Is Atheism a religion?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
When someone believes that non-belief is not a belief, there is certainly no way to make them believe what they simply will not believe.

I’m not here to make you believe as I believe, but only to show the consequences of trying to explain another’s beliefs to someone who believes they are the arbiter of what is believable.

As you said in another post, you don’t agree with official definitions, and that is the bottom line.

May your worship of “official definitions” get you what you wish, however unlikely that might be.

 

[Lilyflower]

Atheism means without god. In a religious context, it is one that has no belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not a religion but a point-of-view.

In my former career with the Correctional Services of Gt Britain, I have known quite a few members of New Age Movements who do not believe in God [therefore they are atheist] but they do believe in a god, or at least a naturalistic mystical esoteric personified life- force, which regulates nature, [therefore they are believers]. Some have a name for ‘It’ and some don’t!

These guys are not nutters, rather, deep thinkers who live by quite strictly defined sets of rules which respects nature…and the smoking of cannibis!

Their rules [and sub-culture] usually exists outside from and in opposition to social norms and socially agreed and legislated rules governing behaviour. Some are anti-capitalist and some are not. Some are pro-choice and some are pro-life.

From personal experience, these people are very offensive towards the Christian concept of whom we know to be Almighty God, their derision and mockery is blatant blasphemy, extremely offensive towards Christians and Moslems. But they get very offended and feel grieviously hurt if their concept of a god is what they perceive as disrespectful.

Christians are expected to take all manner of offence and ridicule at our God but we are expected to be deeply respectful towards their god.

Such hypocracy.

 

[Lilyflower]

More worrying, I have known of some of these guys who have got their lives together, changed their outward hippy appearances and donned suits to conform to social expectations, while not relinqishing one iota of their original belief system and retaining their original ideologies. These guys have managed or procur employment in British local government.

Of course they never abandon their original belief system but are smart enough to realise that living off benefits is not ideal when there is plenty of money to be made out of conforming to wider social norms.

I wonder how much these guys have influenced British [and European] Parliamentary legistative processes. Could this be a ‘insider’ pressure group contributing to the demise of respect for traditional religious values?

Sorry if I have derailed the thread, just thinking out loud!

I believe that these guys [probably not through an organised intent] never-the-less are sufficiently spread to be able to influence legislation by their atheistic religion at the expense of Mainstream Christianity and Islam in Gt Britain and Europe.

 

[R_McGeddon]

If I had meant non-elephant I wold have said non-elephant.

If you check your own post, you did say non-elephant.

I meant being run over by something not there, by a lack of an elephant.

Something not there or lack of an elephant, would be nothing. That rather backs up my position.

The situation is that you were “run down” by the lack of an elephant, not a non-elephant.

Were I to say that you were run down by the lack of an elephant, even if you didn’t know what an elephant was, you’d still have to know the difference between the thing that wasn’t there and whatever the thing supposedly was.

But you’d still be at least wondering what an elephant was, meaning that you’d be thinking of some object which I’ve described as an elephant.

You’re falling over your own argument.

When presented with a thing to either believe in or not, you “create” some image of it, and then actively believe it believable or believe it unbelievable, but in any case you form a belief about said object.

Only in your definition. We can’t redefine the meaning of something just because we don’t agree with it.

 

[R_McGeddon]

If belief is dependent on there being a deity, and you have no deity, then you have no beliefs, such as the belief that the sun will be shown in the sky tomorrow.

The Sun being shown in the sky tomorrow is an expectation based on past experience, belief is irrelevant.

I’m terribly sorry that you live in the complete chaos of a world that you do, then.

My world is not in chaos.

 

[R_McGeddon]

It’s impossible to speak down to you! You are obviously “above it all”, and utterly free from any restraint that “isn’t you”. You ARE the measure of all things, after all!

I’m not the one trying to change the meaning of words to suit my viewpoint.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You’re quite right! Things that don’t exist DON’T leave evidence of their non-existence. God has shown me that He exists.

How so?

God has shown you that He exists in ways which you refuse to see as evidence that He exists.

If God is as omnipotent as you say, he would know what it would take to show me he exists.

It’s not MY job to show you evidence that God exists qua God. It is God’s to show you and yours to accept His showing you, which you won’t do

Maybe he could try a different approach then.

Since your “knowledge”, your “knowing a thing”, is not subject to being wrong, I’m left to hope you have as much fun with that curious conclusion as you can possibly handle!

Knowledge is never wrong, it is opinions that can be.

 

[R_McGeddon]

May your worship of “official definitions” get you what you wish, however unlikely that might be.

I don’t worship official definitions but it’s wise to go by them, so that you’re not misunderstood.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

How so?

We’ll have to leave it at, “In ways which you would not take as proof of anything because they don’t/haven’t happened to you.”

If God is as omnipotent as you say, he would know what it would take to show me he exists.

Maybe he could try a different approach then.

Knowledge is never wrong, it is opinions that can be.

God not only knows what it would take to show Himself to you, but has, apparently wisely, as He can only DO wise things, decided that it is unwise to do that “for” you. Most likely because the “lesson” that He’s decided you need to work on is “faith”.

To say that “knowledge is never wrong” is an amazing statement, considering the nature of knowledge. I’m certainly not going to further argue with you.

Have fun with your religion, whatever it “isn’t”, and follow it, or the lack of it, to wherever it leads. As if you have any choice in the matter!

Best to you.

 

[R_McGeddon]

We’ll have to leave it at, “In ways which you would not take as proof of anything because they don’t/haven’t happened to you.”

Wonderfully vague!

God not only knows what it would take to show Himself to you, but has, apparently wisely, as He can only DO wise things, decided that it is unwise to do that “for” you. Most likely because the “lesson” that He’s decided you need to work on is “faith”.

Using faith to teach the faithless about faith, does not come across as very wise.

To say that “knowledge is never wrong” is an amazing statement, considering the nature of knowledge. I’m certainly not going to further argue with you.

As I said, it’s opinions about knowledge.

Have fun with your religion, whatever it “isn’t”, and follow it, or the lack of it, to wherever it leads.

Nice try.

As if you have any choice in the matter!

Are you hinting at a lack of free will?

Best to you.

And to you.

 

[packermann]

I think your definition of religion as that which “requires faith in something that cannot be proven” is too narrow. I think we can all agree that religion is more than that.

Religion, as I define it, is a system of rituals and codes of conduct directed as a means of worship towards a supreme being.

By that definition, atheism is clearly not a religion.

Your definition would not include Budhism, which is a religion that does not require the belief in God.

Also, your definition would not include any Eastern pantheistic religions. Pantheism would see God as being everthything. God woulf be an It, a Force everwhere. This God would be a personal being, and since “it” is not personal, “it” would not be an object of worship.

Since Budhism is a relgion that does not require the belief in God, and not all religions have the creature worshipping the Creator, then I would have to say that atheism is a religion.

 

[SedesDomi]

Your definition would not include Budhism, which is a religion that does not require the belief in God.

I believe SteakNPotatoes referred to a “supreme being”, not “God”. Buddhism definitely has concepts of a “supreme being(s)”, that is, beings that are superior – in one way or another, and however temporarily – to oneself.

 

[diogenes_shrugs]

It seems that there is a lot of confusion between the terms ( and the actual usages thereof).Atheism ( like monotheism, polytheism) are categories of belief systems. Within those categories are beliefs and religions.

Since religion is a sub-catgory of a belief system, it is illogical to claim that the category ‘atheism’ AS a religion.

This discussion is just trying to justify a ‘straw man’. Too bad, it won’t work.

My question is “why can you christian apologists just be honest?”

 

[Lilyflower]

It seems that there is a lot of confusion between the terms ( and the actual usages thereof).Atheism ( like monotheism, polytheism) are categories of belief systems. Within those categories are beliefs and religions.

Since religion is a sub-catgory of a belief system, it is illogical to claim that the category ‘atheism’ AS a religion.

This discussion is just trying to justify a ‘straw man’. Too bad, it won’t work.

My question is “why can you christian apologists just be honest?”

My question is: why is it that Christians in my experience are tolerant of those of same- faith, different- faith and no-faith but atheists are so intolerant and insulting towards Christians?

Why is it that you expect us to be respectful of what you believe while you are so insulting and disrespectul towards what we believe?

Double standards at their worst I’d say

 

[diogenes_shrugs]

Lillyflower,

Let’s look at your post.

Q:Why is it that you expect us to be respectful of what you believe while you are so insulting and disrespectul towards what we believe?

A: Because finding a xtian that is actually intelligent, thoughtful, and respective is an extremely rare person. I’d say that 99.99% of xtians usually retort with something illogical and irrational-- eg. "you’re an atheist? well, then who made the earth (tree, sky, sun, etc)? " – or start quoting scripture. Sometimes, they try to psychoanalyze the atheist ( thinking that somehow they’re just mad at god or themselves). The so-called ‘intolerance’ isn’t intolerance, it is having to put up with this garbage over and over again!

I’ve seen many christian apologists in action. Whether it is christian vs atheist or catholic vs protestant, or protestant vs protestant, the apologist at some point will revert to some trick in order to ‘win’ the discussion.

I stand by my post. I think that this discussion is nothing more than an attempt to find a better ‘straw man’.

 

[Monarchy]

This is an offshot of another thread.

Do you think that Atheism is a religion?

Personally, I see atheism as a religion. Religion requires having faith in something that you can not absolutely prove.

At some point atheist have to take a leap of faith in order to be certain that there is not a God.

Also I have met a few Atheist who were every bit as intent on converting people to their viewpoint as the most die hard evangelical.

So what is your opinion, is Atheism a religion?

Only if you widen the definition to the point of rendering it meaningless.

 

[FreedomLiberal6]

I say no because it does not follow a set of teachings or rules and it does not believe in supreme beings. it is basically the rejection of relegion