Atheism is/is not a religion

Yeah, they are. You really think they are not out there, eh?

 

If those like minded people produce doctrine, recrute, educate specific ideological propoganda relating almost solely to God and religion ... then yep, said organziation would constitute a religion.

When a man founds his own church its a religion. When atheists do it ... its undefineable.

You really think that belief in one sentence marks you and your actions aprat from the rest of humanity?

 

Why do you think that atheists have churches? What do you think constitutes a church?

 

re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I don't see how non-belief in a deity meets any of the above standards. Do you?

 

Why are you jumping in and asking questions that have already been answered?

 

Interesting, at the behest of atheism who are always wanking around about definitions, I went to Merriam-Webster, where atheist assured me that the definition could be found.

Religion:
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of 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

Having now provided this definition twice, we see the pattern wherein atheists, when the definition does not fit their preconceptions simply shop around. And even by the definition provided, atheism meets #2, #3, and #5.

However, on one hand atheists themselves define themselves as religion (See Court Case), but sense it is a religion of nihilistic ritualism - it doesn't want to apply its stndards to itself - hence the shopping around for definitions, followed by the failure to apply said standards to easily obsreved behavior in atheism.

And you atheists do like to pretend that it is others who have a problem with reality?

 

So we are tracking the things I notice in atheism are not exactly merely my observations:









THat last one there looks at awful lot like a church does it not?

 

I'm talking about atheism not being a religion. In more general terms, I'm talking about you treating atheism as if it were a religion to attack and condemn anyone who happens to be an atheist because of the words and actions of some others, in the exact same manner that you rightly condemn others for doing in relation to Christians or theists.

I agree. I'm not doing that though.

The same reason yours are - there a thousands of them, they're interrelated and they're complicated. Atheism describes just one tiny aspect of that - alone it's extremely easy to define but it never exists alone.

Yet again, you're generalising (negatively) about all atheists. Atheists in general have no more (or less) difficulty with these terms than people in general. People in general have lots of trouble with them because of their relation to the often strongly emotive subjects of faith and religion, in that they can basically say "I disagree with your strongly held personal beliefs". It's the same basic reason people have gone to war over religious differences.

Even identifying that "standard" is difficult. Partly because of the nature of the subject, even dictionaries differ on the definitions and use terms that can be open to interpretation and all the relevant terms have a wide range and variation in common use. This is why I (and others) prefer to cut them back to the basic principals rather than trying to attribute further chrematistics to them.

 

It's a waste of time. Neutral's entire circular schtick is misusing irrelevant and erroneous semantic juxtapositions, with dash of idiocy for flavour..

 

please dont say it is a waste of time because neutral people can learn from the reasoning within the loop

That dude has me on ignor, still i love to post right up so others can see material concepts to address the garbage of the preachers.

Each of us has something to contribute as each are their own point of view.



.


eventually, the bs fades to extinction

 

Atheism isn't a religion because Atheists...just know it!

 

He has me on ignore. Could someone ask him to cite a specifically atheist institution that is tax exempt?

 

#2 most definitely doesn't apply.
#3 is prefaced by calling this use of the word "archaic". It is not relevant in current vernacular.
#5 doesn't apply, as there is no religion being served, and no rituals being observed.

Yes, I see a problem with reality, but not in Christians per se.
It is your personal problem.

 

that would mean the people opening the institution had to lie.

 

No, it's pretty much the same deal there. It would be pretty weird if someone honestly thought I probably didnt have a mother, but it's hypothetical I guess. And, just like in my example, it is possible to not know, and at the same time to have the opinion that I probably do not.

Another hypothetical of course, as I've never met someone who was unsure if gravity was real. Still, if such a person existed, there would be no logical contradiction inherent in them saying they don't know, but probably not.

I'm not usually a big advocate of this whole "agnostics are really atheists!" argument, primarily because I don't think it's very helpful. In my view it's a technicality. If someone has to go out of their way to point out that your typical agnostic doesnt believe in god in order to make an argument then they probably have quite a weak case. But that doesn't mean that saying the opposite is correct.

 

Well apparently you have nothing to support your claim.

 

Not all atheists think the same, so when you see a contradiction on a website about atheism then its only stupid to assume all atheists are contradicting themselves.

 

In regards to the aforementioned poster the time is not being wasted as long as people understand how the time is being spent. There are many believers out there who are one logical argument away from a secular lifestyle and though you are correct in stating that he is not one of them you must understand that-that is not the conversation we are having. He's defeat is apparent in his defense but never in his mind. When a logical argument is posed the tactic is to ignore it or turn it into something it's not bringing the conversation back into the vicious circle of nonsense for this is where he must live.

The benefit of having this discussion is learning how to break the circle, unfortunately as long as there is one person who is willing to continue on as if they are getting somewhere the circle will never break.

 

As opposed to your support? I do like how atheists think that they do not have to prpve anything, but everyone else does. And yes, I just poseted a picture of an atheist building, no doubt tax emept, with a pastafarian symbol in front of it. Literally a church of atheism.

Now that you have seen evidence ... what now? Because if you deny what is right before your eyes ... well, what is it you disagree with about God?

 

The reverse is also true.

BTW - secularism, to remind you is a creation of Christianity. I am a Christian and a committed secularist, so ... logically, how are we going to 'change' me?

Lastly, the circular arguement is atheisms. Our standards are clear, but atheists seem to have a problem with them.

Criticizing religion is a good thing, criticizing atheism is a personal insult, professional slamming. Odd.

Jefferson and Einstein are atheists by selectively quoting their life, Buddhists are atheist (also by selectively quoting that faith), prisoners with no religion in jail are not atheists.

The Jesus Myth, a fabrication used to call other fabricators?

Evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove literalism in something that is widely seen as allegorical. Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church, and many other denominations as true. Doesn't stop atheists from pretending that we are one step away from theology (even though most Christians are committed secularists).

Vapid comparisons to Hilter using selective noncontextual quotes from the OT, yet when applying the same standards to atheism when it is wedded to the political power and we find that atheism is actually worse ... by atheisms own standards.

Atheists are superior morally (hence the arguement that it has so few prisoners), yet it has no moral code, no code of conduct, and apparently conveys great morality magically and without any effort whatsoever - ethics by default?

Atheism has a great history behind it, much of which is indeed insightful when it comes from early atheist pioneers who had legitimate beefs with the excesses of religion. Yet most atheists spend their time bad mouthing religion rather than exploring their history. It is for example, impossible to discuss Nietzsche but every atheist seems to know what Dawkins says - even though Neitzsche arguement are often sound and insightful, and Dawkns usually just flame bait riddled with factual error and incredible leaps in conclusion.

Atheism is definitively not a religion, yet it sought legal status as a religion - as status confirmed the SCOTUS.

Atheism does not harass religion, as demonstrated by standing legal opinion on the subject. Yet atheists still sue in cases that clearly do not violate current legal opinion.

Atheists are all about science, yet science has not been able to disprove God and indeed Apologetics, as we see with the Catholic Church, have been very successful in mating scientific rigor to the interpretation of ancient allegory and parable - stories literred with symbology that advances in understanding have only deepened. Yet atheists ignore that and scream science.

Atheism is not a faith, neither does it have a burden of proof - ergo, by default and with no proof, it is fact.

I could go on, but you get the point. Now, when another atheist responds to these things by getting angry at me rather than addressing the manifest contradictions in their faith choice. I am uncertain how its me, rather than the atheists spewing this circular logic (which is apparently my fault) that are one acknowledgment of logic away from losing his faith?

Years of study, of historical analysis, of science, of compassion, of seeing the drakest portions of the world lead me inexorably away from atheist, and into Christ. You are right about one thing though, it was one logical arguement that made all the difference - is there anything at all to be gained from maligning others with ever changing standards? If not, then your atheism is suspect.

 

As you can see by this post, Neut has no proof of tax exempt status of any atheist group. He has simply decided this is true because it fits his failed agenda.

 

Yeah, you do, and that is the problem. We see the same arguements over and over again, coupled with the same excuse that its always other atheists doing it ...

 

Fine, then all Christians think the same as well, which means that you are all Young Earthers and you believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago because that is what I decided you think. Neutral, why do you stupidly think that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that there literally are talking snakes and men can live up to 900 years old?

 

Yep, only when we all believe that Jesus was the Son of God ... well, that is a doctrine.

When we all think, as a community, that adultry is bad, and excommunicate those who violate that standard ... well, that is what having a moral code is all about.

Why are you incapable of making a logical arguement and running from one horrific display of hyperbole after another? Why grasp at straws to just noyt be wrong rather than make a actual arguement? Right, because you are an atheist. And of course, you are the ONLY atheist doing this?

Thank you for proving the point. What is atheism? Finding any excuse you can to dump of a theist.

 

You said that all atheists think the same, therefore I can turn around and say that all Christians think the same. Why do you think that fossils were placed here by the devil? That's idiotic. I'm sorry you don't like a taste of your own medicine.