Is Atheism a religion?

Penn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Typical Atheist response ^^

Unicorns tends to be a favorite :rolleyes:

My point is, not believing in god / believing in god are very similar in the sense that there is no evidence to back either claim up. Therefore, either could one day be proven as the truth.

No evidence? There's lots of evidence, just not enough to conclusively prove one way or another.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Perhaps its time for people who have no beliefs in a god to be just that, a person who has no beliefs.

I think you pressed Reply before you finished typing. Surely, the only reasonable ending to that sentence would be "Perhaps its time for people who have no beliefs in a god to be just that, a person who has no beliefs in a god". "Belief" in something is not exclusive to belief in a god.

As for your claim about the similarities between atheism and religion, I still haven't seen anyone make a claim about any similarity which hasn't already been debunked or isn't something which is somewhat inherent to the basic human condition and isn't exclusive to atheism or religion.

Kidchameleon

Jernal wrote: »

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There are plenty of atheist organizations who canvas politicians and church organizations. Quick Google search will give you evidence of that. A quick flick through the A&A forum will show up plenty of smug atheists. Plenty of threads in boards get the inevitable "magical man in the clouds" bs derail. Ive had people approaching me on the street on a number of occasions. There was a guy with a megaphone in temple bar before Christmas.

Oh, off topic, I propose that boards moves the A&A forum out of the "Spirituality and Religion" section :rolleyes:

There are plenty of [SIZE="3"]<Insert Option Here> [/SIZE]organizations who canvas politicians and church organizations. Quick Google search will give you evidence of that. A quick flick through the [SIZE="3"]<Insert Option's Forum Title here>[/SIZE]forum will show up plenty of smug [SIZE="3"]<Insert Option here in plural form>[/SIZE]. Plenty of threads in boards get the inevitable [SIZE="3"]<insert generic troll trait of Option here>[/SIZE]bs derail. Ive had people approaching me on the street on a number of occasions. There was a guy with a megaphone in temple bar before Christmas.

Le Options.
#1 Environmentalist
#2 Vegetarian.
#3 Animal Welfare Activist
#4 Anti-War Activist.
#5 Human

Were not talking aboutany of those things though are we?

Dades

Let's clarify something, Kidchameleon. You are an atheist, but are clearly not "militant" in your views. Ergo, not all atheists are militant.

Furthermore, you have undoubtably met plenty of atheists who never informed you of their atheism and therefore can hardy be deemed to have preached or shouted in your ear. Outside of this forum most atheists here are just *people*.

So what you really have a beef with is a vocal atheist who criticises religion, or an atheist group. That's fine (for you). But it doesn't make atheism a religion, or all atheists militants.

And you storming in here making those declarations only gets people's goat up.

Zombrex

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Were not talking aboutany of those things though are we?

Your entire premise seems to be that they New Atheist movement (as others call it) is religion-ish because these atheists express their opinions publicly, because religion also expresses public opinions and thus they are similar.

This surely makes any person or group with any lose affiliation that expresses opinions publicly also religion-ish in nature.

Which is frankly nuts.

The defining characteristic of religion as opposed to any other human organisation or grouping, is not that it expresses opinions publicly. Nearly all human groupings do that. You are currently publicly expressing your opinions (in as an aggressive style as those you complain about I might add), and are happy to state that you are not religious.

The defining characteristic of religion is common shared supernatural belief or set of beliefs more often than not in the form of worship of a deity or other powerful being, involving things like ritual or structured obedience.

Atheism (pretty much by definition) has nothing like that.

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

Let's clarify something, Kidchameleon. You are an atheist, but are clearly not "militant" in your views. Ergo, not all atheists are militant.

Furthermore, you have undoubtably met plenty of atheists who never informed you of their atheism and therefore can hardy be deemed to have preached or shouted in your ear. Outside of this forum most atheists here are just *people*.

So what you really have a beef with is a vocal atheist who criticises religion, or an atheist group. That's fine (for you). But it doesn't make atheism a religion, or all atheists militants.

And you storming in here making those declarations only gets people's goat up.

I agree. Good post.

Sarky

Another happy ending! \o/

MisterEpicurus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

My point is, not believing in god / believing in god are very similar in the sense that there is no evidence to back either claim up. Therefore, either could one day be proven as the truth.

That's such a silly thing to say. The balance of probabilities will always shift one way or the other, you make it sound 50:50 there. If someone makes a claim, then unless they can provide evidence for that claim, then its safe to assume there is no reason to believe claim X. In other words, I can never provide 'evidence' against a claim which itself has no evidence. Make sense?

What I can do is argue why all the current hypothesis are insufficient and provide better explanations on how things work. But that isn't 'evidence'. So to say both sides have no evidence is inherently false.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Also before you reply again, perhaps read over the thread, I have conceded already that Atheism is not a religion. I am currently debating weather there are similarities between religion and atheism. I note that not one person has responded to that particular question and all replys have in fact been blatant subject changes.

Well, I don't know why you're debating this because there are obviously some similarities. But you're asking what seems to be a loaded question. That question you pose is no different from asking 'I am currently debating whether there are similarities between religion & "Group X,Y,Z" (Veganism, Pacifists etc.). That question would be fairer but still a useless and pointless question. The answers would be something along the lines of:
- Both composed of people with a common idea
- Both try to argue for their positions and both defend them
etc.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh and no I am not an Atheist (which I technically am). Just as much as you don't want to have attributes akin to religious organizations (which you do). Perhaps its time for people who have no beliefs in a god to be just that, a person who has no beliefs.

I am not a human (which I technically am). <-- Strike you as silly?
You're simply rejecting the term and not the meaning of the term. No point being in denial. You fit the definition of the word and whether you want it or not, that's what people will define you as.

Also you've said numerous times that atheism was essentially a 'belief system'. Now you want us to accept your definition as "a person who has no beliefs". I wish you'd make up your mind.

Kivaro

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

.........................

I am not a human (which I technically am). <-- Strike you as silly?
You're simply rejecting the term and not the meaning of the term. No point being in denial. You fit the definition of the word and whether you want it or not, that's what people will define you as.

Also you've said numerous times that atheism was essentially a 'belief system'. Now you want us to accept your definition as "a person who has no beliefs". I wish you'd make up your mind.

There you go being all rational and destroying "another happy ending".

Sounds like something I'd say to the masseuse.

MisterEpicurus

Kivaro wrote: »

There you go being all rational and destroying "another happy ending".

Sounds like something I'd say to the masseuse.

Sorry, just had to be done!

I appear to have a reflex reaction when I read something stupid. And the OP provided mass abundance of that, and then finally...hit the Reply button.

I can't say it won't happen again :cool:

Kidchameleon

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Sorry, just had to be done!

I appear to have a reflex reaction when I read something stupid. And the OP provided mass abundance of that, and then finally...hit the Reply button.

I can't say it won't happen again :cool:

Ah now don't have a go at the OP as well!!!!

endacl

Bugger. This wipes out all my arguements...

https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

:mad:

Galvasean

endacl wrote: »

Bugger. This wipes out all my arguements...

https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

:mad:

That is a friggn' awesome page!

DuPLeX

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

ShooterSF

DuPLeX wrote: »

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

Atheism doesn't require you to be active about it. Simply not believing any gods exist is enough. There are active Atheists out there but many have good reason for it whether it be just another side to supernatural claims that they feel the need to debunk (mostly talking faith healers here) or because some religion or other enjoys preferential treatment or even to let some people who know no better through tight indoctrination that there are others out there of do not believe and it's ok not to. It doesn't mean every Atheist should have a similar passion for these fights.

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

I find it impossible to care about something I don't believe exists - and atheism is just a convenient label meaning I don't believe god exists. Simples.

MagicMarker

DuPLeX wrote: »

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

And yet here you are...

A Primal Nut

A dictionary is always handy. From the oxford dictionary with my comments in red.

Religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: - not atheism
ideas about the relationship between science and religion - not atheism
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship: - no worship in atheism
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion - Could include atheism, but in this context football or flyfishing is also called a religion

Origin:
Middle English (originally in the sense 'life under monastic vows'): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) 'obligation, bond, reverence', perhaps based on Latin religare 'to bind' - Atheism does not involve obligation, bond or reverence, as required by the original origin of the word.

DuPLeX

MagicMarker wrote: »

And yet here you are...

Yes, well .,.what I do find fascinating is people who do think either of them matters

DuPLeX

A Primal Nut wrote: »

A dictionary is always handy. From the oxford dictionary with my comments in red.

Religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: - not atheism
ideas about the relationship between science and religion - not atheism
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship: - no worship in atheism
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion - Could include atheism, but in this context football or flyfishing is also called a religion

Origin:
Middle English (originally in the sense 'life under monastic vows'): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) 'obligation, bond, reverence', perhaps based on Latin religare 'to bind' - Atheism does not involve obligation, bond or reverence, as required by the original origin of the word.

A dictionary is simply a book..... Just like the Bible is

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

A Dictionary is simply a book..... Just like the Bible is

One is a work of fiction and the other isn't. Guess which is which...

DuPLeX

ShooterSF wrote: »

Atheism doesn't require you to be active about it. Simply not believing any gods exist is enough. There are active Atheists out there but many have good reason for it whether it be just another side to supernatural claims that they feel the need to debunk (mostly talking faith healers here) or because some religion or other enjoys preferential treatment or even to let some people who know no better through tight indoctrination that there are others out there of do not believe and it's ok not to. It doesn't mean every Atheist should have a similar passion for these fights.

I didn't say I did not believe that a God exists and I did not say that I did .

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

DuPLeX wrote: »

A dictionary is simply a book..... Just like the Bible is

don't care much about God, eh? :P

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

don't care much about God, eh? :P

Did I not just say that ?

Calibos

DuPLeX wrote: »

I don't really care much about either God or Atheism .

Oh look, another one of those Holier Superior than Thou types

Galvasean

Calibos wrote: »

Oh look, another one of those Holier Superior than Thou types

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One is a work of fiction and the other isn't. Guess which is which...

I suppose that depends on which is your religion .... to me they are both books .... If you want totell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice .

DuPLeX

Galvasean wrote: »

Trying to claw back a little superiority are we ? :cool:
or is it that Atheists are superior to Christians but nobody can be superior to Atheists ?

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

I suppose that depends on which is your religion .... to me they are both books .... If you want totell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice .

depends on your religion? what religion do you have to be to agree with the definitions contained within a dictionary?

Galvasean

DuPLeX wrote: »

Trying to claw back a little superiority are we ? :cool:

Nah, just bringing some humour to the table as you seem to have run out of arguments so are trying to look as neutral as possible.

It's not working.

Dades

DuPLeX wrote: »

I didn't say I did not believe that a God exists and I did not say that I did .

Would you like a little help deciding?

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

depends on your religion? what religion do you have to be to agree with the definitions contained within a dictionary?

I'm thinking of starting a new religion. Our holy book shall be the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the eating of ice cream made with vanilla essence shall be an abomination.

Galvasean

DuPLeX wrote: »

or is it that Atheists are superior to Christians but nobody can be superior to Atheists ?

Ah, I see your ninja edit.
I don't see why you bothered considering all it shows is that you didn't get the joke. Bravo.

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

depends on your religion? what religion do you have to be to agree with the definitions contained within a dictionary?

My Point is ........... A Book is a Book .every book is just someone else's Ideas in print .. You Choose how you process that

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

I suppose that depends on which is your religion .... to me they are both books .... If you want totell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice .

Why the hell are we wasting our time with someone who can't seem to tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?

I believe in the existence of the Gruffalo - I read about him in a book so he must exist.:rolleyes:

DuPLeX

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah, I see your ninja edit.
I don't see why you bothered considering all it shows is that you didn't get the joke. Bravo.

Go on then......... Explain the Joke

Galvasean

DuPLeX wrote: »

My Point is ........... A Book is a Book .every book is just someone else's Ideas in print .. You Choose how you process that

Literature wept...

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah, I see your ninja edit.
I don't see why you bothered considering all it shows is that you didn't get the joke. Bravo.

s/he is too superior to have humour!

DuPLeX wrote: »

Go on then......... Explain the Joke

that aaaalways makes the joke funnier

Penn

DuPLeX wrote: »

My Point is ........... A Book is a Book .every book is just someone else's Ideas in print .. You Choose how you process that

I choose to process your post as nonsense.

MagicMarker

DuPLeX wrote: »

My Point is ........... A Book is a Book .every book is just someone else's Ideas in print .. You Choose how you process that

You can choose how you process it but that doesn't mean you choose correctly.

If I read a textbook on algebra and choose to process it in such a way that disagrees with the findings of the book, then I'm more than likely processing it wrong.

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

My Point is ........... A Book is a Book .every book is just someone else's Ideas in print .. You Choose how you process that

but that's not what you originally said. You were suggesting that a person had to be a member of a religious group to accept information contained within a dictionary.

Galvasean

DuPLeX wrote: »

Go on then......... Explain the Joke

Considering your complete contributions to this thread have consisted of little more than missing various points I don't think it would be worth taking the time. XKCD is a very popular web comic with thousands, if not millions of regular readers. Do yourself a favour and read more of their stuff. Worst case scenario; you may end up enjoying yourself.

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why the hell are we wasting our time with someone who can't seem to tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?

I believe in the existence of the Gruffalo - I read about him in a book so he must exist.:rolleyes:

excellent arguments there .. very thoughtfull .. But a lot of people supposedly read Mein campf was it fiction or non fiction ?

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

excellent arguments there .. very thoughtfull .. But a lot of people supposedly read Mein campf was it fiction or non fiction ?

That was a thing called polemic. I would say if that term is unfamiliar you could look it up in a dictionary but ....

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

but that's not what you originally said. You were suggesting that a person had to be a member of a religious group to accept information contained within a dictionary.

No it is not what I said .
But if you feel the need to use a Dictionary as a book of choice to back up your religious belief system (I did not mention Group) then you have got a religious belief system based in some part on a book which (as I explained ) is simply someone else's Ideas ....

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That was a thing called polemic. I would say if that term is unfamiliar you could look it up in a dictionary but ....

:rolleyes:

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

No it is not what I said .
But if you feel the need to use a Dictionary as a book of choice to back up your religious belief system (I did not mention Group) then you have got a religious belief system based in some part on a book which (as I explained ) is simply someone else's Ideas ....

Let's review the exchange that I'm referring to...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One is a work of fiction and the other isn't. Guess which is which...

DuPLeX wrote: »

I suppose that depends on which is your religion .... to me they are both books .... If you want totell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice .

want to try again?

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

Let's review the exchange that I'm referring to...





want to try again?

Ok then ..............I said
"I suppose that depends on which is your religion ...." Now If you believe that the Bible is fact then you are most likely a Christian If you Believe that it is fiction then you are probably a believer some other religion (probably Atheism ,given the context) I said
"to me they are both books .... If you want to tell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice." My intention was to compare any books you might choose to "believe" in or not , but my other explanation regarding your use of the Dictionary still stands

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

Ok then ..............I said
"I suppose that depends on which is your religion ...." Now If you believe that the Bible is fact then you are most likely a Christian If you Believe that it is fiction then you are probably a believer some other religion (probably Atheism ,given the context) I said
"to me they are both books .... If you want to tell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice." My intention was to compare any books you might choose to "believe" in or not , but my other explanation regarding your use of the Dictionary still stands

Atheism is not a religion.

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

Ok then ..............I said
"I suppose that depends on which is your religion ...." Now If you believe that the Bible is fact then you are most likely a Christian If you Believe that it is fiction then you are probably a believer some other religion (probably Atheism ,given the context) I said
"to me they are both books .... If you want to tell me that you don't believe what is written in one Book but do believe what is written in another book that is your choice." My intention was to compare any books you might choose to "believe" in or not , but my other explanation regarding your use of the Dictionary still stands

Thanks, that clears up what you meant with the original response.

As to your comment regarding the dictionary, are you honestly saying that if someone points out a defintion of a phrase, they have a religious belief system party based on the dictionary?

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Atheism is not a religion.

Oh sorry I thought it was .. It is the title of this thread . so it must be .

surely ?.


No ?