Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

Why does everything in the alleys at the moment have to morph into a discussion about homosexuals and the church?? When I was with a woman, we were accepted into a church with no pointed fingers.

However, this has NOTHING to do with atheism!!

 

I apply all of those statements to myself, and I consider myself an atheist. Haha it is odd, because your description fits me perfectly. Perhaps areligious is a better term.

That being said, I do have a problem with organized religion, but that is not why I do not care about the existence of a higher being.

It was just an example about how churches may or may not control peoples' lives; nothing to get upset about.

 

Silvery, everyone knows that communists and homosexuals are godless (just listen to Rush and compare notes with McCarthy). Now, godless and athiest are close enough; so by extrapolation homosexuals must be athiest.

It's the same logic that is in "My dog has four legs, a cow has four legs, therefore my dog is a cow." (Which happens to be true for my fat lab.)

 

Did no one look at the definition given by the guy who wrote the article? It's not as rigorous or erudite as the dictionary definitions given here, but I thought it was funny. here, I'll post it again:

In that sense, it is a religion -- it is a position taken about God and the nature of that being. Granted, that position is that said being does not exist, but it is still a position, just as zero is nothing but it is still a number.

How in the name of the possibly existing God did the thread morph into another gay thread? I already have a thread on gays, and there's lots more in the history of the boards!

As for the straw man comment, the author's logic may not be perfect, but he made a fair analysis of the poster -- he was right in that the underlying assumption of the message was that people who believe in God are "worried and stressed". Said assumptions are not true. If he painted all atheists with the same brush he went too far, but the atheists who paid for that sign are, IMHO, fair game for criticism of the underlying assumptions of their advertisement.

 

It didn't. It morphed into a thread about the Church.

 

Agnosticism is Atheism for people too lazy, cowardly or indifferent to really think about it.

Few atheists think that the non-existence of god is a scientifically absolute fact; there being no proof for it is a good enough reason to deny religion.

"There is probably no god. Now, go ahead and enjoy your life."

 

Hmmm... I know I initially said lazy, but indifference is probably closer to the point. Perhaps I would be an atheist, if I really thought about the existence of God at all, but I don't.

Still, the other thing I find odd is you say that no proof of god is a good enough reason for an atheist/agnostic to deny religion. I do not see people who don't believe in God and people who deny religion to be mutually inclusive of one another. Buddhism, for example, does not have a god figurehead. So a Buddhist does not believe in a god per se, yet also does not reject religion. There are several other philisophy-based religions common in the Far East that also do not feature a god-head. And I think the same goes for the agnostic - just because I do not practice any religion, does not mean that I deny it - that's some pretty strong words there.

 

Well, Aldeth, you filthy, degenerate sinner who is cursed to the blackest pit of the Abyss for your arrogant non-belief, you know that religious discussions can often involve some pretty strong words.

Not that I'D ever use them

Again, for the humor impaired, Paragraph one is firmly tongue in cheek. Aldeth knows that I love him in a very hetero kind of way. (cough, hawk, spit)

 

Perhaps some people have been indoctrinated in such a way, that even when they reject religion, they cannot help but defend their viewpoint with a 'religious' zeal. But that doesn't make the ideology religious, so I'd say NO: it isn't a religion in itself.
But I agree that belief in science can go too far as well. When people's 'faith' in scientific dogma makes them rigid and unwilling to consider alternatives, then they are in error.

 

Aldeth, I for many years held your stance and identified myself as an agnostic but the more I was exposed to the nutters on this board the more I thought about the issue and move myself from the agnostic camp to the atheist camp. It is impossible to prove the non-existance of anything which means that we have to go by the existing evidence and your individual sense of logic and rationality and mine screams to me that even an indifferent god or being seems to be quite unlikely. Also, agnosticism opens up for too much wriggle room it is to put it bluntly too tolerant. Taza has a crude but in my opinion quite correct view of agnosticism, it is basically atheism for the coward or as you said indifferent.

As for preaching, I think it is about time that the secular world again struck back against religion. It has for too long been sitting back and been complacent convinced that the inherent superiority and rationality of it's stance would win in the long run but sadly the one of the very few limitless things in this universe is the stupidity of man so religion in various forms have gained new ground. It may go under new names (wiccans, new age, spirituality) but it is the same old mumbo jumbo designed to prey on peoples fear and insecurities. There needs to be a strong voice of reason in opposition to mind numbing supersitions. All you basically need to do is to make people think and and educate themselves and the religions lose members by the droves. There are some intelligent reasonable people like Chandos who for some reason manage to keep their faith through intricate argumentations with one self and by picking and choosing what to believe in or not but most people who actually stop to think and haven't been harshly brainwashed since childhood will see religion for the absurd notion it is. Sadly many many religious people refuse to even expose themselves to the seeds of doubt, I think they know deep inside that their faith is a house of card so they isolate themselves with their fellow believers and refuse to take in new ideas. I remember a few years ago a preacher by the nickname Mathetais frequented these boards, nice guy but he finally left and I am personally convinced that it was because he was afraid his faith would not be able to withstand the withering attacks of reason levelled against it or even the exposure to differing world views.

 

This is absolutely false. My Agnosticism came as the result of a great deal of exploration. Ultimately, I determined that the idea of God was utterly un-testable and, therefore, largely irrelevant to the world in which we currently live. I made a conscious decision to reject organized religion, but that isn't why I'm agnostic. I'm agnostic because I also made a conscious decision to base my opinions on evidence. Since Atheism is based on the lack of evidence (and unlike leprechauns, Christianity, or Hinduism, the concept of God cannot be tested), I reject it, too. It is neither laziness, cowardice, nor indifference.

 

Fine, let me correct myself. Agnosticism is atheism for people too lazy, cowardly or indifferent to think about it, and everyone who defines atheism as exclusively strong atheism - or as it should be called, Religious Atheism.

Also: This is the dumbest semantic argument about atheism ever.

 

But by keeping the door open to the untestable you open yourself to acknowladge the possible existence of all manner of things which can not be disproven. As I wrote, I used to share your view Drew but by sticking to your agnosticism you do even if ever so little give some credibility to religious faith. A slight nod that there might, just might be something to it. I can't do that. I pretty much share your view Drew but I refuse to even given that little nod to the religionists as I view calling oneself an agnostic is.

 

Hey, I believe there might be an interstellar teapot worthy of worship out there.

But it's just a possibility.

Anyway, I'm declaring I'm not touching the subject of Atheism/Agnosticism anymore after this post, it's a pointless semantic wasteland.

The most sensible definitions go as follows (IMO): Belief in there being no god and no possibility of a god - Fanatical/Strong Atheism. Belief in there being and not being a god but having an opinion that believing in one without proof is stupid - Atheism. Opinion that there may or may not be a god but no option should not be considered - Agnosticism. Opinion that every belief and opinion is equally valid - Political Correctism. Opinion that the debate doesn't matter before we define the terms solidly enough - Ignosticism.

 

As I commented earlier, it would seem that atheists are just as fanatical in their beliefs as religious zealots. Some even feel the desire to flame others who don't hold to their views. They have that strong an emotional attachment to the notion that they are right, and of course, anyone who does not agree must be "defective" in some way.

Joac - Thank you...I think. I hardly ever feel the desire to go around convincing people that they should feel the same as I regarding religion. Individuals are shaped by many forces, some internal, some from without. As I have remarked many times, religion is experienced. You can't get it out of a book. That's why holding up the Bible doesn't achieve anything, except to make the person doing the "holdng up" feel that much better about himself. Religion comes from within. Nevertheless, I don't really care for debates on religion; they just don't seem to go anywhere, for the most part. But politics....

 

This isn't true, joaquin. As I said earlier, I believe there is almost certainly no Dark Lord Xenu, I believe Jesus Christ almost certainly never rose from the dead, and I believe Moses almost certainly never spoke to a burning bush. I use the term "almost certainly" as a matter of simple intellectual honesty. The reality is that I believe that all of the religions of the world are likely* some combination of myth and hoax, and that people who think God talks to them are probably delusional, but I feel it is important to acknowledge that this is not an empirical fact (well, OK, the non-existence of the Dark Lord Xenu is pretty empirical).

In the end, though, the mountains of evidence - and the even larger mountains of evidence that one would expect to find, yet doesn't - that calls the religions of the world into question does not in any way shape in form call into question the existence of a non-specific God of unspecified nature. When Atheists challenge religion or concrete, inflexible definitions of God, I usually agree with them 100%. For a detailed and specific religion to be true, there are certainly things one would expect to find - or conversely, not find.

The fact that Jesus Christ is neither the first nor the last person to have "resurrected" people or to "die" and "come back from the dead" should give Christians pause. The fact that the first-born son of Ramses II died as an adult of blunt trauma to the back of the head should give Christians and Jews pause. The fact that Joseph Smith was a known con-man before writing the book of Mormon, and that his father was arrested himself for running his own scam involving a "lost tribe of Israel" some 20 years earlier, and that the book of Mormon shares several geographical errors with KJV bible - errors which were only present in the KJV due to sloppy translation - should give Mormons pause.

None of these details prove or disprove the existence of a non-specific God of unknown nature, however, so I remain agnostic.

* More likely, in fact, than winning a pre-flop all-in against a single caller while holding pocket Aces.

 

That is quite the blanket statement... I am an atheist and I am not as fanatical in my beliefs as religious zealots. Atheist zealots are as fanatical, but I would not say that all atheists are fanatics.

 

Saber - You are correct, sir. I retract that line to mean "some" atheists are that fanatical, since certainly not all atheists are zealots.

 

In my younger days, I would have fallen into agnosticism, and that worried me even more! The idea that even if God exists, he doesn't give a rat's ass about us was really traumatic. The idea that there was nothing more important than self gratification really made a have-not like I was feel even worse. I feel better about myself now that I've returned to the faith I was baptized into as a teenager...

That was a starting point in Sartre's theory, not a conclusion. It was a point from which he started to develop the categorical imperative--the idea that anything we do is something we advocate that all others should emulate.

At it's noblest, religion offers a utopian view of what could be if everyone would put the greater good for otehrs ahead of their own desires. Every tenet of a faith ought to have that goal in mind. It offers a roadmap to happiness if followed. You see the bastardized version that comes when abused by those who've assumed stewardship over the faith.

And you call us religious folk stupid? I consider faith in humanity to be poorly placed. we have thousands of years of humanity doing horrible things to each other. And you put your faith in that? I choose a belief that we can rise above that...

But you had to learn your own morality without a book to teach it to you. As for Religion, the fear of punishment only works so long--eventually, we have to develop our own faith in these principles or else we won't obey...

One of the ten commandments states that we must not take the name of God to justify our own vain causes and that we are accountable for everything we do in God's name. And ANY abuse committed in God's name will not sit well with Him...

Anomy. Philosopher and sociologist, Emile Durkheim listed this as one of the four main roots of suicide. The lack of a norm by which we may guage our behaviour and attitudes by is extremely difficult for many people...

Exactly! All we can ask is mercy and guidance. It is up to us to act.

Not detected in a scientific sense, but to the faithful, many of them have had personal experiences which convince them that God is real. I'd piss off a lot fewer people here if I was not so convinced of that truth...

---------- Added 0 hours, 16 minutes and 47 seconds later... ----------

Ah ****. Not again! Okay, who had post 35 in the pool, if you don't collect your money, I'll just stick it in my pocket...

There's a difference between how we ought to act and how we really do. It's natural, because religion asks more from us than is possible. While what they do is a sin, it is not our place to condemn them.

I think he just wanted to see if I was paying attention. I wasn't on here last night because I was playing WoW and it went late...

So they become what they oppose most. The irony is exquisite...

---------- Added 0 hours, 13 minutes and 4 seconds later... ----------

So that's where the phrase "tempest in a tea pot" comes from. And here I thought it was Shakespeare...

I've seen some accusations against Joseph Smith. First off, the charge was vague. One of the key points of the Mormon faith--the gift of the Holy Ghost--would lead to a violation of that law if we talked about it. Further, there was not a consistent report of the 1826 trial. Various sources make different reports of who testified and what they had to say. And get this: The book that should have contined the court record could not be found! I've got bookmarked a site that addresses the geography and other concerns that were brought up about the Book of Mormon. I'll have to see if I can find it...

 

Very witty. It's true that this is the answer that avoids conflict, but on the other hand, it's also the answer that avoids conflict. And maybe the answer that avoids conflict is the right answer, for now anyway.