Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.

 

[alpine]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

 

[PratchettFan]

[

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?

But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.[/QUOTE]

No. Carla indicates she is number 6. She thinks that God is very improbable. There is no evidence to support that. It is a belief. She didn't give up beliefs, she changed beliefs. So either she is not an Atheist or your definition is wrong.

Then let us take the number 7. An Atheist who says they are 100% sure there is no God. Dawkins says this is not just an Atheist but a strong Atheist. Anyone holding that position is operating on pure faith. How does that fit into your definition?

 

[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?

This is my opinion:

A bird's instinct to build a nest (peculiar to its own species) is natural. A bird house with a pitched roof, a round doorway and a SEE ROCK CITY sign painted on top is not.

A bee hive or hornets nest are both natural. A beekeepers box is not.

My earlier example of iron ore and knives is clear. Iron ore exists in nature. Knives do not.

Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors. (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others. We learn from experience. We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation. All these homes we build do not occur naturally. We have taught ourselves to build them.

Semantics can be confusing. My original contention that your original statement is false is correct.

Semantics can certainly be made to be confusing. Human beings are natural and we do what is natural for us. Anything we make is also natural. It is not supernatural or unnatural. Everything we use to make things are also entirely natural. So your original contention the my original statement is false is false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go painting yourself into a corner again.

Active atheists, like you, define the universe by saying that god does not exist. That, like it or not, is a belief. Every single time you try to claim you don't believe that you end up arguing that very fact, and always end up looking like an idiot.

If you truly did not define the universe as being without god it would not matter to you if someone else insisted that god is the foundation of the universe, you would care as little as you do when someone tells their child about the Easter Bunny.

 

[Pogo]

[

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?

But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.

No. Carla indicates she is number 6. She thinks that God is very improbable. There is no evidence to support that. It is a belief. She didn't give up beliefs, she changed beliefs. So either she is not an Atheist or your definition is wrong.

Then let us take the number 7. An Atheist who says they are 100% sure there is no God. Dawkins says this is not just an Atheist but a strong Atheist. Anyone holding that position is operating on pure faith. How does that fit into your definition?

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up. I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do you hate our Constitution?

By "your constitution" I assume you mean that of the constitution of the Khmer Rouge, correct?

What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?

Ah, so you think Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church is the Constitution?

You voted for Obama, dinja?

Here's the best thing Ronald Reagan ever did.....he had a son.

You cannot formulate a cogent argument, can you?

 

[Pogo]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

Emotional meltdown continues...

(a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
(b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
(c) the end.

Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all. Premise presented; premise rejected. Not rocket surgery.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is this what I imagine with this post..??

Because you have the IQ of a lamp post.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

 

[Pogo]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

Wait, you just wrote "Allah". That makes you "bound to Islam".
According to the same logic...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The only people that argue for a generic god are the atheists who have to define god their way so that no one else can offer any evidence that such a god can exist. Most believers believe in a god that is very much the opposite of generic.

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?

Then why the fuck do you keep arguing with me? I have actually pointed out that Hell isn't real, yet you insist the god I think might be real does not exist. Perhaps you have had your head up your ass, or perhaps you are a lying sack of shit. Either way, you end up looking like a fool.

All other gods are harmless.

Ever here of Shiva? Pretty sure the nickname the Destroyer isn't an indication of harmlessness. Then we have gods like Ares and Guan Yu, neither of which are noted for being harmless.

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

In your ignorant excuse for a brain, where else?

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.

You really should study some comparative mythology.

Better yet, read all those fairy tales you think are suitable for children in their original forms.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

 

[Pogo]

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?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

No, it is the opposite of action. Only the thought process is an action. You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating theism with religion.

And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does. The point is it does not espouse any beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Ok. I just want to point out that you just made up a word. Kind of brought a tear to my eye.

 

[alpine]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

.

Not according to the IRS. The reason for that is pretty simple, for intelligent people, to grasp. Defining a church as being exclusively Christian would create a state recognized religion.