Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

False. If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My minor was Philosophy, and watching the religionists and atheists go crazy in class over the issue amused me then as well as now.

 

[Hollie]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?

 

[Pogo]

Isn’t atheism a religion?
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ

Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?

Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
or music to interact with musicians. This does not make any of these my religion.
But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"

Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
or out of your work ethic.

As for smoking or nonsmoking.
Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
and some people don't treat it like that.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be this way or
B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.

Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?

Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?

If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?

If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
a different religion than all the other people who believe in
dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?

If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?

No, you're not the only one. Religion is an action. I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others. Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others. Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one. Same with Atheism. In and of itself, it is not a religion. But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way. Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.

THANK you. Thread premise confirmed. Everything else is noise.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?

You are, as passionate as any holy believer.

 

[Hollie]

huggy and hollie sitting in a tree,
d e n y i n g!!!

Denying what?

Unsubstantiated claims made about supernatural entities? You have presented no argument in favor of gods that can be supported. I'm only denying that you can make a valid argument. Appeals to supernaturalism is not an argument.

 

[Hollie]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?

You are, as passionate as any holy believer.

You are, wrong.

Your goofy "... because I say so" nonsense is hardly an argument.

It's actually comical how befuddled you fundies get when anyone questions your claims to magical gods.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Yet, you can't identify a single connection between religious dogma and conclusions regarding the non-existence of various gods.

The dogma is that your beliefs are not beliefs.

It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts. If there are no gods, then religion is entirely about people and you are people. It is not about whether or not there are gods. I could not care less whether there or not there are gods. God is an complete irrelevancy. God either exists or does not and I could not care less which. This is about how people think and act. And, regardless of what you would like to think of yourself, you are no less people than anyone else.

An unsupported belief is an unsupported belief. If you can support your position, do so. If you can't, then your continued insistence that it is not belief can only be called dogmatic.

 

[PratchettFan]

Isn’t atheism a religion?
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ

Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?

Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
or music to interact with musicians. This does not make any of these my religion.
But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"

Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
or out of your work ethic.

As for smoking or nonsmoking.
Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
and some people don't treat it like that.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be this way or
B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.

Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?

Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?

If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?

If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
a different religion than all the other people who believe in
dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?

If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?

No, you're not the only one. Religion is an action. I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others. Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others. Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one. Same with Atheism. In and of itself, it is not a religion. But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way. Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.

THANK you. Thread premise confirmed. Everything else is noise.

The premise of thread was you taking statements out of context and pretending the rest of the post did not exist?

 

[PratchettFan]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?

Ok. You just made a claim. Support it.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

 

[Hollie]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.

Yes. That is the dogma.

Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?

Ok. You just made a claim. Support it.

All claims to gods are of human origin.

Here's your chance to prove otherwise. Prove your gods have magically written a book.

 

[Pogo]

Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?

* Buddhism does not claim to teach where the world or life came from.
Just to explain the natural spiritual laws that already exist.
* Science seeks to put natural laws into formulas, patterns and words to establish understanding and share with others.
* Constitutionalism put principles into statutory laws so these could be use for governance and democratic process and development.

Buddhism becomes a religion when people divide into groups and perceive their beliefs are different.
Constitutionalism becomes a religion when people try to enforce laws by natural authority and find disagreements
they attribute to differences in beliefs.

Secular humanism and liberalism become religions for similar reasons.

I don't get why you keep saying Atheism doesn't meet the same terms of religion,
when Buddhism doesn't either. And Buddhism is perceived as a religion even though its members will say it isn't either.

Is it because you can blame Buddhism as being focused on "worshipping" Buddha that you can label it religion?
Or say Hinduism is "worshipping" god figures that you can label it religion?

Not all people who call themselves Buddhist or Hindu worship anything outside themselves.
How are they any different from Atheists who do or who do not come across as religious to others?

In general, I would classify groups in the population as "Secular Gentiles" who follow natural laws.
And say this group INCLUDES Atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, secular humanists, Constitutionalists,
peace and justice activists, etc. who may believe in Truth, Justice and Peace but just not use symbols to express it.
They worship these principles in different ways that according to you should not count as religions.

That's fine but remember to treat other people the same way, like Buddhists Hindus and Christians who
also say they are following Spiritual Laws that naturally exist and are not worshipping any THING as a Religion.

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.

Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.

When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?" While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.

I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment. The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick. The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die. I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.

Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion. Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).

(Moved down): "Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?"


It's the definition, Emily. Have a look:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

 

[Hollie]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

False. If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.

Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.

Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.

Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

 

[PratchettFan]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

False. If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.

Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.

Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.

Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.

I have yet to see any reason or rationality. Only an unshakeable faith.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?