Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.

Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child. I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person. Try me.

We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.

Your astounding lack of comprehension is beyond comprehension. You have baffled me! That you haven't read the court summary is not surprising. You tend to ignore all but your own misguided opinion...and that of the failed [OP] of this failed thread.

--- Then where is your basis to conclude it's a religion?
A religion needs a raison d'être. Where is it?
I keep asking you that, you admit you don't have one. So you have no basis.


'scuse me one sec...





Biased Sample fallacy.
This "atheist prayer" (to who? to what?) would have to apply to all atheists in order to serve your definition. It does not. You're projecting them.

Thus I run rings around you logically.

What a silly conclusion. You have displayed a miniscule command of logic thus far. You continually try to re-inject questions that have been asked and answered...likely due to your reluctance to actually read and understand the material in the cited links.

It's minuscule actually -- yet I just showed you your biased sample/composition fallacy. I refer you yet again to the example of why that's a fallacy, Eric Rudolph -- a comparison, like the basis questions, that you have failed to address at all.

I said earlier that I am not aware of WHY some atheists have created their own religion complete with the expected trappings of other religions...such as ministers, Sunday school, solicitation of donations...AS I HAVE PROVED HAS HAPPENED. I suggested (and was backed up by a cited source...a source that you evidently did not read) that the driving force may be a need for the fellowship of like-minded believers (that God does not exist).

Doesn't matter; it's a Biased Sample fallacy. You can bring the pope of this church to my door for dinner -- it's not going to chase the fallacy away. Anyone can found their own Church of the Subgenius or Flying Spaghetti Monster -- that doesn't mean they have a "religion".

I refer you again to the Easter Bunny.
Do you "believe" in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no --- is that non-belief a "religion"?
Of course not. Exactly the same thing.

(quick snip)

Side note here -- what sort of genuine journalism doesn't know the difference between its and it's?

This common mistake (or typographical error) does not detract from the message. You're grasping at straws to appear logical.

No need to "grasp" -- it jumps off the page. It's not the kind of gaffe one sees in real journalism.
I didn't even read your link there; I'm suggesting maybe you should.

He happens to be correct on this issue.

Horse shit! That is your opinion only. The video was nothing more than a diatribe created by paid writers of humor for presentation by a pseudo-intellectual, comical pimp for Atheism. He is the Church Jester! Cute but not intellectually challenging.

I can tell by your current signature that goofy Bill is your idol. Could he be an object of your worship?

To wit: "The next liberal to tell a Republican "You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts" should really just admit they've never seen Fox News. --Bill Maher"

We notice that once again you shy away from touching any of his points, and instead go straight to poisoning the well. Which is another fallacy btw, you're welcome.

Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
It sure is an easy topic. I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.

Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on. From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while. Weeeird. Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion". Or how it could qualify as one.

Again, you revisit issues that have been asked and answered. I would suggest that you re-read this entire thread to see how silly you look in this most recent post. I have great difficulty conjuring up a realization of a more well defined idiot than you appear to be.

Ad hom is yet another fallacy.

They have never been answered. Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why". Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises have no such answer. See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist. Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.

They told you about those checks, right?

 

[THE LIGHT]

That's because you didn't look at the source. You might try reading some actual documents. Just saying...

I did. Have you? Just sayin...

 

[asaratis]

............ Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why". Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises have no such answer. See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist. Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.

They told you about those checks, right?

You misquote me in order to appear correct. I did not say that I have no idea why some atheists have formed a religion.

I said that I am not aware of why....(you might want to look up the meaning of "aware" before you post more foolishness)

That simply means that I do not know for certain why....

Then I went on to say what MAY be the reason.....atheists seek the comfort of like-minded believers. That's my "idea"....my opinion....subject to be incorrect. However, whatever the reason, it is true that some atheists have turned Atheism into a religion.

Read back and see what a fool you have been.


This will be my final post in this failed thread. You may claim victory until hell freezes over, pigs fly or Jesus returns....I care not what you say.

 

[Pogo]

............ Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why". Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises have no such answer. See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist. Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.

They told you about those checks, right?

You misquote me in order to appear correct. I did not say that I have no idea why some atheists have formed a religion.

I said that I am not aware of why....(you might want to look up the meaning of "aware" before you post more foolishness)

That simply means that I do not know for certain why....

Then I went on to say what MAY be the reason.....atheists seek the comfort of like-minded believers. That's my "idea"....my opinion....subject to be incorrect. However, whatever the reason, it is true that some atheists have turned Atheism into a religion.

Read back and see what a fool you have been.


This will be my final post in this failed thread. You may claim victory until hell freezes over, pigs fly or Jesus returns....I care not what you say.

I'm hip.
But without knowing the "what's in it for them" question -- you have no bridge to your conclusion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.

Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.

 

[Hollie]

Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.

Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.

You continue to further the falsehood that rejecting belief in supernatural entities is a faith. You appear desperate to equate rationality and reason with religious belief (belief in the supernatural), for the purpose of somehow bolstering your partisan gods.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

 

[amrchaos]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

That would be the EASIEST religion to run!!

A one page "Statement of Faith", thus no need to read large ponderous and boring tomes of literature incorporating opinions of individuals that could be wrong based but useful for the church.

No restrictions besides upholding the "Statement of Faith", which could be shorter than the Preamble to the US constitution.

Also, no reason for Donations, Which brings us to the question:


How could an Atheist church file for tax exemption if it has no means of generating income?

Think about it. Where is this "Golden Egg-laying" Goose of the atheist that the other cults have? Charity for Christians. The "Tech" for Scientologist. Hell, even Buddhists and Hindi's run meditation/yoga retreats for their members.

Where is the Atheist Cash Cow? What "Profit" does the Atheistic clergy makes in spreading it?

Actual Truth is profitless and time consuming and doesn't require special "intuitive" literature t acquire, if it can be. Where's the BS in Atheism that gets the Money Ball rolling?

No Money--No Tax exemption. The IRS should fine you for wasting their time!!

 

[Carla_Danger]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm hip.
But without knowing the "what's in it for them" question -- you have no bridge to your conclusion.

WTF?

Why do you think he needs a bridge, whatever the fuck you think that means, when you are trying to walk on air, and he clearly explained why he thinks they are doing it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

If you could prove that god does not exist you would be famous as the first person in history to prove something that is impossible to prove. Since you arent, you can't really prove anything, despite your faith that you can.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I deal with worthless scum every day and night. You are nothing special.

You are just looking for attention...I get it.

Sometimes ignorant assholes attempt to get attention and find they have opened a door they wish they hadn't.

Mad? Your stupid uneducated insults only serve to underline why you are dumb enough to be a Christian. Mad? Just more aware of what you are. Thanks for the heads up.

I do love a good meltdown in the morning...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion as well. A cult actually. Yoga too, it's a part of Hinduism hence Christian Yoga, Jewish Yoga as you may have seen.

Atheism is a religion as well. Defined collection of beliefs is about all it takes. Don't need theism to be a religion. Scientology is technically a pyramid scam yet is considered in law to be a religion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion as well. A cult actually. Yoga too, it's a part of Hinduism hence Christian Yoga, Jewish Yoga as you may have seen.

Atheism is a religion as well. Defined collection of beliefs is about all it takes. Don't need theism to be a religion. Scientology is technically a pyramid scam yet is considered in law to be a religion.

I wouldn't consider AA a religion, since your higher power can be a rock. The majority of people who attend AA might be Christian, but that doesn't mean AA IS a religion. It's a support group for recovering alcoholics. You are not required to believe in God to attend.

And yoga by itself is not a religion, therefore, people who are simply going for fitness/health, are not a involved in the religious aspect. Furthermore, I believe in yoga class. I've done yoga. I've had friends in yoga.

Everyone has a collection of beliefs. Again, we're back to the "do you believe in Bigfoot?"

See, someone took the time to write a book about all the sightings since 1818. I haven't seen Bigfoot and neither have you. No one I personally know has ever seen Bigfoot, therefore I do no believe Bigfoot exists.

IS THAT A FREAKING RELIGION?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why Atheism is not a Religion - YouTube

 

[HUGGY]

Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.

Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.

I can't speak for any other atheists but I don't seek or desire to seek other atheists for any comfort. That goes to the heart of the reason why atheism isn't a religion in my book. I don't need verification of the obvious stupidity in believing in magical answers to the reasons we have evolved to this point in the human existance and the presence of our physical environment. I see no need for anyone to co-sign the obvious.

ALL other so-called human enlightenment such as religion needs peer preasure to sustain these philosophies. Nobody would be born in the wilderness and raised by wolves and come to the rediculous conclusions that groups of human beings come up with. Free from the power seekers and those susceptable to the fears planted in their heads by lunatics a man truly left to his own devices would never out of the blue believe in a sky fairy.

Societal living has many advantages but there are many pifalls too. There is ALWAYS a power structure to enforce the status of those that came before and to ensure they remain in power. Part of that power structure is the passing on and enforcement of belief systems and how the young must accept the structure's dogma or face the threat of rejection or even in extreme religions death.

This has been the history of religion. Religion does not tolorate question of it's authority to dictate truth or factuality. It cannot. It MUST defend it's myths.

Atheists do not have such need to defend one's own observations to a fault. An atheist is free to weigh and accept facts or reject facts found wanting as they come and learn as time goes on and find that something once held is found to be replaced by a better understanding. It isn't that the atheist is/was wrong neccesarily but not everything is easily understood at first glance. These are all personal reflections and require no group authority to process. That is partially or even mainly why I cannot accept atheism as a religion. It is also mainly why religists cannot understand that viewpoint as they are trained from birth to pass all thought through the group for verification that it does not offend the power structure.

Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.

Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.

both are based on natural laws.

So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
and what makes them count as NOT so?

I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.

I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.

What makes something a religion?

Some factors I find:
1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.

One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
* Respect for Truth
* Respect for Freedom
* Respect for People and the Environment
I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.

2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
(not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.

Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.

To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.

Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.

3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.

I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.

I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
and spiritual growth.

So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.

Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?

There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"

But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.

To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion

Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
(but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)

Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
down until they were written down and given a name:

"Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed." Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs

Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.

Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.

NOTE: As for not believing in God
Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.

Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground. Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.

The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it. I know a religion doesn't need a founder. I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism. Taoism is another example.

On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies. We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic. The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".

And that's where we are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?

Dear Blackrook: It depends if you represent this in public in some derogatory way.
if you are saying this to try to argue Atheists are hypocrites for pushing their own beliefs,
of course that is going to get a negative reaction because of the motive for saying that.

There is a growing movement of Atheists forming their own church congregations
and doing all the same sharing and fellowship, but without referring to God and deities etc.

My friend told me he looked this up, and one of the founding Atheists who was establishing
such congregations got a letter complaining from some other Atheist group that this was
wrong; he wasn't practicing Atheism the right way, but making the same thing out of it they were trying to avoid, I guess!

So not all Atheists are like you say.
Some acknowledge they have their own beliefs, and yes they do get criticized by other Atheists opposed to religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.

Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.

then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
and has been compared with the "scientific method" of
a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
b. testing and studying the theory or process
c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth

With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.

I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.

My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
but can't see when she does it.

I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.

I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.

And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.