|
|
|
|
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 6:52:05 PM |
In fact two people could vehemently debate an issue on which they actually agree, which would have been obvious from the outset had they bothered to rely on standards of meaning.
This is what is known as a semantic debate. It in my experience, the most common variety as many times people will be using different cultural meanings for words and thus, confuse one another as to their intended meaning.
Verifying what the other person means when it seems to make no logical sense is usually the best way to resolve these debates.
Coincidently these are also the easiest debates to end with both parties agreeing. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 7:17:18 PM | Infornography- Oh that's a bunch of claptrap.... oh, wait... what do you mean by "agreeing?"  | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 3/6/2006 5:22:11 PM | hi jack,
I'm a recovering nihilist. To me it's always meant the death of "meaning." I never thought that everything needs to be destroyed. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 3/6/2006 9:31:33 PM | Well, so far there are a couple of points by Wonka that wrap up this baby and put it to bed.
athiests could be "religious" in meticulous attention to detail. And that some athiests could be entertaining faith. But since it is regarding faith in something that is not supernatural (scientist's methods and competence), then it is only having faith and not practicing a religion.
That's all there really is to say about this, it's clearly a matter reading the defintition a few more times. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/1/2006 10:22:40 PM | "But, to assert conclusively something which can not be empirically proven is a position of faith either way"
Can you please explain to me why it has to be a position of faith one holds when stating that they assert that "god" does not exist? I am an atheist and don't base it on faith, hoping I'm right. I simply do not agree with nor have I seen anything to make me think otherwise and I don't feel the need to have eveything explained away nicley under the (oh it's gods will ) banner. Seems tome everytime humans unravel a universal mystery, the military wonder how they can use it to kill people.
Thanks | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/2/2006 12:56:17 AM | | I think that it takes alot of Faith to be an atheist. Rejecting the idea of a Being far greater than ourselves who could obliterate you in the blink of an eye has to take Faith. Or is just plain insanity.... | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/2/2006 6:07:09 AM | Cach -- by choosing a biased definition, you can "prove" anything you want. Is word web run by atheists trying to pander to a select group? The exhaustive definition of religion is:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheists most certainly fall under the 4th and broader definition of religion. In fact atheism has "leaders" that most other atheists will agree with, so even definition 3 would apply to atheism. And let's not confuse religion with faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
So to say that atheism does not require "faith" defies the definition of the word itself. Faith DOES NOT require a supernatural focus or religion. Atheists have faith in science, have faith that their interpretation of things is correct, and are just as zealous about their faith as any religious zealot (attend an atheistic gathereing and you will know what I mean.)
The ONLY reason the atheist so vehemently denies their belief system as a "religion" is because of separation of church and state. If atheism is recognized for the religious construct that it is, they would be in the same boat politically as the theist religions. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/2/2006 7:05:22 AM | Well when I start attending meetings I'll be sure to apply for the faith card and pay my membership dues. This makes no sense at all folks. You are lumping people together and assuming that all atheists attend meetings, no doubt in the local church basement, and sit around appointing leaders to begin the indoctrination.
I don't know many other atheists and to assume that faith is necessary is really taking a leap. I tell you what, I'll convert to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, that way I'll have a way to explain all the events of the universe and a reason to fear everything because it tells me to be afraid or does it.
Those who have a need for religion love to tell others that it is necessary..ugh! | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/2/2006 9:45:40 AM |
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheists most certainly fall under the 4th and broader definition of religion. In fact atheism has "leaders" that most other atheists will agree with, so even definition 3 would apply to atheism. And let's not confuse religion with faith:
Definition 4 could apply, but not in the sense that one desires. Definition 4 is more of a mteaphor to describe an activity of high interest. A comparison of this activity to the devotion of a religion, not really the religion people are trying to paint Atheism with.
As for three, that's just untrue. Some atheists are popular, but none are recognized as "leaders" and none of them can speak for Atheists as a whole on values practises and any belief outside of a lack of one on deities. Not to mention, if Atheist "leaders" existed, there's no reason to paint them as "spiritual". So definition 3 doesn't apply at all.
To try and move from Definition 4 to say that Atheism is a religion is to commit a Fallacy of Equivocation, by using the adjective variation to prove the noun variation.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
So to say that atheism does not require "faith" defies the definition of the word itself. Faith DOES NOT require a supernatural focus or religion. Atheists have faith in science, have faith that their interpretation of things is correct, and are just as zealous about their faith as any religious zealot (attend an atheistic gathereing and you will know what I mean.)
No, not really. I would say that Atheists base their lack of belief on a lack of evidence and apply the burden of proof principle, which makes their statement not of faith. In the case of those who claim with certainty that God cannot exist, they do so on the basis of a percieved sound argument to conclude that from (as is the case with most Strong Atheists).
Applying the other forms would only lead into the Fallacy of Equivocation again.
The ONLY reason the atheist so vehemently denies their belief system as a "religion" is because of separation of church and state. If atheism is recognized for the religious construct that it is, they would be in the same boat politically as the theist religions.
I wish, then we could claim religious benefits from the government. That would be very useful...
;) | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 4/2/2006 1:03:43 PM | toolmanq,
I don't think people are choosing a "baised" definition. I think you pointed out something good, in the nature of multiple and separate definitions, and the games people can play to convince themselves or others that something is right, wrong, silly, or intelligent.
For example, some people say "all beliefs are faith-based". True, if you mean the 6th definition of faith, meaning any set of principles or beliefs. But that's not what people are alluding to when talking about "faith-based" issues about the matters of religion. The 6th definition of faith doesn't equal the 5th. These are DIFFERENT definitions of the same word. The word doesn't mean anything, the definition does. But that won't stop people from changing their definition of the word 'faith' within one paragraph to "prove" something, when all they did was assume or prod that #5 and #6 were the same. I would never use #6 as "faith". That'd be begging for miscommunication between most people.
Whenever anyone argues about something, the #1 rule is not to change definitions of the same word when making the same point, and to make multiply-defined words clear as you say them.
So to say that atheism does not require "faith" defies the definition of the word itself.
When in the context of religion matters or discussion, I shouldn't have to tell you that people don't use the 6th separate definition of the word "faith" when talking about "faith-based" matters, such as faith-based political programs. You know this.
Being non-theistic doesn't require a dogma of a religion, loyalty, or even trust. Being non-theistic is a lack of trust in a claim or docterine that a God exists. This *can* be based on something of faith for an individual, sure. But unlike what your brainwashing tells you, not all non-theistic people do, and more importantly, that's not what lacking a theistic belief means.
Faith DOES NOT require a supernatural focus or religion.
Correct.
Atheists have faith in science, have faith that their interpretation of things is correct, and are just as zealous about their faith as any religious zealot
Anyone who makes such a sweeping claim such as this is a zealot. You never really sit back and think, "Hmmm, am I wrong in my judgements at all?", do you?
And what do you mean by "science"? Having faith in a method? It wouldn't be correct to say that I have a faith in a method -- having faith in something, in this context, implies that I am just running on confidence. But you strive to use the scientific method, if you're looking for accuracy anything outside of religion (or if it helps make a point within religion, but from what I've read of your opinions, you'll toss out the ones that go against it).
Yes, everyone, every day has faith in something. Problem is, some people don't want to accept or cannot emotionally accept coming to grips with that faith proving to be incorrect.
For example, a scientist has faith that his experiment will prove that the new metal he formulated will be able to withstand 9000 degree heat for over an hour, and still not melt or degrade. If he runs this experiment, and the metal starts to melt -- guess what? He lost his faith. He was wrong. He didn't have enough wiggle room to convince himself that it wasn't melting. Maybe he should change the definition of "melt"?
Problem is, when it comes to matters of religion, many zealots change their perception of justification, verification, and the like. That way, they can still use the word "Truth" (usually with a capital T), feel like they really do know. Many conservative fundamentalists will even use "science" (ie logical reasoning) to try and build evidence for a claim -- but throw out "science" (logical reasoning) if it points in the opposite direction, and/or resort to "something beyond science" to prove their claim. If that is the method one wishes to use, then ANYTHING is fair game to "prove". | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:19:04 PM | I'm passionate about Atheism, yes. I am also passionate about vegetariansism, gay rights, the Lord of the Rings movies, and manicotti.
I wouldn't call any of these things a religion.
There are many passionate groups of people. Does this mean cheerleaders and boy bands are now religions if they have passion for what they do? | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/14/2009 4:19:40 AM | RE Msg: 86 by citygrl_1981:
There are many passionate groups of people. Does this mean cheerleaders and boy bands are now religions if they have passion for what they do? There are many thousands of women who follow boy bands everywhere, going to every gig, buying every album, waiting for hours just for the chance of a glimpse of the boy band, spending thousands in the process, and their entire lives revolve about those boy bands, and nothing else. Is it a coincidence that pop stars are called "Idols"? Is it a coincidence that there most popular shows in the US and the UK, and have franchises from Australia to Serbia, are based on a show called "Pop Idol? I don't think so. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:55:12 AM | 
Why not just let people make their own labels? Clearly atheists don't want to be associated with the word "religion" | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/14/2009 2:30:42 PM | Re Msg:87 by scorpio mover
You and RDtoo seem to have in common the tortuous torture of the English language to prove dubious points.
Having a passion for something does not mean that one is religious in the most common sense of the word, and a collective of people who share a passion for something, does not necessarily mean that they are part of a religion or partaking in a religion in the usual sense of religious, which means belief in a transcendant reality or supreme being. I doubt that catholic girls, or jewish girls, or protestant girls would confuse their favourite boy band with the diety that they worship at church or synagogue, so why try to make the rather silly case that boy bands are religious idols??
One way of examining whether something is a religion is to look at its attributes. (am indebted to http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/ for the comparative analysis)
Religious Attribute..........................Religion........................Atheism
Belief in God(s)...................................Yes..................................No
Prayer ................................................Yes..................................No
Churches / temples / Mosques.............Yes.................................No
Holy Book / Scripture..........................Yes.................................No
Priests / Religious leaders -heirarchy....Yes................................ No
Belief in the supernatural (including
............................angels/devil ).............Yes................................No
Miracles.................................................Yes................................No
Afterlife..................................................Yes................................No
Holy Wars...............................................Yes...............................No
Heaven / Hell..........................................Yes...............................No
Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet,............Yes..............................No
marriage etc etc.)
Belief without evidence (faith as a...........Yes...............................No
virtue)
Belief despite conflicting evidence..........Yes................................No
Supernatural origins of universe..............Yes...............................No
and/or humans
Murderous fundamentalist extremists......Yes..............................No
(who are so, based on their religious
convictions)
Annoying street / doorstop preachers.......Yes..............................No
Belief in an immortal soul...........................Yes..............................No
Regular ritual, ceremonies, acts of..............Yes..............................No
worship, liturgy,
Belief in sin (original or otherwise)...............Yes.............................No
Blasphemy....................................................Yes............................No
We are god's chosen people...........................Yes............................No
Here following are a few websites that debunk the silly notion that atheism is a religion.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm
http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia37.html
My favourite quotation concerning the "Atheism is a religion" phurphy...is....
"Atheism is to religion what bald is to hair colour"  | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:12:03 AM | "Clearly atheists don't want to be associated with the word "religion""
If I could find a way to get a tax exemption for it or to get people to send me money for it I would not mind if people thought of atheist as a type religion. Lots of churches and church leaders have found the way lol. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:01:11 AM |
You and RDtoo seem to have in common the tortuous torture of the English language to prove dubious points.
This is a very common tactic used by theists. By claiming that atheism is a religion they're trying to get their foot in the door. They want to destroy the wall separating chucrh/synagogue from state. It how they'll get Creationism taught in public school. It's how they'll ban abortion. It's how they'll kill research into stem cells and cloning. It's how they'll justify their insane policies in the Middle East. It's how they'll make homosexuality illegal. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:40:26 PM | | Actually it was not a tactic on my part at all when I started this thread. I just find it amusing that so many people, alot of Christians included, despise or fear the word "religion". I have no idea what the big deal is. It is a word. Saying you are religious does not turn you into a Born Again Christian or whatever. It is a word. One of the definitions in my dictionary for religious is "having thorough and geniune loyalty". That could be true about any number of things. I think people do not like the word because it implies some kind of committment, and if our present society hates anything, it hates committment. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:46:19 PM | ^^ the fact is, the word denotes different things to different people. There is no universally agreed upon definition of religion after all.
For some it may imply a depth of commitment, to another it may reek of imprisonment of the spirit...
Personally my commitment is to God, not religion.
I am an ex atheist, but then.. I am also an ex christian.. what is the point ? | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:22:55 PM |
That argument is invalid. Atheism's etymology is in two parts,
A--"without,"
and
Theism--"the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods."
Thus, atheism means "A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods", and not necessarily an active disbelief thereof.
Might want to tell this to the hordes of athiests who go around flatly proclaiming there is no god and ridiculing those that disagree. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/22/2009 8:56:13 PM |
So you are saying that an active disbelief in anything as far as a higher power doens't take a level of commitment similar to that of any "faith"?
Not at all. Since there's absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that there's a “higher power” (I presume by this, you mean God). It doesn't take any more level of commitment to not believe in God, as it takes to not believe there's an extraterrestrial throwing a party in my rectum. There's an equal amount of evidence for each being true.
And keep in mind – I'm not the one running around saying I know [insert biblical cannon here], because God told me. I don't hear voices in my head.
Ender is right. Most atheists "practice" their unbelief a little too heavily and do make it into a religion.
If, by this, you mean I won't sit by idly while Christians insist on passing pseudoscience as science in public classrooms, deny the liberties of homosexuals (just as they have in the past with interracial marriage, and segregation in the south) – then yes – I suppose you may have a (very weak) argument for this being the case. However, it's still not a religion as much as asking, “Is this fair? Does this make sense? Is there any evidence that [insert claim here] is true?”.
So I guess we have established then that atheism is a religion?
If, by “we”, you mean you and whoever else has decided to alter the definition of the word “religion” - then I suppose you're right. If, by “we”, you mean – do I accept your modification? The answer is no – I still accept the standard definition:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Sure seems like they are practicing a system of beliefs.
Okay – that's still not the definition of “religion”.
Religion is something you practice.
Okay. That doesn't mean something you practice is religion. If I practice my handwriting, cooking, or masturbation – none of these things are religions. Even if I do these things in an organized way, and with other people.
Thus, I believe they are religious.
You also believe God sanctioned rape, killing, sexism, slavery, and the torture & killing of his only son. As they say, “Consider the source”.
According to a definition I got from the dictionary that I gave on the previous page
If it was from a dictionary, you didn't cite the source. Oh silly me – wanting to see evidence again.
Any atheists here care to comment on that last post?
Sure, someone saying “And yes atheist's have a religion.....” doesn't make it so. Not anymore than the guy down the street claiming he's Jesus.
If anything can be a religion then the word religion becomes meaningless.
Bingo!
Atheists most certainly fall under the 4th and broader definition of religion.
Cite your source please.
Atheists have faith in science
I don't have faith in science. I believe in science, because it requires evidence. It's able to make accurate predictions. Religion does NOT make accurate or consistent predictions. There's not a shred of evidence – anywhere pointing to the existence of God. Which, is why it requires FAITH.
I have no idea what the big deal is.
Yet, you started a thread on it?
It is a word.
With a meaning. Rape is a word – I bet some people are passionate about that too.
Might want to tell this to the hordes of athiests who go around flatly proclaiming there is no god and ridiculing those that disagree.
If you believe God sanctioning rape, sexism, slavery, torture & killing of one's own son, zombies, unicorns and giants – based on no evidence (not a shred) found or produced anywhere - prepare to be ridiculed. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/22/2009 10:47:21 PM | Actually this thread that I started had nothing to do with asking if atheists were religious. It kind of evolved or sank into that. I started this thread a couple of years back with a link to a group of ex-atheists. As the link seems to have disappeared from the OP, I have no idea what my original intent was, but it was not to argue that atheists are religious. I really do not think it makes one bit of difference either way.
| |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/23/2009 2:26:06 AM | Unfortunately for you, there's a written record in this thread that's going to work against your smoke & mirror attempt at a defense. You've neither refuted my source, or been able to source anything to support your argument - so you try to move the goal post and pretend you intent was something else entirely. I'm not going to let that one slide...
It may not have been why you started this thread, but you were quick to steer it in that direction starting on the first page with Msg: 19. You then continued to press the issue with your next consecutive posts: Msg: 22 & Msg: 25 also on the first page. Msg: 27, Msg: 32 (where you state The question being "is atheism a religion?"), Msg: 33, Msg: 36, Msg: 39, and Msg: 46 all of which are 9 consecutive posts from you attempting to prove atheism is a religion. In your Msg: 81, you're still attempting to connect atheism & religion by trying to connect dots that don't exist (that somehow asking for evidence denotes having faith???).
So, score card:
NerdStatus: Posted the definition of religion, and cited my source. Score one me.
You: Posted some obscure definition, and uncited source. Zero.
NerdStatus: Asked you to cite your source - and you chose not to. I'm presuming, therefore, that you're unable to a) refute my source b) back up your source, and therefore you're conceding the point. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/23/2009 11:18:20 PM | Mr. NerdStatus, I started this thread and posted msg. 19 over 4 years ago. At that time atheism as a religion was something I never thought of before. As time has passed I think arguing semantics is not really the issue. It is a distraction. To me, religion means something one practices. For instance, I am a religious coffee drinker. Now I understand that some people find the word religion scary. That is ok, that is their perogative. In other words, over time, this has become a non-issue to me.
By the way, scoring yourself points on an internet forum seems rather childish. Wouldn't you agree? | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/27/2009 7:18:16 PM | RE Msg: 89 by chelloveck:
You and RDtoo seem to have in common the tortuous torture of the English language to prove dubious points. If you mean that I had a sterling education in English, then yes. My mother and my grandmother both had professional lessons in all aspects of English, and they taught us as well as school. We could spelling tests regularly from granny regularly. I can remember being about 5 and her testing us on "rhododendron". Yes, we knew English well.
Having a passion for something does not mean that one is religious in the most common sense of the word, No, it doesn't. Enjoying going to church doesn't mean you're religious either. You might just have a passion for church music, as many people do. My father had a passion for church architecture. Couldn't pass a church on a walk without popping his head in and having a look around. Doesn't mean he worshipped it. But then, he wouldn't go spending thousands of pounds doing nothing but seeing churches.
in the usual sense of religious, which means belief in a transcendant reality or supreme being. I'm glad to know Samuel Johnson, the originator of the English dictionary, is here with us. How did you make it to 300? What's your secret?
I doubt that catholic girls, or jewish girls, or protestant girls would confuse their favourite boy band with the diety that they worship at church or synagogue, so why try to make the rather silly case that boy bands are religious idols?? I can only surmise that you don't know many religious jewish girls. I grew up with many, and was in many discussion groups with many.
One way of examining whether something is a religion is to look at its attributes. (am indebted to http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/ for the comparative analysis) Let's pick out a few, and examine them:
1) Do you need to believe in G-d to be a Buddhist? No. Do atheists all not believe in G-d? It's the definition of being an atheist. Kind of like saying "cheese is cheese".
2) Do Jews go to church? Nope. Do atheists? Nothing in atheism says they don't, or can't.
3) Belief in the supernatural. Do all atheists not believe in ESP? Nope.
4) Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue). Do Jews believe that faith without evidence is a virtue? Nope. Jews believe it is wrong to do so. Is it impossible for atheists to do so? Not at all.
5) Belief despite conflicting evidence. Did St Augustine believe that when conclusive scientific evidence conflicts with Xianity, that Xians must embrace the evidence? Yes. Is this the general belief of Catholics? Yes. Can atheists believe despite conflicting evidence? Yes.
6) Murderous fundamentalist extremists (who are so, based on their religious convictions). Do Jews have lots of murderous fundamentalist extremists, who are so, based on their religious convictions? Name 50. I cannot think of ONE. Can atheists be murderous fundamentalist extremists based on their beliefs? Yes. Are there any? Well, I recall it reported that the guy who shot those kids in Columbine saying something connecting religion with his actions, just before he shot them.
7) Annoying street / doorstop preachers. Do Jews do this? Jews are expressly forbidden to do this. They even have to TURN AWAY people who want to convert, 3 times. It's a well-known fact amongst Jews. Do atheists shove their ideology at people, claiming that they are helping people become free of idological dogma? From the website you just quoted:
This page has several functions:
it is intended to help open the minds of people who have been brought up to believe in some form of religious dogma. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/intro_page.htm
As you can see, the things you claim about religion are not true of all religions, and the things you claim of atheists cannot be said to be untrue, not unless you interviewed all the atheists on the planet, including all the buddhists who are atheists all over the world outside of America as well.
Here following are a few websites that debunk the silly notion that atheism is a religion. I'll try and explain reality to you.
Religion is a catch-all term. To Jews, there are various denominations of Jews, who don't all think alike, and there are Xians, who think differently, Muslims, who think another thing, Hindus, who think another, atheists, who have different views, and so on. The same goes for Xians, and Muslims, and Hindus, and so on. People of any one religion, aren't unified in thought or in action. They are disparate entities that think entirely differently and act entirely differently. But, much as you wear shoes, and so do I, they have similarities. But that doesn't mean that we are the same, not unless Jews and atheists are both part of the same "religion".
The word religion is just meant to give a general description to an intuitive concept, that most things that we call "religions" seem intuitively to address similar issues. But in reality, each religion differs from the next on various issues, to such an extent, that it is impossible to find a general commonality with all things described as religions.
Further, one cannot even say that atheists are all not religious, because many Buddhists are atheists.
Further, one cannot even say that all atheists share the same sets of beliefs, because atheists differ so much in their views, about almost everything, even how likely G-d is to exist. Some say impossible, some say extremely unlikely, some say not very likely.
It is true to say that atheists do not all share the same beliefs, and if we were to call all of their beliefs religions, then they do not all share the same one.
However, that is not to say that they cannot form a set of beliefs that answer the same questions as many religions do, and that is not to say that some atheists could not share such a belief, that, were one to exclude the concept of theism from a necessity of religion, which it isn't anyway, one could describe such a set of beliefs as fitting the same similarities as those religions listed, in that they are only common in that they endeavour to answer those questions as all.
My favourite quotation concerning the "Atheism is a religion" phurphy...is....
"Atheism is to religion what bald is to hair colour" It would be true to say that atheism is to theism what bald is to having a good head of hair. However, if your above quote was true, then Buddhists would show that bald "is a hair colour".
The mistake many people make, is thinking others who don't share their beliefs, are either stupid, or ignorant, or uneducated. Such dismissals of others are usually indicative of their own shortcomings, and speak nothing about others, but rather volumes about themselves.
RE Msg: 91 by CountIbli:
This is a very common tactic used by theists. By claiming that atheism is a religion they're trying to get their foot in the door. They want to destroy the wall separating chucrh/synagogue from state. It how they'll get Creationism taught in public school. It's how they'll ban abortion. It's how they'll kill research into stem cells and cloning. It's how they'll justify their insane policies in the Middle East. It's how they'll make homosexuality illegal. There is no global conspiracy of theists. It's not like we all meet in the Bildenburg, and plot the downfall of atheism. Far from it. It's very difficult to get any 2 denominations to agree to much. About the only things they do end up agreeing on, are things like the Golden Rule, and that's about it. Really, as I explained above, no person of any one religion thinks about people of other religions in a global unified concept. There is just your religion, and then there are other religions, all of which are different. The only people who seem to think about "religion" as a unified concept rather than a catch-all for an intuitive but as yet undefined concept, are people who like to think of themselves as belonging to no religion, and use the word as a way of describing anyone who doesn't think like they do. The same is true of theists, because, like it or not, theists are just SO varied in their views about G-d, that it's really hard to talk about G-d without someone piping up and saying "I believe something else about G-d, and not what you just said".
Really, the main people who make a hubbub about both religion and theism, are atheists who describe themselves as not belonging to any religion, and who like to make a hubbub about things. By claiming to not belong to any religion, they give themselves 1 advantage. If they live in America, it's 2 advantages.
First, if they don't belong to any religion, they can then make gross generalisations about all religions, and billions of people that they've never met, on the basis of a tiny minority of the world, who are usually Americans, who p*ssed them off. By doing so, they can allow themselves to feel smug about themselves, and claim to be superior to everyone else. Second, if they live in America, then they can claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them, and can treat everyone else like dirt, and then hide behind the law.
A lot of Americans fail to realise that in most countries in the world, you cannot go far without hearing someone say that Americans are rude, insulting, stupid, and generally obnoxious, and are trying to force their ideas on the world, along with extremely unfair economic policies that hurt the world, backed up by American bombs and guns. Many Americans who don't belong to a religion, and who don't like anything called a religion, seem to believe that this is because the world hates Xianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. They just hate Americans, because of the way America acts towards the world, and because of the way so many Americans have behaved going abroad. Brits have a very bad reputation abroad, but nothing near as bad as Americans. It's exactly the type of puritannical, "we know better than you, and we'll keep shoving it down your throat till you like it", type of attitude, whether from atheists, Xians, or anyone else, that really p*sses people off.
Now, if American people keep arguing with each other, left, right and centre, well, that's their problem. But stop bringing the rest of the world into your damn arguments. If you cannot make up your mind if you want abortion or not, homosexuality or not, Creationism or Evolution, then just split the country in 2, and shift yourselves into 2 separate countries. It's what India and Pakistan did, because the Muslims and the Hindus couldn't agree either. If you cannot, then just split, and stop with the arguments.
If you cannot, then just be aware that such comments by atheists are not going unnoticed by the rest of the world, and nor can the superior air they express, and nor that they are backed by American law, which is being pushed all over the world by American soldiers. It's becoming seen more and more as a kind of American imperialism, and a lot like Nazi imperialism, because Americans seem to believe in a "manifest destiny", much like the Nazis, and they seem hell bent on taking over the entire world and making it into their image, like the Nazis, and because most of all, the ways in which Americans are mostly pushing their ideology and economic inequality, is in secular forms that agree with the attitudes found expressed by outspoken atheists. It's p*ssing off American Xians, it's p*ssing off the rest of the world, and the way things are going, atheists can expect to be seen like the Nazis if they are not careful to become moderate in their attitudes. The world cannot take another Hitler. The only way they world will deal with another group of megalomaniacs is to just grin and bear it until they can stand it no longer, and then just wipe them out. If atheists are not careful, then most will be dead, and the rest will be banned from ever saying they are atheists.
FYI, the wall of separation between Church and State, comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. What many people don't realise, is what he actually wrote. The Danbury Baptists Association of Conneticut wrote to Jefferson, to state that though they rejoiced in religious liberty, that they were concerned that government would use law as a form of religious oppression against them. This was a real concern, as Jefferson's beliefs were very different from their own, as he was either a deist, or agnostic, or atheist (I believe that he was an atheist).
He wrote back that religious beliefs and practises were not something that the US government would ever be allowed to legislate for, in any way, either for or against, and in a manner indicating that he believed that each person's religion was a natural right of man, and had no right to be ignored.
http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/baptist.htm
Effectively, what Jefferson wrote was exactly the opposite, that the separation of Church and State means that no-one can use law to support anything that might make Xians or people of any religion feel oppressed in any way. You can point out that laws passed by a governor or a state, or even a Federal law, cannot be based on any one religion, or even many religions, and have those laws struck off the law books. You can point out that laws passed by a governor or a state, or even a Federal law, cannot be based against any one religion, or even against many religions, and have those laws struck off the law books. But that's pretty much all you are allowed to do. You cannot use the constitution to ban teaching Creationism.
However, Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment, that no government law can promote or inhibit any religion, and the general way of interpreting that in the last few decades, has been that the government cannot be seen to doing anything that some religious people agree with and some secular people don't, and have to be seen to be doing everything that some secular people agree with and some religious people don't, even if it would cause an inhibition of a religion or many religions, which many such rulings have.
Nor is this the only case of reverse discrimination. It's happening in everything from gay rights, to African American rights, to feminist rights. All those groups are suffering from the results of trying to balance discrimination by taking it to the other extreme. It's part of what's going on right now. It's going to take another world war, to the world to wake up to realise that all discrimination is wrong, no matter what it intends to achieve, especially if it is causing just as much discrimination, just in another direction.
You might want to think about that, and try and put a stop to it. Only way I know is to preach that we should be tolerant and loving and respectful to EVERYONE, atheist, Jew, Muslim, Xian, Hindu, whatever. Or, you can just keep on, and you know what will happen. Your choice.
I just thought you could do with the heads up. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:48:50 PM |
As time has passed I think arguing semantics is not really the issue.
So, in nine consecutive posts, and spanning all four (100%) of the pages on this topic, you thought it was important. Now that you can no longer refute the evidence presented on the issue... it's suddenly... “not really the issue”? How convenient.
To me, religion means something one practices.
You could think blue means red, it doesn't make it so. Fact remains, the definition is what it is, I've posted that definition here, cited my source, you can't refute it.
In other words, over time, this has become a non-issue to me.
Yes, after you get your butt handed to you by someone that bothered to look up the word, and that definition completely refutes your definition, it's a non-issue to you. Got it.
By the way, scoring yourself points on an internet forum seems rather childish. Wouldn't you agree?
In this context, absolutely. Ironic that you're so dismissive of your loss – calling it a distraction. Then you end your argument with a distraction. Wouldn't you agree?
We could spelling tests regularly from granny regularly.
What's a “could spelling test”? And, did they teach you the definition of “redundant”?
Religion is a catch-all term.
If, by “catch all” you mean...
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
