Atheism is a religion

Educate yourself on history - or anything else for that matter. You do realize after all the the communists attempted to impliment the ideal of Marx, but found an unwilling populace bereft of the desire to embrace it. Enter the Revolution and the need to create the conditions that would allow this perfect ideal to flourish.

That is not how it worked out though it? People remained transfixed and pre-occupied with power rather than the Marxist ideal, and the entire system collapsed because it is was economically unfeasible. Why work when the lazy get the benefit of your labor - kaput.

But heh, when your mistaken knoweldge of it flows from a John Lennon song that you think ONLY you know about, no one is surprised by the lack of knoweldge .... displayed once again.

People keep telling me that atheists are very well educated people, I am seriously beginning to think the opposite.

 

I my opinion, we would not be worse of with a hypothetical, "Better Religions Bureau". It could it pronounce usual and customary, a doctrine of full faith and credit of religious acts analogous to that enjoyed by the several State of the Union for public acts. One example could be a Standard of forms of holiness and morality, applicable to Religion.

 

Statism =/= communism, I just reduced your post to a single statement. Educate yourself.

 

Well you cut out 95% of my post, so I guess that doesn't count for much.

My statement is that there are at least two conflicting ones. 1a and 4 conflicts, that everything I needed.

1b is related to 1a and does not give any additional information, it deals with a different use of the word rather than a different meaning.

2 is circular, religious order bases itself on the word religious, which then bases itself on the word religion.

And 3 uses the word Spiritual leader which I have no intention to getting into since I already had the definitions to prove my point.

No, I still asked why we discuss it, not whether it is or not.

Anyway, definitions do not work that way, if there are conflicting definitions, that does not mean that everything applies in all cases, it means that you can't go either way and that you to specify your definition in each case.

So why not say that it mimics religions in such and such ways and actually get into that instead of discussing semantics?

I'd say spiritual leaders implies spiritualism but regardless how you define that, my point is made without definition three.

Also, I did say that atheists pursue their objectives with great zeal (well, I used the word conscientious devotion because I don't want to get into an additional definition debate). You seem to think that I do not think that atheism is a religion. All I have stated is that it all depends on your definition of religion, which means that when discussing anything on the basis of atheism being a religion, you'll have to properly define what you mean by that to the extent that naming it a religion is redundant.

Again, I don't.

Yup, that's a small change. However, no matter how small the change, when you change your definitions about, you're on thin ice. I bet I can make smaller changes to other definitions and make them not apply at all.

hat/hat/Noun
1. A shaped covering for the head.

Let's make one of those small changes.

hat/hat/Noun
1. A shaped covering for the bed.

Doesn't apply any more, does it?

Oh, so that's what you've been saying. Why didn't you tell me so </sarc>.

 

Why do you insist on atheism being in the same class as a religion? Does it really matter if it is or is not a "religion"?

 

I feel the same way about over two thousand year old religions that cannot seem to perfect Man by imbuing more perfect morals through religion.

Why work on your morals and character when the "lazy" abominations of hypocrisy get the benefit of your moral labor. We are no longer in the Iron Age, but in an Information Age; why not upgrade our morals for modern times?

 

That would be because 95% of your analysis is based on a faulty assumption.

#4 does not conflict at all with the reality of atheism does it?

"4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Are you seriously trying to tell me that atheists are not zealous, even straight up zealots, about atheism?

Again the ONLY part of that definition that atheism does not meet is the one that defines religion as a concept centered on God. There are other full blown relgions, like Buddhism - which atheists regularly attempt to pull into the fold, that do not meet that criteria and yet are still considered a religion.

So, when you meet 99.9% of the checklist for religion, and teh only disagreement is that you don;t believe in God - and preach that zealously, why are you not a religion?

And I believe I answered by referring you back to the atheists who continuously assure us that atheism is not a religion. In responding that it is, you got your panties in a bunch.

So, you tell me why you have no problem with numerous atheists jumping in and claiming that atheism is not religion, but why you have a problem with Christians claiming it is?

Again, standards should be applied equally, and the problem, as I have long pointed out, is that atheists want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else.

Atheism meets all aspects necessary to be considered a religion. It hits all the organizational processes from tax free status to indoctrinated teachings taught by 'clergy', but for some reason it is not a religion?

THat is an emotional position, one born of defining yourself not by defining yourself but through contrast with someone else's established position. That makes atheism nothing more than a poor rebuttal rather than .... anything else.

We've dealt with that. You cannot just claim a different context as if that magically makes atheism a different context. It is a position relative to God, in the SAME CONTEXT as religion.

Thus, the same standards apply.

Most humans understand that stealing can be a violent home invasion or the proverbial stealing of bread to feed a family and realize there is a contextual manner that will require adjudication in punishment for teh crime.

Such context does not apply to atheism.

It is the same context as a debate about black holes. One side advocates that they are real, and teh other side claims they are not. The side that claims they are not doesn;t get to use a set of different standards and evaluations to reach and support its conclusion. If it does, it is generally rejected as quackary.

Atheism (which is a religion) and religion are in the same context, and they require the same standards of evaluation and judgement. Anything else is just a rationalized excuse for hypocrisy and double standards.

Because organizational functions are not just mimicry are they?

Well, given that Dawkins makes a case about genetics that he cannot support with genetic evidence and Hitchens makes a historical case by deliberately ignoring massive amounts of historical evidence and context - I'd say that is not an intellectual process - one born of spiritualism (a very negtive kind of spiritualism that no one wants to admit, but there it is).

What you ar ereally advocating there is that there is no way to define anything.

Again, when you apply standards equally you see that the standard either makes BOTH atheism and religions - religion, or it becomes so exacting that it excludes massive amounts of things that are definitely religion.

Atheism cannot include and exclude based on double standards. If it does? Well, that is a problem for atheists. It might make YOU comfortable, but everyone else sees it and sees the double standards applied ...

Like atheists screaming about violent religion is, but avoiding outbursts of violence and oppression in atheist circles.

One should not define themselves with double standards. That simple.

Am I? Tell me, if changing belief in God to no God is the only thing that invalidates religion, then explain to me why Buddhism, neo-spiritual movements, secular humanism, Paganism, Animism are all instantly excluded from the religion list. Does that make sense?

Is that a standard upon which you want to base atheisms stance of not being a religion?

Once again, you have repeatedly avoided the point even as you make it.

Whatever standard you come up with must be applied equally to both religion and atheism - because they are in the same context. Either your standard is accurate in describing religion, in which case atheism is invariably pulled in when that standard is applied, or, as we see above, the exclusion standard eliiminates massive amounts of things that we know are religions.

Atheism is the religion that there is no God.

It might make atheists angry, but, its been my experience that many truths make atheists angry. Again, not the fault of or a problem for religion.

 

No, you proved that there is a strong link between a lack of education and arrogance.

Perhaps you have heard of Ho Chi Min? Moa? Kim Il-Sung? Castro? The Sandinistas? FARC? 17 November? Chauchsku? Tito?

Maybe some additional Soviet Leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, Khrushchev?

Perhaps you have heard of the Warsaw Pact? The Cultural Revolution? Maybe you are aware of what is happening in Nepal and India? (Doubt it).

It is only through deliberate ignorance that one can make such grotesquely simplistic statements, like your hero Hitchens BTW (assuming you have actually read him you'll know what I am talking about), but educated people see right through it.

Again, if you atheism is pegged to your sense of intellectual superiority, you may want to tone down the arrogant lectures, because the more you lecture, the more it is clear that you are anything but intellectually superior to anyone.

You may want to challenge your faith before you challenge the faith of others.

 

Please tell me what this assumption is.

You're really not reading what I'm writing, are you?

Here is a quote of me stating the exact opposite of what you say I was saying:

If a jacket meets all criteria for being a hat except not being for the head, why is it not a hat?

If you don't fill the criteria for a word, then the word does not apply. Regardless of how many percent you think it has similar.

I have received an answer, but I believe your statement that "What you asked is whether of not atheism is A religion" is false.

Again, you have not been reading my posts. More quotes from me:

and from the OP:

And again, I support that. I do however not support that that conclusion somehow makes atheism into a religion. I think this is the third time I have said so.

Neither tax free status, ability to indoctrinate people, the use of the word "clergy" or anything similar has anything to do with whether it is a religion or not. Most of them are just references to religion anyway, just as me making a Star Wars reference does not make me fit into the definition of Obi Wan Kenobi.

To me, it sounds like the emotional position is the one claiming to define atheism as a religion based on the wording of certain members of a subgroup of atheism ("clergy").

These are not the contexts I am talking about. For instance, one context is the recent American Supreme court saying that atheism is a religion for purposes of the first amendment. That's one context. Another context is belief in a god, that's another context, and another conclusion. Unless (or before) you specify which conclusion you use (as is the case with just stating "Atheism is a religion" or vice versa), any can be valid.

Why exactly couldn't they be?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=&...gc.r_pw.&fp=28f38f828a2aa9f0&biw=1280&bih=642

Nop, I'm advocating that before you know what you mean by the words you're using, you can't.

The application of standards are not basis for definitions. You are perfectly capable of applying the same standards to things that are not religions.

I have brought that up before, but, as I have mostly stated, that argument is not meant to say "theism is violent". It is to question the statement that religion naturally gives you morals. Humanists (which includes many atheists) states that morals come from humanity or the human-ness of people and that everybody has the same probability of being bad (not including other social situations, perfectly material upbringing or policing).

Sure, there are those who say it just to say "theism is violent" but they have equivalents in theism as well and are not exclusive to atheism.

You simply stated your view in the smallest exact way as you've always been stating it. It added no new information, that's all I wanted to point out.

 

Is there any distinction being made for a lack of belief in God versus a lack of belief in gods? It could be a source of confusion. Both could be considered forms of atheism, simply because both reject the god principle as an active agent in creationism.

 

Why is it that alleged conservatives have a problem with secular forms of communism, if they claim to have faith in divine forms of communism such as a divine commune of Heaven.

The only difference is that secular communists are attempting to establish a (divine commune) of Heaven on Earth.

 

Who are these alleged conservatives?

And given the economic reality, indeed failure, of communism, ones political affiliatin has nothing to do with that FACT. Attempting tp parlay 'secular' communism into something different, is just rationalizing failure.

Sucg antics demonstrate a distinct inability to honestly asses things - as does the fallacious pigeon holing dissent into a political corner that you think should be dismissed.

Par for the course.

 

Most people who don't seem to have enough Faith in their religion or their religious moral values in modern times.

 

Statism =/= communism, I just reduced your post to a single statement. Educate yourself.

 

There is certainly no god!!

 

Babies taken by cancer and famines are an example of freewill?

 

You are free to believe what you wish. Just keep your religion out of my life and out of my laws and we will get along just fine. I didn't ask to be subject to your faith. If you can't do that, then I will fight you at every turn. And get that stupid slogan off my god-(*)(*)(*)(*) money.

 

How is about you and Wolverine member? Are you just prophets of this beleif?

 

Ok. So I'm going to tell you how I interpreted this and go from there. This is not a thread about whether atheism is a religion or not. It is a thread about the future of the debate and possibly where it is going.

Let's start with the idea that either atheists all changed their minds and became theist or that theists all changed their minds and became atheists. I think that that would show a really big indicator as to the future of the debate! But this is not likely to happen.

What is the future of the debate likely to look like? It's hard to say, but I have a hunch it is going to get complicated quickly. Quantum physics and what not is not easy to understand. But debates about God should include the most up to date science we currently have, so that's just the way the cookie crumbles. As to a resolution of the debate, it really is looking like atheism may be winning, but I'm not sure. Europe is much more atheistic than the United States. And overall, polls show that people my around my age (24) do not see their religious beliefs the same way their parents or grandparents might have. They still believe in God, but it's not as dogmatic as it used to be. They are less likely to be inerrantists and to see homosexuality as wrong. Given that, just seems like a few more generations and it will be a vastly different climate, whether that means the idea of what God is has changed or that belief in God will drop.

 

Let's start from the fact that you have no money. Otherwise you would know that money does not smell. Moneys are evaluted by goods you can exchange for moneys, but not but by your like or dislike of the the picture printed on them.

And let's finish with the fact that you have no money but a psychological problem when you are talking about something you don't have as about something you think you have. .

 

Ok. God is easy to understand and Quantum physics is not. God will tremble and drop under a push of Quantum physics, because it easier for you to understand the former than the later. I am dropping a facepalm.

 

No. You've misunderstood me. I'm saying debates about God will be more difficult to engage in by people without scientific training (such as myself) because the science will be more complicated. God would be more complicated than science if IT existed, but that is the very question we all want to know the answer to. I use IT because to insist God is male means God has a penis. There's no reason to assume God would be male, if both males and females are created in "his" image. But that's all I was really saying. As to understanding God, I think it is pretty hard to grasp the concept of eternity, omniscience and omnipotence without talking nonsense or tying yourself up in implications you don't want.

 

I understood you perfectly. You have scientific training, which means that you have been brainwashed in all kinds of weird and ungrounded beliefs and you cannot think logically. Look at the sentence of yours I have quoted above. It is as idiotic as the statement "5>".

If God exists he would be more complicated than science. Thus no education and knowledge of science can be applied to measuring/understanding/doubting/proving/disproving God.

If God does not exist, please you or science state so and we&#8217;ll go straight to the mental problems of scientists, college professors and intellectuals, which has been one of main subjects of my reasearch.

And The holy Virgin couldn&#8217;t give the birth without a penis inserted. Agree?

The expression of idiocy on your part here is that you accept that G-d if he exists is a greater than all science. (Under science we understand sets of weird ungrounded and idiotic beliefs having no relation to the observed reality). On other hand you doubt existence of God on the grounds of scientific views. Let me call it 24 years old idiocy. And let me hope it is not on a rise but on a decline.

 

You did not understand me!!!! I said I was not a trained scientist.... And as to logic, you are engaging in ad hominem attacks. I suggest for future reference you do not because it makes people take you less seriously.

This is the only real point you seem to make. And unlike you, I'm not going to attack you personally. I think it's interesting to consider. But without reasoning, how can we know that God exists? It's really a sticky problem and I'll think about this more.

I'm not a scientist. But you are now engaging in ad hominem attack on universities. Serious people don't respond to irrelevant factors. I don't discount a Christian's POV on God's existence simply because they are. We all have biases. I don't see why you have to engage in personal attacks.

Virgin Birth is divine sex with an angel. Luke 1:35: 35 The angel answered, &#8220;The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.&#8221; You failed to address my point.

I also never said I doubted God's existence anywhere... even though I do. I identified the problem that if God exists IT is greater than all science, but yet science is what we have to understand the physical world. So it is really hard to get outside of ourselves so to speak. God may ultimately exist, but our judgement of whether or not IT exists will have to be based on the best human beings can do. We can't overcome our humanity.

Also, many scientists believe in God... You're stereotyping all scientists as atheists. Might want to check some gallup polls on this.

 

Call us when the shuttle lands....