Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[dblack]

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

Hmmmm... so, if someone doesn't believe in rape ...

 

[dblack]

 

[asaratis]

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

Hmmmm... so, if someone doesn't believe in rape ...

Out of context, dummy. we're talking about deities here.

 

[Hollie]

I was joking too.

I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.

Like I said, you don't get the joke.

It wasn't a joke.

What's hilarious is your sidestepping around the obvious comparisons that connect your religion with cult status.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

 

[Hollie]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

 

[emilynghiem]

Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.

Apple Computers?....

Corporate mentality can become cultlike
where any dissension is suppressed within.

All I ask is that we be consistent:
If we complain that Corporations get abusive with power like cults,
then also hold Government responsible for abusing collective power,
and vice versa. Don't demonize one and then let the other get away with abuses.

If we are going to complain that the Democrat Party gets cultlike
for ostracizing members who dare question the leadership,
the same is going on within the Republicans trying to get the party in line
and quit selling out to the corporate cronyism.

Any group can become cultish, abusive and oppressive
if the collective identity becomes more important
than the individual rights and freedoms of the members.

NOTE: Even if the Democrat party gets cultish,
there are plenty of Democrats and liberals who are not mindless followers of the cult mentality.

Same with Christianity and other religions.
Within Christianity, many groups and people break off independently
and challenge the corrupt authority of Catholic or other church leaders.
So there are plenty of independent members of the greater church body
who are NOT part of the masses following certain leaders by faith.

Even where Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses are called a cult or cultlike,
there are independent members who do not depend on their official leaders
to make decisions for them. With those groups, the most pronounced sign
of a cult is how they treat former members; any group that teaches rejection
or ostracizing people outside the group is acting like a cult or cultlike, especially
groups that pressure people to severe their family relations for loyalty to the cult.

That's the real issue I see behind abuse of power, regardless of labeling a person or group a religion or cult:
how you deal with conflicts and other groups, if you practice inclusion and
reconciliation or you teach exclusion, rejection, judgment and punishment of
people outside the group.

 

[emilynghiem]

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.

The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).

 

[Carla_Danger]

Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.

Apple Computers?....

Corporate mentality can become cultlike
where any dissension is suppressed within.

All I ask is that we be consistent:
If we complain that Corporations get abusive with power like cults,
then also hold Government responsible for abusing collective power,
and vice versa. Don't demonize one and then let the other get away with abuses.

If we are going to complain that the Democrat Party gets cultlike
for ostracizing members who dare question the leadership,
the same is going on within the Republicans trying to get the party in line
and quit selling out to the corporate cronyism.

Any group can become cultish, abusive and oppressive
if the collective identity becomes more important
than the individual rights and freedoms of the members.

NOTE: Even if the Democrat party gets cultish,
there are plenty of Democrats and liberals who are not mindless followers of the cult mentality.

Same with Christianity and other religions.
Within Christianity, many groups and people break off independently
and challenge the corrupt authority of Catholic or other church leaders.
So there are plenty of independent members of the greater church body
who are NOT part of the masses following certain leaders by faith.

Even where Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses are called a cult or cultlike,
there are independent members who do not depend on their official leaders
to make decisions for them. With those groups, the most pronounced sign
of a cult is how they treat former members; any group that teaches rejection
or ostracizing people outside the group is acting like a cult or cultlike, especially
groups that pressure people to severe their family relations for loyalty to the cult.

That's the real issue I see behind abuse of power, regardless of labeling a person or group a religion or cult:
how you deal with conflicts and other groups, if you practice inclusion and
reconciliation or you teach exclusion, rejection, judgment and punishment of
people outside the group.

When did this become a political thread?

 

[Carla_Danger]

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.

The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).

I only have knowledge of the US version of Buddhism, which is very watered down, so I decline comment.

 

[asaratis]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

 

[asaratis]

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.

The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).

I concur. Buddhism is agnosticism which is not a religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

I was joking too.

I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.

Like I said, you don't get the joke.

It wasn't a joke.

What's hilarious is your sidestepping around the obvious comparisons that connect your religion with cult status.

Hi Hollie: You are leaving out the entire Lutheran and Protestant movement that cut people free
from this notion they had to follow the Catholic church authority as the only official connection.

The whole point of this movement was that each person had a direction relationship with
God, and was not dependent on going through the Catholic authority or conditions for salvation.

I didn't know Christian groups were different either, until this history and reformation movement was made clear to me.

I used to think they were all the same.

There is a huge difference between cultlike groups like Jehovah's Witness and some Catholics who
teach that you have to be an official member of that group to be following God and getting to heaven or salvation.

The real practice and teachings of Christianity are based on each person receiving healing and grace,
as a member of the larger church or community of all people as one humanity.

The real universalist practices include ALL people in salvation, even atheists, gays, nonbelievers, etc.

To the true believers, saving ALL humanity means ALL humanity.

Hollie you will find as many different degrees of atheism
as you will find in theism.

I happen to be on the extreme side of universal inclusion.
I am as rare as those who reject everything as false until proven true.

I believe whatever is meant to be is going to happen, so that leaves the door open to anything.
As long as it is meant to be. And whatever is not meant to be is not going to happen.

I believe all people, nations, religious and political groups
are here for a reason and serve a certain purpose for those members or audiences,
and that we are meant to use all of these to form a consensus on
how to manage and deal with the diverse people and resources on this earth.

Unlike others who just want to argue back and forth without proving or disproving anything,
I AM willing to set up proof that consensus can be reached among diverse groups
without requiring anyone to convert to other ways. All groups are necessary as they are.

So whatever degree of theism or atheism people are, let's just organize
and work together, and not let our differences get in the way of what
we agree is important to fix and work on that makes the world better off.

Why can't we use our differences to reach more people
and include all people in collaborating on solutions to the world's problems?

Together we could address abuses within the political and religious groups,
from liberal to conservative, Muslim or Christian, cults or corporations,
wherever abuse occurs why can't we organize teams to work with those
people and groups and fix the problems?

If it takes Christians to correct fellow Christians, or Muslims to address
fellow Muslims, why not let each fix their own problems?

That's what I believe these groups are supposed to be doing.

 

[asaratis]

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Wrong. You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity. I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray. They are still believers in God.

 

[dblack]

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

 

[Hollie]

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter your uneducated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

You haven't countered anything. You have made no defendable case that atheism is a religion. You've offered only pointless analogies, malformed examples and poorly stated comparisons that have been soundly refuted.

On the other hand, I've demonstrated that your religious belief has all the trappings of a cult. Let's review, shall we?

I noted earlier that:
All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the authority still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other. BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.


Lets look at other common attribute of Cults.

The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base.

a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD'S WILL - everyone else is in apostasy.
Obviously, no religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.
Religious institutions believe they are right (and everyone else is wrong), will do this. Well, from the perspective of the Cult, they are liberating people because they are right and everyone else is wrong theologically, spiritually, socially, and psychologically. Are we ( ____ <--- insert Cult of choice) right? Yeah. Are "they" wrong? Yeah. But what if "they" don't think so? Is it abuse to coerce, threaten and intimidate the heather non-believers? These are deeper questions that logically need to be asked if one wishes to remain true to the utter and cold truth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you, Asaratis
I find it most intriguing that you can see how Buddhism is not a religion yet Atheism is.
And other people on here see the opposite:
how Atheism is not a religion to them, but Buddhism is.

Isn't it clear that it is relative then: either the definition or the perception makes
some people call things a religion while other things not; so
What one person sees as a religion, someone else does not.
And not for the same reasons either!

(If you look deeper into Buddhism, you may find that some people
DO practice it like their religion. And similar makes Atheism
a religion in the eyes of others based on how some Atheists get religious about it.)

We could go round and round with this.
Thanks for your honest observations, and letting other people have theirs.
No, we do not need to be in the business of telling people how they need to look at this.
We can share with each other, but each have our own ways or reasons for seeing it the way we do.

Unfortunately the language we use get entangled when we don't mean
the same things by the same words. We are not using Atheism or religion
in the same way or the same contexts. No need to judge each other for these differences.

As Hollie pointed out, what I mean by Christianity brings up only negative associations to her
with abuses. So if the words Atheism and religion do not mean the same things,
of course that makes sense, when Christianity and God do not mean the same things.
People hear these words and associate with all manner of fraudulent and false religious abuses.

We may have to use more specific terms and avoid arguing why these other terms don't mean the same thing to all of us.

 

[Hollie]

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Wrong. You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity. I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray. They are still believers in God.

There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.

For you believers, isn't belief in gods all about what you can get from them in exchange for behavior that's reliably in concert with the goals of the cult sponsoring those gods?

 

[Carla_Danger]

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Wrong. You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity. I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray. They are still believers in God.

Actually, you've just described most Christians. LOL!

 

[emilynghiem]

Whoa, Hollie! NO, there is not a fixed authority or hierarchy in Christianity.
If you are talking about the Catholic church that is only one structure for those members.
Yes, many people argue the Catholic church is a cult.
The Reformation movement broke people away from this assumption and dependence on the official Catholic authority.

Also about religious, anyone can use the term loosely to mean a personal religion.
Just having a belief is not enough. The point is if you get religious about it.

I get religious about holding Govt and Politicians to the Constitution.
So in that sense the Constitution becomes my religion. I do believe it becomes mandatory
when people invoke power of govt by the Constitution, then all the laws must be followed.
The authority comes from agreement or consent by the people through contracts or laws drawn up by consensus.
So there is a process to reach agreement and invoke authority of law or govt.
But it relies on the people in the process. We each become our own authority to decide matters that affect us,
and collectively where this affects other people. The people and the government are one under law.

This becomes a religion where I get religious about.
Just having constitutional beliefs is not enough, it becomes religious when people like
me adopt the laws by conscience and commit to enforcing them by embodying the spirit of the laws.

Same with atheism or buddhism or anything else.
its when someone religiously adopts that and lives it as the law on their hearts by conscience
that it becomes their religion.

just having nontheist beliefs or approaches is not enough to distinguish if it is really a religion.
when you become connected with others by the spirit of the laws and relate to the collective identity
then it becomes like a religious identity. If you practice your beliefs religiously, it is that religious manner that makes
it perceived as a religion for you. Not the label itself.

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter your uneducated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

You haven't countered anything. You have made no defendable case that atheism is a religion. You've offered only pointless analogies, malformed examples and poorly stated comparisons that have been soundly refuted.

On the other hand, I've demonstrated that your religious belief has all the trappings of a cult. Let's review, shall we?

I noted earlier that:
All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the authority still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other. BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.


Lets look at other common attribute of Cults.

The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base.

a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD'S WILL - everyone else is in apostasy.
Obviously, no religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.
Religious institutions believe they are right (and everyone else is wrong), will do this. Well, from the perspective of the Cult, they are liberating people because they are right and everyone else is wrong theologically, spiritually, socially, and psychologically. Are we ( ____ <--- insert Cult of choice) right? Yeah. Are "they" wrong? Yeah. But what if "they" don't think so? Is it abuse to coerce, threaten and intimidate the heather non-believers? These are deeper questions that logically need to be asked if one wishes to remain true to the utter and cold truth.