Is Atheism a religion?

Malpaisian

Discuss!

The Mad Hatter

Nope.

swampgas

Malpaisian wrote: »

Is Atheism a religion?
Discuss!

Why don't you start by telling us what you think.

mallachyrivers

No it's not

shizz

Theism isn't a religion where as say Catholicism is. So how can Atheism be a religion?

frozenfrozen

its a belief system, or rather the lack thereof.

MagicMarker

Boring thread is boring.

Delirium

Malpaisian wrote: »

Discuss!

I agree, OP.

Sarky

Yes. Dawkins is the pope, we ritually eat live babies and send our minions out to turn people gay, liberal, communist, Nazi, and genocidal.

Except on Tuesdays, that's bridge night.

Ellis Dee

Atheism is a refusal/failure/inability/unwillingness to believe the unbelievable. Atheists believe only things that can be observed or detected with the senses or instruments.:rolleyes:

Therefore atheism is not a religion.:)

Anyway, even if it was a religion, it would never catch on, because no atheist claims that there is pie in the sky, that there is an afterlife full of winged former mortals who strum harps when they aren't riding virgins ...;)

And if only we had a priesthood like this::D

Ickle Magoo

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

Colibri

Atheism is a religion like 'off' is a TV channel.

cowzerp

No.

Liamario

This is why I'm starting to hate the word atheism. As soon as you give something a name, people start categorising you. And then, because of their ignorance and laziness, they make blind leaps and put you in the category of religion- like a marketing surey.

endacl

Atheism is a religion, like this is an original thread topic. Did you not try a bit of an aul' search first OP?

robindch

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Any more like this, folks?

GLaDOS

robindch wrote: »

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Any more like this, folks?

Like bald is a hair colour is always a good one

Ickle Magoo

Atheism is a religion like nudity is an outfit...

swampgas

<grumpy>
FFS - two minutes reading the dictionary definitions of "atheism" and "religion" will answer the OP's question, if he/she is actually interested.
</grumpy>

G.K.

Those 2 are the only ones Bill Maher has said, unfortunately...

Fortyniner

Here's a contribution from the OP in August last year:

'I have no interest in religion or religious forums. I've given far more evidence than you've given to the contrary. You are still doing your cowardly little drive-by postings without actually saying anything yourself.

Why don't you have the guts to do the following things for me:

1) Tell me exactly what you think about the BBC (and the mainstream news-media in general), It's real purpose and the veracity or otherwise of its reportage.

I have already asked you to do this, but you seem unwilling for some reason.

2)Define what you mean by "evidence"

3)Define what you mean by "opinion"

4)Make an effort to actually engage, in detail ,with the points I've made and the examples I've given to back them up.

5) Tell me exactly what you find amusing and why. (pathetic little comments like: "Amusing, for a number of reasons"
are a poor replacement for real arguments)

6) Tell me what is your interest in this conversation. Do you work for the media? Have you some agenda?

If you cannot do these simple things, then you are either incapable and/or cowardly.'

source: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74116162

I think this thread should be closed..

kylith

Atheism is a religion like:
Not collecting stamps is a hobby
Clear is a colour
Bald is a hair colour
'Off' is a television channel
Abstenance is a sexual position
Nudity is an outfit
Unemployed is a job description
etc.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Yes. Dawkins is the pope, we ritually eat live babies and send our minions out to turn people gay, liberal, communist, Nazi, and genocidal.

Except on Tuesdays, that's bridge night.

Heresy!!!!

Tuesdays are canasta night.

Sarky

Look, you're in a different parish. You can have canasta night on Tuesday, but WE have bridge. I suppose you don't have a BBBBQ* at weekends, either!


*The first extra B is for BYOBB**. The second is for Baby.


** That extra B is a typo.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Atheism is a religion like:
Not collecting stamps is a hobby
Clear is a colour
Bald is a hair colour
'Off' is a television channel
Abstenance is a sexual position
Nudity is an outfit
Unemployed is a job description
etc.

Like betting is a sport.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Look, you're in a different parish. You can have canasta night on Tuesday, but WE have bridge. I suppose you don't have a BBBBQ* at weekends, either!


*The first extra B is for BYOBB**. The second is for Baby.


** That extra B is a typo.

None of that BBBBBBQ* newfangled nonsense in these here parts - we are traditionalists and pit cook** on weekends.

*may have lost count of the number of B's.

**several whole babies can be cooked at once.

Sarky

Well, so long as you don't spitroast them.

That's for the Catholics :pac:

MisterEpicurus

I think this is a shocking thread, and question the intelligence of the individual who posted this thread. Of course atheism isn't a religion.

A thread with this lack of integrity would have been closed elsewhere on boards.ie

If I went into the Health & Fitness forum and started a thread asking 'Is doing absolutely nothing an active exercise regime?', it would be rightly closed.

The mind boggles at the desperate questions that goes through the minds of believers in any desperate attempt to reconcile their own beliefs as somehow on-par with atheism.

Downright crazy.

/thread

Whelpling

Since atheists tend to organise and come together in countries like the US and Ireland, where theism is the state of most of the population, I can see why people would think it a religion. In fact, the coming together of atheists is not driven by their belief or lack thereof - it is driven by their desire to be treated as equals under law and policy along with theists. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that atheists are viewed negatively by many theists, and this creates a culture where some people don't even want to be 'out' as atheists, because of potentially negative family/friend reactions. One thing that theism, or organised religion does very well is create a community (church etc) for its belongers. Atheists coming together is in some way a replica of that very positive part of religion, I think - but is driven by the aforementioned desire for equality (including a release from stigma) and a desire for community such that many people in religion enjoy. We are not solitary, antisocial creatures just because we don't believe that gods exist. Many atheists are also humanist, and value other people, community and good company very highly.

MisterEpicurus

Whelpling wrote: »

Since atheists tend to organise and come together in countries like the US and Ireland, where theism is the state of most of the population, I can see why people would think it a religion. In fact, the coming together of atheists is not driven by their belief or lack thereof - it is driven by their desire to be treated as equals under law and policy along with theists. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that atheists are viewed negatively by many theists, and this creates a culture where some people don't even want to be 'out' as atheists, because of potentially negative family/friend reactions. One thing that theism, or organised religion does very well is create a community (church etc) for its belongers. Atheists coming together is in some way a replica of that very positive part of religion, I think - but is driven by the aforementioned desire for equality (including a release from stigma) and a desire for community such that many people in religion enjoy. We are not solitary, antisocial creatures just because we don't believe that gods exist. Many atheists are also humanist, and value other people, community and good company very highly.

The nonsense persists.

If a group of people interested in history collected annually, would you re-frame it in terms of religion? Going to some history lecture once a year is equally as 0% religious as atheists doing it. Atheists don't do it 'to feel better' as a group. It's simply a shared common thread, as is these history meetings. There's nothing more to it.

Religion requires a gigantic leap of faith in believing resurrections and flying horses which has exactly zero evidence. It requires pray, suspensions of nature, believing you'll survive death, etc.

How many times do we have to say - there's NOTHING in common which makes atheism akin to religion. This 'collective' analogy works for everything, as it isn't a wholly exclusive religious practice for people with something in common to meet.

Give me strength!

yellowfish

Whelpling wrote: »

Since atheists tend to organise and come together in countries like the US and Ireland, where theism is the state of most of the population, I can see why people would think it a religion. In fact, the coming together of atheists is not driven by their belief or lack thereof - it is driven by their desire to be treated as equals under law and policy along with theists. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that atheists are viewed negatively by many theists, and this creates a culture where some people don't even want to be 'out' as atheists, because of potentially negative family/friend reactions. One thing that theism, or organised religion does very well is create a community (church etc) for its belongers. Atheists coming together is in some way a replica of that very positive part of religion, I think - but is driven by the aforementioned desire for equality (including a release from stigma) and a desire for community such that many people in religion enjoy. We are not solitary, antisocial creatures just because we don't believe that gods exist. Many atheists are also humanist, and value other people, community and good company very highly.

I agree that the sense of community is a positive part of religion and I can see how some theists might see Atheists coming together as somehow aping this aspect.
But how someone could be so stupid to confuse Atheism with a religion, I just do not understand.
Though in fairness they might just be doing it to annoy us, I can appreciate that.
On rare occasions a religious person has told me that i require as much faith as they do in their beliefs to conclude there is no God. Its a very effective way of making me rant and its lucky I do not own a gun, but its the sort of thing I do to religious people who annoy me, so fairs fair i suppose. (Bastards)

EDIT When I say it may be viewed as aping, this obviously does not mean it actualy is aping any more than going to a football match would be.

Whelpling

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

The nonsense persists.

Ah! A great footing for reasoned discourse.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If a group of people interested in history collected annually, would you re-frame it in terms of religion? Going to some history lecture once a year is equally as 0% religious as atheists doing it. Atheists don't do it 'to feel better' as a group. It's simply a shared common thread, as is these history meetings. There's nothing more to it.

Certainly there's often not. You apparently failed to comprehend that my explanation was of a way in which I could see why some people compare atheism to religion.

If a group decided to set up an ahistorical interest group, discussing the point that there is no history, would it be inconceivable that some people might see this as history related? Or would everyone who saw it as history related be talking nonsense?

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Religion requires a gigantic leap of faith in believing resurrections and flying horses which has exactly zero evidence. It requires pray, suspensions of nature, believing you'll survive death, etc.

Sure it does. Not sure how this is relevant to my 'nonsense' post above.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

How many times do we have to say - there's NOTHING in common which makes atheism akin to religion. This 'collective' analogy works for everything, as it isn't a wholly exclusive religious practice for people with something in common to meet.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and all the cows are safely in the barn. That doesn't mean that people will believe it on face value. It also doesn't mean that I'm excluded from attempting to recognise factors that make people think atheism = a religion and discuss them in order to dispel the myth. I don't take what religious people say at face value. Why should I expect that different rules apply to atheists?

"No" is a fine enough answer. So is mine. And while you may not attend atheist meetings, history groups or whatever for a sense of community, for meeting people, for company - many people do. Of course the most obvious counter to your point is that a history group would be a group of people coming together to discuss a shared interest. A group of atheists would be coming together to discuss a lack of interest in something, and, according to many atheists, the ONLY thing that we all have in common is our lack of belief in a god or gods. So then, it is quite easy to see how the religious person looking in would be perplexed as to why a group is needed to essentially discuss a shared interest in... nothing. Hence my attempt at explaining that many atheist meetings and gatherings tend to be concerned with a push for secularism and equality.

Maybe I should just sit in my corner of the cool club and sneer at the religious dolts.

Whelpling

yellowfish wrote: »

But how someone could be so stupid to confuse Atheism with a religion, I just do not understand.

I don't think it's stupid - just misinformed. Well. most of the time. Sometimes it probably is just to annoy us. But personally, when given the chance to say "Hey, it's not a religion and this is why"... and ALSO point out that many atheists are humanist people-lovers? I'm gonna take it! Engaging in reasonable discussion (but not to the point of forehead injury) has always worked better for me than sitting on high and scoffing.

yellowfish wrote: »

its lucky I do not own a gun

NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH - Atheists want to shoot the religious!

Turtwig

Odd, a discussion about atheism being a religion and atheist gatherings, yet no mention or comparisons with vegetarianism yet. . .

endacl

A vegetablist eh? So, explain the whole tomato/fruit salad thing then if you're so smart!

Just so we're clear, I personally don't believe in vegetables, but a friend claims to have had a vegetable-related near death experience once. He won't accept the reality that it was a hallucination caused by lack of rashers.

Galvasean

No no no, threads like this aren't for proper discussion!

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

No no no, threads like this aren't for proper discussion!

Indeed but they usually spark the best type of thread.

Nervous Wreck

Atheism is a religion like this thread is not a shit, waste of time.

18AD

Atheism is a religion like a non sequitur is a puddle sandwich.

Atheism is a religion like this sentence is false.

Atheism is a religion like realism goes thai sign. :pac:

Michael Nugent

Whelpling wrote: »

One thing that theism, or organised religion does very well is create a community (church etc) for its belongers. Atheists coming together is in some way a replica of that very positive part of religion...

It is a significant mistake to see the creation of community as a property of religion that atheists are replicating.

I would rephrase the above quote to something like this:

One thing that people and other animals do very well is to create communities for themselves. Religions and atheist groups and nations and tribes and tennis clubs and residents associations and internet discussion boards and troops of apes and pods of dolphins and herds of elephants are examples of that very positive aspect of living together.

Also, the creation of communities has negative effects as well as positive ones.

bnt

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It is a significant mistake to see the creation of community as a property of religion that atheists are replicating.

OP - if you listen to philosopher Alain de Botton, that's exactly what atheists should be doing: replicating the trappings of religion, explicitly using community-building techniques from churches, even building temples to atheism. To say his ideas got short shrift, here and anywhere else atheists talk about these matters (example), is putting it politely.

Why is this? There are different opinions, but my take is that de Botton fails to understand that atheism is a result of a genuine search for truth by honest people. It's not a game that we're out to "win". I'm not an atheist to make a point, or to position myself in a certain way in the sight of others. Self-knowledge and integrity are important not only in what you do, but also in how you do it, and what he suggests has a whiff of "the ends justify the means" about it. I don't just want the "results", I want to know that the results were the outcome of a sustainable process - then they're more likely to mean something and last.

PS: atheism is a religion like silence is a noise.

spannerotoole

Since it can't be proven absolutely that there is no god(s), atheists take it on faith that there are no gods. Therefore atheism is a religion.

Also ask is evolution true, use the test, can it be observed (no, because it happens over millions of years, all we know about fossils is that something lived, we don't know if it produced offspring.) Can Macro evolution be done in a laboratory? (Macro evolution, can one species evolve into another totally different species, even darwins finches had issues with this, birds begat birds and came from birds.) Can you show me the maths on evolution? (well can you?)

MagicMarker

spannerotoole wrote: »

Since it can't be proven absolutely that there is no god(s), atheists take it on faith that there are no gods. Therefore atheism is a religion.

Also ask is evolution true, use the test, can it be observed (no, because it happens over millions of years, all we know about fossils is that something lived, we don't know if it produced offspring.) Can Macro evolution be done in a laboratory? (Macro evolution, can one species evolve into another totally different species, even darwins finches had issues with this, birds begat birds and came from birds.) Can you show me the maths on evolution? (well can you?)

I have faith that my girlfriend won't cheat on me, is that also a religion?

And yes, evolution can be observed.

Penn

spannerotoole wrote: »

Since it can't be proven absolutely that there is no god(s), atheists take it on faith that there are no gods. Therefore atheism is a religion.

One of my favourite quotes (not sure by who or where I heard it though) is "Atheism isn't a lack of belief in Gods; it's a lack of belief that there are any Gods to believe in." Atheists don't take it on faith that there are no gods, because that would imply that there are gods but we just don't believe in them. Religious people take it on faith that there are gods, even though it can't be absolutely proven. Therefore, religion is a religion, and atheism is not a religion.

spannerotoole wrote: »

Also ask is evolution true, use the test, can it be observed (no, because it happens over millions of years, all we know about fossils is that something lived, we don't know if it produced offspring.) Can Macro evolution be done in a laboratory? (Macro evolution, can one species evolve into another totally different species, even darwins finches had issues with this, birds begat birds and came from birds.) Can you show me the maths on evolution? (well can you?)

We could, but you don't seem to understand the very basics of evolution, so I think we'd just be wasting our time.

celticcrash

Our Richard who are`nt in heaven.
Dawkins be your name.
The king dont cum.
Your will be done.
On earth as it is`nt in heaven.
For give us this thread. Our daily post.
And dont forgive us ourtreaspasses as
we blast those with piss who tresspass against us.
And lead us to coke and hookers
but deliver us from modarators.
Richard.

Enkidu

spannerotoole wrote: »

Macro evolution, can one species evolve into another totally different species, even darwins finches had issues with this

Those Galápagos Finches won't believe anything, you should hear them about relativity!

The Mad Hatter

celticcrash wrote: »

Our Richard who are`nt in heaven.
Dawkins be your name.
The king dont cum.
Your will be done.
On earth as it is`nt in heaven.
For give us this thread. Our daily post.
And dont forgive us ourtreaspasses as
we blast those with piss who tresspass against us.
And lead us to coke and hookers
but deliver us from modarators.
Richard.

You just reminded me of this thread, and this fine post by Zillah:)

Zillah wrote: »

Our Father who aint in Heaven,
spurious be thy name.
Why must there be some,
who art so dumb,
so as to waste earth for ficitious heaven.
Now let us say the king is dead,
and invent yet newer trespasses,
as we berate those who trespass against us,
and give into our hungry temptations,
and deliver us pizza from dominos.
Amen.

spannerotoole

Enkidu wrote: »

Those Galápagos Finches won't believe anything, you should hear them about relativity!

Tweet Tweet.
I meant darwins finches came from finches and their offspring were also finches, they didn't become crows or sparrows but they remained finches.

spannerotoole

Penn wrote: »

One of my favourite quotes (not sure by who or where I heard it though) is "Atheism isn't a lack of belief in Gods; it's a lack of belief that there are any Gods to believe in." Atheists don't take it on faith that there are no gods, because that would imply that there are gods but we just don't believe in them. Religious people take it on faith that there are gods, even though it can't be absolutely proven. Therefore, religion is a religion, and atheism is not a religion.



We could, but you don't seem to understand the very basics of evolution, so I think we'd just be wasting our time.

Without absolute proof its a position that is taken on blind faith. I don't believe in the young earth stuff, but i do believe that everything was created.

Dades

Uh oh.

Enkidu

spannerotoole wrote: »

Tweet Tweet.
I meant darwins finches came from finches and their offspring were also finches, they didn't become crows or sparrows but they remained finches.

At least that's what the finches reported when Darwin interviewed them, however given that they have issues with evolution anyway (as you already mentioned) it's fairly obvious that they're biased creationist finches.