Atheism is a religion

Says our local expert on atheism, front runner in the crusade against the vast atheist agenda to destroy our way of life and apple pie.

 

So what do you call these things then?

http://www.atheists.org/

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

http://www.csicop.org/

and so on ....

Do they raise funds? Check. Do they have founding principles? Check. Do they have management and employees or volunteers? Check. Are they mostly tax free (like religion)? Check. Is their ideology centered and focused around God? Check.

Now why is it that all other groups that meet that criteria are called organizations, but not atheism?

Atheism is right there, easily observable, but there seems to be a trend in atheism (as I pointed out) that applies one standard to atheism, and another to atheism.

When supposedly rational atheists find themselves reluctant to even acknowledge the obviousness of the organization of atheism .... that is a problem for atheists.

Well, then what is it? Its not philosophy. Philosophy are idea written in books, and atheists don't have books do they? (Just the belief in no God I keep being told). It isn't a social movement, the protection of secularism draws people in from all over the faith spectrum. Its atheism. It is centered around God - a conclusion about God for which there is absolutely ZERO evidence - and that makes it a religion.


Here is the interesting part. There are several steps here.

Well, the error here is that I am not redefining religious organization to be religious.

I am defining organizations that are primarily concerened with God and/or religious activity to be religious. There is no redefinition and certainly no randomness.

It is a set of standards appied equally across the board. The only real problem is that I will not bend the standards to accomodate atheism's desire to not be a religion .... just because.

So atheism is a metaphysical statement? One that requires fnd raising, book keeping, management, employment, advertising, education, etc.?

It is an organization centered around the non-belief in God. Its no different than a church - a decentralized church organization. It is, in fact, the same thing as Suna Islam or many Protestant churches.

I do not believe there is a single question you asked that I have not answered. If there is, spell it out and I will answer.

 

Notice the inherent double standards of atheism at play?

All about pointing out faults in others, while ignoring the faults in yourself.

That would be called the fallacy of special pleading.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

So, now that we have dealth with the allusion to the Crusades, lets move on to the figuring out how classifying, accurately mind you, atheism as a religion means someone is intent on destroying the lot of athiesm?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html

Another fallacy? Go figure.



Can I get ANOTHER super victim cape for our young hero?

 

You're so funny.... Actually, simply reflecting comments which fit yourself better gets boring after the umpteenth time.

 

As do you abusive one liners that never contribute to a discussion.

 

Strict Atheism is as scientifically unsound as strict theism. Though I still maintain my position that the burden of proof rests with the party of the affirmative.

 

You mean that ne that affirms that there is positively absolutey no God?

That there is positively absolutely no evidence for God?

These things do indeed have a burden of proof.

Good, about time an atheist adopted something logical.

 

These examples are organisations not because they raise funds or have founding principles, they are an organisation because they are organised. These are small groups within atheism and do not define atheism, they only define American atheism, atheist alliance and the committee of sceptical enquiry respectively.

I have given you the example of the WBC before.

Atheism is one concept, Christianity another.

American atheists is a subgroup to atheism. WBC is a subgroup to Christianity.

When you discuss atheism, you bring up beliefs and statements from AA. By the same logic, I could use WBC's arguments as if they were Christianity's and that wouldn't be fair, would it?

There are atheistic organisations, such as the ones above, but not all, far from all atheists adhere to them. Would you say that an atheist who does reject the organisation you are talking about is still in those organisations? Then is he suddenly not an atheist? Or is it possible to start anything called an organisation and suddenly influence the concepts they formed around?

Surely, you're not seriously suggesting that philosophy is defined to be in books?

Why wouldn't it be a social movement? The protection of secularism is not atheistic.

And the last line, do you say that religion is defined to be a conclusion not based on evidence?

You're going to have to explain that.

Well, you do. As I have repeatedly stated, no unified definition of religion exists, and different definitions end up with different answers to the question.

You can define atheism to be a religious organisation if you wish (you might not in real life, I'm just not sure what the definition is) and if you do, then religious organisation and religion is not necessarily equivalent and the line from atheism to religion is broken.

But are you willing to bend the standard that ambiguously defined concepts can not be said to be either or?

Again, Atheism does not require these things, only specific organisations do and those organisations are not equivalent to all of atheism.

I was an atheist for a few year. I did not require fund raising, book keeping, management, employment, advertising or education (well, education, but it was not atheistic in any way). How does atheism require these thing when really, it's only the subgroups that do?

They are different in some ways, for instance the belief in a god, which to some define religion and therefore put them on different sides of the definition fence.

 

How is that different than any religion with multiple denominations? It isn't.

Again, you want to apply a standard to atheism and another to religion. If you say, this is a standard for definining something - then you apply it to both and see if it fits.

Whatever definition you use, atheism is going match religion.

Yeah, it is. They are ideas that are collected and expressed in a academic format. Atheism has a wing of philosophy as does religion.

How is atheism a branch of this but not religion?

Once again - we see the need for equal standards.

Why, is religion NOT a social movement?

The evidence for God is inconclusive. Everyone who has honestly looked knows this. We religous people us something called faith, and the weighing of things not sceintific - but nevertheless important - to make the final decision.

So do atheists. Atheism is about faith. Faith in no God. Faith that by dint of your decision you are better than everyone else.

Sound like a religion when we acknowledge the faith aspect of atheism yet?

Agh, yeah, its in the dictionary.

No matter what standard you apply, you must apply it equally. When you do, you discover that atheism shares the same qualities as any other religion on earth. Period.

It really is that different.

Atheists who prattle on about how atheism is not a religion or that is it different than religion are really saying that they disagree with all other religions in a very fundamentalist religious way.

If the context changes, sure.

There is no context shift with atheism - it is an idea centered around God.

Atheism IS an organziation. Hate it for you, but when one whacky atheist after another makes the exact same arguement, that is the resut of, well, in this often miseducation. And miseducation, indoctrination? Yep, that requires organization.

So, you abandoned money did you?

Or did you realize that many people who believe in God are not church goers?

Did you notice that when you explored atheism there were published works and sites that you could go to in order to further explore atheism?

No doubt, like every other bear meat eating atheist, you were actually in a cave sharping flint spears to hunt down sparrows in the park in celebration of your indepednace and logical ability to conclude - entirely on your own - that there was no God?

Really?

Atheist have a faith based conclusion regarding God. Are Hindu's not a religion because they are polytheistic? Are Buddhists not a religion because they do not believe in God either?

Again, if the only reason atheist don't want atheism to be a religion is because they do not want to be a religion .... well, who cares? Atheism is still a religion then.

 

I am an atheist and I have no religion, no dogmatic set of beliefs. I have ONE believe that makes me an atheist and one only, that no god or gods exist. Other than that, my beliefs as a set are unique to me and based on my life experiences and my thought patterns, not on some set of rules, or laws or morals that someone else has written somewhere. So, I am NOT a member of any religion and my atheism is NOT a part of some huge atheistic conspiracy like you seem to think exists. I personally have never visited any of the sites you posted, not do I have any desire to. I do NOT need someone to tell me what I believe, be it preacher, god or some kook that claims to lead atheists.

I have faith, that no gods exist. That faith is based on the fact that in the entirety of mans existence, there has been no evidence shown to even indicate that some god may or may not exist. I do believe that if a god or gods existed, that tens of thousands of years of existence would have led to some indication that they existed. The only reason we have for any god, is the ignorant, superstitious imaginary beliefs, of ignorant, savage, fearful and primitive human beings. I will stick to facts and leave the superstitious beliefs of savages to those who claim a religion.

 

Yep, Rock Church. there are a lot of them here in Virgina, and they have huge numbers of followers. I have never been to one and am not sure if the name refers to its music, or is some reference to Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:1.

Just for you I did a quick internet search, http://www.rockchurchinternational.com/

 

Hmmm..... you are citing a John Lennon piece, a piece against religion and statistism, and combining it with Stalin? How clueless are you? I would suggest listening to the work of art known as "Imagine". There are multiple versions, I prefer the version by our Lord and Savior, Maynard.

As for the rest of your rant, I might actually consider it. However you are equating atheism with religion in the same way a person could equate not collecting stamps as a hobby.

I am glad its only the theists who believe what you say.

 

This is true, however you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who claims that there is certainly no god in the same way that a theist claims that there certainly is a god.

Not even the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, say there is absolutely no god.

 

What magical planet are you on?

What magical planet of delusion are you on where you think no one but you has ever heard John Lennon's 'imagine'?

And if you had listened to it you might have heard this:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

What he advocates is communism. Hence, Stalin - a communist (which is not part of Lennon's song for some reason? Odd.) Too bad your imaginary planet does not have enough education to teach you how to properly link images.

Oh, now you are telling me how I think and not offering a rebuttal to boot! Let's see, which fallacy is this?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Why I believe this is the infamous strawman!

How about you make a case, rather than just state your opinon (which would just be an appeal to authority remember) about why atheism is not a religion. Feel free to actually rebut anything anyone is actually saying about the subject.

And educated people. Objective people. People who think equality in treatment and judgement is important.

 

Really?

Does Dawkins not write a book called the God Delusion?

"Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[21]

THat seems pretty damb certain to me.

A lot like most theists who acknoweldge that the evidence for God is inconcusive, but requires faith .... sounds a LOT like a theists in reverse does it not?

Have you actually read any of those atheist works? Because you continue to claim things that are sharply at odds with the reality of presented material.

Are YOU even open to the idea of there being a God?

Or, like atheists everywhere, do you simply state whatever pops into mind to belittle religious people.

 

Oh, you faith based on fact that there is no evidence of God.

So, how do you explain Jesus? Mohammed? How do you explain things like miracles? Callings? Answered prayers?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

How do you explain the fact that folowing the principles laid out in the Bible almost invariably leads to better things?

How do you explain the survival of Jewish people through incredible hardship, while the empires that persecute them hanve crumbled and turned to dust?

No evidence or inconclusive evidence - because if you base your life on the denial of evidence or suggestive evidence, well, then you base your life on an ostrich.

 

Do you believe in Allah, Kali, Thor, Ra, El, and all of the thousands of gods alleged to exist?

 

No. As I said, the burden of proof rests with the party of the affirmative. I believe it is intellectually imprudent to believe in something without evidence. I believe it is less imprudent to disbelievewith no evidence and to take the position (as I do), "I'll believe it when I see it." IOW, it is reasonable to disbelieve in the face of zero evidence. There is greater evidence, for example, to corroborate the existence of UFOs than there is of gods or a god named God. Should I believe in UFOs? By your standard, it seems I should. I believe people have seen lights in the sky. I believe they are "unidentified." Ergo, I guess you could say I believe in UFOs, at least in a de facto sense. Do they contain little green men? Not that we know of. Does "God" exist. Not that we know of.

That said, to be logically and intellectually consistent, I have to part company with atheists who say "there is no god." The fact is, like UFOs, we simply DON'T KNOW. I remain skeptical, however, on both counts, BTW. YMMV. Frankly, I don't pay it much mind, and if you religious zealots could see your way clear to keeping your religion out of my life, I'd say there'd be no need to even have a discussion such as this. But as you and your cronies insist on forcing the good word down my throat, I will continue to rail against your fairy tales.

I have not seen any. If you have some, I'd be very interested in taking a look.

For (*)(*)(*)(*) sake man, please stop trying to pigeonehole me as an atheist. And this is the same argument I've been making for the several months during which you and I have engaged this topic.

 

How do you explain famines that kill millions and leave the survivors wishing they were among the dead? How do explain babies taken by cancer? How do you explain the Hitlers? The Pol Pots? The Idi Amins? The Saddam Husseins? How do you explain earthquakes that cause nuclear disasters? How do you explain tornadoes in Alabama that kill young adults days before they graduate from college? The pendulum swings both ways, my friend.

 

Good lord. Is nothing sacred? Pun intended.

 

I agree. No large concept, Christianity or Atheism, should be judged by the views/statements/otherwise of their specific subgroups, WBC or American Atheists.

That's the standard I'm applying.

Really? Let's do the most basic form of research on that. Google:

Google definition: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods.

So, it's not philosophy until you write it down? Socrates did not write anything down, was he not a philosopher then? Can blind people do philosophy? What with not reading books? Is audiobooks ok?

You were the one making the distinction that philosophy requires books. I was just happy with book-less philosophy, leaving both atheism and theism on the same plane.

Sure, it can be. But that doesn't mean that other things that fit into the category of social movements suddenly turn up in religious categories.

Not really. Many organisations/social movements/world views/otherwise that are not religions have faith in certain things. Capitalism believes that one certain economic model is the best for society, liberalism another and socialism a third, lots of science includes beliefs, I believe I have mayo in the fridge. Belief is not enough to create a religion (depending, of course, on the definition of religion).

Let's see.
re·li·gion (r-ljn)

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
<cut>
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power, by definition 1a, atheism is not a religion.
Atheists is a principle pursued with conscious devotion, by definition 4, atheism is a religion.

When a concept has more than one definition, one can't say that one is wrong and the other is not (unless you are in a context in which it is better defined, which is why I've been asking why we discuss the question).

Sure, do that. That does however not mean that you can slide over definitions.

Lets say

Religion has a certain set of qualities or problems or whatnot. Lets say atheism has the same set of qualities or problems (and that the irrelevant qualities are left out of the discussion). You say that your logic states that this makes atheism into a religion.

Lets now do the same thing to "monotheism".
Monotheism has a certain set of qualities or problems or whatnot. Lets say atheism has the same set of qualities or problems. Your logic would state that this makes atheism into a monotheism.

I agree that standards should be applied equally, but standards are not applied based on whether they are religions or not, I apply those standards to atheism regardless of whether I see atheism as a religion.

Yes and I believe that is wrong too, on the same basis. While there is definitions that say atheism is not a religion, there is also definitions that say that it is a religion so their statement is equally false.

Unless, of course, we figure out whether the standard we want to apply is exclusive to religions or would apply to atheism even if it wasn't a religion. Which is why I want to know why we discuss it; what standard we are trying to apply, what argument we are trying to strengthen.

Does it now? So if I would teach a child of mine that the sun sets in the east, I would become an organisation?

You said (implied) that atheism required those things, fund raising, book keeping, management, employment, advertising and education. As an atheism without ties to any organisation, I did not require a lot of those things. Only the subgroups do. Exactly how you got sparrow hunting and flint sharpening is beyond me but I believe I made the point.

Hinduism falls into the same categories as Christianity in the cases above that discuss the definition of religion (you might have to interchange "a god" for "gods"). Buddhism is one of the major reasons why the definitions of religion are so strange and complicated but they will fall under the same problem as atheism, it depends on what definition you are using.

Well, this isn't a one sided debate, the question is just as much aimed at atheists as theists. Even when I was an atheist I didn't mind calling it a religion because I knew that if it made a difference if it fit into a specific word, then the question must be shaped to not really be important in the first place.

 

Freewill. We've been over this haven't we.

 

Even that bvolded part requires you to lay out the investigative process for examination.

Because, as many atheists will no doubt be forced to admit when their 'investigation' istested, if your investigation consists of checking your sock drawer to eliminate the possibility of UFO and littel green men .... it isn;t really, not that we know of is it?

Once again, simply adopting the mantel of logic is not the same actually producing it.

Additionally, "not that we know if" would be agnosticism. Atheism is a positive cliam that there is no God. That the preponderance of teh evidence point to negative rather than, "Not that we know of."

You still have a burden to support your positions with something other than the claim that your position is supported. Because if that is all you got, then you ain't got crap.

And we still have this:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

And that is JUST the start. And the atheists? Nothing.

Agh yes, the super victim cape comes out. If only those pesky religious people would keep their views out of your life. So, what, super victim, is being thrust upon you?

Having to listen to the word God? OH THE AGONY!

Being drug into a debate about reigion of your own freewill? STOP ITS TOO MUCH!

BEing employable and educated? ERRR, HOW DO YOU STAND IT!

What exactly are you railing against?

Again, a failure to investigate is not the same as their being no evidence.

Try that:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

What a fairy tale.

You don;t believe in God, you insist on telling me that my beliefs are a fairy tale and you demand the respect of NOT being called an atheist?

You're an atheist. Be proud of it.

 

Lol is what comes to mind. Communism is stateless Democratic society. A totalitarian state is not. Educate yourself on communism.

As for the strawman, those your words. Atheism is a religion. Sorta of like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

That is a pretty revealing quote. You see, most dictionaries provide definitions that fit and attempt to be accurate in description. You deliberatey left of #2 and #3 and even #1b.

Lets see why:

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. 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.

What you asked is whether of not atheism is A religion, not whether or not atheism is ALL religions.

No one says atheism is ALL religions. What we say are that it mimics religion in so many ways that it is A religion.

What do you think of all the atheists quoting Einstein and Jefferson? Dawkins and Hitchens? Does that strike you as a spiritual leader? (It certainly isn't an intellectual leader for the later two). And what about those who define themselves by creating atheist organization to spread the ...er, no word? Sound like a spiritual order based on those ideas? Are you telling me that atheists do not pursue their objectives with great zeal?

So basically, because you don;t think there is a God, atheism cannot be a religion? That is pretty much teh ONLY reason you think it is not a religion Literally, if we change the first bullet to this:

Belief in and reverence that a supernatural power or powers is not regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

THat is a pretty small change, wouldn't you agree?

And every other part of the definition of religion follows almost exactly from that statement.

Atheism is a religion.