| 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: "MJSD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
20 May 2005 12:46:24 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:bDQie.2865$6d.1380@trnddc05:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9659DC626213Bthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:Ixtie.54$fd.8@trnddc03:
I don't know anybody who reads something other than comic books and
soft porn romances that thinks 'apologetics' means 'apologize'.
These are they who think that 'niggardly' is insulting to
African-Americans, and that Mark Twain was a racist. They are, in
fact, unutterably stupid.
It's nice to know that you aren't one of these. I suppose it would be
safe to assume that your equivocal statements concerning "atheist
apologists" were deliberate and you lack any excuse whatsoever. What
you did was strictly out of spite, you're just another "Troll For
Jesus".
I made no equivocal statements about atheist apologists. they were, in
fact, unequivocal. Atheists who defend their POV (that is, that there
is no God) in writing (and in modern usage, verbally as well) are
apologists. By definition.
Let's assume for a second that some atheists are positing the
nonexistence of god (which we aren't necessarily simply by professing
atheism). If this were the case, it is simply because the theist refuses
to provide proof of his/her god(s) while making his/her assertions that
it/they exist. In truth, it is an argument prompted by the theist lack of
evidence, and as such doesn't emanate from an atheist reason. Really it
is a question about why there is no proof for god. An implicit assumption
(by me) would be because theists have made him up.
Just as someone who explains stamp collecting is an apologist.
Someone who defends stamp collecting would be labeled by his various
accusers as an "apologist".
Just as someone who claims that Edward Lear was gay is an apologist,
as is the one who claims that he was not is an apologist.
Each from the perspective of the other, but the pejorative sense
maintained from the word's religious etymology still remains.
Just as someone who defends a religious doctrine is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that all religion is bunkum because there
is no god..because...is an apologist.
Atheists aren't necessarily against "all religions", the ones that
atheism even address are merely the theistic ones. It is in fact a theist
idea that religion can't exist without god(s).
It's a word definition, not an insult. Apologists aren't stupid. An
apologist is, if he is any good, simply someone who knows his subject
and defends it well. I fail to see why anyone would be insulted at
being called one.
No, an apologist isn't stupid and there is nothing wrong with being one.
I'm only offended by your use of "apologist" in the context of the
question as to whether or not atheism is a religion.
Unless he is ashamed of the viewpoint he is defending.
Of course I see the reaction that atheism produces among some theists. I
feel sorry for these theists that feel the constant need to attack
atheists. Some of them clearly suffer from persecution complexes, and for
that I pity them. You'll get no apologies from me, however.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
18 May 2005 07:53:47 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9659DC626213Bthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:Ixtie.54$fd.8@trnddc03:
I don't know anybody who reads something other than comic books and soft
porn romances that thinks 'apologetics' means 'apologize'. These are
they who think that 'niggardly' is insulting to African-Americans, and
that Mark Twain was a racist. They are, in fact, unutterably stupid.
It's nice to know that you aren't one of these. I suppose it would be safe
to assume that your equivocal statements concerning "atheist apologists"
were deliberate and you lack any excuse whatsoever. What you did was
strictly out of spite, you're just another "Troll For Jesus".
I made no equivocal statements about atheist apologists. they were, in fact,
unequivocal. Atheists who defend their POV (that is, that there is no God)
in writing (and in modern usage, verbally as well) are apologists. By
definition.
It is true. Therefore, everyone on earth is an apologist for something.
Just as someone who explains stamp collecting is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that Edward Lear was gay is an apologist, as is
the one who claims that he was not is an apologist.
Everyone's an apologist, even you, DianaC.
Just as someone who defends a religious doctrine is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that all religion is bunkum because there is no
god..because...is an apologist.
Apologist. ;-)
It's a word definition, not an insult. Apologists aren't stupid. An
apologist is, if he is any good, simply someone who knows his subject and
defends it well. I fail to see why anyone would be insulted at being called
one.
I am not offended by the term apologist. Are you?
Unless he is ashamed of the viewpoint he is defending.
I'm an atheist and I'm proud! :-)
I'm also a Liberal and I'm proud! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
19 May 2005 06:40:16 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vsRie.2182$6d.1341@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9659DC626213Bthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:Ixtie.54$fd.8@trnddc03:
I don't know anybody who reads something other than comic books and soft
porn romances that thinks 'apologetics' means 'apologize'. These are
they who think that 'niggardly' is insulting to African-Americans, and
that Mark Twain was a racist. They are, in fact, unutterably stupid.
It's nice to know that you aren't one of these. I suppose it would be
safe
to assume that your equivocal statements concerning "atheist apologists"
were deliberate and you lack any excuse whatsoever. What you did was
strictly out of spite, you're just another "Troll For Jesus".
I made no equivocal statements about atheist apologists. they were, in
fact, unequivocal. Atheists who defend their POV (that is, that there is
no God) in writing (and in modern usage, verbally as well) are
apologists. By definition.
It is true. Therefore, everyone on earth is an apologist for something.
Yes, actually. Unless they are utter couch potatoes and don't care about
anything. Unfortunately, there are considerably more of them that any of us
would like.
Just as someone who explains stamp collecting is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that Edward Lear was gay is an apologist, as
is the one who claims that he was not is an apologist.
Everyone's an apologist, even you, DianaC.
I never said I was NOT an apologist. I am, and quite proud of it. Indeed, I
even mentioned some of the things that I was an apologist for;
The connection of Hawthorne, the Pearl poet and Dante, for instance.
Or that modern Chicana literature owes a great deal to twentieth century
cinematography.
Or that it's quite possible to knit and read a book at the same time (OK, so
that's not as easy as I'd like it to be)
Or that the Luet spinning wheel is better than any other.
Or Mormonism.
Or that making bread by hand is better than using a machine.
Or that fruitcake is the invention of the Inquizition.
Just as someone who defends a religious doctrine is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that all religion is bunkum because there is
no god..because...is an apologist.
Apologist. ;-)
Yep. ;-)
It's a word definition, not an insult. Apologists aren't stupid. An
apologist is, if he is any good, simply someone who knows his subject and
defends it well. I fail to see why anyone would be insulted at being
called one.
I am not offended by the term apologist. Are you?
Not a bit of it. Like I said, being an apologist requires some knowledge of
the topic. One should be proud of the title. ;-)
Unless he is ashamed of the viewpoint he is defending.
I'm an atheist and I'm proud! :-)
I'm also a Liberal and I'm proud! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
19 May 2005 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vsRie.2182$6d.1341@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9659DC626213Bthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:Ixtie.54$fd.8@trnddc03:
I don't know anybody who reads something other than comic books and soft
porn romances that thinks 'apologetics' means 'apologize'. These are
they who think that 'niggardly' is insulting to African-Americans, and
that Mark Twain was a racist. They are, in fact, unutterably stupid.
It's nice to know that you aren't one of these. I suppose it would be
safe
to assume that your equivocal statements concerning "atheist apologists"
were deliberate and you lack any excuse whatsoever. What you did was
strictly out of spite, you're just another "Troll For Jesus".
I made no equivocal statements about atheist apologists. they were, in
fact, unequivocal. Atheists who defend their POV (that is, that there is
no God) in writing (and in modern usage, verbally as well) are
apologists. By definition.
It is true. Therefore, everyone on earth is an apologist for something.
Yes, actually. Unless they are utter couch potatoes and don't care about
anything. Unfortunately, there are considerably more of them that any of us
would like.
Then, of course, they are couch potato apologists. ;-)
Just as someone who explains stamp collecting is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that Edward Lear was gay is an apologist, as
is the one who claims that he was not is an apologist.
Everyone's an apologist, even you, DianaC.
I never said I was NOT an apologist. I am, and quite proud of it. Indeed, I
even mentioned some of the things that I was an apologist for;
The connection of Hawthorne, the Pearl poet and Dante, for instance.
Or that modern Chicana literature owes a great deal to twentieth century
cinematography.
Or that it's quite possible to knit and read a book at the same time (OK, so
that's not as easy as I'd like it to be)
Or that the Luet spinning wheel is better than any other.
Or Mormonism.
Or that making bread by hand is better than using a machine.
Or that fruitcake is the invention of the Inquizition.
Inquisition. ;-) Anyway, apologist has gotten a stigma attached to
it lately. People equate "apologist" to "apology"; that they are sorry
for their position. It's the same stigma that got attached to the word
"liberal."
I, too, am proud to be both an apologist and a liberal. The people that
equate the terms apologist or liberal as being someting bad or something
to shun are morons of the highest caliber.
Just as someone who defends a religious doctrine is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that all religion is bunkum because there is
no god..because...is an apologist.
Apologist. ;-)
Yep. ;-)
*grin*
It's a word definition, not an insult. Apologists aren't stupid. An
apologist is, if he is any good, simply someone who knows his subject and
defends it well. I fail to see why anyone would be insulted at being
called one.
I am not offended by the term apologist. Are you?
Not a bit of it. Like I said, being an apologist requires some knowledge of
the topic. One should be proud of the title. ;-)
I am, just like the term "liberal" or "atheist". Both are badges of
pride and honor for me. :-)
Unless he is ashamed of the viewpoint he is defending.
I'm an atheist and I'm proud! :-)
I'm also a Liberal and I'm proud! :-)
Also Communist. ;-D
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
20 May 2005 12:12:03 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5ybje.3817$6d.100@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vsRie.2182$6d.1341@trnddc08...
<snip to>
I'm an atheist and I'm proud! :-)
I'm also a Liberal and I'm proud! :-)
Also Communist. ;-D
Here's a thesis for you:
I claim that communism actually works, but only in small groups within a
larger capitalist society, because communism requires voluntary, individual
dedication, and that's only possible if one can opt OUT and choose a
different way of life. Any communist society that doesn't give it's
individual members a choice in the matter is no longer communist, but
totalitarianism and a very.bad.idea.
What say you?
(I abandoned the other thread, things were getting far too heated...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
20 May 2005 01:38:11 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5ybje.3817$6d.100@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vsRie.2182$6d.1341@trnddc08...
<snip to>
I'm an atheist and I'm proud! :-)
I'm also a Liberal and I'm proud! :-)
Also Communist. ;-D
Here's a thesis for you:
I claim that communism actually works, but only in small groups within a
larger capitalist society, because communism requires voluntary, individual
dedication, and that's only possible if one can opt OUT and choose a
different way of life. Any communist society that doesn't give it's
individual members a choice in the matter is no longer communist, but
totalitarianism and a very.bad.idea.
What say you?
Personally, I think free market will eventually "evolve" into communism
a la Star Trek.
However, right now, there is no choice whether you can be communist or
capitalist. It's capitalism or you starve. When you begin advocating
communism or something that even starts going down the road towards it,
you're stigmatized, laughed at, jeered, and called anti-American.
There is no "choice".
(I abandoned the other thread, things were getting far too heated...)
Heated? For you? I was simply explaining my side.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
20 May 2005 05:04:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:01:37 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:vsRie.2182$6d.1341@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9659DC626213Bthisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:Ixtie.54$fd.8@trnddc03:
I don't know anybody who reads something other than comic books and soft
porn romances that thinks 'apologetics' means 'apologize'. These are
they who think that 'niggardly' is insulting to African-Americans, and
that Mark Twain was a racist. They are, in fact, unutterably stupid.
It's nice to know that you aren't one of these. I suppose it would be
safe
to assume that your equivocal statements concerning "atheist apologists"
were deliberate and you lack any excuse whatsoever. What you did was
strictly out of spite, you're just another "Troll For Jesus".
I made no equivocal statements about atheist apologists. they were, in
fact, unequivocal. Atheists who defend their POV (that is, that there is
no God) in writing (and in modern usage, verbally as well) are
apologists. By definition.
It is true. Therefore, everyone on earth is an apologist for something.
Yes, actually. Unless they are utter couch potatoes and don't care about
anything. Unfortunately, there are considerably more of them that any of us
would like.
Then, of course, they are couch potato apologists. ;-)
Just as someone who explains stamp collecting is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that Edward Lear was gay is an apologist, as
is the one who claims that he was not is an apologist.
Everyone's an apologist, even you, DianaC.
I never said I was NOT an apologist. I am, and quite proud of it. Indeed, I
even mentioned some of the things that I was an apologist for;
The connection of Hawthorne, the Pearl poet and Dante, for instance.
Or that modern Chicana literature owes a great deal to twentieth century
cinematography.
Or that it's quite possible to knit and read a book at the same time (OK, so
that's not as easy as I'd like it to be)
Or that the Luet spinning wheel is better than any other.
Or Mormonism.
Or that making bread by hand is better than using a machine.
Or that fruitcake is the invention of the Inquizition.
Inquisition. ;-) Anyway, apologist has gotten a stigma attached to
it lately. People equate "apologist" to "apology"; that they are sorry
for their position. It's the same stigma that got attached to the word
"liberal."
I, too, am proud to be both an apologist and a liberal. The people that
equate the terms apologist or liberal as being someting bad or something
to shun are morons of the highest caliber.
Just as someone who defends a religious doctrine is an apologist.
Just as someone who claims that all religion is bunkum because there is
no god..because...is an apologist.
Apologist. ;-)
Yep. ;-)
*grin*
It's a word definition, not an insult. Apologists aren't stupid. An
apologist is, if he is any good, simply someone who knows his subject and
defends it well. I fail to see why anyone would be insulted at being
called one.
I am not offended by the term apologist. Are you?
It is a term used to describe people of a different point of view to
yourself. Thus opponents are 'apologists' who 'whine' even 'rant' but
are of course 'misguided' or 'brainwashed' or simply stupid even
'morons'. All ad-hominem terms in the context they are used that have
absolutely no meaning or value except to show that the user of the
term is arrogant ( thinka only he/she is capable of understanding) or
is unable to provide counter-argument.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
16 May 2005 11:20:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:39:26 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:54:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
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.
But most atheists here aren't "defending" atheism, they are saying
"There is absolutely no evidence for any gods, so we don't believe in
any gods'... SHOW US EVIDENCE, they ask.... and Christians wave the
bible (or book of Mormon) above their heads and scream "what more
evidence do you need!"
She has said in the past that atheists responding to Christians are
"prosetylising atheism".
In her mind demanding evidence to make Christians put up or shut up is
no different from one of her kin (she's Mormon) knocking on the door
and pushing their religion.
There is nothing wrong with being an apologist, y'know; it's not an
insulting term. It's just a term.
Agreed....but many in the 21st century equate "apologist" to
"apologize"
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.... ;-)
Hawthorne was a simplton. :-D
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
18 May 2005 08:03:15 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"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:
<snip to>
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. ;-)
No. An apologist *defends*. We, as atheists (or agnostics) DEFINE.
Theists have an unfortunate habit of not understanding what it is to be
atheistic. I offer no apology, only explanation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
19 May 2005 06:42:17 PM |
|
|
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116464595.007742.294870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"MJSD" <nospam@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656B855B18E2thisuniqueidtoken@216.168.3.66...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ll8he.624$5m1.232@trnddc06:
<snip to>
Atheism doesn't need a system of apologetics like Christianity
seems to,
it
isn't a theological idea.
Yet, by your very participation in this ng, responding to a theist,
you are
BEING an apologist. By definition. ;-)
No. An apologist *defends*. We, as atheists (or agnostics) DEFINE.
Theists have an unfortunate habit of not understanding what it is to be
atheistic. I offer no apology, only explanation.
That IS a defense....and you will notice that your slight twist on it IS
covered in the definition; 'defend or explain'.
Which would include a definition.
However, you are being a little, oh, arrogant, don't you think, in claiming
that all atheists agree with you, and behave as you do? Believe me, there
are atheists who really are out to prove that god does not exist. With great
glee and energy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 06:15:26 PM |
|
|
Atheism doesn't need to be
_sold_ in the same sense as Christianity.
Exactly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 05:09:48 PM |
|
|
Don't agree. One of the main points is: think for yourself, instead of stop
thinking. The debunking is largely about theists trying to supress and
influence others (in a dogmatic and twisting of the facts kind of way).
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 08:50:32 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:d638is$msi$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
Don't agree. One of the main points is: think for yourself, instead of
stop thinking. The debunking is largely about theists trying to supress
and influence others (in a dogmatic and twisting of the facts kind of
way).
Now, I would say that might have a grain of truth in it, as long as we are
in alt.atheism. However, I don't think that's true of those who post in
religious ngs.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 07:52:28 AM |
|
|
Don't agree. One of the main points is: think for yourself, instead of
stop thinking. The debunking is largely about theists trying to supress
and influence others (in a dogmatic and twisting of the facts kind of
way).
Now, I would say that might have a grain of truth in it, as long as we are
in alt.atheism. However, I don't think that's true of those who post in
religious ngs.....
What has that got to do with anything? If there is suppression and dogmatic
and false influencing going on there, any debunking is quite in place.
Also:
D:
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. <
There is nothing wrong with spreading a word. Scientists do it all the time.
Time for a quote:
"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural
selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective
forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious.
They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless
self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of
standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision,
quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability,
universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on.
Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml
Mind you: I have yet to hang out at religious newsgroups, but many a message
in alt.atheism and talk.origins is cross-posted a lot.
One way or another: the topic is about the atheist definition. Just like
fake-Christians, who don't show the other cheek or murder-in-the-name-of-God
(what an oxymoron _that_ is, considering the ten commandments), there are
atheists who behave inconsistently with what you'd expect from them.
However: the atheist condition is much simpler and easier to meet, as has
been said a gazillion times already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 05:19:58 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:d64s9p$3t9$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
Don't agree. One of the main points is: think for yourself, instead of
stop thinking. The debunking is largely about theists trying to supress
and influence others (in a dogmatic and twisting of the facts kind of
way).
Now, I would say that might have a grain of truth in it, as long as we
are in alt.atheism. However, I don't think that's true of those who post
in religious ngs.....
What has that got to do with anything? If there is suppression and
dogmatic and false influencing going on there, any debunking is quite in
place.
Also:
D:
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. <
There is nothing wrong with spreading a word. Scientists do it all the
time.
I wasn't making a value judgment. I was classifying. I don't see anything
wrong with it, either. If a theist can't stand up to an atheist viewpoint,
then he needs to examine things somewhat closer.
Time for a quote:
"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural
selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective
forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious.
They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless
self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of
standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision,
quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability,
universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on.
Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml
Mind you: I have yet to hang out at religious newsgroups, but many a
message in alt.atheism and talk.origins is cross-posted a lot.
One way or another: the topic is about the atheist definition.
Actually, it isn't. Or rather, it wasn't. It may be NOW, given the way
topics drift...but the original question was about trying to find a
comprehensive, comprehendible THEIST definition. ;-)
Just like fake-Christians, who don't show the other cheek or
murder-in-the-name-of-God (what an oxymoron _that_ is, considering the ten
commandments)
Just a nit pick; the Ten do not say that it's wrong to kill. They do say
it's wrong to murder....'murder' being against the law, and some killing not
being so.
, there are atheists who behave inconsistently with what you'd expect from
them. However: the atheist condition is much simpler and easier to meet,
as has been said a gazillion times already.
So is the theist condition. Really. Trouble is, theists have been around in
more numbers and, arguably, longer. Therefore, there are more belief systems
under the 'theist' classification than there are under the 'atheist' one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 06:12:44 PM |
|
|
I wasn't making a value judgment. I was classifying.
I don't see anything wrong with it, either. If a theist can't stand up to
an atheist viewpoint, then he needs to examine things somewhat closer.
Okay
One way or another: the topic is about the atheist definition.
Actually, it isn't. Or rather, it wasn't. It may be NOW, given the way
topics drift...but the original question was about trying to find a
comprehensive, comprehendible THEIST definition. ;-)
Sure it is: "Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion?". Mainly
because no one knows what a religion is and everyone knows what atheism is.
Just like fake-Christians, who don't show the other cheek or
murder-in-the-name-of-God (what an oxymoron _that_ is, considering the
ten commandments)
Just a nit pick; the Ten do not say that it's wrong to kill. They do say
it's wrong to murder....'murder' being against the law, and some killing
not being so.
Actually: it's in the eyes of God, and luckily the majority of Americans
have such eyes, so they can pump lead like crazy.
, there are atheists who behave inconsistently with what you'd expect
from them. However: the atheist condition is much simpler and easier to
meet, as has been said a gazillion times already.
So is the theist condition. Really. Trouble is, theists have been around
in more numbers and, arguably, longer.
Since one is born an atheist, I doubt it.
Therefore, there are more belief systems under the 'theist' classification
than there are under the 'atheist' one.
Let us know when you have defined your own one so we can say: "yes, well,
that's a nice example of something we don't believe in, but since we don't
acknowledge it's existence, we can't even name the thing we don't believe
in, which makes your definition kind of a gray blur to us, but thank you for
your time".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 10:23:21 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:d660km$fdu$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I wasn't making a value judgment. I was classifying.
I don't see anything wrong with it, either. If a theist can't stand up to
an atheist viewpoint, then he needs to examine things somewhat closer.
Okay
One way or another: the topic is about the atheist definition.
Actually, it isn't. Or rather, it wasn't. It may be NOW, given the way
topics drift...but the original question was about trying to find a
comprehensive, comprehendible THEIST definition. ;-)
Sure it is: "Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion?". Mainly
because no one knows what a religion is and everyone knows what atheism
is.
Ooops. This was entirely my fault. I was looking at this topic and thinking
entirely of another: "What is a soul?" Please don't ask me what I was
thinking, because I haven't got a clue.
Just like fake-Christians, who don't show the other cheek or
murder-in-the-name-of-God (what an oxymoron _that_ is, considering the
ten commandments)
Just a nit pick; the Ten do not say that it's wrong to kill. They do say
it's wrong to murder....'murder' being against the law, and some killing
not being so.
Actually: it's in the eyes of God, and luckily the majority of Americans
have such eyes, so they can pump lead like crazy.
, there are atheists who behave inconsistently with what you'd expect
from them. However: the atheist condition is much simpler and easier to
meet, as has been said a gazillion times already.
So is the theist condition. Really. Trouble is, theists have been around
in more numbers and, arguably, longer.
Since one is born an atheist, I doubt it.
One is born innocent. While it is true that until a child becomes able to
absorb the opinions of those around him (and hopefully, eventually, come to
a few of his own) he doesn't have a belief in a supernatural, supernal
deity, he DOES have a deity of sorts; whoever is taking care of him. JMO, of
course.
Therefore, there are more belief systems under the 'theist'
classification than there are under the 'atheist' one.
Let us know when you have defined your own one so we can say: "yes, well,
that's a nice example of something we don't believe in, but since we don't
acknowledge it's existence, we can't even name the thing we don't believe
in, which makes your definition kind of a gray blur to us, but thank you
for your time".
Oh, 'my own one' isn't a secret in here. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 09:50:44 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get
a better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm
religious then. *shrug*
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 03:39:14 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:893he.107$x85.55@trnddc01...
DianaC wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get a
better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 03:52:22 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:893he.107$x85.55@trnddc01...
DianaC wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get a
better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 08:48:57 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:as8he.244$Lc1.24@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:893he.107$x85.55@trnddc01...
DianaC wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken from a
random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and use the
fourth definition above, then collecting stamps could also be a
religion. Before you toss out statements like this, you have to define
your terms.
Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not fit
any of the above. However, certain belief systems that some atheists
subscribe to, that exist only because of their non-belief in deity, do.
Especially number four. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get
a better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
Don't yell at ME, I didn't write the definition!
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 11:45:56 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:as8he.244$Lc1.24@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
Don't yell at ME, I didn't write the definition!
well...you cited it.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
14 May 2005 01:11:56 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:8ofhe.596$Ri4.291@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:as8he.244$Lc1.24@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
Don't yell at ME, I didn't write the definition!
well...you cited it.
Nope, I didn't cite it, either. ;-) "Danielsan" did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 04:20:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:52:22 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
DianaC wrote:
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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get a
better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
It's a metaphor. "His religion is basketball".
But even then atheism isn't a religion. Diana pretends that the
reaction to what believers do, is "pursuing atheism with zeal" when
it's merely "push us and we resist".
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
17 May 2005 12:07:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:20:32 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:52:22 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
DianaC wrote:
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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get a
better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
It's a metaphor. "His religion is basketball".
But even then atheism isn't a religion. Diana pretends that the
reaction to what believers do, is "pursuing atheism with zeal" when
it's merely "push us and we resist".
No. Diana's having a bit of fun and going with the posted definition
breakdowns.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
17 May 2005 04:04:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:07:44 -0500, stoney wrote
(in article <g59k81d2ro25hfsu79n5toouupccnkmmnm@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:20:32 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:52:22 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
DianaC wrote:
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. ;-)
By that notion, anything pursued with zeal is a religion. I want to get
a
better job. I pursue this goal with great zeal. I guess I'm religious
then. *shrug*
That is the definition mentioned in number four, yes.
it is *****, yes.
It's a metaphor. "His religion is basketball".
But even then atheism isn't a religion. Diana pretends that the
reaction to what believers do, is "pursuing atheism with zeal" when
it's merely "push us and we resist".
No. Diana's having a bit of fun and going with the posted definition
breakdowns.
Personally I don't give a *****, I think she should get her fat ***** out of AA,
I find her a too perfect example of exactly the sort of fucking fundies we
have here in Kansas, especially those who are pushing religion into the
public schools.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"(St. Paul)... preached holy acrimony, which is another
name for marriage."-12/31/95 issue of National Review
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
17 May 2005 12:05:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:43:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$tg1.28751@edtnps84...
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
Clearly atheism fits none of these definitions of religion taken from a
random online dictionary. If you're going to equivocate and use the fourth
definition above, then collecting stamps could also be a religion. Before
you toss out statements like this, you have to define your terms.
Personally, I'd say you are quite right. Atheism as a whole does not fit any
of the above. However, certain belief systems that some atheists subscribe
to, that exist only because of their non-belief in deity, do. Especially
number four. ;-)
Then everything is a religion and the term becomes meaningless.
(yes, I saw the wink)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
17 May 2005 05:12:37 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:529k81p5kd8298q3ckdurijlo8mhe1n7bl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:43:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Sj2he.63175$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. ;-)
Then everything is a religion and the term becomes meaningless.
(yes, I saw the wink)
Hot DAMN, the man GOT it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
18 May 2005 02:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:12:37 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:529k81p5kd8298q3ckdurijlo8mhe1n7bl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:43:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"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. ;-)
Then everything is a religion and the term becomes meaningless.
(yes, I saw the wink)
Hot DAMN, the man GOT it!
Of course! :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no |
13 May 2005 11:00:08 AM |
|
|
That's a pretty weak definition of religion, don't you think? As a
teenager, I pursued the opposite sex with something that far surpasses
zeal. Does that make me devoutly religious towards the (usually
unsuccessful) pursuit of intercourse?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Definitions of Atheism. Yes, I Know....
Re: Columbine Victim's Dad: Say Yes to God, No to Gun Control!
Re: Columbine Victim's Dad: Say Yes to God, No to Gun Control!
Re: Is Truthseeker dead because of a Jehovah Witness - YES, READ THIS #3 (Jab you killed him)
Are Blacks Innately Stupid? Professor Says Yes!
Yes, Ed Conrad Spent Time in an Institution
OT: What, We Worry? Yes.
Does Whoopi's filthy, 'low down and ugly' attack on President Bush still meet with Mrs. Edwards' approval? YES!
| Are You An American Hating Liberal? If Yes, Then You Need To Believe This About Bush.
Re: [sci fi, cab drivers mark sue joe chris orville redenbacher, strange flashbacks...bad craziness but i'm SOBER please DO read.. yes this means you!]
Re: [sci fi, cab drivers mark sue joe chris orville redenbacher, strange flashbacks...bad craziness but i'm SOBER please DO read.. yes this means you!]
Yes!
OT: Yes Bush Can
OT: Yes, you must pull out - but also pay for the damage
Can society live without religion ? Yes - look at the Czechs ! (Re: Brief view of religious history, geography, numbers)
|
|
|
