Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.

If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.

Uh huh. I get you. They're not real Atheists.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, that belief does not make it religion. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma. When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion. Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine. For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief. It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it. It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion. I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.

Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy

You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.

Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.

Not based upon what you write here.

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.

This contradicts what you just said.

 

[sealybobo]

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheists don't have Dogma.

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

What do you want it to be? I'll go with that.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

What do you want it to be? I'll go with that.

Accurate.

 

[sealybobo]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.

Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy

You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.

Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.

Not based upon what you write here.

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.

This contradicts what you just said.

Plenty of evidence.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

 

[sealybobo]

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheists don't have Dogma.

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

Check out all the evidence an atheist might give for their being no god. Go to number 25 first.

Most atheists, including famous ones such as Richard Dawkins, fall into the category of ‘Agnostic Atheism’ – they don’t claim to know with certainty that god does not exist. Conversely, most theists are ‘Gnostic Theists’ – they claim to know with certainty that their particular god exists.
When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.

Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy

You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.

Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.

Not based upon what you write here.

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.

This contradicts what you just said.

I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.

What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

That's already been addressed.


Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar

 

[sealybobo]

You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.

Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.

Not based upon what you write here.

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.

This contradicts what you just said.

I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.

What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.

Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic when it contradicts theists.

Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

 

[sealybobo]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

That's already been addressed.


Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar

Atheists say, "I don't believe in god but I'll change my mind if I see one".

Theists say they believe in gods even though they have no evidence and no matter how many arguments there are against their god, they're going to just continue following this cult i was either born or sucked into.

Fuck science and logic!

 

[sealybobo]

You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.

Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.

Not based upon what you write here.

There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.

I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.

This contradicts what you just said.

I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.

What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.

This is what they don't get:

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

 

[sealybobo]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

Look up the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable beliefs.

 

[sealybobo]

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheists don't have Dogma.

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

Philosophers distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs. The former are beliefs a cognizer is entitled to hold by virtue of his or her evidence or cognitive operations. The latter are beliefs he or she is unwarranted in holding, for example, beliefs based on sheer fantasy, popular superstition, or sloppy thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheists don't have Dogma.

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Religion requires none of those things to be religion. Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes. Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion. So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions. If they do not, then the are not requirements. The attributes I have identified are:

Group identity - as indicated religion is social. There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine

If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them. If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.

I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief. That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

You are not using science. Not even close. Science requires you support your claims with evidence. What you are doing is invoking the word, as if it were a talisman.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, that is what dogma is. If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it. If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.

I don't lack belief? Please explain.

I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it. If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it. For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence. You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind. This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part. You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true. You do not lack belief.

So you believe god did visit and talk with us? I don't even take people like you seriously. That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you. If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews. You could also be one of them. Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods? Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating. I guess that's true. But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.

Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not. Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out. If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief. If you have belief, you do not lack belief. Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist. If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong. It's one or the other. You don't get it both ways.

Philosophers distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs. The former are beliefs a cognizer is entitled to hold by virtue of his or her evidence or cognitive operations. The latter are beliefs he or she is unwarranted in holding, for example, beliefs based on sheer fantasy, popular superstition, or sloppy thinking.

A statement made as fact in the absence of supporting evidence is belief. You do not lack beliefs. Trying to justify it does not change it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

Look up the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable beliefs.

A belief is not a lack of belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs

So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?

That's already been addressed.


Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar

I'm not a Christian. It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion. It has been done many times in the thread alone. Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.

As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara. He brought it up. If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.