Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.
That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.
Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.
In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.
I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.
Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.
That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.
Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.
In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.
I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.
is that what you believe?........No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.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.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.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.
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.
False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
I'm not trying to impose my set of religious beliefs on anyone. Just arguing that Atheism is defined as being a religion. The fact that you ignore the definitions put before you is a result of your hard headed stupidity.I'm hardly the delusional one.You are delusional.No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.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.
False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct. You are laughable.
Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition.
So who, really, is the delusional one?
The incessant attack on god-worshipers, led by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and other Atheist "leaders of the church" based on the silly nontion that there is a war between religion and science suffices for me. That is the doctrine of modern day Atheism.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.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.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
Atheism is being defined as a religion by you. You are assigning that identity. Your false assignment has been refuted thoroughly with among other evidences by pointing out that drawing conclusions that separate your belief in supernatural realms and gods of magical abilities from contingent reality is a rational position to take.I'm not trying to impose my set of religious beliefs on anyone. Just arguing that Atheism is defined as being a religion. The fact that you ignore the definitions put before you is a result of your hard headed stupidity.I'm hardly the delusional one.You are delusional.No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.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.
False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct. You are laughable.
Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition.
So who, really, is the delusional one?
Yours are more of the expressions of the zealot who sees all challenges to his supernatural beliefs as an "attack". Legitimate questioning about your beliefs in the supernatural is... well, Legitimate questioning about your beliefs in the supernatural.The incessant attack on god-worshipers, led by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and other Atheist "leaders of the church" based on the silly nontion that there is a war between religion and science suffices for me. That is the doctrine of modern day Atheism.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
Just because you have no rituals doesn't mean anything. Your present day practice is to scorn and demean those that have a god.
Mind you, I'm not asking you to convert...just saying that Atheism is a religion. You can be one forever for all I care.
More of your pointlesness.is that what you believe?........No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.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.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.
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.
False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.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.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Not surprisingly, you sidestepped ant attempt to define the rituals, customs and traditions that are a part of religious belief. That was expected as your compulsive need to assign a belief system to something that is not a belief system thoroughly refutes your argument.Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".
I repeat:Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
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.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Atheism:
"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
"An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion.I repeat:Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.
By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.
This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.
If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Atheism:
"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
"An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
To be an Atheist is to deny that gods exist. See below. Atheists do not have the option of redefining themselves. If you claim simply to have no belief regarding the existence of deities, you are agnostic. If you deny that deities exist, you are Atheist.
The modern day Atheists are evidently trying to redefine Atheism to suit themselves.
What is the problem with being a godless religion?
Online Etymology Dictionary
atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).
And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".
I repeat:
And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".
You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.
I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.
You are obtuse beyond all reason. I am NOT trying to force my religious beliefs on anyone. I am simply claiming that Atheism IS a religion. You presented a modern day definition made up by an Atheist and I took you back to the original and long accepted definition.Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion.I repeat:Your puerile nature is showing. If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child. I suspect the former is the case. Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief. The definition of atheist (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way. In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".Dear @emilynghiem ,
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems." this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion. Why? I do not know. I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined. As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question. I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Atheism:
"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
"An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
To be an Atheist is to deny that gods exist. See below. Atheists do not have the option of redefining themselves. If you claim simply to have no belief regarding the existence of deities, you are agnostic. If you deny that deities exist, you are Atheist.
The modern day Atheists are evidently trying to redefine Atheism to suit themselves.
What is the problem with being a godless religion?
Online Etymology Dictionary
atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).
As usual, you have side-stepped addressing those refutations to your cut and paste dictionary themes.
Really, do you understand how desperate you appear by being so consumed with trying to force your religious beliefs on others?
Strawman desperation on your part. The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs. You fail again.And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".
You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.
I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.
When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?
syn: See despair.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Desperation
any port in a storm See EXPEDIENCE.
at the end of one’s rope or tether At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.
He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.
climb walls To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.
forlorn hope A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch verloren hoop ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:
Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (Gaya’s Art of Wan, 1678)
grasp at straws To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”
