If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 166

I hate it when people try to claim that atheism is a religion of its own.  That's like saying you've made a hobby of not collecting stamps.

I'm not an atheist btw.

Yes, that is annoying. It's also annoying when atheists are described -- or describe themselves -- as heathens; that does a disservice to both groups.

Possessed said:

I hate it when people try to claim that atheism is a religion of its own.  That's like saying you've made a hobby of not collecting stamps.

I'm not an atheist btw.

 keep in mind to religious people, a religion is much, much, much more than a hobby.  

And why isn't a religion?  Or are you saying it is clear 100% proven inarguable fact that there is no God?    AT the very least Atheism is a belief in regards to religion. 

btw, I looks up the definition of religion:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

I'm not an atheist btw.

Or are you saying it is clear 100% proven inarguable fact that there is no God?   

 I'm obviously not saying that. And of course religion is more than a hobby, and that affects the comparison I made absolutely none.

I don't have the energy to debate with you right now.

I think it is important to note that both views are too generalized.  Atheism literally means "without a god".  Many branches of buddhism are atheistic, in that there is no god or divine creator, just the advancement of creation to Nirvana and a state of being Buddha.  Many who do not believe in any god believe very devotedly in aliens, fortune telling, etc.  Even non-religious folks still find spiritual connection through nature.  Many people may act ritualistic in settings that are not traditionally considered religious, such as in fraternal organizations, concerts, political gatherings and dogma, etc.  My point is that atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.  There are many subsets, and in reality many of those subsets contain elements which could be construed as religious in a sense.

Exactly. Some atheists seem to think of atheism as a religion. Look at Richard Dawkins, who is a militant atheist and is the head of an organization that advertises on buses against religion, just like many evangelical groups do.

That doesn't make atheism universally a religion, it just means that some atheists make their own brand of atheism into one.

Possessed said:

I don't have the energy to debate with you right now.

 No problem.  Sometimes I don't have the energy to debate with people.  Just remember when you decide you are b*tch about something having to do with religion, you have to know chances are, you are going to opening a can of worms.

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

btw, I looks up the definition of religion:

1

a :  the state of a religious religion>

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

4

:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

I believe number 4 fits Atheism and possibly number 2 as well.

 You've got it all backwards, Warb. Atheism is exactly the lack of "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", thus making it obviously NOT a religion. That's the whole point.

 Really,  so to atheists, atheism isn't a cause or principle or system of belief held to with ardor and faith?   I think you underestimate how strongly atheist feel about atheism.

Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

 Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.

I'd say it was the religion of no religion.

Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography?

I would argue that a religion doesn't need that stuff.

Where is the anything that would define something as a religion?

as I said before it is a cause/principle/ system of belief, held to with  ardor an faith. 

I think any atheist will agree he/she holds their belief that there is no God with ardor.  Since they can not 100% prove without a doubt that there is no God, it must therefore take at at least a little bit of faith to believe it so strongly.

DominicCobb said:

Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.

They have faith that there is no God.  

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.

They have faith that there is no God.  

 I would say in most cases, (though admittedly not all) it's more like they have no faith that there is a God, which is a bigger difference than the similar wording would suggest.

AntcuFaalb said:

FWIW: I'm still waiting for religious folk to propose a solution to the Omnipotence Paradox.

Can God create a stone He cannot lift?

I've read an explanation that goes something like this:

"God can do anything that's possible*. God cannot pit His omnipotence against itself, as that is utterly impossible, so He cannot create a stone He cannot lift".

*"Possible" as in "possible to God",  not what is possible to us humans.

AntcuFaalb said:

FWIW: I'm still waiting for religious folk to propose a solution to the Omnipotence Paradox.

Can God create a stone He cannot lift?

 Why must there be a solution? It's a logical impossibility. God couldn't do that any more than he could make a square circle. It doesn't make him less omnipotent.

EDIT: I suppose that itself could be considered a solution.

I'd like to Botch about all these posts here that should go in the Atheism thread.

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

 Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.

Look, I am saying it is neither.  It is like saying being human means you are American.  There are humans who are Americans, humans who are not Americans, but defining the whole as Americans is foolish.  The same applies to my argument.  But perhaps I better rephrase.  Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.

Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography? Where is the anything that would define something as a religion?

Are these requisite for religion?

Warbler said:

btw, I looks up the definition of religion:

1

a :  the state of a religious religion>

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

4

:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 Hmmmm...nope, those are not required traits you mentioned.

Arguing that it's even vaguely similar is a bit silly.

 But there is in fact similarity in many areas.  Take for instance the extremely dogmatic view that so many atheists adopt, including you.  To be an atheist, you must not believe in any divine being, or anything supernatural, or practice any rituals, or have any clergy.  You must accept that humans descended from primates.  You must accept that there is no afterlife.  You must accept that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the universe is 14 billion years old.  Some might even adopt the view that all religious persons are ignorant, whether willfully or not.

Do not such strict demands on the definition of atheism not sound something like a creed?

We can find other parallels.  You ask about priests.  There are no atheist priests, but what is a priest beyond being a religious authority.  Are there not authorities in the atheist world?  The Dawkinses of the world could be considered as having an analogous role.  How about rituals?  We humans thrive on rituals and symbols, even atheists.  How many atheists celebrate Christmas, Easter, and other holidays rooted in Christianity and paganism?  How many find self affirmation through other common rituals, celebrating humanity, nature, birth, etc.?  How many even turn to religion-bashing for self-affirmation, putting up posters every Christmas season why we do not need Christ to celebrate Christmas?  Here is an article worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/why-non-believers-need-rituals-atheists

What else did you say?  Let's see, creation myths!  May I ask you, if you met an atheist who did not believe mankind evolved from apes but instead was planted as a scientific experiment by aliens, would you say he is not an atheist?  And as you answer, consider that his atheism is not on trial in this scenario, but rather yours, as you may in fact be subscribing to a dogmatic creation story  And while it may be very scientifically based with much supporting evidence, is it not still just as firmly entrenched in your mind as the only acceptable belief for one to be considered a "true" atheist?

Now let me draw some more comparisons.  I had a patient very recently who did not believe in any god.  She did not worship anything, practice any rituals, believe in an afterlife, or follow any clergy.  And yet, when I asked the question, "Are there any religious or spiritual requests you have while you are in the hospital?"  She said, "I'm not religious, but I I am spiritual: I believe in nature.  I love to hike and be among the trees."

Is she atheist?  Yes, in fact she is.  She does not believe nature had any supernatural properties, but found spiritual fulfillment by being with nature.  Now she is not religious per se, but she is spiritual.  And she is an atheist.

Can we take it a step further?  Could she and a group of others in fact develop a system of beliefs and holidays and even rituals surrounding their adoration of the natural world whilst remaining "without god" or anything else supernatural?  Clearly she can.

Now let me refer you to the following article, and I encourage you to read it.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/AtheismReligion.htm

The article says:

Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, but atheism is quite compatible with religion.

....

To understand why, it is necessary to keep in mind that atheism is nothing more than absence belief in the existence of gods. Atheism is not the absence of religion, the absence of belief in the supernatural, the absence of superstitions, the absence of irrational beliefs, etc. Because of this, there is no inherent barrier preventing atheism from being part of a religious belief system

When I attended the University of Arizona, I recall an article written by a fellow named Taylor Kessinger.  I've not been successful in finding it thus far (I referred to it once before), but his condemnation of "superstitious" atheists led to a surprising backlash.  Yes, my friend, religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and the more you try to pin your narrow definition onto what you feel atheism should be, the more you prove my point by adopting and advocating for such a strict, almost doctrinal position.

[JEDIT: Found the article.  I guess they must have been reworking their archives last time I looked.

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists

The many replies he got were in the physical newspaper and are not online, unfortunately.]

In fact many religious persons and religions are atheistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion

My point to all this is not to say atheism is another religion.  I am not of that crowd that says it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God, etc., etc.  I am saying that there are parallels, aspects that could be considered spiritual or religious in nature, and religions that are in fact atheistic.  So again I say:

darth_endersaid:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

Along with this I add my clarification from earlier in this lost:

Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'll stick with labeling myself as a Strong Agnostic. It makes a much stronger claim than Atheism does and it requires no leaps of faith.

To save ya'll the Google trip:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

 So this thread is not for you then:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Weak-Atheist-Thread/topic/14351/

:(

You're generalizing. I personally always thought atheism was the absence of religion. Atheism is not a group. Just because many of them share ideas does not make them a religion, in my opinion. Atheism is a descriptor, not an affiliation. Surely theism is not "a religion" either.