Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.

What the fuck makes a negative statement immune from your claim that it is the responsibility of everyone to back up their statements? Are their other hidden exceptions to you rules?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.

And I posted a detailed criticism of Dawkin' reliance on logical fallacies in his work from an atheist website, what's your point?

 

[Carla_Danger]

]You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.

Those are community centers. There's no religion or worship going on inside.

 

[sealybobo]

.

Are people still arguing about this stuff? It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existence of a super-natural being....by definition.

Grow a logos for Christ's sake.

.

Didn't god at one time in history supposedly visit us in the most remote & primitive parts of the world? If those stories are true then it isn't impossible. Are you saying you don't believe god visited?

 

[sealybobo]

This explains everything

I very much doubt that any video explains everything.

it explains the problem with your arguments. Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.

Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.

 

[dblack]

Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere, arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.

The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.

I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention. There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope"). Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world. The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities. They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do. I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard. This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.

There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion. I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion. I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion. I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.

I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.

Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.

That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.

You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.

Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

It takes an incredible amount of stupidity to believe that the universe is going to keep track of how you behave and punish you if you don't follow a set of rules no one has explained.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

it explains the problem with your arguments. Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.

Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.

The problem with my arguments?

The only arguments I have made in this thread is that some people treat atheism as a religion, and that it is a belief. Does that video address either of those issues, or is it another attempt on your part to define my beliefs about god so that you can claim to prove they are wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

it explains the problem with your arguments. Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.

Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.

The problem with my arguments?

The only arguments I have made in this thread is that some people treat atheism as a religion, and that it is a belief. Does that video address either of those issues, or is it another attempt on your part to define my beliefs about god so that you can claim to prove they are wrong?

It explains exactly why you are wrong. 10 minutes.

 

[asaratis]

I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention. There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope"). Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world. The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities. They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do. I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard. This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.

There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion. I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion. I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion. I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.

I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.

Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.

That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.

You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.

Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...

Blurred meanings? That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define Atheist as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring. That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring. That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified as a religious belief is not blurring. That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring. That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion is being religious is not blurring. That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring. That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring. That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring. That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.

I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard. Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.

I will say that for a classification of people that claim to be totally independent of each other, the Atheists sure do stick together, patting each other on the back for emulating Bill Maher with the true sophistry of meaningless analogies and stories of teapots and spaghetti monsters. Makes a grown man want to piss down his own leg!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

I don't believe in karma. Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people. Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past. That probably wouldn't go over well...

 

[sealybobo]

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

I don't believe in karma. Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people. Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past. That probably wouldn't go over well...

I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

I don't believe in karma. Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people. Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past. That probably wouldn't go over well...

I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.

With the proviso we are now into the realm of pure belief, Karma is not about punishment. It is about balance. If a rich man uses his wealth badly, living in luxury while keeping others down for his own self interest, then Karma would tend to have him poor in the next life to obtain understanding of what that means. Not as a punishment but as a learning experience. But Karma, at least in Buddhist tradition, is not the only factor in how one's life progresses, nor is it all about past lives. Of course, you do have to buy into the concept of rebirth for any of this to matter.

 

[sealybobo]

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

I don't believe in karma. Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people. Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past. That probably wouldn't go over well...

I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.

With the proviso we are now into the realm of pure belief, Karma is not about punishment. It is about balance. If a rich man uses his wealth badly, living in luxury while keeping others down for his own self interest, then Karma would tend to have him poor in the next life to obtain understanding of what that means. Not as a punishment but as a learning experience. But Karma, at least in Buddhist tradition, is not the only factor in how one's life progresses, nor is it all about past lives. Of course, you do have to buy into the concept of rebirth for any of this to matter.

My atheist friend says, "come on stupid, you think that if I do something bad that something bad is going to happen to me?". While I don't believe there is someone or something keeping track and paying him back every time he does something wrong, I do believe that if you are a shitty person then your life is probably going to turn out shitty.

My parents say, "you always pay" when you do something wrong. I don't think people "always" pay, but I do believe if you suck your life probably does too. Look at that racist Clipper owner Sterling. You would have thought he got away his whole life with being an ass but the reality is he's in a loveless marriage, his kids probably want him dead, he got cancer and alzheimers and he had to sell his team.

Granted he sold for 2 billion but you can't take that with you so bfd.

 

[Montrovant]

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

It takes an incredible amount of stupidity to believe that the universe is going to keep track of how you behave and punish you if you don't follow a set of rules no one has explained.

Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It explains exactly why you are wrong. 10 minutes.

It is a video, it only explains how idiots watch videos. If the argument was actually any good you would have it in writing for the intelligent people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.

What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.

Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.

For example, I believe in Karma.

I don't believe in karma. Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people. Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past. That probably wouldn't go over well...

I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.

I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too. And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions. And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?

That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.

FYI, karma is not a religion.

Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?