that Atheism is NOT be a religion. A lack of belief in something can not be the basis of a religion. Religion tells people the basis for truth, ethics and reality all come from God. Atheism rejects this assumption but it does not tell you where it comes from. An atheist can ethically be a Utilitarian, a Kantian, an Egoist or believe in Virtue Ethics. A religious person can accept these ethical schools of thought as well, but if he truly is religious then he is being a hypocrite, since there are contradictions to these ethical theories and the virtues taught by most major religions.
I think philosophers call that a straw man argument. You take three hand picked positions that you can easily refute and Dawkins is an easy one along with Harris. And then come to a universal conclusion. However just like a communist an atheist does not fit the common notion of a religion. I would say your conclusion is correct. Of course I would say that about a non-religious Christian also. Belief in a God does not religion make.
I actually cannot tell what you are saying here. What is my conclusion that I came to that is universal? I say "some" when referring to these views,
My overall point is that atheists are not bound to think a certain way on ethics, metaphysics or epistemology by virtue of their atheism but religious people are bound to think a certain way about these things by virtue of their religious dogma.
I really don't think I will take a lecture on philosophy or logic from a person who cannot even clearly read and understand a text.
I personally am an ATHEIST. However, whenever I make a criticism of any prominent atheist. (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) etc. I find that other atheists immediately pile on me for daring to criticize any other atheist and almost always mistake me for a religious person.
My point is that there are certain atheists who insist on dogmatic thinking and this adds fuel to the arguments that religious people make about atheism being a religion. I am not the first person to point out that the tactics that the "NEW ATHEISTS" use are similar to the very techniques that religious leaders use.
Insofar as religion is concerned this proposition could be correct. If you go after something with others in belief and a dogmatic and orderly fashion it sure smells like religion. But religion basically smells. A person who follows the teachings of one other and has a connection with a higher power is not necessarily religious if he holds true to a personal relationship as opposed to a generally accepted one. So in theory a Christian could be non religious and an Atheist religious. The being of a Christian is not oriented toward religion but rather toward a personal God. Whereas an Atheist could easily follow a charismatic professor and blindly believe what the professor says and in some collegiate atmospheres it feels like a cult style religion. Many followers of Darwin just ignore failings and gaps in logic and go on blind faith.
We to often equate religions (which has been shown here to mean many things) with faith and belief. How sad. And how inappropriate. Religion is about how man relates to man. Faith and belief are how man relates to ideals and theories and deities and hope and love and so on. Atheists can act the way of religions, if they want to.
But in general to my experience they do not. They are independent and self evaluators and critics of all things taken for granted or assumed.
Dogmatic thinking is common everywhere in human society. What makes a religion is 1. A belief in a deity. 2. A belief of a creation myth. 3. Values and morals that are created by that are meant to be universally followed.
Even a new age religion like Scientology has all three of these things.
Just because something is ideologically dogmatic does not make it a religion.
I haven't the time to argue atheism has all three, so I will simply take issue with your definition and ask, according to who are these the defined parameters making up the definition of religion?
Never yet met an atheist that had a belief in a deity.
If you want to call the theory of the big bang a myth, I guess you can, but few people equate "theory" with "myth".
Right, much bigger argument so I am looking instead to clarify the definition that dismisses atheism as a religion, as outlined by Robephiles, from I don't know what source. Needing to go away from keyboard now but will check back when I can for that.
Spoiler alert for when there is time though wilderness: Many if not most atheists basically deify nature and/or science, which is what has resulted in the term "scientism" being applied to those that do. Nearly all deny it, but the argument can certainly be made that is exactly what most do.
verb: deify; 3rd person present: deifies; past tense: deified; past participle: deified; gerund or present participle: deifying
1. worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god.
"she was deified by the early Romans as a fertility goddess"
synonyms: worship, revere, venerate, reverence, hold sacred;
"she was deified by the early Romans"
idolize, lionize, extol, hero-worship;
idealize, glorify, aggrandize, overpraise, put on a pedestal
"he was deified by the press"
This is incorrect. Scientism is an epistemological belief not a belief in a deity. It is an extreme version of empiricism.
To deify is not the same as believing in a deity. For instance, I might deify someone I am in love with, believing her to be perfect and getting angry at anybody who would criticize her but that does not mean I literally believe she is God.
By your definition any love struck teenager believes the object of their affections is God.
You are merely arguing from a semantics viewpoint, using "definitions" of words that do not match with commonly accepted meanings and certainly do not match with what the OP referred to in the word "religion"
Example: From your quote here,
"worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god" and
"he was deified by the press"
I would go so far as to say that the press has NEVER deified by the press to the point that anyone knelt and prayed to them. The people that the press HAS "deified" (and there have been many) have NOT been worshipped as a god by anyone.
So, semantics. Atheists do "deify" objects and people, I suppose, but not to the point they are worshipped as gods. Merely as objects and people that are important somehow, or superior to other people in specific matters.
And no, Hero-worship does not mean to worship as a god, either.
All religions that identify themselves as religions contain these three things. If you wish to disprove me then I ask you to do two things.
1. Name one religion that identifies itself as a religion that does not contain all three of these things.
2. Name something else other than atheism that you consider a religion that does not contain all three things.
As for Atheism containing them:
1. Atheism by definition does not contain the first thing.
2, Atheism and science are not interchangeable. Also, there is an alternative to the big bang theory in science, the steady state model, as well as plenty of other discarded theories. Evolution could be disproved tomorrow and while it would take a while for most scientists to accept it, it would happen eventually. Creationism has been disproved for over a century and religious people still haven't accepted it. Atheists evolve in their beliefs about creation. Religious people accept a myth.
3. I already argued how atheism does not dictate a set or morals that are universal and must be followed. Some atheists are moral relativists like Nietzsche. Some like Ayn Rand are egoists. Some like Sam Harris are Utilitarian. Some like myself are Kantians.
Atheism is, by definition, not a religion. Atheism is, in practical usage, also not a religion - no organization, no beliefs, defined purely by... lack of religious beliefs.
You might as well call political parties, or sports teams, or Justin Beiber fans a religion if we only want to define it by Internet dogpiling.
This thread merely shows the desperation and depths believers will stoop to fight for their beliefs, causing more conflict in the world by fabricating false notions and redefining words to suit their agenda.
Very sad, indeed.
Could it be possible that a man dead set on finding the negative believes in that?
There is nothing negative or positive in observing people's behavior. It is their behavior that can be judged thus, if you wish.
If one observes and his perception always leads him to a conclusion of faith and belief we say he is a spiritual man. Perhaps even a "religious" man. If one observes and his perception always leads him to a "down side", negative, glass is always half empty conclusion, then is it wrong to say "he is religiously negative"?. I think that is fair to understand. And I think having faith that one way of thought is always wrong is religious in nature and not scientific or logical.
No, we say he is a delusional man.
Sorry, but that is false. Observing behavior has nothing to do with half empty glasses.
No, it isn't fair.
That would be a false assertion based on a false premise.
I think your comment just showed us some religious zeal for a contrarian position at any cost. But we differ on that thought. I will not say you are wrong. Just that you have a different religion.
Yes, I understand you believers view the world that way, that those who lack belief in your gods have "a different religion" but that just shows ignorance of what religions are.
I'd spam my first statement but that would be bad.... a religion deals specifically with the belief and reverence with a God... by definition. I'm sure you may be cherry picking parts of the definition out of the dictionary or even worse off the internet, without giving consideration to the whole of the definition. Atheism is a lack of belief in any sort of God and therefore a lack of any sort of religious belief. Eric, you are religious, and A Troubled Man, and myself, are not. You claim to be a man of great knowledge but the more I read your words the more I disagree.
Is it possible that your definition of Religion is not the only one? Just saying that under Religion in Wiki your definition does not fly. I am not saying Webster is right or others are wrong. I am only pointing out there are rational differences here. Claiming only yours is right --- sure does look, smell and act like religious zealousness to me. But I am sure that is just because I lean toward the notion ascribed to by wiki.
But I am not set on that. I thought Marriage was between a man and woman until I re-read the new Websters.
So having a difference of opinion and being in a group of like minded people who say the same thing is a religion? Even if it has nothing to do with God? Like maybe, being repunlican is a religion, or being in a club is a religion. You can use these loose terms to describe whatever you like.
As far as marriage and marriage equality are concerned, I don't care that much about what people consider a marriage because to me, it's a religious practice. If it's done out of a religion then they can unite anyone they want and call it anything they want. I don't care. It's a non-issue. But as far as using words to correctly identify a group of people that's a totally different story, saying that someone is in a religion when they are not is completely idiotic... you can do it if you like but it makes my opinion of you much less than it already is, destroys your credibility especially when you claim to be an "educated" person, and makes most of us look at you and people like you as.... jokes.
Your gripe Art is with society -- I was just reporting it. And how it seemed to me. But again. Saying I am a joke shows a zealousness that I equate with religious practice.
Please note you changed the idea -- "is in a religion". I look back at the question and answer --- becoming? Yes, is it one yet? To some perhaps. Some seem to have gone that far. Perhaps it is the ardent advocates that it is not, that are in fact changing our idea of Religion needing a God to exist. Or perhaps perceived rational thought is becoming that God.
Yeah, blame society, except one thing, what is society? A group of people living together. What group of people? Us. So in other words, YOU.
You can call me a member of a religion all you want, call me a zealot all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are the problem changing words meanings to fit your desired world view. The fact is atheism is not a religion, then does being a Christian make you a Jew, since you follow the God of the Jews? You can play this stupid game that many of you people play, trying to pigeon hole us into your group because you think we hate it, or maybe it'll somehow change things around on us. The fact is, I am an atheist because I don't believe in God, it's just a word that describes my nonbelief in something, it doesn't define who I am.... it just means that when you claim there is a God I just don't believe your claim because I don't think you have proof. I like many things and dislike many things but I can't be the thing that I am not or the thing that I am against and completely opposed to even if a group of people believe the same way I do.
Also, society as a whole is not the most educated group of people on everything. It's like people who use the word Theory in the nonscience related aspect to talk about scientific theories. In layman's terms, Theory is a guess, in scientific terms theory is the highest form of knowledge there is on a given subject. Theory of Gravity, Gravity is a theory, a theory is a set of observable fact used to describe a given phenomenon. Meaning that the layman term for theory is in science called a hypothesis, meaning that people who use the word theory to mean guess are wrong. Many people use words in their wrong meaning or context, but the fact is they are wrong, it's the inability for the masses to use their own language correctly, it's why many British people think we are very bad at speaking our own language or as they would say their own language. It's sad but true.
You make a good point Art. Here is the rub. Many of these "less than stellar minds" are on both sides. And I think maybe some on the Atheist side to not maintain your purity. Some in fact, through blissful ignorance, go forth as though science is a god. (of for sure not you) But I think we have to be realistic of the masses ability to grasp the nuance --- so I say again, not yet but becoming? Yes.
I don't see it that way, you see religion is the belief and reverence in a deity, it's as simple as that. You can be a part of group, a coalition, or a club, built on a religion, not necessarily of the same religion, but that doesn't make the group you are part of a religion it makes it a group based on religious beliefs, so whether or not you are social about it makes no difference a religion is a religion. However, what you are saying about treating science as a God is silly, because science is a tool for going about finding the answers to our natural world, a true scientist never makes a discovery and says, that's it and stops, a scientist continues to question the answers. That is why the media gets it wrong and people who look to the media for what science says don't get that discoveries change, because science doesn't stand still, it doesn't appear consistent because there is always an aspect that we don't yet understand. The difference between a person of science and a person of God is that when a person of science doesn't understand something they say it's unknown or not yet known or when they make a discovery they continue to ask the next question about how it works, while a person of God hears something and instead of questioning the hows or the whys they say God did it or God only knows. Atheists stand for one thing, we don't believe in God because there is no evidence to suggest God exists or is the cause or reason for anything in the universe, when we revere science it's to say we are either going to wait for science to discover or find the evidence (because they are actually looking for the answers) or we are going to use science to discover the answers we don't yet know. Atheists are willing to say, we don't know the answers, some may be lazy enough to let science do the work for us or we may become scientists to help look for the answer to which we passionately want to find towards any given subject that may haunt us. However, we are all aware that man even using science does not have all the answers nor will it ever. And our life is such that we will only ever be aware of a particular aspect of the discoveries of science even if we are a scientist in any given field. the perfect example for this is this video on youtube by Neil Degrasse Tyson: /watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o
People in general will jump to conclusions on aspects of the unknown that usually leads to religion or the supernatural, doesn't mean it's true.
Argument from ignorance. Atheists can believe in something supernatural but the definition of atheism is, it's just not God. God is the major part of the definition of religion. If you don't have God you don't have religion. You can be a Buddhist Atheist, Buddhism is NOT a religion, it's a philosophy.
So in conclusion, This debate is completely silly, because to compare Atheism to a religion is silly because like I said, being passionate about something, being in a group based on this particular subject whether militant or not does not make what you believe in a part of a religious belief. In the case of atheism it's the complete lack of religion, an anti-religious belief system.
So, in other words, you want to redefine words because you believe defined words are like religious zealotry. And, of course, the words you want to redefine align with your beliefs. That's dishonest, dude.
I do not see how I am doing redefining it. Seems more like you are stuck to me. That is why I used Wiki and Websters and marriage as examples. But I get your point. Common current usage is irrelevant.
Yes, I know you don't see that, hence the reason it is being pointed out to you.
Eric, the only people that commonly use the term that way are those that have decided they want to make atheism into a religion. Those that have somehow taken offense and want the atheists to be just as offended by also being including atheism as a religion.
No one else would ever use that definition.
Wilderness, you make a strong case but long before your suggestion were these two phrases, that make we question your point: "He goes to the gym religiously" "when he saw that he got religion real quick". This combined with trend that I see, where some folks act like an existing "law" of nature cannot be challenged just because.
And then we are seeing more and more very spiritual people following no "iconoclastic man made religions". I find these folks far less "religious" than those that appear to think logic is the only path to truth as though it was god like.
But while "when he saw that he got religion real quick" very definitely refers to a belief in a god (specifically the Christian God), "He goes to the gym religiously" does not. Nor does it have anything to do with religion in the sense that the OP used the term.
It is true that there is an increasing concept of spirituality without god, and that "religious" is sometimes used to refer to those people (usually "godless", but sometimes "religious"). But is that what you mean here? That the atheist is spiritual somehow? Or is behaving in a "spiritual" manner?
I don't think so. So, at the end of the day, you understood quite well that the OP referred to a matter of spirituality, specifically a belief in a Christian God. Yet your arguments revolve around semantics; around a very different meaning of the word. Unless you, too, have become offended by the idea that you are "religious" in the sense of believing in a God and wish to spread the offense? I don't believe it.
I understood that the OP was mistaken as you are in that "belief". In your dark ages people thought/think of belief as synonymous with Religion. They are wrong in both directions.
One thing I realize, Eric, is that people often use a term loosely, like slang, hence why laymen, AKA, the uneducated masses, use terms they don't understand fully. So people who use terms like "doing something religiously" don't literally mean RELIGIOUS or a RELIGION. You could say as loosely as possible, if you are a damn idiot, I follow science religiously, in the same kind of loose conversation, I could use it on myself, and I wouldn't mean I'm religious or that science is a religion. The slang comes out of a comparison to words you don't fully understand, not knowing the English language well enough to find the correct word and then stupidly finding that nearest substitute to compare it to something you find a commonality in.
Since this is a sort of writers hub, where people "write" articles about various topics, it just makes anyone who enjoys reading your trite nonsensical nonsense even more foolish than yourself. I would be ashamed if I enjoyed any aspect of your writing style since, in essence, it's written with a poor understanding of the English language and the words there in.
Seriously, whenever a topic comes up that an educated person is unsure that they fully understand it, they look it up to make sure they do, sort of a reminder, because we all forget things... but the difference between an educated person and an idiot is the educated person will either look it up or admit that they actually don't know enough about the topic to speak of it.
And so wilderness is it fair to say that many atheists believe in science? Or is it that you understand science and not necessarily believe in it that, that no atheist thinks and believes as I say?
Is it possible that many atheists "blindly believe" in science and that that is becoming closer to religion? Or do all atheists believe as you?
But my point is that whether they believe in science or not, it has nothing to do with religion. Science is not God, and a belief in a god is necessary to be considered religion.
I might (might!) make an exception for some pagan religions that worshipped nature without a "creator God", but that would be all and that because they still worship. The atheist "believing" in science that works does not worship. Not in the sense that the religious worship God.
So many atheists may blindly believe in science, astrology, voodoo or anything else but a god and they still won't be religious. (I don't think voodoo has a god?)
The believer does not understand things, they believe things, that is why they believe others "blindly believe" in things such as science, so they obviously make the connection that belief in science must be the same thing as belief in gods, or belief in anything else. Understanding is a completely foreign concept to them.
I suggest to you that our general notions of a God require: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, alpha and omega and an ultimate truth. I further suggest that scientism elevates science to this position. Oh no doubt they do not like it. But the difference is only in your semantics not mine. That scientific and logical thought are the only truths elevates science to God status. On the other hand if you do accept other realities and explanation then you would not be claiming science as a God.
Are many of these lay people atheists that Art likes to disparage worshipping science and elevating it to a position of infallibility. The answer is clearly yes. So is Atheism becoming a Religion for those folks, absolutely.
Most assuredly untrue, but for a handful of poor misguided souls, similar to modern day worshippers of Odin.
For science is not omnipotent. One might make a case for it being everywhere, as science studies everything around us, but it is certainly not the beginning and end. Nor is it even close to an ultimate truth; most people recognize that nearly everything we think we know will need to be tweaked at some time in the future.
So no one worships science as any of those things. No one bows down before the altar of science and prays to it. No one thinks that the study of the world will result in an invisible creature interfering in their life. Only that science may, for a time and recognizing it is NEVER ultimate, alleviate our curiosity.
I think you will find that those people that would do such a thing are, in fact, of the religious bent instead. God can offer them far, far more than the cold halls of science ever can.
This statement is completely absurd. It demonstrates massive ignorance of science and how science is viewed and used in the real world.
The believer cannot fathom a world where people understand things and view logical thought as worshiping and equivalent to believing.
Of course, they will take advantage of everything science provides for them while at the same time showing their arrogant disdain for it.
Eric, (since there is no link for me to reply to two of your last posts I respond here)... Science is a tool, a method for finding truths, a method for following the evidence to discover the facts about any given question, much like a detective, no person, especially not atheist have ever elevated science to a "God" status, it's merely a tool and it's a great tool for finding new knowledge. It's the only tool for finding the truth about reality. As far as "Blindly Believing" in science, that is a contrary to reality way to put it, since you can't blindly believe that you are wearing clothes, or breathing air, or eating food, when in fact that is what you are doing, unless you are not and then you know you are not. Science is basically this, observing something measuring it, examining it. It doesn't make any sense to say someone, who believes in science uses any sort of faith, when it comes to it, unless they fall for pseudo science frauds, in which case these people aren't likely blind followers of science but gullible patrons of new discoveries that are too bizarre to be true and then not questioning their validity. People who believe in science are healthy skeptics, meaning, even when we hear about a new discovery in science we look into it and find out, who said it and how they came to discover such a thing. You claim that I say science is infallible? ABSOLUTELY NOT, that is not only dishonest of you to say but a complete ignorance of what science is about. Science is done by people, people make mistakes and if you can't make room for human error in every aspect of everything we touch then you can't be a scientist. Science makes all sorts of mistakes, that is the reason for continuing to question the results, and it is also how we find out more about everything else involved.... did you know that the discovery of the Higgs Boson is the continued study of Gravity? After centuries of knowing that The Theory of Gravity is a fact of the universe and knowing that it works via the mass of atomic particles, why do we still study it? Because we still have questions, at leasts intelligent scientists who don't label anything as God or elevate things to God status have them. Science is the complete opposite of a God, it's a curious child, Yes we believe in the curious child. It's not an all powerful all knowing thing, it's the f-ing helpless curious child who goes around touching everything, tasting everything, looking at everything. That is why science is not God, atheism is not a religion, and You, Eric, are willfully ignorant of these, in an attempt, possibly to win a losing argument.
jainismus, I think it becomes a point of contention that atheists who give it much thought do not want to be called followers of a religion. Definitions of religion are split on whether or not a deity must be involved. If we view religion as simply an assortment of dogmas and rules and procedure and hierarchy then we could say that certain atheists are becoming or are religious. If we say that a deity must be involved then far fewer atheists are becoming religious. Heavy thinking atheists are definitely not in any sense religious. Although the same can be said for believers.
Another very important point is that the nature of an atheist generally, and again I speak not of the masses who give it little thought, precludes following a dogma or a charismatic approach to leading ones' life. While they may follow their process of determining a truth like a liturgy they are quicker to discard that than accept it -- leading to a improbable mass following of any thought. As we are fond to say "getting atheists to agree is like herding kittens". They just refuse to eat the pablum.
So it would seem that in the depths of thinking believers they do not fit within religion. They simply believe and the dogmas and church buildings are no more than what clothes they wear. And are not necessarily religious.
And so it would seem that in the depths of thinking atheists they do not fit within a religion. The simply think that proofs and empirical data are always open for review, "what they learned in college" is no more than the clothes they wear. They are not disciples of a school of thought.
Those that make up their own minds and beliefs and do not follow a school of thought or preached rules and affirmations and confirmations of a structured larger group are not religious.
Except for a very few atheists do not belong to a group. They belong to themselves. For believers the opposite is true.
So a real area of inquiry is whether or not atheists are becoming more followers than thinkers. I believe that on this forum we have the thinkers. So we are not going to get a good picture of the masses of atheists. I would venture that a person who does not really think about it much may find himself not believing in "God". Then he latches on to the concept of atheism and again does not think about it much. And then just blindly follows what he is told. And that is quite near what we think of as religion.
The atheists we meet here will not be anything like that, having come to atheism through a process of thought not the absence thereof.
My wife is a Christian and not religious as she pays absolutely no attention to any dogma was not converted by man but by an experience. I am a student of various religions and not religious because I came to conscious thought that religion interferes with faith and is man made.
I feel confident that our friends here are not religious atheists but thinkers who came to know what they know through inquiry not teachings of dogma.
So the clear answer is yes. The masses on both sides of the believer/atheist spectrum are becoming more religious. But those with introspection and deep thought are becoming less religious.
It sure is funny to see that the more zealous a believer is the less likely they are to understand the concept of religion.
A good answer, although I would disagree on the fundamental concept of what "religious" means.
I would not put it to the follower of dogma, but rather to the believer in the spiritual, god inhabited supernatural world we cannot see. Someone who sits in a pew and follows dogma as necessary to maintain their status in the church without truly believing in the words of a god is not religious. They wish to give the appearance of being religious, but are not but are only fraud.
This puts your wife, and I assume, into the religious group by definition but not the atheist that follows a non-church "dogma". I believe that most people would side with me here - that religious people believe in their god and that the pew fillers are not necessarily religious.
Being a believer I like these two concepts of religion:
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27 and; Our friend Dalai Lama,"Any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics,"
The first applies what I said - a belief in a god - and the second appears to be a recognition that religion can no longer supply morals and ethics because so few are religious. Which makes perfect sense to me, although there is a major problem in getting Christians to accept that most universal of all morals; the Golden Rule.
And your final point is why many atheists and many Christians chafe at the bit of being labeled religious.
(perhaps we need to do like we do with catholic. Catholic small "c" means whole world where as big "C" are those Roman Catholics and Orthodox)
Perhaps I am religious but do not follow a Religion.
And I have issues with the Golden Rule with caps. As I feel that empathy must be a part of that equation --- "if you were them". I do not buy my 89 year old mom a baseball glove, even though I would like it.
I don't understand why a refusal to accept the golden rule would make a Christian dislike to be called religious. You lost me there.
Nor do I understand your definition of catholic. Are Pagans, Hindus, witches and all all others catholic, just not Catholic? Lost me here, too.
I use caps just to give an indication it isn't something I made up - that it is indeed the most universal moral concept we have, accepted nearly everywhere. And yes, empathy absolutely is a part of it. The rule is never black and white, partially because of the empathy required. (Although if you bought your mom a baseball glove, she might give it back... )
Just to put this at rest, at least for me because this argument is ridiculously idiotic.
To the scholar: A religion is any belief involving God, therefore atheism, being the rejection of the claim that there is no God, is not a religion, it has no dogmas, no rules that apply to it, anyone who does not believe in a God or Gods of any kind is an atheist no matter what they believe and any belief or dogma is not a product of atheism but of some other idea based on secularism, which is also not a religion.
To the layman, the uneducated, and the person who uses words of the English language in their unintended mean, like slang words: Religion is anything involving a group, or a passionately held activity (doing something religiously), or an almost zealotry ideology.
This also involves other words in this argument, like theory.
To the scholar, a theory is a set of facts used to describe a given phenomenon, like the theory of Gravity, Relativity, and Evolution.
To the Uneducated Layman: a theory is a guess (which is similar to hypothesis is science), so when ideas like the Theory of evolution comes up they assume it's just a guess, and are confused when used with gravity "Gravity is a fact not a theory".... but oh uneducated ones, look at what Theory means to scholars and scientists. This is probably the confusion here in this forum.
So If we go with layman and the uneducated, atheism is a religion to everyone who is not an atheist, theory is a guess to everyone is an uneducated religious layman, and everything is cool. Now proceed with this silly argument.
So thinks a believer. Those who are learned think as I do. Compare that to comments by those you consider to be religious. They believe those who are learned (by their standards) think as they do. Those who disagree are ignorant.
Hear the quacking?
Actually Emile, that post describes you perfectly, the uneducated laymen. The standards are not set by the individual.
You have missed the point, entirely. But, isn't that your MO?
What is truth? something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality . Yes?
So, if truth is that which corresponds to fact or reality; it is , as you say, not set by the individual; but, agreed to by consensus. Now, the metaphysical is not science, however; we can certainly determine truths that are agreed upon by consensus.
What truths, in a metaphysical sense, are agreed upon by consensus? You have billions upon billions of believers. They may not agree on much, but we can certainly accept the fact that they agree on the existence of a God. That is their reality. That is truth they have agreed upon by consensus.
We have, what?, a couple of hundred thousand who agree that there is no God. And they, too, don't agree on much more than that. They, too, have their individual philosophies. Yet, the non existent of a God is their reality. That is the truth they have agreed upon by consensus.
Billions upon billions against hundreds of thousands. Sour grapes appears to have those of you who are in the minority attempting to belittle the majority in an effort to create an illusion of truth. You attempt to appeal to authority in hopes of convincing the individual that they must bow to the observations of other individuals and agree with your conclusions. Not at all unlike the televangelists and theistic hubbers who insist their conclusions are also worthy of being accepted as universal truth.
Unfortunately, the metaphysical is about individual perception not group perception. Since billions and billions of individuals alive today have had experiences which have led them to declare the existence of something outside of the realm of our physical senses and they are unified in the proclamation that there is a God; and hundreds of thousands (at the most) have come to a different conclusion; what is truth?
So if everyone agreed that unicorns, UFOs and the Loc Nes Monster are all true then they are???? You are a nut job and I think everyone here agrees.
HEY ALL HUBBERS!!!!! I need a show of hands as to who thinks I'm a nut job.. Thanks.
Edit. But not you ATM.
I plead the fifth.. Besides, I can't see around the nutjob plank in my eye to try to remove the speak in yours...LOL.. J/k
Lol. Man. I would have thought I could depend on you for support. But, it's all good. So far no one openly agrees. I was sooo worried. (not). You know, when someone on the internet speaks for the world, at large, and then calls someone else a nut job, you have to wonder.
I don't think you're a nut job.. no moreso than any of the rest of us here debating philosophy as if it's fact..LOL
Yes. Yes. And yes again. Wow. I wish more people could understand their view is no more than their view . They get so upset when you don't agree, whereas I'd be very worried if we did agree. Seriously? Who wants to regurgitate someone else's thoughts?
That's your religion's version of "you're going to hell". I love and detest all of you religionists simultaneously.
No Emile, I don't miss much, despite you having to say so continuously. It usually boils down to you being misinformed about many things.
That is called a fallacy, Emile. Appeal to popularity, appeal to belief.
Not only that, but with science, there are not many thousands of different factions disagreeing with one another on the facts and evidence, Emile. This is where your analogy fails miserably.
No, it isn't a consensus based on agreement with each other, it is an understanding of the lack of evidence, just like any other lack of evidence for something claimed to exist, Emile.
Again, that is a fallacy.
That is entirely false, each individual is free to understand the world around them, no one is trying to convince them of anything. I have no conclusions, I have only what reality shows me, which is what everyone has, despite the believers tendency to ignore or deny it.
Sorry, but that is entirely false, atheists are not trying to convince anyone of the facts and evidence of the world around us, Emile, or insisting anything is a universal truth. You are just making up nonsense based on your misinformed opinions.
The truth is not based on your misinformed opinions and use of fallacies.
You really are obtuse at times. We aren't comparing science to religion. What we are doing is comparing your belief structure to that of others. Unless, you are implying that you are science, at which point I think we have more problems here than simply a failure to agree.
I'm not sure if this is an example of your tendency to be obtuse, or simply you ignoring the obvious. I have already explained this once but, here goes..... You may lack evidence. Apparently billions and billions of people don't. What does this say? That you, and only you are right? Can you say ego?
So, if you trivialize their understanding of reality that is OK, but they are not free to ignore yours. HMMMM.
Well, if you aren't attempting to convince anyone of anything you certainly are spending a lot of time and exerting a great deal of effort into not doing it.
I'm afraid your reading comprehension problems are assisting in the problems here.
And, you are misinformed and ignorant. Feel better, now?
Yes, I understand you believers base everything on belief systems, that is why you are so misinformed and ignorant of the world around you.
You wouldn't know science if it stepped on you.
Your misinformed opinions and ignorance are what is obvious.
Can you say fallacy?
Sorry, but I have no personal reality, it is shared by us all. Again, that is your misinformed opinions and ignorance showing again.
Your lack of comprehension skills are now showing again. Try reading what others write as opposed to what you want to see.
You have no idea what you are talking about ATM. You are in a religion and philosophy forum. We are discussing religion and philosophy. Attempting to insist I know nothing of science is about like telling me I know nothing of baseball while I'm sitting with friends discussing dressage. It's a clear indication that you are completely ill equipped to participate in the conversation.
Far more than you, Emile.
Really? I hadn't noticed. I'm so glad you're here to tell me these things.
In the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, perhaps?
Now, that is indeed the pot calling the kettle...
I love conversing with you, it's like play time gone awry. I know you are but what am I? Over and over. The sad thing is I'm pretty good at finding common ground. With reasonable people. You, sir, are unreasonable. Agree, or watch the childish attempts to belittle by the illustrious (in his own mind) ATM.
Atheism and agnosticism are philosophies ATM. Just as are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and anything else you refer to as religion. It's the pursuit of an understanding of the meaning of life. Your approach to the discussion appears to be backed by a belief that there is no meaning. It is void of thought on the matter. It is void of consideration of the thoughts of any who come to different conclusions. It is void of any ability to allow for the possibility that it is within our ability to live and let live. Long story short, it is void of anything of value within the parameters of the forum.
So, please continue to insist those who disagree have no understanding of science. Continue to insist those who disagree are not learned. But, your arguments work against you. Because they are flat. They are myopic and they show you are stuck on the what. There are more questions in life than what. This forum is dedicated to questions other than what. We accept the what as a given and move forward with further questions. Your inability to grasp this simple truth is cute and sad simultaneously.
Then Emile, it might behoove you not to start everyone of your posts with some personal shot at me as if it somehow gives you more credibility, it doesn't.
LOL. That is hilarious. Here, you better read this to educate yourself...
Sorry Emile, your argument starts from a false premise, in that disagreement is not synonymous with a lack of understanding of science.
I've been on here long enough to read your posts to know you have very little understanding of science.
Yes, I understand there are more questions in life than "what" and I understand the answers to questions such as "how" and "where" and "when". The one question that is evasive and divides the believer from the non-believers is often "why". That is where you and the other believers here fail miserably in answering, because your answers are firmly based on beliefs.
You do understand that you saying something doesn't make it so? Probably not.
Anyway, please enlighten me. What do I believe? I'm not aware of any firmly held beliefs. Unlike you who is always ever so certain you know what is going on in other people's heads and they mean what you want their words to mean (rarely what they said). Not to mention your delusional beliefs. I can't support your delusions ATM. So sorry.
And if you don't like pot shots, practice what you preach. You might see a positive reaction.
You do understand that you saying something doesn't make it so?
Notice how irrelevant such comments are at the beginning of a post?
Ah yes, here we go again. The believer claiming they are not aware of any firmly held beliefs. Just like the believer who says they don't have religion. Hilarious denial.
Yes, I understand you believers consider the presentation of reality to be "delusional beliefs", that is why you wallow in fantasy and know very little about the world around you.
Not at a loss. I simply think you really, really need to believe you know what you are talking about. It isn't important enough to me to worry about. They say it is our delusions that make us happy. Yours appear harmless enough. Enjoy them.
This is very relevant to this discussion because this really isn't about trying to categorize atheism as a religion, this is about trying to segregate the educated secular people into a group that can also be dismissed as just another group of people trying to impose their agenda... what is the agenda of atheists and the sciences? To get more people to think about the problems that are really plaguing our world and using our brains to fix them and to stop relying on an imaginary omnipotent omnipresent God, who whether he is real or not doesn't care. But really he is imaginary.
When you say "Oh, everyone else says it, it must be true" this sheep mentality is really robbing you from taking part in reality and fixing real world problems with real world solutions. Pretending a God is going to save you from a universe which is largely indifferent to life in general is not going to fix any problems in this world.
Atheism, from anyone who is an atheist means one thing, we don't believe in the existence of a God... besides the fact that religion by definition means anyone who believes in a God... we don't have a dogma, we don't have a body of commandments, our morality comes from living in society and is the same as everyone else's except it doesn't involve the false notion that it came from a god of any sort.... in essence it has no similarities what so ever to a religion of any sort no matter what you or any "consensus" here or anywhere says. The whole notion of changing the meaning of words, which is what people like you are doing, to match what the uneducated masses wants it to mean, is counter productive to any sort of philosophical discussion about the issue that being an atheist vs a theist is about. Now we are just arguing over something useless and senseless. It's sad.
It's as ridiculous as a Theist of any sort saying they are not religious. Eric and Emily, you are both theists and therefore you are religious, by definition. If you insist on calling atheism a religion, that's fine, that is your prerogative but then what? That means every single person on the planet is religious even if they are not, so define not religious? What is that? Is it in the dictionary? Can I look it up? Because to be honest, I can't find anything in the English language in any dictionary, or education source, that would define atheism as a religion.
by il Scettico3 years ago
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
by Mick Menous4 years ago
Let's face it. We ALL know that most atheists are paranoid of religions and that they're in-denial about it. They claim they're the more peaceful people in America when really they're no different from any average...
by arthriticknee6 years ago
There is no Atheist text.This ensures Atheists can't manipulate the ambiguous writings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago to justify their actions.As far as I am aware, no one has committed mass murder in there name of there...
by augustine725 years ago
I have talked to many atheists and some say that atheists are people who do not believe in the concept of God. But in the past people said that atheists were people who believed that there was "no God". What...
by aka-dj4 years ago
bother posting AGAINST beliefs?If the Atheist can "convert" any believer to Atheism, then, they can be compared to evangelists who do it the other way.Any thought?
by JonTutor7 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. ...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.