Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
No. I can't. I never once claimed I could. Do you see how that works? I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it. You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief. The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit. It is false. Untrue. Pure crap.
Sorry, that's false. Untrue. Pure crap.
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
That's all there is to it. You yourself admitted it earlier. And I quote:
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.
And you were right. So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you? It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny? Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. But it sure as hell is being treated as one. Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one. So don't blame others. You're the ones who did it.
Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
Please do try to take the time to read what I say. I'm not treating it as a religion. The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists. All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
Nonsense. You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR: "I know you are but what am I" argument will hold some water.
You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate. You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders. Sadly for YOU there are none.
Solly Chawlee.... wrong species. I don't roll that way. I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?
To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?
You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.I don't. It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman. See "Saul Alinksy". See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"? What's in it for you?
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
Easter Bunny? Unicorns? Loch Ness Monster? Elvis still alive?
Nothing. I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me. I do not care what you believe or disbelieve. What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate. Atheism is a religion.
So you're saying this guy is a god...
Your own logic, dood...
You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.I don't. It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman. See "Saul Alinksy". See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"? What's in it for you?
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
Easter Bunny? Unicorns? Loch Ness Monster? Elvis still alive?
Nothing. I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me. I do not care what you believe or disbelieve. What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate. Atheism is a religion.
So you're saying this guy is a god...
Your own logic, dood...
Good luck in the continuance of your education. You have a long row to hoe.
I don't. It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman. See "Saul Alinksy". See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"? What's in it for you?
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
Easter Bunny? Unicorns? Loch Ness Monster? Elvis still alive?
Nothing. I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me. I do not care what you believe or disbelieve. What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate. Atheism is a religion.
So you're saying this guy is a god...
Your own logic, dood...
You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.I don't. It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman. See "Saul Alinksy". See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"? What's in it for you?
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
Easter Bunny? Unicorns? Loch Ness Monster? Elvis still alive?
Nothing. I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me. I do not care what you believe or disbelieve. What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate. Atheism is a religion.
So you're saying this guy is a god...
Your own logic, dood...
Good luck in the continuance of your education. You have a long row to hoe.
Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!
Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast
The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited,” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.
You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.I don't. It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent. One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism". There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists. Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
They will always be there for you....and the courts agree. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. That you are not a religious person means nothing here. It's not all about you.
"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman. See "Saul Alinksy". See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"? What's in it for you?
Do you believe in reincarnation? If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
Easter Bunny? Unicorns? Loch Ness Monster? Elvis still alive?
Nothing. I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me. I do not care what you believe or disbelieve. What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate. Atheism is a religion.
So you're saying this guy is a god...
Your own logic, dood...
Good luck in the continuance of your education. You have a long row to hoe.
Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!
Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast
The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited,” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.
I'll repeat: from the same link..........
From your link...
Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global
Congregations for atheists are springing up all over the planet. There’s already a schism: celebrate life without a deity, or preach atheism. The celebration is winning.
Plans to set up almost 400 “atheist churches” on five continents are underway after the extraordinary success of one small congregation that began holding godless services just over a year ago.
Word about the religion-free church spread like wildfire after the first Sunday Assembly was held in a deconsecrated church in Highbury, North London, in January 2013. By September, 100 congregations will be holding services from Singapore and South Africa to Sao Paulo and San Diego. A further 274 teams currently are working on plans to launch their own assemblies.
I'll repeat....religion-free!
In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist. And that they practice when they've lost the argument.
/thread
Those free from faith do not 'practice' a 'religion' as perceived by theists; indeed, it's a false comparison fallacy.
Moreover, there is nothing to be 'advanced,' just as the Earth orbiting the Sun doesn't need to be 'advanced.' One either accepts the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists or he rejects it; one acknowledges a fact because it is a fact, not because one is enticed to do so by doctrinal incentives or promises made by religious dogma.
Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?
Just because religion is used to mean traditional religions, doesn't mean it cannot also apply loosely
to the more general term of religion as cited above. These two can both exist, and not one is right and one is wrong.
Some religions meet the formal traditional sense of organized religion, and some do not. What is wrong with both????
2. Again, note:
Even though BUDDHISM is considered a world religion,
there are many members who say it is not.
So that's an even STRONGER argument for Atheism.
Just because it is a religion to some people, as Buddhism is considered,
doesn't mean it is a religion to those who call themselves Buddhists (or Atheists).
I know many people who fit under either category or none at all,
and call themselves Buddhists or call themselves Atheist or Christian.
Some of them DO fall under traditional religion, some under personal belief and not a formal religion,
and some without this sense of religion at all. SO FU WHAT.
Why is there this absolute COMPULSION to label people the same?
What religion IS THAT?
================================
3.Pogo said:-- 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.
3. When Constitutional values are INSTITUTIONALIZED into laws and govt, and people PRACTICE them and
rebuke each other by those laws BY CONSCIENCE, by formal commitment and profession to uphold these laws, the same way Christians do with the Bible, to establish agreement on laws in the authority they all agree to follow, THEN it becomes religious just like Christianity.
4Pogo said: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.
4. I was citing how people look at Buddhism from the outside as a religion.
My mother claims not to worship Buddha, but the Buddhist do have religious rituals where they treat
Buddha statues and any representation of Buddha so reverently that it appears to be worshipping his image.
So my POINT, Pogo is that all this IS projected from the outside. For the convenience of other people
trying to LABEL something as religion or as worship -- when in fact, if you are inside that group, you say no it isn't that!!!
So if this happens with Buddhism, how is that any different from it happening with Atheism?
===========================================
5.Pogo said:(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
And the SAME is true of some Atheists who DO treat it as their religious convictions!
Why are we having this argument if we agree?
When my mother argues that Buddhism is not a religion, we go through this same thing.
Fine, I agree. With some people Buddhism is not a religion at all, nothing like one and has nothing to do with any of that.
So of course I agree that some Atheists are going to say that, and some are going to be offended,
and some are going to protest so much they contradict themselves as my mother does who IS very religious about her Buddhism!
Pogo, you of all people, I don't think I need to have this argument with.
I don't see you as religious about anything. I am probably more religious than you are about things.
But that is not to say there AREN'T atheists out there who make a religion of their beliefs.
If you and I both agree there are religious scientists, and media nuts, or pro-this or anti-that who make
religions out of their systems and beliefs, can we agree there are some atheists who fall into that group also?
faith
fāTH/
noun
- 1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More - 2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?
To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?
For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
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. Nothing more.
--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
NOTE the emphasis on "HAS" as "REQUIRED" which is NOT the case!
See definitions of religion below, which INCLUDE beliefs in general held personally important or sacred:
So YES your idea of religion IS included but is NOT the ONLY one:
==================================================
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
==========================================
So Pogo my point is a religion does not HAVE to have these things you cite to be a religion.
That is NOT a requirement.
These are equally considered proper usage of the term religion:
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
That's my point. Do you get it now?
See below marked in BOLD:
1.Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?
Just because religion is used to mean traditional religions, doesn't mean it cannot also apply loosely
to the more general term of religion as cited above. These two can both exist, and not one is right and one is wrong.
Some religions meet the formal traditional sense of organized religion, and some do not. What is wrong with both????
2. Again, note:
Even though BUDDHISM is considered a world religion,
there are many members who say it is not.
So that's an even STRONGER argument for Atheism.
Just because it is a religion to some people, as Buddhism is considered,
doesn't mean it is a religion to those who call themselves Buddhists (or Atheists).
I know many people who fit under either category or none at all,
and call themselves Buddhists or call themselves Atheist or Christian.
Some of them DO fall under traditional religion, some under personal belief and not a formal religion,
and some without this sense of religion at all. SO FU WHAT.
Why is there this absolute COMPULSION to label people the same?
What religion IS THAT?
================================
3.Pogo said:-- 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.
3. When Constitutional values are INSTITUTIONALIZED into laws and govt, and people PRACTICE them and
rebuke each other by those laws BY CONSCIENCE, by formal commitment and profession to uphold these laws, the same way Christians do with the Bible, to establish agreement on laws in the authority they all agree to follow, THEN it becomes religious just like Christianity.
4Pogo said: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.
4. I was citing how people look at Buddhism from the outside as a religion.
My mother claims not to worship Buddha, but the Buddhist do have religious rituals where they treat
Buddha statues and any representation of Buddha so reverently that it appears to be worshipping his image.
So my POINT, Pogo is that all this IS projected from the outside. For the convenience of other people
trying to LABEL something as religion or as worship -- when in fact, if you are inside that group, you say no it isn't that!!!
So if this happens with Buddhism, how is that any different from it happening with Atheism?
===========================================
5.Pogo said:(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
And the SAME is true of some Atheists who DO treat it as their religious convictions!
Why are we having this argument if we agree?
When my mother argues that Buddhism is not a religion, we go through this same thing.
Fine, I agree. With some people Buddhism is not a religion at all, nothing like one and has nothing to do with any of that.
So of course I agree that some Atheists are going to say that, and some are going to be offended,
and some are going to protest so much they contradict themselves as my mother does who IS very religious about her Buddhism!
Pogo, you of all people, I don't think I need to have this argument with.
I don't see you as religious about anything. I am probably more religious than you are about things.
But that is not to say there AREN'T atheists out there who make a religion of their beliefs.
If you and I both agree there are religious scientists, and media nuts, or pro-this or anti-that who make
religions out of their systems and beliefs, can we agree there are some atheists who fall into that group also?
Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one. I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. Atheism is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position. In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or likelihood.
You just contradicted yourself.
Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"? Obviously it is not.
Same damn thing. Exactly . Period. Waiter, check please.
Having it both ways: Priceless.
No, it's not and no it is not the same thing. I don't care enough to treat it as a religion. But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness? If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
See the defensiveness yet again?
"Nothingness" there does not refer to "God". It refers to atheism and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
My mistake. Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.
Why do you feel the need to villianize?
Aaaand we're right back to where we started, where you call your own strawman to the witness stand.
Proceed, Counselor. Let this strawperson explain to the court what this "dogma" is. The First Court of Circular Reasoning is now in session, Judge Pee Wee Herman presiding....
Aaaand I am once again answering that question. The dogma is that your belief is not belief.
So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?
Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen? i.e. that the absence of belief is itself a belief?
You just contradicted yourself.
Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"? Obviously it is not.
Same damn thing. Exactly . Period. Waiter, check please.
Having it both ways: Priceless.
So, you think faith is believing in things when you have proof?
You voted for Barack Obama, dinja?
It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
No. I can't. I never once claimed I could. Do you see how that works? I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it. You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief. The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit. It is false. Untrue. Pure crap.
Sorry, that's false. Untrue. Pure crap.
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
That's all there is to it. You yourself admitted it earlier. And I quote:
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.
And you were right. So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you? It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny? Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. But it sure as hell is being treated as one. Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one. So don't blame others. You're the ones who did it.
Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
Please do try to take the time to read what I say. I'm not treating it as a religion. The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists. All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
Nonsense. You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR: "I know you are but what am I" argument will hold some water.
You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate. You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders. Sadly for YOU there are none.
Solly Chawlee.... wrong species. I don't roll that way. I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?
To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?
Okay, I think I see the problem here. Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.
You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
