Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

Religions > Atheism > Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 4 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Paul Robinson"
Date:	13 May 2005 07:32:57 AM
Object:	Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise dissention.
I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to hear
the responses either way.
I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.
For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.
If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.
To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."
I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).
So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.
Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.
Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.
I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.
So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.
Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.
Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."
.

User: "skyeyes"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 01:55:28 PM

Paul Robinson wrote:
<Snip>
No. Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.

User: "D-word"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	18 May 2005 02:33:01 PM

Paul Robinson wrote:

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise

dissention.
Right....

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

To the ignorant, many things are obvious and still wrong.
What definition of "religion" did you have in mind?
Atheism -- the denial of the existence of a god, or gods.
How can THAT be a religion?
Religion -- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
.

User: "Trypt"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 04:26:15 PM

Paul Robinson wrote:

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise dissention.
I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to hear
the responses either way.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.

To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."

I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.

Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.

I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.

So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.

Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"

Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."

The only thing that ALL atheists have in common is our lack of belief in
any dieties/gods. THAT IS IT! If that constitutes a religion in your
mind, so be it. Atheists don't have ANY other absolute beliefs that we
all share.
--
Regards from Trypt!
trypt2000@(remove)yahoo.com
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 05:47:20 PM

On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:26:15 -0400, Trypt <trypt2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Paul Robinson wrote:

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise dissention.
I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to hear
the responses either way.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.

To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."

I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.

Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.

I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.

So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.

Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"

Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."

It's a lost cause trying to explain to a Christofascist RepubliCUNT
about diversity. They do the exact same thing when they vilify
homosexuals, their bogeyman du jour.
Ein Prosit der Gem�tlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 07:57:57 AM

Paul Robinson wrote:

I answer all posts that I respond to truthfully... unless I'm joking
whereupon I liberally sprinkle smilies about. :-) But, since this is a
serious post, I'll try not to joke.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion.

Which criteria would these be? Atheism has no criteria beyond the lack
of belief in god(s)(dess(es)).

If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.

Agreed, if there was a "belief in atheism", but there's not.

To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."

Sounds valid...as a definition of a deity. The existence of said
deities, however....

I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).

Or they don't think they're wrong. "Blinded by the Right" is what I,
and several people I converse with outside this newsgroup, call it,
wherein "Right" means "Radical Religious Right" (RRR).

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

Except that it's not a religion. Theism is the belief in deities.
*A*theism is the lack of belief in deities. Plain and simple. Nothing
more.

Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one.

Be careful with the term "agnostic". Like atheism, agnostism is
characterized by the lack of gnosis. "Gnosis" is an unfamiliar word for
a lot of people, but it's defined as "Intuitive apprehension of
spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics."
Gnostics, considered to be heretics by the Christian church, advocate
simple spirituality over the confinement of religious doctrine.
Therefore, agnostics lack spirituality. Nothing more. Agnostics' claim
is that "I don't know since there is no evidence."

Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.

Ah, so the classic fence-sitter. Nothing wrong with a fence-sitter.
I've been one on many issues.

Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree.

So do I. Agnosticism is not a weak position. It's just a position.
However, agnosticism is not atheism so is off-topic. *smile*

I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.

I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.

So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no?

No, it is not reasonable. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.
A- meaning "lack"
-theism meaning "belief in deities"

If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.

Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson

You're welcome. Atheism is a pretty simple concept, if you dissect the
word and not allow any preconceived notions to interfere with the
meaning of the word.
.

User: "Mark Richardson"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 12:08:17 AM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:57:57 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

Paul Robinson wrote:

I answer all posts that I respond to truthfully... unless I'm joking
whereupon I liberally sprinkle smilies about. :-) But, since this is a
serious post, I'll try not to joke.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
You could have a religion that did not involve god belief and remain
an atheist.
Mark.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 09:01:11 AM

On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:08:17 +1000, Mark Richardson
<spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:57:57 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

Paul Robinson wrote:

I answer all posts that I respond to truthfully... unless I'm joking
whereupon I liberally sprinkle smilies about. :-) But, since this is a
serious post, I'll try not to joke.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
You could have a religion that did not involve god belief and remain
an atheist.

But that wouldn't be atheism per se.
Any more than because my cat is asymmetric, everything asymmetric is a
cat.
But in any case, it is more accurate to say that atheist/atheism is
the absence of the property of being theist.
I don't have anything to "lack belief in". I am simply not theist.
To people who aren't theist, gods don't mean the same thing they do to
theists. They're merely "what theists believe".

Mark.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	15 May 2005 09:30:45 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:08:17 +1000, Mark Richardson
<spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:57:57 GMT, DanielSan

<daniel-san@myrealbox.com>

wrote:

Paul Robinson wrote:

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am

attempting a

legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise

dissention.

I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to

hear

the responses either way.

I answer all posts that I respond to truthfully... unless I'm

joking

whereupon I liberally sprinkle smilies about. :-) But, since this

is a

serious post, I'll try not to joke.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which

doesn't

really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other

issues

and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here

because

I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue

with

a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of

atheism to

be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those

who

believe in God.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of

religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
You could have a religion that did not involve god belief and remain
an atheist.

But that wouldn't be atheism per se.

Sure. Never suggested otherwise.

Any more than because my cat is asymmetric, everything asymmetric is

cat.

Yeah.

But in any case, it is more accurate to say that atheist/atheism is
the absence of the property of being theist.

More accurate?
I am not sure how you could decide that.
I would say that was more convoluted and confusing.

I don't have anything to "lack belief in".

Well you have heard of the *idea* and you can lack belief in an idea -
even if the idea isnt instantiated in reality.
Dragons dont have to exist for you to reject the idea of dragons
actually existing for example.

I am simply not theist.

Deists often consider themselves "not theist" as well.
I couldnt be bothered disbelieving in the God of Deism - not worth a
single calorie of energy expenditure.
Can't be bothered believing in it either of course.
8-)
Mark.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	21 May 2005 09:25:37 AM

On 15 May 2005 19:30:45 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:

But in any case, it is more accurate to say that atheist/atheism is
the absence of the property of being theist.

More accurate?
I am not sure how you could decide that.
I would say that was more convoluted and confusing.

Why?
I am not described in terms of a theist's god-belief which is only
relevant inside their theism.
I'm simply not a theist.
I have nothing to not-believe in.

I don't have anything to "lack belief in".

I am simply not theist.

Deists often consider themselves "not theist" as well.

If they have something they call a god then they're theist.
But there are borderline cases - like some Wiccans who have gods they
don'r believe in, for ritual and ceremonial purposes.

I couldnt be bothered disbelieving in the God of Deism - not worth a
single calorie of energy expenditure.
Can't be bothered believing in it either of course.
8-)

"Disbelieve" at its most basic just means not believing.

Mark.

User: "James"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:40:22 AM

Paul Robinson wrote:

The question has been answered exhaustively. I understand that you want
a direct answer to however you word it, but you could easily find out by
searching through the archived messages.
--
James B, defeating birth control since 2000
aa #944
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
.

User: "David Vestal"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 07:42:46 AM

Paul Robinson wrote:
[snip]

[snip]
I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion" that
includes atheism and excludes philately? We'll take it from there.
.

User: "Michael Voytinsky"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 04:37:41 PM

David Vestal wrote:

I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion" >

that includes atheism and excludes philately? We'll take it from >
there.
Well, if we go with Durkheim's view that religion is a set of beliefs
dealing with sacred things that unite believers in a single moral
community, then some forms of atheism do qualify.
Certainly the atheism to which I was exposed early in life - that of
pre-perestroika Soviet Union - qualifies as a religion in this sense.
I was told that going to church was not merely pointless, or that
belief in God is simply an error with regards to facts - but rather
that going to church and/or believing in God was wrong.
Stamp collectors do not believe that, say, coin collectors are doing
something immoral by collecting stamps rather than coins. They do not
form a moral community and are not a religion in this sense.
Now someone will object that the Western atheists are not like the
crazed atheist teachers of my grade school years. But reading atheist
rantings on usenet, in any case, leads me to disagree. They do not
believe that belief in God is simply an erroneous belief - they
attribute moral qualities to it. They even form associations.
So, I would have to agree that the more rabid forms of atheism are
religious in nature.
.

User: "Clayton, The Email She-Male"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 07:18:21 PM

"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116020261.750759.153830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

David Vestal wrote:

I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion" >

that includes atheism and excludes philately? We'll take it from >
there.

Well, if we go with Durkheim's view that religion is a set of beliefs

It's non-belief!

dealing with sacred things

No such thing in atheism!

that unite believers

We are non-believers
in a single moral

community, then some forms of atheism do qualify.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 04:41:19 PM

Michael Voytinsky wrote:

David Vestal wrote:

I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion" >

But was your religion "atheism", or was it "being a part of the Soviet
Union"?
I think it was the latter.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	15 May 2005 05:38:20 PM

Michael Voytinsky wrote:

David Vestal wrote:

I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion"

not

form a moral community and are not a religion in this sense.

Now someone will object that the Western atheists are not like the
crazed atheist teachers of my grade school years. But reading

atheist

rantings on usenet, in any case, leads me to disagree. They do not
believe that belief in God is simply an erroneous belief - they
attribute moral qualities to it. They even form associations.

So, I would have to agree that the more rabid forms of atheism are
religious in nature.

This is true, but the atheism of the Communists is not what made them
True Believers (as defined by Eric Hoffer). One might as well say that
some types of Russian speakers were brutes. This of course is so, but
the fact that some people are brutes (who speak Russian) is not really
linked psychologically, philosophically, economically, or militarily to
their speaking Russian. The Communist Party could have as easily
embraced a state sponsored Russian Orthodox, or pre-Christian, or new
and made-from-scratch religion.
Kermit
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 04:42:53 PM

On 13 May 2005 14:37:41 -0700, "Michael Voytinsky"
<michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote:

David Vestal wrote:

I'll tell you what: Why don't you post a definition of "religion" >

Only in the imagination of the ignorant.

Certainly the atheism to which I was exposed early in life - that of
pre-perestroika Soviet Union - qualifies as a religion in this sense.
I was told that going to church was not merely pointless, or that
belief in God is simply an error with regards to facts - but rather
that going to church and/or believing in God was wrong.

So which not-church did you not-go to to not-pray, to not-sing hymns
etc?

Stamp collectors do not believe that, say, coin collectors are doing
something immoral by collecting stamps rather than coins. They do not
form a moral community and are not a religion in this sense.

Neither do atheists - even in the USSR.

Now someone will object that the Western atheists are not like the
crazed atheist teachers of my grade school years. But reading atheist
rantings on usenet, in any case, leads me to disagree. They do not
believe that belief in God is simply an erroneous belief - they
attribute moral qualities to it. They even form associations.

How were they crazed?

So, I would have to agree that the more rabid forms of atheism are
religious in nature.

Then you're ignorant.
.

User: "Michael Voytinsky"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	15 May 2005 08:26:42 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

So which not-church did you not-go to to not-pray, to not-sing hymns
etc?

We had plenty of meetings where songs about Lenin and whatnot were
sung. Our teachers, who told us about how Baptists perform human
sacrifices and so forth, got just as worked up as Southern Holly
Rollers.

something immoral by collecting stamps rather than coins. They do

not

form a moral community and are not a religion in this sense.

Neither do atheists - even in the USSR.

What is your source of knowledge about the USSR? Have you gone to
school there?
I was given ***** once by fellow pupils - for telling a story that
portrayed God as a fictional character - because of course good Young
Pioneers do not tell such stories.

Now someone will object that the Western atheists are not like the
crazed atheist teachers of my grade school years. But reading

atheist

How were they crazed?

Well, let me see. Telling children that the Baptists perform human
sacrifices. Telling children that banging your head against a wall
until injury occured as the normal form of worship in the Russian
Orthodox Church. (And of course were wre told that the faithful did
not go to doctors for their head-banging injuries.)
While telling these stories, by grade school teacher got more worked up
then some Baptists pastors.
"Crazed" is definitely an appropriate epithet.
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:53:54 AM

re�li�gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken from a
random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and use the fourth
definition above, then collecting stamps could also be a religion. Before
you toss out statements like this, you have to define your terms.
*snip*

*snip*
a�the�ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
Same dictionary, hilarious second definition. But notice that neither
definition includes the criteria for religion, including belief in a
supernatural being or any sort of spirituality.
So the answer to your Subject Header, "Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes
or no?" is no, and you need to consult a dictionary. Let me recommend the
Oxford English dictionary since the English, well, invented English.
begin 666 ibreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(1A ^!H<P(
-%WPSJHKEHK%'@@(`.P``
`
end
begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$<;>
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end
begin 666 schwa.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I>^$6
,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[
`
end
begin 666 amacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(5A(\8RY''
1H 3.5'@7M;-JZWS/^! H`#L`
`
end
begin 666 emacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(3A(\8RY'J
/3IQ2-A#5P]6P#6X$"@`[
`
end
begin 666 lprime.gif
M1TE&.#EA`P`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````#`!8```(+A(\)8;P-
'E9PT$10`.P``
`
end
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:43:46 AM

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...

re�li�gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.

Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken from a
random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and use the fourth
definition above, then collecting stamps could also be a religion. Before
you toss out statements like this, you have to define your terms.

Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not fit any
of the above. However, certain belief systems that some atheists subscribe
to, that exist only because of their non-belief in deity, do. Especially
number four. ;-)
.

User: "MJSD"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 01:48:22 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:C23he.204$Iw1.78@trnddc03:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.

Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken from
a random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and use the
fourth definition above, then collecting stamps could also be a
religion.

Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not
fit any of the above. However, certain belief systems that some
atheists subscribe to, that exist only because of their non-belief in
deity, do. Especially number four. ;-)

I confess... I sometimes like to sit on my patio and gulp back a couple
of ice cold beers while my neighbors are in church on Sunday. I do it
with both zeal and conscientious devotion. If the "drinking beer instead
of going to church" ritual signifies a religious belief, then these
stupid Texas Blue Laws that prevent me from buying alcohol before noon on
Sundays are infringing on my governmentally sanctioned "freedom of
religion".
You are, of course, unspecific about which "belief systems" you mean. I
suppose you intend something insidious like crypto-stalinism or an
animistic variety of Atom Bomb Worship, but I'm not a mind-reader.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 03:45:05 PM

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96558C713569thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:C23he.204$Iw1.78@trnddc03:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...

Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not
fit any of the above. However, certain belief systems that some
atheists subscribe to, that exist only because of their non-belief in
deity, do. Especially number four. ;-)

I confess... I sometimes like to sit on my patio and gulp back a couple
of ice cold beers while my neighbors are in church on Sunday. I do it
with both zeal and conscientious devotion. If the "drinking beer instead
of going to church" ritual signifies a religious belief, then these
stupid Texas Blue Laws that prevent me from buying alcohol before noon on
Sundays are infringing on my governmentally sanctioned "freedom of
religion".

You are, of course, unspecific about which "belief systems" you mean. I
suppose you intend something insidious like crypto-stalinism or an
animistic variety of Atom Bomb Worship, but I'm not a mind-reader.

Actually, I personally would classify those atheists who are constantly
posting about, attempting to debunk, and making fun of theists to be in that
category; the atheist apologists; the 'hard' atheists, who that go a step
beyond 'I have no belief in God" to "I know damn well there isn't one"...and
are determined to spread the word.
Yeah, those would count. Because they do exactly the same things in defense
of, and to promote, THIER opinions about deity that the theist missionary
types do about theirs. Mind you, these people do not comprise the whole
population of atheists, by any means. (shrug)
.

User: "MJSD"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 06:07:16 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96558C713569thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:C23he.204$Iw1.78@trnddc03:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion.

Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken
from a random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and
use the fourth definition above, then collecting stamps could also
be a religion.

Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not
fit any of the above. However, certain belief systems that some
atheists subscribe to, that exist only because of their non-belief
in deity, do. Especially number four. ;-)

I confess... I sometimes like to sit on my patio and gulp back a
couple of ice cold beers while my neighbors are in church on Sunday.
I do it with both zeal and conscientious devotion. If the "drinking
beer instead of going to church" ritual signifies a religious belief,
then these stupid Texas Blue Laws that prevent me from buying alcohol
before noon on Sundays are infringing on my governmentally sanctioned
"freedom of religion".

You are, of course, unspecific about which "belief systems" you mean.
I suppose you intend something insidious like crypto-stalinism or an
animistic variety of Atom Bomb Worship, but I'm not a mind-reader.

Actually, I personally would classify those atheists who are
constantly posting about, attempting to debunk, and making fun of
theists to be in that category; the atheist apologists;

Atheism doesn't need a system of apologetics like Christianity seems to, it
isn't a theological idea. It certainly shouldn't be required to defend
itself from the likes of Christians, who have been burning heretics and
blasphemers for almost 2,000 years, who would likely convert atheists and
agnostics through violence if the weight of modernity weren't holding them
back.

the 'hard' atheists, who that go a step beyond 'I have no belief in
God" to "I know damn well there isn't one"...and are determined to
spread the word.

There's nothing wrong with hard atheism; there's nothing wrong with weak
atheism or agnosticism either. Heck, there's nothing wrong with theism.
There is something wrong with Blue Laws, but that's apparently another
discussion entirely.
If someone wants to say, "there is no God" it is as much their right as the
person who claims there is one and he/she prays to him/her nightly. I would
also submit that 'there is no god' is a more likely scenario than a
friendly invisible magic dude who grants wishes so long as they end with
the word "Amen". Of course, that is just my opinion based on a lack of
definitive evidence for god(s). As an atheist, I am allowed to have
opinions, as sure as any theist can.

Yeah, those would count. Because they do exactly the same things in
defense of, and to promote, THIER opinions about deity that the theist
missionary types do about theirs. Mind you, these people do not
comprise the whole population of atheists, by any means. (shrug)

Atheists with strong anti-Christian bent are certainly around. I'm one of
them, I don't deny it. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Christianity
as a malignant disease- more of an ugly weed that chokes everything else
out. I try to be as tolerant as possible, but I've found that many
Christians have a tendency to push their luck. This is different from
taking a generally hostile stance towards theists.
As such, I don't know of any atheists who I would describe as
"missionaries". It would seem beside the point. Atheism doesn't need to be
_sold_ in the same sense as Christianity. The evidence to advance the
atheist viewpoint is, after all, the same lack of evidence for the theistic
viewpoint. People should be encouraged to think about the ideas that they
choose to accept.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 10:27:00 PM

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656B855B18E2thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:

Atheism doesn't need a system of apologetics like Christianity seems to,
it
isn't a theological idea.

Yet, by your very participation in this ng, responding to a theist, you are
BEING an apologist. By definition. ;-)

It certainly shouldn't be required to defend
itself from the likes of Christians, who have been burning heretics and
blasphemers for almost 2,000 years, who would likely convert atheists and
agnostics through violence if the weight of modernity weren't holding them
back.

the 'hard' atheists, who that go a step beyond 'I have no belief in
God" to "I know damn well there isn't one"...and are determined to
spread the word.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. As I mentioned in an earlier
post, it's a classification, not a value judgment.

If someone wants to say, "there is no God" it is as much their right as
the
person who claims there is one and he/she prays to him/her nightly. I
would
also submit that 'there is no god' is a more likely scenario than a
friendly invisible magic dude who grants wishes so long as they end with
the word "Amen". Of course, that is just my opinion based on a lack of
definitive evidence for god(s). As an atheist, I am allowed to have
opinions, as sure as any theist can.

Nor has anyone seen me say differently.

Well, from what you have just said, I would put you in that catagory.
Especially if you actually engage theists in discussions. Since you are,
quite obviously, doing exactly that.....

It would seem beside the point. Atheism doesn't need to be
_sold_ in the same sense as Christianity. The evidence to advance the
atheist viewpoint is, after all, the same lack of evidence for the
theistic
viewpoint. People should be encouraged to think about the ideas that they
choose to accept.

Yes. But what has that got to do with it?
.

User: "MJSD"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	15 May 2005 01:13:37 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:8kzhe.1950$sr1.423@trnddc04:

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656B855B18E2thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:

Atheism doesn't need a system of apologetics like Christianity seems
to, it
isn't a theological idea.

Yet, by your very participation in this ng, responding to a theist,
you are BEING an apologist. By definition. ;-)

By your definition, maybe. Apologetics is a systemic defense of a
religious doctrine or idea. Atheism, per say, is the lack of belief in
the idea of a god or gods. It puzzles me why you would think that the
lack of an idea might require a field of apologetics in the sense that
Christianity does.
My activities in this group or in general have absolutely nothing to do
with whether or not there is such a thing as "atheist Apologetics" in the
dogmatic religious sense that you obviously intend the term to mean. I
certainly don't represent atheists everywhere, and I never claimed as
much. Therefore I can only speak in defense of my own atheistic opinions,
which is an entirely different thing from saying that "Atheism has
Apologetics".

Well, from what you have just said, I would put you in that catagory.
Especially if you actually engage theists in discussions. Since you
are, quite obviously, doing exactly that.....

Being anti-Christian isn't the same as being atheist. I could be a Hindu
or a Muslim theist and still be anti-Christian. This also isn't the same
as being intolerant of Christians. IMO, a Christian is merely under the
influence of a bad idea, much like a Young Pioneer or some kind of gang
member. So long as they don't molest others, I would agree that there
isn't anything *especially* pernicious about them. I have no real desire
to dissuade Christians from their Christianity without regard for their
lifeworld. For some people, going to church is the only form of
socialization that they have. Encouraging them otherwise, without
proposing a viable alternative, would be patently irresponsible. There
are also family reasons for why people engage in certain rituals.
Christian missionaries, OTOH, simply don't care who they pit against each
other in the process of spreading their religion.
That's only one part of it, mind you. If we were to look at this
particular situation, it would be you -the supposed theist- who would be
the missionary... and I am merely one of the happy natives. Since you
*are* posting in alt.atheism, it is perfectly reasonable to assume this.

Yes. But what has that got to do with it?

Hopefully you realize that thoughtlessly accepting atheism would be
considered a pointless activity from the perspective of many atheists.
Not so with Christians and their religion, who typically believe that
one's faith is strengthened by fatalistically accepting "god's will" and
by not asking too many questions. That is an important difference to
understand.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	15 May 2005 04:54:21 PM

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9657868BDA90Cthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:8kzhe.1950$sr1.423@trnddc04:

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656B855B18E2thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:

Atheism doesn't need a system of apologetics like Christianity seems
to, it
isn't a theological idea.

Yet, by your very participation in this ng, responding to a theist,
you are BEING an apologist. By definition. ;-)

By your definition, maybe. Apologetics is a systemic defense of a
religious doctrine or idea.

No, actually...according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "apologia"
(apologetics) means "a written defence or justification of the opinions or
cunduct of a writer, speaker, etc. . An apologist is 'one who apologizes
for, or defends by argument; a professsed literary champion."
According to Mirriam-Webster, it means: "one who speaks or writes in defense
of someone or something".
Note: nothing about religion in either definition. "Apologist" is not a
religious term. IT's a literary term, and applies to anyone who is defending
a point of view, no matter what that point of view is.

Atheism, per say, is the lack of belief in
the idea of a god or gods. It puzzles me why you would think that the
lack of an idea might require a field of apologetics in the sense that
Christianity does.

It doesn't REQUIRE one. It simply has one. Because anybody who feels the
need to defend the idea 'there is no God' is an apologist by definition.
There is nothing wrong with being an apologist, y'know; it's not an
insulting term. It's just a term. Me, I'm an apologist for several different
things, the idea that the Pearl Poet wrote "Pearl", for instance, or that
Hawthorne was more sophisticated than is commonly thought, or that Eliot's
'Ash Wednesday' is a conversion poem.... ;-)

My activities in this group or in general have absolutely nothing to do
with whether or not there is such a thing as "atheist Apologetics" in the
dogmatic religious sense that you obviously intend the term to mean.

What's obvious about it? Apologetics means...defending an idea. My point is
that certain atheists act just like certain theists who are religious; they
defend thier points of view very strongly, attempt to convert others to
their viewpoint, and engage in discussion about the existance of deity. That
is the definition of 'apologia' no matter which side of the debate one
takes. Some of these atheists actually attend meetings that have, at their
center, the idea that there is no god; the purpose of the group is to deal
with what happens to them because they are atheist; they actively seek to
change society to bend more to their ideals...getting religion out of their
way because there is no god and religion is, therefore, not a good idea.
Their morals and ethics come from a belief system that includes, as one of
it's important tenets, that there is no deity; therefore, one must get one's
ethics from somewhere else.
It shouldn't surprise you that the religious theists look at people like
this and think 'atheism is a religion'...because except that the idea ABOUT
God is 'there isn't one', those who ascribe to these belief systems act
EXACTLY like theists.

I
certainly don't represent atheists everywhere, and I never claimed as
much. Therefore I can only speak in defense of my own atheistic opinions,
which is an entirely different thing from saying that "Atheism has
Apologetics".

You are an atheist. You speak here in defense of your ideas. That makes you
an apologist. By definition. It's not an insult. To think of it as an insult
is like having an apple be insulted because somebody calls it an 'apple'.
(shrug)

Well, from what you have just said, I would put you in that catagory.
Especially if you actually engage theists in discussions. Since you
are, quite obviously, doing exactly that.....

Being anti-Christian isn't the same as being atheist.

Not always, no. But please note; I didn't SAY 'anti-Christian'. I'm rather
careful to write 'anti-theist'.

I could be a Hindu
or a Muslim theist and still be anti-Christian. This also isn't the same
as being intolerant of Christians.

Nor have I said anything about being intolerant. The best apologists ARE
tolerant. One can't have a really profitable debate if the two participants
can't see the other's POV and be at least nominally polite.

IMO, a Christian is merely under the
influence of a bad idea, much like a Young Pioneer or some kind of gang
member. So long as they don't molest others, I would agree that there
isn't anything *especially* pernicious about them. I have no real desire
to dissuade Christians from their Christianity without regard for their
lifeworld. For some people, going to church is the only form of
socialization that they have. Encouraging them otherwise, without
proposing a viable alternative, would be patently irresponsible. There
are also family reasons for why people engage in certain rituals.
Christian missionaries, OTOH, simply don't care who they pit against each
other in the process of spreading their religion.

Some do not. This is true. If you think YOU have been on the wrong end of
evangilism, try being a Mormon in the middle of a Baptist convention. ;-)

That's only one part of it, mind you. If we were to look at this
particular situation, it would be you -the supposed theist- who would be
the missionary... and I am merely one of the happy natives. Since you
*are* posting in alt.atheism, it is perfectly reasonable to assume this.

Except of course that I have never prosylited in here. Ask my worst enemies.
Ask those who have actually plonked me. If they are honest, they will at
least admit that.

Yes. But what has that got to do with it?

Actually, questions are good no matter who is asking them.
.

User: "MJSD"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	16 May 2005 07:49:33 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:hyPhe.7984$Y12.7528@trnddc09:

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9657868BDA90Cthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:8kzhe.1950$sr1.423@trnddc04:

"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656B855B18E2thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:

By your definition, maybe. Apologetics is a systemic defense of a
religious doctrine or idea.

In either case, you haven't even given a complete definition of
Apologetics, let alone examined the word's etymology. You know very well
what it means and what you intend. "Apologetics" is a branch of Catholic
theology; you use the word to imply that atheism is a religion- which is an
entirely fallacious assertion.

Note: nothing about religion in either definition. "Apologist" is not
a religious term. IT's a literary term, and applies to anyone who is
defending a point of view, no matter what that point of view is.

It is 100% a religious term which emerged from the process of defending the
Christian faith. Its other connotations came much later. I submit that you
could have used any other passable synonym, such as "defenders" or
"supporters", but you wanted to prove that atheism is a religion by
demonstrating that it even has its own quasi-theistic system of
apologetics. It was your little exercise in deceptive semantics. Now you
are simply backpedaling.

It doesn't REQUIRE one. It simply has one. Because anybody who feels
the need to defend the idea 'there is no God' is an apologist by
definition.

An atheist need not state "there is no God" to be atheist, merely that
he/she lacks belief in god(s). As such it does not express an idea
necessary of defense, it is the absence of the idea of believing in god(s).

There is nothing wrong with being an apologist, y'know;

On this we agree completely.

My activities in this group or in general have absolutely nothing to
do with whether or not there is such a thing as "atheist Apologetics"
in the dogmatic religious sense that you obviously intend the term to
mean.

An atheist need not discuss the possible existence of deity, it is but one
of an infinite variety of pointless hypotheticals to us. One might as well
discuss whether or not there are aliens hiding in the Oort clouds- IMO it's
a much more relevant question than this "god" thing that theists seem so
obsessed about.

That is the definition of 'apologia' no matter
which side of the debate one takes. Some of these atheists actually
attend meetings that have, at their center, the idea that there is no
god; the purpose of the group is to deal with what happens to them
because they are atheist; they actively seek to change society to bend
more to their ideals...getting religion out of their way because there
is no god and religion is, therefore, not a good idea.

This isn't why people are opposed to the expanding presence of the
Christian religion in the public sphere. Why don't you research your
arguments instead of simply making things up? America is a country
comprised of minorities, and everyone's rights should be defended. This
includes the right of people like atheists, who sometimes express unpopular
opinions. We should not be coerced into praying to your god to gratify your
primitive egos, and neither should any non-Christian religious minority. Is
this idea "religious"?

Their morals
and ethics come from a belief system that includes, as one of it's
important tenets, that there is no deity; therefore, one must get
one's ethics from somewhere else.

If anything, my lack of belief has suggested to me that humans are
responsible to solve our own problems in this world. Admittedly, it isn't
very different from what many Christians would say.

It shouldn't surprise you that the religious theists look at people
like this and think 'atheism is a religion'...because except that the
idea ABOUT God is 'there isn't one', those who ascribe to these belief
systems act EXACTLY like theists.

Atheism need not have an "idea about god". That's what I'm trying to
explain to you. As for what your supposed religious theists believe, they
think whatever suits their purpose. It serves their argument to say that
atheism is really a competing religion, that we're just as bad as the worst
theists of history, and we're out to convert your children into godless
heathen and ban the Bible. To put this into the simplest possible terms,
this is crazy talk.
Likewise the argument that atheists have an "idea about god" but simply
refuse to admit that He exists is patently insulting. It's tantamount to
calling all atheists liars- I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't get very far
saying that in here. However, it is the sort of thing that would most
gratify the high opinions that many Christian theists seem to have about
themselves. It's also the most inept and crude argument that a theist can
dream up, and the common argument I hear against atheism among
unsophisticated churchgoers here in the Bible Belt.
These two have the common notion that atheists are being intrinsically
dishonest about their lack of religion. They are essentially character
assassination attacks intended to demonize atheists and incite the public
against them.

I
certainly don't represent atheists everywhere, and I never claimed as
much. Therefore I can only speak in defense of my own atheistic
opinions, which is an entirely different thing from saying that
"Atheism has Apologetics".

You are an atheist. You speak here in defense of your ideas. That
makes you an apologist. By definition. It's not an insult. To think of
it as an insult is like having an apple be insulted because somebody
calls it an 'apple'. (shrug)

By now you should understand why I take umbrage at this notion of yours.
It's nothing but a spit-shined version of an old Christian line of
apologetics that has lacked merit for hundreds of years. If you want to don
the robes of Grand Inquisitor, do so in earnest and I might actually listen
to what you have to say. OTOH, it's much more likely that I will suggest
that you find a more receptive forum to evangelize in.

As such, I don't know of any atheists who I would describe as
"missionaries".

Well, from what you have just said, I would put you in that
catagory. [...]

Being anti-Christian isn't the same as being atheist.

Not always, no. But please note; I didn't SAY 'anti-Christian'. I'm
rather careful to write 'anti-theist'.

Of course, my esteemed Grand Inquisitor. Without your arcane theistic
wordplay, you would have no arguments whatsoever. That's okay, though, I'm
starting to enjoy it.

I could be a Hindu
or a Muslim theist and still be anti-Christian. This also isn't the
same as being intolerant of Christians.

Nor have I said anything about being intolerant. The best apologists
ARE tolerant. One can't have a really profitable debate if the two
participants can't see the other's POV and be at least nominally
polite.

Since I'm not an apologist, then I don't need to be tolerant. I couldn't
care less if you find any merit to atheism, only that you retain some level
of honesty when you attack people.

Christian missionaries, OTOH, simply don't care who
they pit against each other in the process of spreading their
religion.

Some do not. This is true. If you think YOU have been on the wrong end
of evangilism, try being a Mormon in the middle of a Baptist
convention. ;-)

Try being an atheist in the middle of anywhere.
Even alt.atheism seems to be no exception. There is literally no public
forum available to American atheists where determined Christians will not
attempt to convert them.

That's only one part of it, mind you. If we were to look at this
particular situation, it would be you -the supposed theist- who would
be the missionary... and I am merely one of the happy natives. Since
you *are* posting in alt.atheism, it is perfectly reasonable to
assume this.

Except of course that I have never prosylited in here. Ask my worst
enemies. Ask those who have actually plonked me. If they are honest,
they will at least admit that.

You came in here to attack atheism, obviously in an attempt to persuade
people away from atheism and into some theistic school of thought that is
more to your liking. You aren't interested in knowing the details about the
group you're attacking, such as why people become atheists in the first
place or whether or not some atheists celebrate Christmas. Both of these
topics could provide excellent opportunities to question the validity of
atheists in making their individual choices. Instead you launch bald-faced
attacks on the authenticity of atheists in general, suggesting that they
are just another dogmatic element in your theistic pantheon. No, you are
too impatient NOT to proselytize, so long as people aren't directly
attacking you for doing so.
.