Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[alpine]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

 

[Pogo]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to its premise?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in ...uh, "something". I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

I can declare, "golf is a stupid, mindless game and a waste of time"; I don't need to book a tee time at a country club to make that statement.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I don't believe in cars.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Well done. Hoist with his own petard.

 

[alpine]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

 

[Pogo]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

Again -- how can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

If I say "hand me that, please" -- what am I talking about? "That" cup of coffee? "That" pencil? "That" piano?

"Religion" is a set of beliefs about the deeper universe (regardless whether those beliefs include theism or not). Atheism has no such beliefs in itself; it simply rejects one of many theories. Therefore it does not qualify, having no doctrinal framework that makes a religion a religion. An atheist may hold any number of beliefs in that area, even directly contradictory to those of another atheist. Because atheism doesn't dictate any particular belief at all. It tells us absolutely nothing about what the subject believes.

 

[sealybobo]

Number 24

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

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

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

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.

The generic god that most people on USMB argue for, it really doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.

So really the only god that I argue against is the one you say will send me to hell if I don't believe in him or the Muslim one that says kill anyone who isn't a muslim. And I'm sure you have to be a Mormon or Jehova to go to heaven right?

All other gods are harmless.

So if not believing in YOUR GOD is a religion, where do I join?

If I'm obsessed about your god it's because your stories are so god damn stupid and you were clearly brainwashed to believe such stupid stories. The more I hear the less I believe. The other day am radio they were talking about ancient revelations that came true. First off, so fucking what and second off, prove it? Or show me a new proficy fulfilled. Tell me one that has yet to be fullfilled and that is coming up, besides the end of the world. The mark of the beast? You freaking kooks crack me up.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Bill Maher nailed it when he said they're trying to put our reason on the shelf with their un-reason, to create a fake fair and balanced argument. I know you are, but what am I?

.

 

[alpine]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.

.

 

[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.

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

Bill Maher nailed it when he said they're trying to put our reason on the shelf with their un-reason, to create a fake fair and balanced argument. I know you are, but what am I?

Seems like it. Since they won't answer the question, that will have to do.

And it makes logical sense; in other words once it's been pointed out that they've painted themselves into a corner, they want company in that corner, presumably to save face. So they start insisting, "hey, you're standing in the corner too" --- to people who aren't even in the room.

 

[Pogo]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

 

[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.

The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.

By his logic the "Pennsylvania Dutch" would have to move to Holland to start interbreeding; the band 10,000 Maniacs would need a massive stage; and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a place where everybody gets a vote and the People run the joint. Also you'd have to completely change the entire ingredient list of Grape Nuts.

 

[Pogo]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

I'm afraid that definition is faultily limited. It's a definition of theistic religion.

More inclusive for this purpose, brought forth from earlier:

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)

 

[alpine]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us what is not there.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?

Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?

Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.

Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.

 

[Pogo]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us what is not there.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?

Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?

Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.

Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.

Your argument here is that atheism is a thought process. Of course it is -- every thought is. It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief. Nobody argues with that.

But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion". And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny. That's absurd.

Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it

What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.

By his logic the "Pennsylvania Dutch" would have to move to Holland to start interbreeding; the band 10,000 Maniacs would need a massive stage; and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a place where everybody gets a vote and the People run the joint. Also you'd have to completely change the entire ingredient list of Grape Nuts.

And Fox News is neither fair, or balanced.

.

 

[alpine]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us what is not there.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?

Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?

Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.

Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.

Your argument here is that atheism is a thought process. Of course it is -- every thought is. It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief. Nobody argues with that.

But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion". And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny. That's absurd.

Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it

What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?

If we go back to your "Volvo" suggestion; all the cars are produced in a car factory, but not only cars are produced in a car factory. No matter how opposite your atheism is to theism, it is the production of the same assembly line, and that alone is enough to categorize them all as one.

Therefore categorizing atheism as a religious view is not something you can "dismiss", but something you could reject, of course after the process of thinking and considering and argumenting about it.

dismiss: treat as unworthy of serious consideration

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is "something" a religion?

Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is "something" a religion?

Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.

Complete nonsense!