Is Atheism a religion?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

Your requirement for “solid and tangible evidence”, which you define as qualities which of their nature preclude any evidence which CAN be presented about God-stuff (a technical term!), leads us righ back to the RELIGIOUS circularity of the atheist:

All “God-stuff” which appears to BE “God-stuff” can’t be “God-stuff”, therefore, as no one has yet presented me with any valid evidence for the existence of “God-stuff”, “God-stuff” is utter nonsense.

Red horses aren’t horses, because only black horses are horses. Find me a red horse, you deluded red horse believers!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Atheism involves faith-based claims about God. It also is a basis for beliefs about morality.

Hence it is a kind of religion.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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.

My only contention is that defining the word “religion” to being only a codified “recognized” and “official” body of believers is an incorrect way of defining the word religion.

To hold to an overly narrow definition of such an important word tells me there’s some “agenda” in the mind of the person being so literalistic.

 

[R_McGeddon]

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

It is absolutely not, you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

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”.

You type a lot but say very little.

People don’t jump off buildings, as a rule, generally, because “natural law” advises against it. That last comes from God.

It’s called instinct for survival, every species has it and there is no God involved.

That you insist on putting a “face” on God which MUST conform to your wishes to believe in Him

I make no attempt to put a face on God.

which merely tells me that you have no idea what God is, and nothing more.

Going by recent events in the world, God is the sort of genocidal maniac that kill tens of thousands of innocent people with cyclones and earthquakes. If there really is a God and that’s what he’s all about, I’m not interested!

 

[R_McGeddon]

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

There is a gaping chasm between the two. I believe I that politicians are only in it for themselves. You’d have to be a couple cans short of a six-pack to call that a religion.

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

Belief in what???

That’s right a deity!!!

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

If there is no deity, then it is a cult or a philosophy.

 

[R_McGeddon]

“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.

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?

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”.

This long post contains nothing worthy of a response.

 

[R_McGeddon]

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

No they are not.

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

One question asks about a belief, the other question asks about a lack of belief.

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

This doesn’t make sense at all.

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.

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” for example. Now that you have the mental image formed, you now have another religion. The belief that the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” does not exist.

How many religions do you think you’ll acquire, using this faulty logic?

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

Non-belief is NOT a belief.

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

Being a conscious or unconscious action does not make the slightest difference.

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.

I don’t say that it is my belief that I don’t believe in tooth-fairies. I just say: “I don’t believe in tooth-fairies!” It could not be more simple.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Do you believe that you lack belief in God?

Do you believe that you posted such a stupid question?

 

[R_McGeddon]

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.

They don’t exist, the point is moot!

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

To know is to know, to believe is to believe.

End of!

Knowledge is a type of belief.

So if I say that I know ice is cold, you would qualify that as a belief? Do yourself a favour.

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

Endlessly repeating yourself is no way to win a debate.

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).

See what I mean?? endless repetition.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Your requirement for “solid and tangible evidence”, which you define as qualities which of their nature preclude any evidence which CAN be presented about God-stuff (a technical term!), leads us right back to the RELIGIOUS circularity of the atheist:

All “God-stuff” which appears to BE “God-stuff” can’t be “God-stuff”, therefore, as no one has yet presented me with any valid evidence for the existence of “God-stuff”, “God-stuff” is utter nonsense.

Red horses aren’t horses, because only black horses are horses. Find me a red horse, you deluded red horse believers!

Your strawmen are certainly strawmen!!!

 

[R_McGeddon]

Atheism involves faith-based claims about God. It also is a basis for beliefs about morality.

Atheism is the lack of faith that there is a God.

Hence it is a kind of religion.

Hence it is not a kind of religion at all.

 

[R_McGeddon]

My only contention is that defining the word “religion” to being only a codified “recognized” and “official” body of believers is an incorrect way of defining the word religion.

So now it comes out, you have a problem with the fact that atheism doesn’t come under the official definition of religion.

That is just too bad.

To hold to an overly narrow definition of such an important word tells me there’s some “agenda” in the mind of the person being so literalistic.

The agenda is that theists can’t stand that atheism is not a faith or religion, so they attempt to redefine the meaning of religion to make it fit.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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”.

You type a lot but say very little.

You type very little, and say quite a lot indeed, about yourself! Though, it’s most likely not what you would want said about you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
which merely tells me that you have no idea what God is, and nothing more.

Going by recent events in the world, God is the sort of genocidal maniac that kill tens of thousands of innocent people with cyclones and earthquakes. If there really is a God and that’s what he’s all about, I’m not interested!

You are very good indeed at telling us how very little you know about God. God is before everythng else to be believed as the All-Good and the All-Just, as well as the All-powerful, and once those things are set as “first facts”, after which all other facts are considered subservient, then you begin to understand what God is about.

But if that’s not possible, and if the whole world must be perfect before God can be considered good, then God will be forced away as the price for that formulation. The results of God being forced away by preconditions set by us is what we see in the world as the continual creation of evil out of God’s bounty of good.

( Of course, since even greater good is the product of humanly spread evil, God and good don’t really ever lose! )

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
There is no functional distinction between a “set of beliefs (however arbitrary)” and a “religion”.

There is a gaping chasm between the two. I believe I that politicians are only in it for themselves. You’d have to be a couple cans short of a six-pack to call that a religion.

A religion is not A SINGLE belief. Do I really have to repeat this point 200 times for it to penetrate?

A religion is the entire set of beliefs of any individual person. They act from that basis. That is their religion.

No one can believe ONLY that politicians are in it only for themselves. But that belief in distrust of those we call “politicians” is certainly an element of the person who holds that belief, whose religion most likely has a very big problem with trust, power, the proclivity of others to “sin”, and not least authority in general.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The central item to a religion is not deity, but rather belief.

Belief in what???

That’s right a deity!!!

Now here you have an interesting point!

I actually do believe that any time that a person holds a belief in something worth “aquiring” or being a “higher power” than themselves, they are in fact creating a deity.

But there is a difference between worshiping A deity and THE deity. There is only ONE “THE” deity, but there are an infinity of “A” deities.

Is it possible to not either create one or more “a” deities or discover “the” diety? No.

To believe at all is to have that belief focused on either “the” deity or a could of “a” deities. Neither belief nor diety, which is the consequence of belief, are optional to the human being.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This long post contains nothing worthy of a response.

You have a lovely abrasive way about you!

That you can’t find anything worthy to say merely shows your “creativity” at the opportunity to talk. Your lack of response speaks volumes. I appreciate your voluminous response very much, as illustrative of where folks who come from “your end of the spectrum” are coming from.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Yes. They are composed of different words and arrangements of those words, but they are equivalent in meaning.

No they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
If you think they differ in meaning, please explain how.

One question asks about a belief, the other question asks about a lack of belief.

That’s like the difference between being run over by an elephant or a lack of an elephant.

In either case we’re talking about elephants, aren’t we? If I ask you if you were run over by a lack of an elephant, your answer would be that there was no elephant involved, but you would have to know the difference between an elephant and a non-elephant to make that statement.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” for example. Now that you have the mental image formed, you now have another religion. The belief that the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” does not exist.

How many religions do you think you’ll acquire, using this faulty logic?

I have one religion, which contains that belief that believing in the (or a) “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is worth not believing in.

I could be wrong about that, but having yet another belief about something not worth believing in does not create another religion in me.

AN INDIVIDUAL can only have ONE religion, and it is composed of the sum total of that person’s beliefs.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

I don’t say that it is my belief that I don’t believe in tooth-fairies. I just say: “I don’t believe in tooth-fairies!” It could not be more simple.

You may be “as simple” as you like. But that doesn’t alter the fact that you believe that considering the “tooth fairy” believable is wrong.

Do you believe that the tooth fairy is real?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

They don’t exist, the point is moot!

You cannot prove that they don’t exist. Therefore it is only your belief that they don’t exist.

That you believe that znooms don’t exist is laudable, as they probably don’t, but the point that you may be wrong in your belief is certainly not moot.