Is Atheism a religion?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You know enough, apparently, to make the distinction between God and not-God. That is enough to say you know that God is not not-God, and that is something.

it is something, but so minor that it is negligible.

Would you also state that the difference between ONE and not-ONE is also “minor as to be negligible”?

This is the gravity of the things you are discussing! What you take to be “negligible minor points” are so only to you, and you fail to see that your “trivialities” are not trivialities but massively important to others, much as a mathematician would be SHOCKED that anyone would seriously think that the difference between ONE and not-ONE is “trivial”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs

1. You do believe in God.
2. You have a reason to believe in God.
   …and in fact…
3. You know God from not-God.

these things are not really interrelated. like how does having a reason to believe in god related to the idea that this pencil is not god? no pattern. no system. no religion.

The God qua God is not “definable” as a pencil, therefore worshipping a pencil as God would be worshipping not-God as God, which would be an obvious acceptance of contradiction (lie) as truth, which is not reasonable.

Those who DO worship a particular pencil, or all/some pencils, as God or “Gods”, are being unreasonable IF the meaning of God is known to them, but perhaps quite reasonable (though incorrect) if the meaning of God is not known to them.

That you believe in God, have a reason to do so, and you know God from not-God are perfectly interrelated, because they are your “system” by which you relate to God, why you choose to relate to God, and can tell when you are relating to God and when you aren’t.

How is that not a religion?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You DO act according to these “religious beliefs”, if only by arguing in these forums that you DON’T act on ANY of your religious beliefs.

the action should also follow a system. like christians share christ because they believe jesus advised them to do so.

Your “system” is:

• See someone call atheism a religion.
• Argue that atheism is not a religion but rather a lack of religion.
• Continue arguing that your definition of religion precludes atheism from being a religion, so atheism can’t be a religion.
• Declare victory because “Victory” means that your definitions are correct for you, and should be for everyone, and if they don’t agree with you they are DEFEATED!

This is your “religious system” which sustains your belief, your religion, that you are the measure of all things, and to disagree with you in things “you KNOW to be true” is to disagree with truth itself.

We catholics do precisely the same thing, of course, as to disagree with our held truths (as given as such by the Magisterium) is to disagree with truth HIMSELF, but we’re all free to choose which authority is more authoritative. You or the Church.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Once again, any time we act outside of Church dogma, we degenerate into displaying simple contradiction. Well done!

ah so that is your agenda. You wanted religion to cover us (to the desperate point of trying to redefine it) because you want to reduce us non-religionists as self-contradicting degenerates.

I’ve given you a rational, reasonable argument for why all person’s must have a religion (set of beliefs), which is simply a description of reality and is a base-line fact.

There is no need to call non-religionists “degenerates”, and it is against Christian principles to do so, as “non-religionist persons” are not degenerates per se but may behave in degenerate ways, as may any person of whatever stripe.

Since religion covers all persons, it has no bearing on the distinction between people with different attributes. No one has any NEED to ascribe a religion to someone to make them “attributable/recievable” of some particular “feature”, such as “degeneracy”.

Your arguments do simply reduce to simple contradiction if fully thought out. That doesn’t mean that you are degenerate. Only that your arguments degenerate.

That you choose to shield yourself from the possibility (actuality actually) that your arguments do do that by holding to too narrow a definition of the word “religion” is perfectly understandable.

But you are far from a degenerate, or you wouldn’t be here, and you wouldn’t have told us specifically that you know God from not-God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
Atheism’s code of ethics is “Do what you want”

Where’s your source?

Atheism has no code of ethics, because their is no authoritative speaker for atheism. Any individual atheist, or group of individual atheists, can certainly concoct a code of ethics, but it’s not a pan-atheist code of conduct!

Since there is no authoritative code of ethics to which all atheists are bound, how does one say that any action is not permissible to do?

That sounds rather like the very definition of “Do what you want” (because there’s no way to prohibit you from doing so) to me.

Does it not to you also? And if not, why?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
AFAIK, there are no moral prohibitions being pronounced by the Church of Atheism. Thus, with no moral prohibitions, everything is morally permitted. “Do what you want”

There is no church of atheism, you’ve just exposed yourself as uninformed.

Uh, if there are no pronouncements being made by a non-existent “church”, is it possible that a “moral prohibitory pronouncement” could be made?

The point being made was that NO PROHIBITORY PRONOUNCEMENTS are being made by athiests, which means there are no prohibitions as to what an atheist qua atheist can do.

Is it true or not that if no behavior is prohibited then “do what you want” is the rule?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
They don’t operate that way. They take over classroom and do their persuasion there, on a captive audience.

Unlike religion, which brainwashes impressionable children from a very early age.

Quite true! The difference being that one religion is structured to support good, and the other is structured to support “do as you will”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
They write books and movies as propaganda pieces.

If books are propaganda, that should include the bible then.

Absolutely! But the goals of each are quite different indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
Yeah, the methods are different, but the goal is the same: To get more people to join their religion of the Church of Atheism.

Tell me, where can I find my local church of atheism?

It’s located in the same place as all other protestant churches. In the self-authorizing mind of the individual “member” of their “church of one with me as Pope”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
Atheists must believe that God does NOT exist.

If I asked you:

“Do you believe the Loch Ness Monster does NOT exist?”

Yes, I believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist.

OR

“Do you NOT believe that there is a Loch Ness Monster?”

Yes, I do not believe that there (exists) a Loch Ness monster.

Which would you answer?

I’ve answered both of them.

These questions sound very similar but the difference is big enough to matter!

To “not actively believe” is a belief. It is the belief that the thing to be believed in is not worthy of believing in.

To “not actively think of a chicken (as I’ve forgotten how to spell ‘hippo’ at the moment)” is to think about a chicken.

To “not actively imagine the color blue” is to imagine the color blue.

There are some actions which cannot be done in a negative way without “evoking” the positive way of doing them.

Belief is one of those actions. You can believe what you like, but you must believe what you believe, even if you don’t believe you believe it.

You can say you don’t believe in znooms when asked whether you believe in znooms, but the znoom evoked by your mind you certainly believe don’t exist. You do believe they don’t exist as znooms because znooms CAN’T exist as you have no idea what a znoom is and you can’t believe what you have no idea about.

…but you still believe that you don’t believe in znooms as (the unknown) znooms.

Atheists must believe that God does not exist because they can’t believe in what they have no idea about, as can any of us.

The difference between a non-atheist and an atheist is that the atheist actively rejects ANY and EVERY idea presented to them as regards God, while the non-atheist accepts at least part of what is presented to them.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

Hi

Personally I would agree with you. They are not a RevealedReligion, and they won’t try to make even an unrevealed religion. They are already divided on issues; I think they would remain a meme; and working secretly, not having a united and open stance.

I don’t think they have enough reasons to be one.

They are so unnatural and unreasonable in not believing in GodAllahYHWH. They don’t have even the needed support from the physical realm of which they claim to be the unregistered masters; and of the moral and spiritual realms- they know nothing, as these are out of their physical realm and hence out of the scientific method- which they never invented but follow it blindly.

One could differ with me with reasons.

Thanks

 

[R_McGeddon]

Since there is no authoritative code of ethics to which all atheists are bound, how does one say that any action is not permissible to do?

That sounds rather like the very definition of “Do what you want” (because there’s no way to prohibit you from doing so) to me.

Does it not to you also? And if not, why?

By this statement you’re saying to me that you need some code of ethics to be written down, to define how you should behave.

So, therefore, not having a code of ethics written down, doesn’t mean “Do what you want”

You don’t have a written instruction anywhere telling you not to jump off a tall building, to stop you from doing it, and I’d find it very strange if you did need such a written instruction.

 

[R_McGeddon]

because to hold to ANY beliefs is to hold to a religion.

This is so staggeringly wrong, I can scarcely believe you posted it.

If I said that I believed Hilary Clinton would win the presidential election, you are saying that this is a religion, because it is a belief I held.

That is the single biggest stretch I’ve heard in a very long time!

My “proof” that atheists do have a religion is that all that a religion is composed of are beliefs which all people have therefore all people, not only atheists, must have a religion.

The organised worship of a deity is what makes a religion. Not believing in those deities is in no way a religion.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Quite true! The difference being that one religion is structured to support good, and the other is structured to support “do as you will”.

Do as you will is from satanism not atheism.

Absolutely! But the goals of each are quite different indeed.

Atheism is not goal driven.

It’s located in the same place as all other protestant churches. In the self-authorizing mind of the individual “member” of their “church of one with me as Pope”.

I asked for the actual whereabouts of buildings where atheists gather.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Yes, I believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist.

This is a statement of belief.

Yes, I do not believe that there (exists) a Loch Ness monster.

This is a lack of belief.

I’ve answered both of them.

Do you see the difference between the two?

To “not actively believe” is a belief. It is the belief that the thing to be believed in is not worthy of believing in.

What about passively not believing? It is lacking any belief.

There are some actions which cannot be done in a negative way without “evoking” the positive way of doing them.

Passively not believing is neither a negative nor a positive.

Belief is one of those actions. You can believe what you like, but you must believe what you believe, even if you don’t believe you believe it.

This is a complete nonsense. Are you saying that to lack a belief is a belief itself, and you expect me to swallow that?

You can say you don’t believe in znooms when asked whether you believe in znooms, but the znoom evoked by your mind you certainly believe don’t exist. You do believe they don’t exist as znooms because znooms CAN’T exist as you have no idea what a znoom is and you can’t believe what you have no idea about.

…but you still believe that you don’t believe in znooms as (the unknown) znooms.

Let me correct you here, I know that I don’t believe in znooms, it’s a matter of knowledge not belief.

Atheists must believe that God does not exist because they can’t believe in what they have no idea about, as can any of us.

Atheists don’t have the belief that God exists.

The difference between a non-atheist and an atheist is that the atheist actively rejects ANY and EVERY idea presented to them as regards God, while the non-atheist accepts at least part of what is presented to them.

An atheist would not reject any solid, tangible evidence, so you’re wrong on that one.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Since there is no authoritative code of ethics to which all atheists are bound, how does one say that any action is not permissible to do?

That sounds rather like the very definition of “Do what you want” (because there’s no way to prohibit you from doing so) to me.

Does it not to you also? And if not, why?

By this statement you’re saying to me that you need some code of ethics to be written down, to define how you should behave.

So, therefore, not having a code of ethics written down, doesn’t mean “Do what you want”

You don’t have a written instruction anywhere telling you not to jump off a tall building, to stop you from doing it, and I’d find it very strange if you did need such a written instruction.

The “code of ethics” of every person is the set of beliefs which they hold and act on. That is their religion.

If that “code” is not formalized by being PROFESSED, then their is no “accountability” for either obeying or breaking that “code”.

If there is no accountability for breaking, or the obverse, of one’s code of ethics, the “code of ethics” of that person is very sensibly described as “I shall do as I want because no one knows what I can or can’t do”.

It’s not the “writing down” of an ethical code that makes it “official”. It’s having other people know what that code IS that makes it “official” and “binding”.

The atomistic individual who proclaims “atheism” says he is the rule maker for himself. If he DOES actually profess a set of ethical principles, then he has shown us his religion, or at least that portion which he so graciously exposes to others.

People don’t jump off buildings, as a rule, generally, because “natural law” advises against it. That last comes from God. That you insist on putting a “face” on God which MUST conform to your wishes to believe in Him, which He won’t do, merely tells me that you have no idea what God is, and nothing more.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
because to hold to ANY beliefs is to hold to a religion.

This is so staggeringly wrong, I can scarcely believe you posted it.

If I said that I believed Hilary Clinton would win the presidential election, you are saying that this is a religion, because it is a belief I held.

That is the single biggest stretch I’ve heard in a very long time!

There is no functional distinction between a “set of beliefs (however arbitrary)” and a “religion”.

No single belief makes ones full set of beliefs a religion. One’s full set of beliefs makes one’s religion. That some people agree, more or less, on a “standard set” of beliefs and profess them as “morally binding” doesn’t distroy the fact that EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON of the “professed religion” has a unique full set of beliefs which composes their actual operational religion.

Many people like to limit “religion” to “what those evil authoritarian oppressors” have and thereby keep themselves “clean” from having to be responsible for ANY professed creed they would thenceforth be measured against.

Most all people, even that vast majority of so-called atheists, do profess some of their beliefs, in exactly the same way that (to be honest) all so-called Christians only profess some subset of their actual beliefs because everyone likes a little “wiggle-room”.

One could easily state that one’s religion was the singular belief that the Hildabeast would someday be POTUS-hilary-ous, but most people would see such a person as the same type of fool who claims that their “full set of beliefs”, their religion, is that they don’t believe in God or gods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
My “proof” that atheists do have a religion is that all that a religion is composed of are beliefs which all people have therefore all people, not only atheists, must have a religion.

The organised worship of a deity is what makes a religion. Not believing in those deities is in no way a religion.

The central item to a religion is not deity, but rather belief.

To possess a deity in your (one’s) religion is optional, just as possessing another member other than yourself in your religion is optional.

What is NOT optional in your religion is a set of beliefs.

You may “purify” yourself of the “taint of relations with a deity”, but your set of beliefs remains, as it must for you to be human. The question is what your religion informs you to do in the world.

In as much as your religion, or any religion, is congruent with that of the Church, it is “good religion”, and where not, “evil religion”.

The reason for history is to show mankind that that is true.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Quite true! The difference being that one religion is structured to support good, and the other is structured to support “do as you will”.

Do as you will is from satanism not atheism.

“Do as you will” is the creed of any religion which no prohibitions on behavior. If a religion has any prohibitions on behavior, then it’s creed is not “Do as you will”, which is why neither Satanism nor any individual person’s religion could possibly be a “Do as you will” religion.

I don’t argue that atheism’s OPERATIVE creed is “Do as you will”, but rather that it’s PROFESSED creed is “Do as you will”, which is simply a lie.

An atheist’s religion is never “Do as you will”, any more than a satanist’s is. BUT, both satanists and atheists PROFESS that their is no authoritative rule which commands them to “Do anything OTHER THAN as they will”.

They say they are allowed to “do as they will”, if they wish, and no one can tell them anything differently, but they do not in practice “do as they will” because their religion has behavioral prohibitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Absolutely! But the goals of each are quite different indeed.

Atheism is not goal driven.

Atheism qua atheism has the goal of removing the idea of “deity” from anything which it’s adherents come into contact with.

The removal of “deity” from one’s set of beliefs has the natural consequence of trying to “convert” anyone who displays any belief in “deity” from their “foolish belief” to the obvious sensibility of being “deity free”, like themselves.

Once you know what the real meaning of religion is, which is simply the operative set of beliefs of a person by which they act in the world, then you realize that all people possess a (their) religion and that the natural human (charitable) response to being presented by beliefs different from yours is to help them undrstand why yours are better (why hold beliefs you don’t consider better?), and that EVERYONE is in the process of “converting” others to their religion at all times.

That is the GOAL of every person’s BEING a person, ie helping them become better people, which is not somehow “magically removed” from the so-called atheist by his calling himself an atheist.

Christianity’s GOAL is to help more people become Christian.
<Your religion’s name here>'s GOAL is to …, likewise.

Why would atheism be excluded from this characteristic of all religions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It’s located in the same place as all other protestant churches. In the self-authorizing mind of the individual “member” of their “church of one with me as Pope”.

I asked for the actual whereabouts of buildings where atheists gather.

I’m sure you were, but the real answer to your question is that any religious community gathers wherever it wants. That some of these groups don’t have a need to possess buildings is irrelevant to it’s “gatherings”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I’ve answered both of them.

Do you see the difference between the two?

Yes. They are composed of different words and arrangements of those words, but they are equivalent in meaning.

If you think they differ in meaning, please explain how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
To “not actively believe” is a belief. It is the belief that the thing to be believed in is not worthy of believing in.

What about passively not believing? It is lacking any belief.

To have “passive non-belief” (passively not believing) is to have no object to non-believe in.

In other words, once presented with the idea, the suggestion, the description, of God, a “mental image” is formed of Him (or it if you prefer) and one can find that “image” believable or not.

To NOT find Him believable is the belief that He’s unbelievable.
To find Him believable is the belief that He’s believable.

Both are beliefs. Neither are not-beliefs. They are both conscious actions.

To not believe in something not presented to you is not a belief at all. That is the only non-belief possible, and it is always passive.

To be “lacking in belief”, as you put it, is simply the belief that a thing is not worth believing in. That IS a belief.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Belief is one of those actions. You can believe what you like, but you must believe what you believe, even if you don’t believe you believe it.

This is a complete nonsense. Are you saying that to lack a belief is a belief itself, and you expect me to swallow that?

Do you believe that you lack belief in God?

 

[brycelaliberte]

Meh, may as well chime in with an opinion. (Notice I said opinion)

Some atheists take their atheism to religious extremes in vehemency against anything remotely religious. Some atheists are entirely indifferent to anything.

For some, it would be a religion, in the way they STRONGLY believe in no God. For others, they just don’t care. (In my experience)

I would be sure it comes down to which atheist we are talking about. But it is possible to be an atheist and ‘religious.’ There are some Buddhists who are atheist, and consider themselves religious. So let them call themselves that. There are some atheists who don’t want to be called that, so don’t call them that. It would be unnecissarily offending.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You can say you don’t believe in znooms when asked whether you believe in znooms, but the znoom evoked by your mind you certainly believe don’t exist. You do believe they don’t exist as znooms because znooms CAN’T exist as you have no idea what a znoom is and you can’t believe what you have no idea about.

…but you still believe that you don’t believe in znooms as (the unknown) znooms.

Let me correct you here, I know that I don’t believe in znooms, it’s a matter of knowledge not belief.

Ah, but what if znooms do in fact exist? Then you don’t believe in something believable. That is a “mistake”, which of course we all make constantly about any number of things.

To KNOW is to believe. But to believe is not necessarily to know.

If znooms do in fact exist, then your belief (that you know znooms don’t exist) is incorrect.

But your belief that znooms don’t exist is valid until that belief becomes unbelievable (such as when you find out that znooms actually do exist).

Knowledge is a type of belief. To know that you don’t believe in something believable is called what? (answer: mistaken belief, which is a belief in itself)

To be human is to believe. That one of those beliefs is not-believing-in does not exempt us from the responsibility of having those “non-beliefs” (not-believing-ins).