Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.

I realize what he meant. He just said it wrongly.

nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
Full Definition of NATURAL
...
12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>

b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>


For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster. Hominy hominy hominy.

No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.

If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE

 

[asaratis]

How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.

Thank you, Mary!

You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.

You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.

No I haven't. I said that an atheist does not have to be religious. YOU misstated what I said to make your claim. What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.

Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread. Its Big Bang so to speak. And you've been repeating it over and over.

But it's not a lie. I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches. Atheism is a religion available to all. That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.

 

[asaratis]

How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.

Thank you, Mary!

You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.

For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"? What agenda does it serve?

I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong. That doesn't change the fact that you are.

So you still can't answer.

I did answer. I have no need for you to be wrong.

A similar question to yours is: Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[MaryL]

My dad died from brain cancer, in pain...I wondered were god's love was then. Then, well, life is filled with all sorts of injustices and woe. God always seems to be nowhere around when you need him the most. Pray, nada. Random meaningless stuff happens. I find it hard to believe in God because his "love" is as meaningless as if God wasn't there. Why bother with the pretenses? Religion is a waste of time.

 

[Pogo]

"Because I said it is!"

Actually he tries to evade the question every time but he left a clue why he needs atheism to be a "religion" in the mother thread:

What Atheist leaders are there? What TV Atheist evangelists? What Atheist political pundits with the ear of the politically powerful?

Oh, you silly rabbit! Atheists cannot be evangelists as that relates to teaching the ways of Christianity, especially of the Gospels. The atheist leaders are the activists that promote their cause...for reasons aforementioned. I would imagine that the scarcity of atheist political pundits results from the severe lack of large audiences likely to listen to their drivel. (There are not many liberal talk show hosts either...for the same reason...they can't hold a decent audience.)

My estimates are that atheists comprise about 2% of the world population and maybe 6% of the United States population...hardly worth trying to form a political party behind.

He doesn't know the difference between "religion" and "politics". He actually thinks we're talking about some kind of political party.

 

[Pogo]

How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.

Thank you, Mary!

You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.

You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.

No I haven't. I said that an atheist does not have to be religious. YOU misstated what I said to make your claim. What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.

Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread. Its Big Bang so to speak. And you've been repeating it over and over.

But it's not a lie. I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches. Atheism is a religion available to all. That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.

What you have there is, again, a Composition Fallacy. "I found a 'church'! Must be a religion!"
Uhhh.... no. I found Grape Nuts on the grocery shelf -- doesn't make it a grape or nut product.

As a comparison I directed you to the Church of the Subgenius. That doesn't make J.R. "Bob" Dobbs a god.

As I remember that's when you left this thread.

 

[Pogo]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.

I realize what he meant. He just said it wrongly.

nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
Full Definition of NATURAL
...
12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>

b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>


For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster. Hominy hominy hominy.

No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.

If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE

Yuh huh. What dictionary did you write again?

"Atheism is Religion!"
"Natural can only mean nature!"
"War is Peace!"
"Freedom is Slavery!"

And of course, the biggie...

"Ignorance is Strength!"

 

[asaratis]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.

I realize what he meant. He just said it wrongly.

nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
Full Definition of NATURAL
...
12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>

b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>


For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster. Hominy hominy hominy.

No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.

If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE

Yuh huh. What dictionary did you write again?

"Atheism is Religion!"
"Natural can only mean nature!"
"War is Peace!"
"Freedom is Slavery!"

And of course, the biggie...

"Ignorance is Strength!"

You've taken strawman to a whole new level.

 

[Pogo]

Clearly then, Strawman is a "religion".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"? What agenda does it serve?

This from the guy that insists that he has the only valid definition of religion, and that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a moron.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Was this directed to me? When you let your posts grow to a giant redwood like that it's reeeeeaaally hard to tell what's referring to what. I'll ask you to please prune the nest as you go. I cut out about 80% of this and it wasn't easy.

Assuming it's to me, I guess we're free to grope for another word for 'supernatural' but some term is needed -- meaning that which is beyond the natural world. Natural and supernatrual are two different things, and the latter is what religion attempts to address.

In the term "gods" I was pointing out that our language/cultural background, in using the term "gods", is insufficient to grok the concept as it's used in cultures outside our own -- IOW we may describe Greek "gods" or African or Native American animist "gods" but imagining them as a parallel based on our own monotheistic anthropomorphize Guy-in-the-Sky is just not accurate.

Some cultures, where we describe "gods", see not "gods" but something more at "essence" or "energy" or, dare I say, "spirit". This comes into play when we start analyzing that this religion over here has "gods", that one over there has "no gods" --- our language and the culture behind it simply does not have the scope to make those assessments in black and white. So when we start constructing rules and guidelines about what constitutes a religion, or even what constitutes theism, we venture into a very grey area, linguistically.[/QUOTE]

*************************************************************************

I disagree we need the word supernatural. If something exists, then it is natural. I think we use the word for things we don't know or understand. At the dawn of our species a cigarette lighter would have been seen as supernatural.

I asked what you meant by gods. When you say you have no belief in gods, what are you talking about?

As to the nature of religion, I think you are pointing out the uselessness of basing it on definitions. I prefer to look at attributes of behavior, for those are objective and identifiable. If we were to investigate the possibility of religion within a group of chimpanzees, what behavior would we be looking for? IMO, there are three basic behaviors in religion (four in some cases - if you want to include proselytizing).

1. A group identity. A differentiation between us and them.
2. Faith based. The group is identified by core beliefs which are not related directly to physical reality.
3. Dogma. The tenets of the group are unquestioned.

Some might include ritual in this, but I consider that to be a factor of hierarchy. Ritual is a justification for priests.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

Are you saying rayon is supernatural?

 

[asaratis]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

Are you saying rayon is supernatural?

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. If something exists, it is natural. But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed. So... what do you mean by "gods"?

Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that. While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural. Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.

Are you saying rayon is supernatural?

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

So a bird's nest would not be natural. Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.

 

[Sallow]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.

 

[Sallow]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.

That's fine.

As per the first amendment the government can't advocate for it and I can shout them down.

Thanks.

 

[asaratis]

So a bird's nest would not be natural. Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.

Wrong. That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.

That's fine.

As per the first amendment the government can't advocate for it and I can shout them down.

Thanks.

Sure. That's what freedom is all about.

 

[PratchettFan]

So a bird's nest would not be natural. Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.

Wrong. That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.

Then help me out here. If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural. But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural. What is the difference?