Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

No. No one has all the answers. In this arena I would go further though. No one has any answers. There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence. In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.

In math, when we use labels such as 6 and 2, we AGREE what they mean.
* * * * * * is what 6 means
* * is what 2 means.
There is also "absolute value" where -6 and 6 both have "absolute value of 6";
but this does NOT mean they are the same!

Why not apply the same approach to agreeing what symbols in religion mean?

In one context, God may refer to forces of Life, laws of Nature, unconditional Love connecting all humanity, etc.
God's will may mean the ideal or greater good for all humanity, perfect good will driving society to reach maturity and peace.

For Jesus, one context may mean spiritual salvation or liberation from the cycles of human suffering and retribution or karma.
Another may mean Equal Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Justice with Mercy, Peace and Justice.
But to the person taking an OT approach that God means judgment and punishment, Jesus may mean Retributive Justice.

What do we MEAN by these symbols?
Do we see God or Jesus as negative or positive?

In math, this makes a HUGE difference.

You cannot simply equate -3 with +3 just because they "relatively" have the same "absolute value" on opposite sides of the scale.

How can we ALIGN our variables with the values we agree they represent,
so we can at least communicate the same meanings?

Unless we can agree on what God is, there is not way to align anything. I would offer we can't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Hate to break it to you, but unicorns do exist. In fact, I have seen one with my own eyes, and even touched it. Somebody discovered the technique in an old manuscript and decided to resurrect it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist. It's a relative term - hence the scale. The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities. Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.

We who? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? There are people who absolutely deny the existence of any god whatsoever, and totally reject the possibility that any suck being is even possible. I even provided links to websites that defend that claim, and you ignored them. That presents us with a dilemma, either they are lying about what they believe, or you are wrong when you say it is impossible to believe that.

Guess which way I vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think 99% of atheists will admit they can not say 100% they know but I bet they would say they are 99.99999% sure there is no god because they see no proof and the only proof we claim to have are books filled with impossible stories and then if we ask to many questions ultimately we are told that we just have to have blind faith.

To an atheist, it is just so obvious there is no god. But we can't claim to know so the actual best position to have is to say you are an agnostic atheist. Can't say for sure but pretty sure god is all made up.

An agnostic is too wishy washy. They aren't sure. Not convinced. Don't lean either way.

Am I right atheists? Does any atheist here say they know 100% for sure nothing made us?

The whole intelligent design stuff, adam, god, eve, moses, mohammad, jesus, this we are certain is bullshit. 100% sure.

Other than you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course they did. And as noted above it's an illegitimate relationship. They have no business being conflated. And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.

No I'm not stupid. I see all too well what's been going on. When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party. That's what I mean by a "false relationship". Which is exactly what I said up there -- a wedge issue.

And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays". Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes. Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.

And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit. What part of that do you disagree with?

Did you just claim that politics and religion were never conflated before the 20th century? Have you ever read an actual history book, or do you get all your information from comics?

 

[emilynghiem]

Unless we can agree on what God is, there is not way to align anything. I would offer we can't.

I just listed the most common meanings associated with using the word God in different contexts.

Someone else explained that ALLAH means "ALL LAWS" which also speaks to Universal Laws,
or Creation/the Universe.

Life, the forces of Life or Nature.

Love, Good will for all humanity, that makes sense to have faith in God's will to be supremely
in charge, means that Good will overcomes ill will or evil. That is what people are saying by God's will.

In Buddhism, the focus is in Wisdom, and the spiritual laws in existence.
Yahweh meaning "self-existent" power behind all things.

For many secular humanists, God as TRUTH seems to be what we all relate to as what we seek.
or the Kingdom of God, the TRUTH that sets us free from ignorance, strife and suffering in conflict or confusion.

The Muslims may have 99 names for God
but most people relate to just a few. Not that many to have to align or
at least see they complement each other and are not in conflict!

(As for whether God is good or evil, selfish and judgmental/punitive
or all merciful and inclusive, that is where one's faith in Jesus or Justice
determines if you take an inclusive approach or reject people by conditions;
if you believe in retributive justice or restorative justice.

So once we get past the issue of God and Jesus having concepts
associated with them that can be expressed in secular terms and still mean the same principles,
the next step is to differentiate between the QUALITY or Spirit of how we interpret these things
as Positive or Negative, and align those ways as well instead of letting the opposite clash and contradict each other)

There are only so many combinations in general.
After that, yes, each person is unique and has their own ways of seeing or saying it.
But in general, people either relate to the religious terms or prefer the secular terms.
The main branch between those two is fairly clear
and the first step is to recognize and quit demonizing the fact
that people branch off between spiritual/sacred laws and natural/secular laws.

If we can even get over our fear of differences there, the rest follows in turn.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no.
I believe the solution is to distinguish nontheism from true atheism. From your other msg, i agree true atheism is very rare.

As for faith, believing that the military will take care of terrorism so we don't have to worry about being invaded tomorrow,
requires faith. Believing that if something goes wrong with govt, we the people can fix it using our democratic system takes faith.

Believing that if I forgive something first, it can be corrected afterwards and my kindness won't be in vain but will
support fixing the problem, takes faith.

Any time you believe in something before it happens, that takes faith.

"Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion" doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than grapefruit or a piano bench does. They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.

Basically what the revisionistas are doing is:

Actually, we need to change the perception and debunk the myths about atheism. When I was growing up I thought atheism was evil or devil worship. No one explained to me it simply means people who don't believe in god. That's bullshit. Why do you have to lie to your kids about the alternative? I would think you would want to present both sides but instead you just tell them a million stories about how god punished the non believers and will punish you in hell if you don't believe. That's bullshit.

Last night I was flippin channels and the theist show said something like, "faith is walking with you eyes closed"

I agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.

knock, knock...

Who's there?

Probably no one

Who?

These people actually did build a church on the "Probably not" concept, perhaps you should ask them how they did it. If you get an answer, feel free to post it so I can see it because I confess I don't see how you can actually build anything on not caring. Howeve, unlike you, I recognize that my lack of imagination in some areas does not in any way impact other people.

What is the Church

The people that built the church of atheism do not believe in probably not, they absolutely deny that any possibility of a god exists. I can easily see building a church on that dogma.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Posting quotes without actually thinking is not the sign of a person that is free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.

That is a seriously ignorant response.

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? If so, I suggest you draw a small dot to represent everything you know, then draw a circle about the size of the universe to indicate all the knowledge it is possible to know. Anyone that looks at that honestly would have to admit that it is possible that conclusive evidence for the existence of god exists inside that larger circle, and that they just haven't come across it. That is what makes agnostics honest, and atheist who insist that they don't hold a belief in something they cannot possible prove dishonest.

 

[emilynghiem]

We see no sign that gods exist. And lets separate the herd here. So like Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Gods, etc. So you believe in one of these versions of God or a generic version altogether? Kind of important here because I want to ask you if you are not a Mormon, Jehova or Muslim are these three different "faiths" of yours? Because we are all atheists. You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.

Dear Sealybobo: I'd like you to take the same deeper look into spiritual healing that Scott Peck took when he didn't believe the process was real either. My friend Ray Hill is an atheist, but he believes in the power of free grace and forgiveness to change lives and make people and the world better. So I"m saying that's the same thing as believing in that force or power, but just not using theistic terms of God and Jesus. The main key principle is having faith that forgiveness and healing energy tranforms and saves lives, sanity and relationships. So my friend Ray, an atheist, believes the same things as my friends who are Christian using personified terms of God and Jesus. We all believe in establishing peace and justice by grace.

If you do not see there is any proof of this "universal" process or laws of "justice" for all people, then maybe
you haven't looked as deeply as those who have found it, both theists and nontheists who agree what is going on!

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.

If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?

So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?

Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?

If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way?

On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice. I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them. So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual. They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice. Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.

Now as me if I could ever choose another man. Answer is no.

Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.

The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay. Or he is only fooling himself. It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.

Excuse me?

I have pointd out, multiple times, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that indicates that sexual preference is hard wired into people. I have also provided scientific evidence that free will exists, irrefutable evidence that sexual preference is not genetic, and challenged anyone to provide any evidence that something else somehow forces people to be gay. No one, including you, has ever provided a single shred of any tyoe of scientific evidence that proves we cannnot make a choice when it comes to who we like, yet you insist that it is true because you prefer to believe it rather than accept the science that contradicts you.

That is no different than the idiots that insist that evolution is not real, which means you are also an idiot. If you disagree about your idiocy, feel free to start yet another thread claiming that there is proof that sexual preference is not a choice.

 

[asaratis]

Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.

A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.

B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.

Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.

So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.

And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.

...<snip>...

Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?

...<snip>...

Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.

The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute. That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods. Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods. Quite a difference exists there. I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.

If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.

If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word agnostic.

Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in gods. There would be no need to ridicule them. Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist. Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule. If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.

Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism. It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity


1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something



With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.

What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!






BTW, you might want to correct this sentence in your post:

Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God can neither be proven nor proven, but both assertions are based on faith.

I'd at least put a dis in there somewhere! Also, I would have used proved and disproved !
A thing that has been proved is a proven thing!

 

[PratchettFan]

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.

If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?

So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?

Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?

If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way?

On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?

I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise. Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral. If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.

You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together. Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive. Conflict is good. Disagreement is good. As in anything, moderation is the key. But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.

 

[asaratis]

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.

If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?

So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?

Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?

If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way?

On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?

I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise. Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral. If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.

You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together. Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive. Conflict is good. Disagreement is good. As in anything, moderation is the key. But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.

I agree to a degree! It would be no fun if we all thought the same....


I think I'll go have a single malt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Great points, asaratis, I agree with what you're saying!

I see the solution to this is to explain that Buddhists, and Atheists who don't BELIEVE there is no God but DON'T BELIEVE there is one, are NONTHEIST in their approach. This can include Atheists who are really Agnostic, and not argue about it.
The main point is to agree the common factor is taking a NONTHEISTIC or "secular" approach as opposed to religious.

As for Atheists who rally against theists or theism, I would call that ANTI-THEIST.

Technically the prefix "a-" is supposed to mean "without" but is used to mean "against" which "anti-" is more clearly for.

So instead of arguing if ALL or MOST "Atheists" are X Y or Z type,
let's just agree to call them terms that describe the different approaches
* Atheist
* Nontheist
* Anti-theist
And at least we can agree which cases we are talking about.

Instead of arguing over the use of one word "Atheist" to mean these three different levels.

NOTE: I have Atheist friends who truly are Nontheist and Atheist in their beliefs but are NOT anti-theist.
They do not go around actively preaching against theists or theism, but will only defend their views if attacked for them,
same as anyone else.

I do believe the issue of TRUE "Atheism" can be resolved as we reach agreement on these points.
and more and more people will agree they fall under NONTHEISM and fewer and fewer will really fit what a true Atheist is.

Thanks, Asaratis! You and PrachettFan are great at making astute objective points that explain the differences here.

QuantumWindbag and Pogo also make good points if they weren't so busy jumping on each other. Underneath the business of "talking past each other" and causing insult to each other's intelligence, I see good points and just the typical failure to communicate without getting confused in conflict that happens online when we can't hear each other in person, and have to rely on trial and error to sort it out. Thanks!

Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.

The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute. That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods. Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods. Quite a difference exists there. I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.

If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.

If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word agnostic.

Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in gods. There would be no need to ridicule them. Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist. Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule. If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.

Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism. It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity


1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something



With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.

What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!






BTW, you might want to correct this sentence in your post:

Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God can neither be proven nor proven, but both assertions are based on faith.

I'd at least put a dis in there somewhere! Also, I would have used proved and disproved !
A thing that has been proved is a proven thing!

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise. Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral. If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.

You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together. Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive. Conflict is good. Disagreement is good. As in anything, moderation is the key. But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.

OK but not conflict for the sake of conflict. I don't see any sense in having excess drama over a nonissue, if it can be resolved in a sensible way that satisfies the interests of all parties.

What do you believe should take place after a conflict, abuse or crime occurs?

Don't you agree that by establishing the truth of what happened, and what it takes to repair the fault or damage,
and who owes what, then there is a sense of justice and restoring good faith relations if those people work out a plan
for correction, prevention or even restitution to satisfy the needs of the people involved?

What do you can that process if you do not call it making peace by establishing truth and justice?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.

Even if it is not GENETIC that people are born gay or transgendered,
I have no issue or argument against people being SPIRITUALLY born the way they are.

Like trying to prove or disprove God, if you believe people are born SPIRITUALLY to be certain ways
and/or experience certain relations or CHANGES in life, then all that can be seen as God's plan and cannot be argued.

By definition, whatever happens would be defined to be God's truth or plan, because that will being supreme decides all things. So it is already written how the story of life will play out, and the characters in the story for the action to carry through.

I don't think anyone is an idiot for believe either that all people born gay or transgendered COULD go through healing or change.

If you are going to criticize people for thinking "ALL people are naturally the way they are and cannot change,"
are you going to equally criticize people of thinking "ALL people can change their orientation from gay to straight"?

Why criticize anyone? Why not just work with the understanding that
SOME people may be born gay, straight or transgendered for Spiritual reasons (not necessarily genetic or environmental)
SOME people may change but some may not

If people do not believe, know or understand how some cases can be one way and some the other,
that is likely because they have not known or interacted with someone who demonstrated that case to them.

How does it make someone an idiot if they just haven't seen any cases that make this real to them?

Don't I have the right to see a living example as proof that someone was "born gay and not meant to change,"
before believing that is possible? How can you judge someone for not believing in something if they haven't seen proof?

I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice. I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them. So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual. They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice. Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.

Now as me if I could ever choose another man. Answer is no.

Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.

The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay. Or he is only fooling himself. It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.

Excuse me?

I have pointd out, multiple times, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that indicates that sexual preference is hard wired into people. I have also provided scientific evidence that free will exists, irrefutable evidence that sexual preference is not genetic, and challenged anyone to provide any evidence that something else somehow forces people to be gay. No one, including you, has ever provided a single shred of any tyoe of scientific evidence that proves we cannnot make a choice when it comes to who we like, yet you insist that it is true because you prefer to believe it rather than accept the science that contradicts you.

That is no different than the idiots that insist that evolution is not real, which means you are also an idiot. If you disagree about your idiocy, feel free to start yet another thread claiming that there is proof that sexual preference is not a choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
can these beliefs count as a religion:

* Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health
(if teaching Jesus is the THE WAY to truth and God, what about people who
substitute GOVT as THE WAY to justice for all)

* Belief in Global Warming
(if teaching that the world is geocentric or heliocentric was made to be religious,
aren't current arguments for or against Global Warming
as heated as beliefs for or against God?)

Lastly, if we are going to treat secular or political beliefs
DIFFERENTLY from religious beliefs,
how is this fair to people who do not defend themselves using an organized religion or party?

HOw can we guarantee equal freedom and equal protection from discrimination by creed
if SOME people's religions count as protected
and some do not?

To be equal, shouldn't ALL beliefs or creeds be respected and protected equally for
that person, and neither infringe nor impose, neither mandate by govt nor exclude?

Isn't it Discriminatory to call one set of beliefs a protected religion while
allowing another set to be pushed through govt as law because of the majority that voted on it?

any answers or discussion on this,
in light of atheism argued as a religion or not a religion.

 

[Pogo]

I really need to be work-prepping and leaving this alone but one final pass...

Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.

A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.

B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.

Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.

So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.

And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.

...<snip>...

Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?

...<snip>...

Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.

The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute. That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods. Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods. Quite a difference exists there. I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.

I don't see where you've drawn a distinction here. ("you" meaning Asaratis -- I DO see Emily's distinction). I think you've muddied it.

If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.

(this may be vital) -- WHY is it unacceptable?

We've already established and alluded to nontheistic religions, including Buddhism -- someone disputed that one IIRC but never did execute an exception, nevertheless we have others (Taoism and Jainism were also mentioned). And of course babies have not had the suggestion put in their heads. So why are these atheists "unacceptable"?

If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word agnostic.

Arguably so, yes. In actual practice, proving a nonexistence being impossible, a true "atheist" in a strict definition could not exist.

Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in gods. There would be no need to ridicule them. Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist. Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule. If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.

Sigh -- we're back to this strawman again. Can you quote for us where anyone's "attacking those who do believe in gods"? I mean real ones -- QuackumNutbag doesn't count, he attacks everybody. But who legitimate has launched such "attacks"? This "harassment"? This "cajoling"? This "ridicule"? I've been here from the start and have yet to see it.

Leavng aside the strawman (i.e. even if this were happening), it still doesn't provide any basis for a definition as "religion" -- that would be nothing more than partisan attack. It should be painfully obvious that goes on every day on every topic having zero to do with any kind of religion --- nor is that what "religion" means in anybody's definition anyway. So the point is moot.

Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism. It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity


1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.


What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!

Except that (1) we've already seen that dictionary definitions vary in reliability and clarity, some even contradicting themselves, and (2) even the one you picked above still doesn't define atheism (or agnosticism) as a "religion". You just plugged that in yourself. On your own after the fact.

We still don't know why you need to plug that in, but none of these definitions meet the criteria for a "religion" anyway, even if we go with the above definition. There's still no belief-framework to exercise in the practice of a "religion" -- i.e. a belief system to address the supernatural, the cosmic Mysteries.

Whether you have a simple empty space in your head where theism would be but isn't, or whether you actively, adamantly, disbelieve it and swear up and down there's no such thing as "god" (theoretical level 7), in either case what are you going to DO with that nonpresent belief?

There is nothing you can do with nothing. You have no basis for a religion. All you have is a non-foundation for theism, so you can't be a theist. But this only tells us what you can't be, not what you can. Yet the Buddhist/Taoist/Jainist/etc DOES have actionable beliefs without theism -- because they do have religion -- which simply does not require theism to operate.

I get the feeling that the reminder point made way upthread that theism and religion are two different things, never quite "took".