Is atheism a religion?

Originally posted by Maskirovka
bah don't be so modest...that's what makes you smart. the more knowledge you have, the more connections you make between things...you realize everything is connected.

reading makes you smarter...it doesn't necessarily (though it can) make you faster or better at everything, but intelligence doesn't have anything to do with speed or proficiency imo.

out of all my friends, those willing to take part in those late night discussions and read tons of books are the ones who other people consider to be intelligent.

the guys who say stuff like "bah...just forget about it...things will never change" or things like that are usually the ones who end up with the most credit card debt or the job they hate.

don't sell yourself short :p
Click to expand...

LOL trust me I have the debts (I studied as a mature student) and the job front isn't too hot (mainly because it keeps me from doing other things....damn it). However the point about making and discovering connections is certainly true. As to whether making these connections 'achieve' anything substantial is questionable though. But the goal is often secondary to the pursuit.

All human experience is ultimately communicated through words. The broader your range of language and learning, the richer your world becomes. If you only have 3 words for Colour, then three colours is all you ever see.
 
Originally posted by dawdler
What in philosophical HELL does atheism have to do with rational and logical thinking?!

If you want to get logical and rational, why spend BILLIONS (cant even begin to imagine the number) on maintaining thousands and thousands of priests, churches and other christian factions? We could use that to make the world better instead. Such as feeding starving children. But noooo... We have to have churches in top condition! How narrowminded is that? Who cares about a big freakin building that is of no logical nor rational use?! Anyone with the slightest hint of humanity and compassion would rather choose to tear down the church. Those with 'faith' that votes to keep it, would go against everything they stand for (helping others, not kill people, blablablabla). The christian church is one big logical contradiction.

Btw, I'm a fundamentalistic atheist and buddhist justified by christianity :)
Click to expand...

christianity is far-fetched, this is true.
 
Originally posted by dawdler
Actually, atheism I think is one of the most logical and rational beleifs. That is BECAUSE I'm openminded!!! Think on it. Christianity is all about 'God created the world and everything', 'we are so special', 'we are his glorious fruit', 'we must pray and worship and honor Him', whatever. But me on the other hand, I beleive the world is very old. I beleive we populate just a tiny tiny tiny tiny piece of time, so tiny its invisible. The universe is enourmous, and I beleive that there is life out there. I think it would be illogical to say otherwise, afterall WE populate this tiny dirtball in space, someone else can populate others. What would care for us? Why are we special? I beleive in Nature, space, what has been formed from ancient suns or whatever you wish to call it. And thats it. Nothing controls it, nothing is behind our destinys, just simply Nature and Time, the physical world and progress. And this is so old we cant even put it into perspective, hence not comprehend it. The idea that somewhere in this mess of ideas and knowledge would be a 'God' in any way is ridiculous to me. It wouldnt make sense if you look at the whole picture. It would be like I had decided to become master of an African ant colony all of a sudden, and started creating an anthill in a way I like in Africa where I can decide their destiny, and possible write the Antible (TM) commanding that all ants shall worship me and that I am the only God for them.

Maybe you are right, atheism can be stupid if you are completely oblivious to any knowledge or simply wont accept other peoples ideas. But the same can be said about every other religion (where Christianity is a perfect example).
You might want to rephrase that to:
"most <insert religion here> consider people who believe in <insert another religion here or that religions god/gods> irrational, correct?"
Click to expand...

atheism is all about being oblivious to knowledge or far-fetched ideas like a deity(yet many believe in big bang lol). but no that same can't be said about every other religion. there is one that doesn't have a name that is a good middle ground to start on. well maybe it has a name, but i can't think of it, anyway its like agnosticism, except the person cares about finding the truth, and believes instead of not believing anything, to actively search for the truth, may it be a deity, or whatever.

the problem is people are so quick to accept atheism or christianity based on faith, because it closes the book in their life, and eases their mind. thats what people want. they want to be comfortable. but its just a shame really.

but if a person had a supernatural encounter with a deity, and claims they did. how do we know they werent being delirious, or making it up in their mind. but then maybe its possible that some deity in the world has been doing this, but we dismiss every single occurence on the basis that its just too far-fetched.
 
Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
.. yup absence of proof is not proof of absence, as the saying goes..
that said, in the 'absence of proof', occam's razor would lead a "rational" person to conclude that the likely current state of affairs is such that any sort of 'god' is effectively non-existant. debate over.
Click to expand...

and at the same time you would irrational by cutting out that possibility making you closeminded.
 
Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
they don't consider them irrational. they consider them infidel defilers that must drown in lakes of blood.
Click to expand...

this shows how much you know about other religions. sterotyping is a no no when talking about this subject, timmy. now ill make an example that will prove you wrong. how fun

a real christian wouldn't consider them infidel defilers that must drown in lakes of blood. they would consider them 'lost', and while treating them with love, pray for them, maybe witness to them not to aggressively, in hopes that they will give up their sin to be in paradise. if not, then no forcing would ensue, they would continue to be nice to them if they ever cross paths again. and again, this is what a REAL christian would do, not one of those overbearing annoying ones who cant take no for an answer.
 
Originally posted by MrD
how about

"do you belive in god?"
"no"
"so your an atheist"
"no"

?
Click to expand...

thats slightly complicated. some would refer to 'believing in' to not be the same as believing something exists, but to mean that you invest your trust in that thing. so if thats what you mean. then thats correct.
 
blain, "do you believe that a (previously defined in a way accetable to both parties) 'god' or 'gods' exist(s)?"
chase, "no sir, i do not!"
blain, "so therefore, by force of the syntactical construction of this language, you would that say you believe god(s) doesn't exist?"
chase, "yeah, that's right."
blain, "so then, it's safe to say that you would have to, again, by the very nature of the meaning of the word, be an atheist."
chase, "whoa there.. haha, let's not jump to conclussions buddy.."
blain, "is that a no?"
chase, "sure as hell is!"
blain, "ah boy, so you do know what the word atheist means right?"
chase, "chicken."
blain, "you're an idiot."
chase, "it's what's for dinner."
 
if you've ever watched the movie "contact" you know that occam's razor thing doesn't hold up..."did you love your father? prove it."
you can't prove you loved a dead person...you can say you did this or did that but it's not proof...just argument.
but that doesn't mean your love didn't exist...

it's proven logically wrong by the statement you used "absence of proof isn't proof of absence"
 
Originally posted by poseyjmac
thats what people want. they want to be comfortable. but its just a shame really.
Click to expand...

that goes along with my "the happiest people are the most superficial" theory
 
Originally posted by dawdler
You might want to rephrase that to:
"most <insert religion here> consider people who believe in <insert another religion here or that religions god/gods> irrational, correct?"
Click to expand...

i disagree with this since you left out my next sentence:
"they don't see how someone can believe something that has no proof"

it doesn't fit with "christians" and "jews" filling in the blanks...christians don't believe jews are irrational because they don't believe in jesus or hell...they just consider them misinformed or something.

pretty much everyone who believes in a higher power can easily see how someone else can...even if they don't agree with that specific deity, etc.

=================

anyway this debate is getting off topic...is atheism a religion? i don't think it is. it doesn't have a cohesive belief system...almost every atheist is different.

there is no atheist church or gathering place where atheists perform rituals to confirm their faith in nothing...it's just not the same thing.
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
that goes along with my "the happiest people are the most superficial" theory
Click to expand...

Is there an 'ignorance is bliss' tie-in on that theory? (serious question)
 
Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
Is there an 'ignorance is bliss' tie-in on that theory? (serious question)
Click to expand...

well, it applies...but it's more of an
"i don't care to learn about that because it makes me depressed" thing

i realize it's basically the same thing...i guess i'm the one doing the tying-in.
i'm tying the "ignorance is bliss" in with the lack of drive for knowledge and learning (mostly in younger people)

it's been psychologically proven that depressed people tend to think more cognitively. they think more deeply about the issues that affect their lives.

jokingly but seriously...just look at how many of the greatest poets/songwriters and deepest thinkers have either drug problems from depression or just flat-out kill themselves.

edgar allan poe and kurt cobain just to name a couple
 
Wow. Just on this page there is a triple post and a... uh... what would you call 5 posts in a row?
 
Originally posted by ElFuhrer
Wow. Just on this page there is a triple post and a... uh... what would you call 5 posts in a row?
Click to expand...

id call it replying to 5 different posts after i woke up.
 
Originally posted by ElFuhrer
Wow. Just on this page there is a triple post and a... uh... what would you call 5 posts in a row?
Click to expand...

Well, lets see: triple + double = trouble!

Aha!
 
Atheism isn't a religion, how the hell can you call the lack of a religion a religion? Atheism generally is materialism, there is nothing more than the physical world, and no higher power has created it or controls it.
On general, atheists such as myself accept science as the only explanation of life and the universe (instead of some dusty old book) but this doesn't say all atheists think like that. An atheist doesn't have atheism as a religion, but they can have other beliefs or religion besides that, for instance the belief that aliens of some sort planted us here on earth (to name something that's scientifically possible) or something else.
There are numerous kinds of atheists.

You can't call science a religion either, science isn't static but improves itself and doesn't rely on static dogma's to explain everything. Just look how hard christianity is struggling to fight theory's that now are scientific facts such as the big bang and the theory of biological evolution. Christianity can't just say 'oh wait, the bible was wrong, the earth wasn't created in 7 days now science has proven that wrong'. So science doesn't have a static belief which it builds their theories around. That's why creationism isn't a science, it seeks scientific facts for its static dogma's.
 
Originally posted by poseyjmac
its a made up concept, insid

if someone has a brain and can formulate thoughts, then they have a belief system. end of story. atheism makes me laugh because of how closeminded it is. someone has yet to prove that a deity does exist or doesn't exist to me. and its much harder to prove a deity doesn't exist logically(lets face it, its impossible). so atheists are in essence a closeminded bunch that can't imagine certain possibilities and most likely bitter and can't think rationally and logically(some i know are very bitter)

now agnosticism is more on track logically, they admit that they dont know either way, which is a good view because its logical. who was it that said the more i know, the more i dont know. we really dont know if a deity exists. maybe some people are convinced one does. but whoever states that they know for a fact that a deity doesn't exist in the universe is just lying to themselves because its not a fact and CAN never be fact. and thats a fact.

anyone want to challenge it?
Click to expand...


What you have demostrated Posey is that you dont understand the concept of being without a belief. And since you dont understand it you dismiss it, then attack a straw man argument.

I feel that I am without a belief in any god or gods. Does this mean I proport that no gods exists? No. I dont make claims I can't back up. Does this mean I believe any gods do exists? No, once again I dont make claims I can't back up. So there you have it, I do not believe any gods exists nor do I believe no gods exists. Its not that I am unsure about the manner, just that since there is no evidence either way I reserve belief. I go without a belief in that subject. It makes me an atheists by default, but not someone who claims there are no gods.

But I ask you Posey, you hold such a position now about agnosticism with refrence to a deity and logical comprehension, though I wonder if you would do the same of other matters? Do you stress that it is more logical to be agnostic in all matters when one does not have proof either way? We have no proof either way that Santa Claus is real. We have no proof either way that this is not "The Matrix". We have no proof either way that every single one of your memories is a false implant and you actually started your life ten seconds ago.

Ever hear the saying, "Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence"?
 
Originally posted by Insid
We have no proof either way that every single one of your memories is a false implant and you actually started your life ten seconds ago.
Click to expand...

LOL! Funnily enough I have thought about that ...
 
Originally posted by Insid
What you have demostrated Posey is that you dont understand the concept of being without a belief. And since you dont understand it you dismiss it, then attack a straw man argument.

I feel that I am without a belief in any god or gods. Does this mean I proport that no gods exists? No. I dont make claims I can't back up. Does this mean I believe any gods do exists? No, once again I dont make claims I can't back up. So there you have it, I do not believe any gods exists nor do I believe no gods exists. Its not that I am unsure about the manner, just that since there is no evidence either way I reserve belief. I go without a belief in that subject. It makes me an atheists by default, but not someone who claims there are no gods.

But I ask you Posey, you hold such a position now about agnosticism with refrence to a deity and logical comprehension, though I wonder if you would do the same of other matters? Do you stress that it is more logical to be agnostic in all matters when one does not have proof either way? We have no proof either way that Santa Claus is real. We have no proof either way that this is not "The Matrix". We have no proof either way that every single one of your memories is a false implant and you actually started your life ten seconds ago.

Ever hear the saying, "Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence"?
Click to expand...

you are very wrong. sorry but your statements are contradicting yourself, you can't have it both ways.

"It makes me an atheists by default"

insid = atheist

One entry found for atheism.


Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

"Does this mean I proport that no gods exists? No."

contradiction # 1.

i think ill stop here because this post doesn't deserve any more of my time. nothing personal, but, are you blind? if you are an atheist you believe that no deity exists and you are closeminded about the world you live in. period. stay in school
 
Originally posted by PvtRyan
Atheism isn't a religion, how the hell can you call the lack of a religion a religion? Atheism generally is materialism, there is nothing more than the physical world, and no higher power has created it or controls it.
On general, atheists such as myself accept science as the only explanation of life and the universe (instead of some dusty old book) but this doesn't say all atheists think like that. An atheist doesn't have atheism as a religion, but they can have other beliefs or religion besides that, for instance the belief that aliens of some sort planted us here on earth (to name something that's scientifically possible) or something else.
There are numerous kinds of atheists.

You can't call science a religion either, science isn't static but improves itself and doesn't rely on static dogma's to explain everything. Just look how hard christianity is struggling to fight theory's that now are scientific facts such as the big bang and the theory of biological evolution. Christianity can't just say 'oh wait, the bible was wrong, the earth wasn't created in 7 days now science has proven that wrong'. So science doesn't have a static belief which it builds their theories around. That's why creationism isn't a science, it seeks scientific facts for its static dogma's.
Click to expand...

READ

religious - 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

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


----


So according to these definitions you can be religious without believing in a deity, but just an ultimate reality. atheists are devoted to the belief that there is no god, which to them is an ultimate reality, therefore they are being religious. if they are being religious then this belief system called atheism is a religion. so if you want to argue with webster.com thats your deal. but according to the definitive book of definitions atheism is a religion.
 
Is atheism a religion?

More of the question should be: Is atheism a belief?

Some would argue that, as of late, atheism is indeed a religion within itself--for some sorts of this practise, there are ceremonies that do infact take place and people meet and infact, worship, or share their knowledges on the subject for debate or truth.

Some people have often mistaken paganism with atheism, although, with some of the most recent talks, atheism seems to take some viewpoints or "earthly" standards as paganism does. Make no mistake, the two in their own single rites are two very different topics that range from SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

Thats no disclaimer--people vary in their beliefs, and how an individual practise or religion is carried out by a sole individual, does not mean all people from within that convenent believe in this sort--its imperative some of you take nuetral ground to understand all of the arguments at hand.

I guess what I'am trying to say here:

The user or believer of such can define as he wants--but theres always the bigger fish; so if your looking for specific awnsers, look within yourself--or share your intiuition with others. Its called expanding your horizons.

As far as I go, I have no distinctive hates/correlations with these kinds of people, and I would encourage that you do not ignore their viewpoints soley because you believe your religion or belief is far more substantial then those others shared--after all, where all here either by the hands of god, a fart of gaia's winds, or just some atoms that produced a given code to their structure went from their.
 
Being a practitioner of many things metaphisical, I see athiests for what they really are. Lazy, listless, and generally unwilling to even attempt to search for the Truth themselves(which is readily available to anyone who seeks it in earnest), and instead are content with adopting the opinion of another equally ignorant human being and following it blindly. I say they follow it blindly because they consciously ignore the only true source for the information they need, and instead rely upon a source that they know(or should, atleast) is incapable of providing a definitive answer on the subject.


As for the question of is atheism a religion or not, it depends on what kind of athiest you are.

If your the kind that says there is no God, spiritual reality, or anything else that has to do with the metaphysical, then yes it is a religion.

If your the kind that refuses to believe anything in any way, then no its not a religion in that sense. Those people are just confused and indecisive.
 
Originally posted by Pseudonym_
Being a practitioner of many things metaphisical, I see athiests for what they really are. Lazy, listless, and generally unwilling to even attempt to search for the Truth themselves(which is readily available to anyone who seeks it in earnest), and instead are content with adopting the opinion of another equally ignorant human being and following it blindly. I say they follow it blindly because they consciously ignore the only true source for the information they need, and instead rely upon a source that they know(or should, atleast) is incapable of providing a definitive answer on the subject.
Click to expand...

Step right up, come one, come all, to see the arrogant religious fundamentalist! Only $5 for admittance, plus $1 to rent a tranquilizer gun incase it tries to convert you!
 
Well, im hardly a fundamentalist. I dont even consider myself Christian. Perhaps i failed to adequately define my stance.


Im talking about people who say there is no Spirituality based on the lack of scientific evidence. I was only saying that science is utterly incapable of providing evidence for the spiritual, since science relies totally on physical data. The athiests who rely on science to answer the question for them are therefore setting themselves up for the answer they want, instead of seeking the truth. I doubt any of them truly believe that science can provide them with a definite answer on this subject. How could it?

therefore, the only reliable source for the truth of the matter is yourself. Every human being's existance is made up of both physical and non-physical elements, and the non-physical elements are easily accessible to anyone who seeks in the right manner. those who dont believe are just too lazy to put forth the effort to discover their true nature.

I was an athiest, but i was a free thinker and aware that science was not capable of providing me with an answer. I was unwilling to take the word of either a scientist OR religious person, i wanted to find the truth for myself. And i did. The truth is inside you. You dont need scientific proof from a scientist, or bible quotes form an evangilist, all you need is to be willing to search yourself.
 
Originally posted by poseyjmac
sorry but websters is dictionary is much more reputable than "ADRIAN BARNETTS WEB PAGE"
Click to expand...

the reputation of the website owner is not in dispute...if you took time to read what the person had to say, you'd realize that the idea on the website is what was important, not the definition of religion from a dictionary (which is automatically wrong because theologists can't agree on a definition, so how can a dictionary get it right?)
 
Originally posted by Pseudonym_
science relies totally on physical data.
Click to expand...

theoretical physics is science, yet it does not rely on physical data...it instead relies mostly on mathematics and conjecture...that's why i pointed out string theory...

Originally posted by Pseudonym_
those who dont believe are just too lazy to put forth the effort to discover their true nature.

I was an athiest, but i was a free thinker and aware that science was not capable of providing me with an answer. I was unwilling to take the word of either a scientist OR religious person, i wanted to find the truth for myself. And i did. The truth is inside you. You dont need scientific proof from a scientist, or bible quotes form an evangilist, all you need is to be willing to search yourself.
Click to expand...

the "all you need is to be willing to search yourself" is a bit cheesy, but you're kind of on to something there...answering your own questions about the universe is the important thing....i agree that people who aren't willing to give a bit of thought to their existence are just being lazy.
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
people who aren't willing to give a bit of thought to their existence are just being lazy.
Click to expand...

or practical.. when was the last time pondering one's sense of self put food on the table? much less put food on every family..
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
PIZZOWNEDSZORZD!!11111
Click to expand...

hahah, that's like that, what is it, pizza hut? the pizzone? haha, i can see some jackass getting smacked in the face by one of those, and then tommy davidson busts in yelling "PIZZOWNEDSZORZD!!11111 "
 
theoretical physics is science, yet it does not rely on physical data...it instead relies mostly on mathematics and conjecture...that's why i pointed out string theory...
Click to expand...

Yes, but theoretical physics relies upon a scientific foundation. Its just edgucated guesswork based on the established rules of phsyics/science. Science has no established rules for Spirituality, science doesnt even allow for the existance of non-physical reality.

the "all you need is to be willing to search yourself" is a bit cheesy
Click to expand...

Yes, these things usaually are. I am reluctant to go into more detail because i feel that while the path i took was right for me, it may not be for anyone here. I dont want to say "do this and this" and it doesnt work for someone else, so they give up entirely. Instead, i just say search yourself because i believe that you will naturally find your own path to the truth. The path that is best for you.

i agree that people who aren't willing to give a bit of thought to their existence are just being lazy.
Click to expand...

This is true, but im talking more on the lines of action than thought.

If a human being does indeed have a Soul(and they do) then it stands to reason that they can experience it in some way. Just like i have a hand on the end of my arm, i can "experience" it by looking at my and squeezing it, or wiggling my fingers. And any human being can learn to "wiggle their Soul's fingers", so to speak.
 
Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
hahah, that's like that, what is it, pizza hut? the pizzone? haha, i can see some jackass getting smacked in the face by one of those, and then tommy davidson busts in yelling "PIZZOWNEDSZORZD!!11111 "
Click to expand...

lol

ok i stopped caring about this thread...i'm too tired of this debate to debate this anymore....all the major points have been made and i don't have the energy to debate the finer points.
 
Originally posted by Pseudonym_
science doesnt even allow for the existance of non-physical reality.
Click to expand...

that's an inaccurate statement. "science" doesn't concern itself with "non-physical realities". it says nothing about their existance one way or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
V
I had a tour at the Valve HQ recently, this is what I found out.
Replies
8
Views
9K
UshankaCat
UshankaCat
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top