Atheism is/is not a religion

Except for the fact that, God or not, man IS ruling man. God is not down here running things. It's obvious he does not take any kind of active role in the way things are playing out. So, even if God does exist, and even if he's the way the big three religious books portray him, humanity is still in charge of humanity.

And, nastiness and intolerance are hardly exclusive to atheists, but if you'd like to pretend like only atheists are bad, by all means, continue the illusion as it must serve some personal purpose to you.

The real truth, should you care to accept it, is that some atheists are good, some are bad, most are in-between, which is strikingly similar to Christians where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to bowlers where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to cooks where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to teachers where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to police officers where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to Republicans where some are good, some are bad, and most are in-between which is strikingly similar to...well...you get the picture.

 

I suggest educating yourself and reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The premise of it is a theistic belief. It clearly states that in the text. Your argument is moot.

I suggest educating yourself on Humanism. Perhaps purchase a copy of the Humanist Manifesto? Humanism is not exclusively secular or atheistic, there are various forms of religious humanism. The premise Humanism is philosophies that benefit the human condition. It is not hard to understand.

 

I guess you missed that the paragraph you quoted specifically stated that pastafarianism has a deity? The FSM is by definition a deity. It's not atheism. FSM is not an atheist leader. It is a parody of certain forms of theism, that is promoted by some atheists.

 

I am saddened you are too intellectually bankrupt to understand the fact that I am not an atheist, simply noting the gigantic holes on your pathetic arguments.

 

I suggest reading the Gospel of the FSM to educate yourself.

 

Also:

"We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
- Ronald Reagan, Speech to Temple Hillel and Community Leaders in Valley Stream (October 26, 1984)

Irony anyone?

 

I'm speaking of the personally held belief that one would have as an Atheist that there is no Greater Authority than themselves.

Think Stalin. And Pol Pot. And then think what they have in common.

No, it is not obvious. It is, in fact the an article of faith to "know" or "not know" whether God's hand is at play.

Way to project nonsense I did not say. Atheists are amongst the most vitriolic and strident (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s on this planet. That some are not - that there are likewise in other faiths - is non sequitur, as I didn't address that. I will, however, assert that such a characteristic is far more heavily coalescenced in the Atheist religion.

Sure. We're all equal.

Except we're not. I hold a personal belief that Atheists are far worse. You don't like that personal belief?

I. Do. Not. Care.

 

I know more than enough. I brought it up, remember? You seem to think that because the FSM is a prank, it cannot also be a representative symbol.

But it is. It's why it appears on the occasional loser Atheist's beat up volkswagon.

I would suggest you do something else if you really wish to be educated (you don't). Learn the anthropologically accepted Seven Dimensions of Religion - by Ninian Smart - which has become the de facto standard of religious determination. I'll even give you a head start: the seven dimensions are social, doctrinal, ethical, material, ritual, narrative and experientiial.

Unfortunately for you, it is a standard which Atheism passes easily.

In fact, because I seriously doubt you will go out of your own way to be proven wrong, I'll provide you a link - one of many - which describes Smart's standard; why it is widely accepted, and how exactly Atheism is determined a religion when tested.

 

You are ignorant to the true definition of irony. There is no irony there, just as there was none when Jefferson arranged to have Church Service - and an opening Christian prayer - every Sunday, and at the open of every session of Congress.

 

I'm saying, argue against me and not against other peoples' arguments.

Required to place atheists under First Amendment establishment and free exercise protections, yes. It is a specialized legal definition that has no bearing on it actually being a religion. And no, I am not manipulating the definition of religion, YOU are. I basically just copy and pasted what Wikipedia said was deism: a rejection of religion.

Some atheists do, but those atheists are also non-theists and secularists. Plus, you're missing the point of why I cited those quotes from the opinion. The Courts argue strictly over legal matters. The Seventh Circuit consistently said that atheism was a non-religion and that they were considering it a religion solely for First Amendment purposes (which you replied "Uh...no" to, which I would appreciate if you retracted because you were wrong). Anyways, since when does the legal system of this country create definitions of words for extra-legal purposes? If you are going to say that atheism is a religion simply because one federal court said that it was (ignoring the points where the courts specifically outline that this is a special definition), then you're simply seeking a relativistic explanation for a definition that is open to contradictory legal proclamations. For example, other countries could declare that it is NOT a religion since they don't have free exercise or establishment clauses. What if the Courts decision was reverse their decision, does it all of a sudden not become a religion, then?

Since when is it a requirement to believe in extra-universal deities to be a theist? And once again, you're simply making excuses. I could do mental gymnastics to explain to you that spaghetti and meatballs in THIS world are imperfect forms of the one true form of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any belief (no matter facetious or serious) that postulates the existence of a deity is BY DEFINITION not atheistic.

I agree with you that religions do not have to be theistic in nature, but what you declared was that Pastafarianism was a sect of atheism which makes no sense since if it WERE a true belief, it would rely on a theistic belief. Well, this whole argument of yours makes no sense since the specific purpose of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parody.

 

There are no holes in my argument, and the pathetic poster is the one who would rather not state what he believes than what he does. You're an agnostic, near as I can tell.

That's like quibbling over whether you're a Socialist or a Communist. I could give a sh!t, and I find your ideology repugnant.

 

Except that you're arguing a distinction without a difference. Of what bearing is the importance of this subject, when legally it is determined to be something? It is the only standard in our society which has merit.

That's not what I said or meant. Read what I said again.

If that was merely my argument, it would not have contained so much else that establishes it as an argument. I would like you refutation of Ninian Smart's standard, as it has been widely accepted. That, I trust, you'll find hard to do.

Unless you're an Atheist - because they're generally also moral relativists, which means you can make your argument whatever you want it to be, and change it from line to line as you see fit.

If it were merely the sole source of my argument, sure. But it isn't.

I think you're off track, and it sounds like it began when you misinterpreted what I said. I have never contended otherwise.

The FSM is parody, of course - but it undergirds a real belief system that not only is not content in its own stance, it is required to attack the stance of others. The faith-based stance of others being attacked by an opposite faith-based belief system is the height of hypocrisy, and further evidence of fervor with which Atheists observe their faith.

Because not all of them do is not a disqualifier for the fitting definition of Atheism as a religion.

 

As would the NFL.

That's cute.

 

Leaning far more towards the idea of God being the collective consciousness of all sentient beings in the universe, being the universe experiencing itself.

I am glad you don't know what you are talking about, I wonder what can be found repugnant over such a philosophy?

 

Looking at your sig line, I can only conclude that you're being serious with this post.

 

I'm not sure why I reply because the things I say are rarely addressed by you in your replies.

You could probably prove that Stalin was a bona fide Atheist and certainly that he did horrible things but I'd like you to prove to me for the sake of your argument that he did those horrible things in the name of Atheism.

And I find religious paintings and art very beautiful.

 

Neutral you just claimed that every book written by Christians about Christianity is a part of the Christian religion.

 

So being against killing animals for food is a hobby?

 

Seriously where do you come up with this material?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody- one that is enjoyed by both irrelevant theists and irrelevant athiests. There is no underlying 'belief' system other than the belief that anyone can make up a fictional diety.

 

Well, I'm glad you provided that page so I could thoroughly refute it:

"Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything)"

Well, he starts off with a strong misunderstanding of evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Narrative- "There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.9 The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in “science” reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel."

I'll admit that evolution produces a system where a God is not necessary to create humans out of dust in their current form. However, apparently the author has a problem with certain interpretations of... Wow... "the Gospel"? The Gospels don't even refer to how God created the Earth and us. Anyways, there is no definite "correct" way to interpret the Bible since the whole (*)(*)(*)(*) series of books is contradictory, full of vague mentions of how God created things, and full of allegorical tales. So, basically we have a claim that evolution HAS to be an atheistic doctrine, even though that is contradicted by basically any Christian that is rational and understands science. Not a very good start for this guy.

Experiental- So, apparently he simply breaks this down into two subsections: there has to be an experience where the founding of the religion occurs and then there has to be experiences by latter adherents which make them feel good inside, basically. The author claims that Darwin founded atheism as a religion.... uhh.... does he not know that there were atheists long before evolution existed as a theory or what? Next he claims that atheists sometimes feel relieved when they discard their faith and this is similar to people feeling "something" when they go to their religious worshiping practices.

I think this whole experiential part should be discarded. What about the divine nature of the monarchs and the dramatic shift during the Enlightenment period to more democratic forms of governance? People certainly "feel something" when they throw off the yokes of tyranny and embrace democracy. Does that mean democracy is a religion or is it simply a form of governance?

Social - "The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. "

This outta be good... let's see...

Okay... so his point is that scientists, especially evolutionary scientists, are higher in the hierarchies and power structures of atheism since they know more about the world....

Apparently this guy simply wants to repeat over and over again that evolution is a doctrine of atheism and wants to ignore the scientists that are theists.

Doctrinal -

"Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the “enlightenment”. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good."

Lolololololol. Many of the people who signed onto the Humanist Manifesto I (there are three books all by different people) were ALSO religious. You can check out that claim by looking at the people that signed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto_I

Humanism is not a byproduct of evolution, it is a dismissal of strict doctrinal supernatural books as a guide for moral and ethical guidance.

Ethical- "Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one."

Right off the bat he admits that there is no ethical system espoused by atheism. Utilitarianism isn't even an "atheistic" doctrine, it simply states that happiness should be priority one. I'm not sure why you have to be an atheist to believe in utilitarianism.

Ritual- He admits that there are no rituals in atheism.

Material - "The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself."

So, no material dimensions are present either.

This is a fail on all accounts.

 

"Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism. "

Matt Dillahunty

I stumbled across this quote, and it encompasses what I believe.

I think from now on, when people tell me what I, as an atheist believe, I will be forced to tell them what they as Christians(are any Jews or Muslims arguing this point?) believe.

 

A symbol is not the same thing as a leader, which is what you called it.

 

It was legally determined to be something for a specific legal goal of providing the same First Amendment protections to non-theists and theists alike. That's it. I'm not sure why you continually ignore that.

I think that's exactly what you said and meant. What you said was "Uh...no. Unless you want to provide a link for us to these "same opinions"." What else would you have meant besides expressing doubt to what the opinion said?

Provided you with a refutation, hope you enjoy. But I don't think you should rely on this argument at ALL since it has so many glaring flaws.

I hate this crap. Even if most Christians think morals are absolute, almost all Christians also interpret WHICH morals are absolute from their doctrine.

Uh... then what did you mean when you said "No, it wouldn't be theistic, because it would be required to be out of this world."

Care to clarify?

Once again, you're talking about anti-theism. Not sure how you're defining faith, here, either.

There are clear reasons to criticize religion that arise from secularism and empiricism. I think THOSE systems of belief often are the backbone for anti-theistic arguments.

 

Man, I know that this makes me sound religious, but I LOVE Matt Dillahunty (which is probably making theists cringe with content). Though he isn't the best in arguing against the more scientific creationist claims (dealing with evolution and cosmology), he is probably one of the best atheist debaters because of his (*)(*)(*)(*) sharp wit and experience in the seminary.

 

So its leagally binding, not sure what else to call themselves, atheist elected religion.

As you will notice, as as earlier pointed out, atheism could have sought legal standing in many other venues, as Wolverine points out with the NFL, it could have sought legal standing as a corporation. It chose religion, and now, well ... some atheists want it both ways?

Isn't that a surprise?

No, we don't. The ones that are commandments and the ones that are recommendations are pretty clear. Not all Christians study scripture with the same devotion to detail, just as some atheists actually care about their history and would like to talk about Nietzsche ... many atheists, conversely, appear to want to do nothing but bang on everyone else's faith. Which one is atheism?

Right, both.

Which one should we be encouraging?

Maybe you shoudl bone up on the propoganda of your faith choice, you are making a delineation YOU don't hold - because, you, as with so many of your peers, like to make spurious generalizations and pretend that guidance given in ancient Israel actually compells us to support murder. Yep, that is anti-theism, nihilism, and it is the hall mark and clarion call of modern atheism.

And yet we are treated with one generalized rant about Hitler, and the complete ignorance of and deliberate avoidance of our faith and its practices. Tell me why atheism needs to ignore people like Saint Kolbe, but make spectacularly stupid comparisons to Hilter? Only when confronted about THIS WIDESPREAD BEHAVIOR, the exact same atheists will claim that only SOME atheists do those things!! Shucks!! Victims of prejudice and all ...

In fat the dogmatic, ritualized, criticism of atheism is so far removed from the reality of our faith that one can only conclude that these are scriptural referrences from the play book of atheist dogma.

Propoganda that slams verses actual criticism? Well, after two years on this forum, I will happily postulate that atheists are among the worst people in the world at determining which is which. Because there are plenty iof intellectual gaps, contradictions, behavioral shifts, evidential shortcomings, and simple rudeness that raise some very pressing points about the practice of atheism ... only when anyone raises them, its like watching niagra falls with all the tears of persecution that suddenly start flowing (note: not from all atheits, but as we see righ here in this thread, the very atheists who DO the things we criticize, are among the first to claim that only 'some' atheists do the things we criticize - which would be a whole lot of atheists).