=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
Berster

Are you a Muslim because you don't believe in Allah? No
Are you a communist because you don't support it? No
So how can I be religious when I don't believe in it?

And I'm gonna really push the boat out here and say it's not even an "Ism".  Here's a little material that sums it up nicely, courtesy of about.com

about.com wrote:

Atheism & Religion:
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it’s such a common claim, though, it’s worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

Belief in Supernatural Beings:
Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are “sacred” for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter — neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider “sacred” in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it — it’s simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as “sacred” may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an “atheist ritual.”

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don’t believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn’t teach any particular moral code.

Characteristically Religious Feelings:
Perhaps the vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of “religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage these sorts of feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural. Atheists may experience some of these feelings, like awe at the universe itself, but they are neither promoted nor discouraged by atheism itself.

Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs naturally also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Atheists don’t believe in gods so obviously don’t try to communicate with any; an atheist who believes in some other type of supernatural being might try to communicate with it, but such communication is completely incidental to atheism itself.

A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:
Religions are never just a collection of isolated and unrelated beliefs; instead, they constitute entire worldviews based upon these beliefs and around which people organize their lives. Atheists naturally have worldviews, but atheism itself isn’t a worldview and doesn’t promote any one worldview. Atheists have different ideas about how to live because they have different philosophies on life. Atheism is not a philosophy or ideology, but it can be part of a philosophy, ideology, or worldview.

A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
A few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways, but usually religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. Many atheists belong to a variety of groups, but relatively few atheists belong to specifically atheistic groups — atheists are notorious for not being joiners. When they do belong to atheist groups, though, those groups aren’t bound together by any of the above.

Comparing Atheism & Religion:
Some of these characteristics are more important than others, but none is so important that it alone can make a religion. If atheism lacked one or two of these characteristics, then it would be a religion. If lacked five or six, then it might qualify as metaphorically religious, in the sense of how people follow baseball religiously.
The truth is that atheism lacks every one of these characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. They aren’t even remotely comparable.

So why do people claim that atheism is a religion? Usually this occurs in the process of criticizing atheism and/or atheists. It may at times be politically motivated because if atheism is a religion, they think they can force the state to stop “promoting” atheism by eliminating endorsements of Christianity. Sometimes the assumption is that if atheism is simply another “faith,” then atheists’ critiques of religious beliefs are hypocritical and can be ignored.

Since the claim that atheism is a religion is based upon a misunderstanding of one or both concepts, it must proceed from flawed premises. This isn’t just a problem for atheists; given the importance of religion in society, misrepresenting atheism as a religion can undermine people’s ability to understand religion itself. How can we sensibly discuss matters like the separation of church and state, the secularization of society, or the history of religious violence if we don’t adequately define what religion is?

Productive discussion requires clear thinking about concepts and premises, but clear and coherent thinking are undermined by misrepresentations like this.

Atheism is not an "Ism":
When people talk about "isms," they are referring to some "distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice" like liberalism, communism, conservatism, or pacifism. Atheism has the suffix "ism," so it belongs in this group, right? Wrong: the suffix "ism" also means a "state, condition, attribute, or quality" like pauperism, astigmatism, heroism, anachronism, or metabolism. Is astigmatism a theory? Is metabolism a doctrine? Is anachronism a practice? Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean the it. Failure to realize this can be behind other errors here.

Atheism is Not an Ideology:
An ideology is any "body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves.

Atheism is Not a Philosophy:
A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.

Atheism is Not a Belief System:
A belief system is a "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a group of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system. Both theism and atheism are part of belief systems, though.

Atheism is Not a Creed:
A creed is a "system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination" or "any system or codification of belief or of opinion." Atheism is not a creed in the first sense for the same reasons it's not an ideology or philosophy, with the additional factor that that it has nothing inherently to do with religious belief. There are no atheist "denominations" and even narrowly defined it is not a religious formula. Atheism might appear as part of someone's creed in the second sense because a person might codify their positions, including atheism. Otherwise, though, atheism has nothing to do with creeds.

Atheism is Not a World View:
A world view is a "a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it." This comes a little bit closer to atheism than anything thus far. Although atheism by itself does not offer any guidance on how to conceive of the universe and humanity's relation to it, it does exclude certain options — namely, those centered around some god. Excluding certain types of world views as options does not, however, qualify as a world view itself; at most, it might be part of a world view. Atheism is certainly not comprehensive in anything it might have to say, not even if defined narrowly.

Making Atheism More Complicated Than It Really Is:
The refutations of the above claims are all similar because the source of the errors is basically the same: people who describe atheism as as philosophy, ideology, or something analogous are trying to depict atheism as being much more complicated than it really is. All of these categories are defined in one way or another as systems of beliefs which provide guidance or information. None of this can describe atheism, whether defined broadly as the absence of belief in gods or narrowly as denying the existence of gods.
It's strange that this would happen because almost no one says such things about atheism's "opposite," theism. How many claim that mere theism, which is nothing more than a belief in the existence of at least one god, is all by itself a religion, ideology, philosophy, creed, or worldview? Theism is a common doctrine and it is commonly a part of religious dogmas. It's also commonly part of people's religions, philosophies, and world views. People demonstrate no trouble understanding that theism can be part of these things, but doesn't qualify as one all by itself.

So why do people fail to realize this when it comes to atheism? It's probably because of atheism's long-standing association with anti-clerical movements and dissent from religion. Christian theism has so dominated Western culture, politics, and society that there have been few sources of religious or theistic resistance to this domination. At least since the Enlightenment, then, atheism and atheistic groups have been a primary locus for freethought and dissent from Christian authority and Christian institutions.

What this means is that most people engaging in such resistance have ended up being pulled into the sphere of irreligious atheism rather than into an alternative religious system. Atheism doesn't have to be irreligious nor does it have to be anti-religious, but cultural trends in the West have caused atheism, irreligion, and opposition to religion to be drawn together in such a way that there is now a high correlation among them.

As a consequence, atheism tends to be associated with being anti-religion rather than simply the absence of theism. This leads people to contrast atheism with religion rather than with theism, as they should. If atheism is treated as the opposite of and opposition to religion, then it will be natural to assume that theism is itself a religion — or at least some sort of anti-religious ideology, philosophy, world view, etc.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:


You have no idea what you are talking about it. Even the Gods (the Devas) were in reverence on the day Buddha received enlightenment under the bo tree.

Ascribing that there is no supreme-being responsible for creation (no creator god) is a different idea than there being no Gods. The point is that that Gods are subject to the same ground of being for their existence as we are.

P.S. Those website opinions are just that (opinions someones perspective; for whatever reason, motivation, I don't know, I don't care - to make the claim that Buddhism is something they can easily label). Also the idea of Devas is that those are heavenly beings - but subject to manifestation in existence as you are. There is no creator God but there are other heavenly beings transcending this reality.
So since they are opinions which differ to your own they are invalid? They are beliefs held by millions of people.

There is no mention of gods in the four truths or in the eightfold path. Perhaps calling Buddhism atheistic was a little strong, but it is at the very least nontheistic, as are most Eastern religions.
Non-theistic is a far better word. The notion of creator-god (as a dogma, a tenet) simply does not help on ones "way" or path to enlightenment. (And of course one has to take that on "faith.")

Oh, check this out from:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69107&p=1
"CREATIONIST:  Sounds a lot like faith to me."

I am making nearly the exact same argument here as I did in that thread.
I absolutely agree with faith being a form of trust.

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Bertster7 wrote:

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
Read my previous post.  At most, atheism is one belief (that no god exists), a religion is a set of belief systems/ideologies.  Athiesm can be part of a religion but it can not be a religion by itself.  Thiesm isn't a religion it is just the belief that a god exists.  A Muslim, Jew and Christian are all thiests, but no one would say they were the same religion.  Therefore if theism isn't a religion, it's opposite, atheism can not be either.

The two are not comparable.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-27 09:29:38)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Berster

Are you a Muslim because you don't believe in Allah? No
Are you a communist because you don't support it? No
So how can I be religious when I don't believe in it?

And I'm gonna really push the boat out here and say it's not even an "Ism".  Here's a little material that sums it up nicely, courtesy of about.com
Don't believe in what? You believe in something. Whatever you believe in is your religious belief. It doesn't matter that there is no ritual associated with it. It could (and has been) argued that going about your day to day life is a part of the ritual surrounding your beliefs.

If you think, you are religious.

I don't disagree with the statement about atheism not being a religion. But it forms a part of peoples religion - which is their overall belief system governing their way of life. Quite an integral part. Although their claim that atheism is just the absence of a particular belief is a bit silly, as that is a belief in itself - the belief that there is no god (though you could argue that there is an overlap with nontheism, which would be better fitting to that claim).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-27 09:30:42)

konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6998|CH/BR - in UK

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I'm neither a sociologist or and anthropologist.
Wrong - neither nor. For someone who goes to Oxford and apparently thinks this debate is beneath him....

Seriously, in this thread, so much bashing and so little discussion. Is it so hard to accept that that definition makes everyone religious? If anything, this should be a philosophical debate, something you can hardly back with dictionary definitions.

I agree with sergeriver - by that definition we are all religious. That doesn't make you a Muslim extremist or a Christian snob - that is just stating that you believe in something god related, be it that there is a god or none. Not being sure whether or not there is a god still makes you religious, as you believe he might or might not exist. What is so bad about that? Has religion become such a label?

I can't believe how much shit you have to take for an idea that makes you think.

-konfusion

edit: got the quote right

Last edited by konfusion (2007-04-27 09:30:44)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
Read my previous post.  At most, atheism is one belief (that no god exists), a religion is a set of belief systems/ideologies.  Athiesm can be part of a religion but it can not be a religion by itself.  Thiesm isn't a religion it is just the belief that a god exists.  A Muslim, Jew and Christian are all thiests, but no one would say they were the same religion.  Therefore if theism isn't a religion, it's opposite, atheism can not be either.

The two are not comparable.
I'm not calling atheism a religion (though it would form a part of a atheists religion). But I am saying atheists are religious.

There is a difference.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-27 09:34:19)

=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
So many people just don't know what a religion is.

Religions have set rules on how to live, they must have "followers" and the philosophies and teachings never change.  How someone (let's say an atheist) lives and the individual and private rules they follow do not constitute a religion and they are therefore not religious. 

They have no set rules or morals on how to live, everyone is different and there is no written statement and therefore there are no followers as they have nothing to follow.  Finally godless people change their minds and opinions almost everyday and are always open to it.  Of course there are things that people feel strongly about that they may never change their mind on but it normally concerns a single subject (gun control, death penalty etc).  Not everyone who is in favour of gun control is also in favour of the death penalty and vice versa so there is no standardised set of beliefs which a religion requires.

You are being extremely philosophical when you say someones set of life beliefs are a religion (as well as saying that a Christian, for example, has two religions, Christianity and the rest of their life).  Religions have to share a common world view and people individual life views are all different; there are not 6 billion religions on this planet. 

However, you can ask someone for "their philosophy" on life but you can not ask them "their religion" on it, thus when someone is following their everyday and individually chosen life rules you would be more accurate to say they are following their philosophy, but not their religion.
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


So since they are opinions which differ to your own they are invalid? They are beliefs held by millions of people.

There is no mention of gods in the four truths or in the eightfold path. Perhaps calling Buddhism atheistic was a little strong, but it is at the very least nontheistic, as are most Eastern religions.
Non-theistic is a far better word. The notion of creator-god (as a dogma, a tenet) simply does not help on ones "way" or path to enlightenment. (And of course one has to take that on "faith.")

Oh, check this out from:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69107&p=1
"CREATIONIST:  Sounds a lot like faith to me."

I am making nearly the exact same argument here as I did in that thread.
I absolutely agree with faith being a form of trust.

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
Buy this definition - there really is no definition. Everything is religion. Which is a direct contradiction to what we know religion to be. It is a body of shared beliefs, dogmas, tenets, traditions, myths, etc, based primarily on "pure faith."

P.S. I don't even have a problem with the word use "religious" or "religiously" - as you said it is a "so what!" But semantically making the leap (in definition) that a word used as a synonym for "passion & commitment" or "adherence to personal ethics," etc... can be replaced with another definition altogether does not make sense (IMO). It is a leap of contradiction to call all things religion. Why even bother?
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

konfusion wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I'm neither a sociologist or and anthropologist.
Wrong - neither nor. For someone who goes to Oxford and apparently thinks this debate is beneath him....

Seriously, in this thread, so much bashing and so little discussion. Is it so hard to accept that that definition makes everyone religious? If anything, this should be a philosophical debate, something you can hardly back with dictionary definitions.

I agree with sergeriver - by that definition we are all religious. That doesn't make you a Muslim extremist or a Christian snob - that is just stating that you believe in something god related, be it that there is a god or none. Not being sure whether or not there is a god still makes you religious, as you believe he might or might not exist. What is so bad about that? Has religion become such a label?

I can't believe how much shit you have to take for an idea that makes you think.

-konfusion

edit: got the quote right
I don't go to Oxford; I did. Thanks for the grammatical correction though, my bad, you're right and I should have been more careful. I never said this debate was below me either otherwise I wouldn't have posted in it.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina
Atheists are to Religion as Anarchists are to Politics.  An anarchist is a person who believes that any form of rulership should be abolished.  But they still are into politics.  An anarchist isn't a person without a political belief.  An Atheist has a religious belief, which consists in denying the existence of God.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I never said this debate was below me either otherwise I wouldn't have posted in it.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You got this from a religious website promoting religious beliefs? Not exactly an objective list of explanations are they? If they want to define 'religion' as encompassing every ideological beleif then that's their perogative. I, however, will treat it with the disdain it deserves.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I'd love it if I'd raised similar arguments as this at the Oxford debating society. Laugh, Out and Building all come to mind.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You're an odd little man Sergeriver...an odd little man!
Right.
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

sergeriver wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I never said this debate was below me either otherwise I wouldn't have posted in it.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You got this from a religious website promoting religious beliefs? Not exactly an objective list of explanations are they? If they want to define 'religion' as encompassing every ideological beleif then that's their perogative. I, however, will treat it with the disdain it deserves.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I'd love it if I'd raised similar arguments as this at the Oxford debating society. Laugh, Out and Building all come to mind.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You're an odd little man Sergeriver...an odd little man!
Right.
Hey, if this wasn't remotely interesting or fun in some way.. I wouldn't partake.

So therefore - another right!
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:


Non-theistic is a far better word. The notion of creator-god (as a dogma, a tenet) simply does not help on ones "way" or path to enlightenment. (And of course one has to take that on "faith.")

Oh, check this out from:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69107&p=1
"CREATIONIST:  Sounds a lot like faith to me."

I am making nearly the exact same argument here as I did in that thread.
I absolutely agree with faith being a form of trust.

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
Buy this definition - there really is no definition. Everything is religion. Which is a direct contradiction to what we know religion to be. It is a body of shared beliefs, dogmas, tenets, traditions, myths, etc, based primarily on "pure faith."

P.S. I don't even have a problem with the word use "religious" or "religiously" - as you said it is a "so what!" But semantically making the leap (in definition) that a word used as a synonym for "passion & commitment" or "adherence to personal ethics," etc... can be replaced with another definition altogether does not make sense (IMO). It is a leap of contradiction to call all things religion. Why even bother?
I wouldn't go that far.

You are right, it is just semantics and that is not what the commonly accepted meaning of religion is (which was kind of the point of my initial post - yeah everyone is religious, but so what? It's not what people think of religion as meaning and the meaning is so loose as to be virtually meningless). But it is still a legitimate description of any way of life, whether or not doctrines are shared or based around any sort of deity.

To put it into perspective, I've heard Richard Dawkins talking about himself as a religious person (on Jonathan Millers The Atheism Tapes). Which in the traditional sense he is not. Is he using the word incorrectly? No. But is it usually sensible to use the word religion in that way? Of course not, it just leads to confusion.
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I absolutely agree with faith being a form of trust.

I don't really see the connection to religion not being a valid description of peoples personal beliefs, whether or not they are shared beliefs or involve any type of deity.
Buy this definition - there really is no definition. Everything is religion. Which is a direct contradiction to what we know religion to be. It is a body of shared beliefs, dogmas, tenets, traditions, myths, etc, based primarily on "pure faith."

P.S. I don't even have a problem with the word use "religious" or "religiously" - as you said it is a "so what!" But semantically making the leap (in definition) that a word used as a synonym for "passion & commitment" or "adherence to personal ethics," etc... can be replaced with another definition altogether does not make sense (IMO). It is a leap of contradiction to call all things religion. Why even bother?
I wouldn't go that far.

You are right, it is just semantics and that is not what the commonly accepted meaning of religion is (which was kind of the point of my initial post - yeah everyone is religious, but so what? It's not what people think of religion as meaning and the meaning is so loose as to be virtually meaningless). But it is still a legitimate description of any way of life, whether or not doctrines are shared or based around any sort of deity.

To put it into perspective, I've heard Richard Dawkins talking about himself as a religious person (on Jonathan Millers The Atheism Tapes). Which in the traditional sense he is not. Is he using the word incorrectly? No. But is it usually sensible to use the word religion in that way? Of course not, it just leads to confusion.
I've also heard Dawkins identify with "natural philosophers," who were religious (the other meaning) in his own words. There is a definite similarity in awe & wonder. And, this is the shade of meaning indicated when used like the phrase, religious wonder, when one is describing the Universe and the clear unity in common descent. This might lead to some confusion, but I don't think it should. The meanings are clearly different.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 11:19:09)

jonsimon
Member
+224|6943
This thread is a great example of emotionalism. While the OP is quite semantically correct, and agreement with the OP would not imply the subversion of any belief, those who dislike positive religions (religions that believe in deity, negative religions would be those disbelieving deity) still choose to disagree with the OP simply because of the connotations associated with the word religion.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

jonsimon wrote:

This thread is a great example of emotionalism. While the OP is quite semantically correct, and agreement with the OP would not imply the subversion of any belief, those who dislike positive religions (religions that believe in deity, negative religions would be those disbelieving deity) still choose to disagree with the OP simply because of the connotations associated with the word religion.
There is a flaw with your arguement.

I don't follow or agree with any organised religions, yet I've been supporting the point in the OP (even if it is a bit of a silly point).
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

This thread is a great example of emotionalism. While the OP is quite semantically correct, and agreement with the OP would not imply the subversion of any belief, those who dislike positive religions (religions that believe in deity, negative religions would be those disbelieving deity) still choose to disagree with the OP simply because of the connotations associated with the word religion.
There is a flaw with your arguement.

I don't follow or agree with any organised religions, yet I've been supporting the point in the OP (even if it is a bit of a silly point).
Jonsimon is absolutely right.  Many of those in denial, are against this concept of everyone being religious because they feel bad in relation with the word religion.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7133|United States of America
I hate to be "this guy" but I do believe what I wrote on the first page was of some level of importance to this issue.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
For anyone still saying atheism is a religion (I'm sick of proving it isn't; it's one f*cking belief on one subject!!!!) you may want to look up this word.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenuous

P.S And if Richard Dawkins did describe himself as religious, you may need this definition too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-28 01:55:32)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

For anyone still saying atheism is a religion (I'm sick of proving it isn't; it's one f*cking belief on one subject!!!!) you may want to look up this word.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenuous

P.S And if Richard Dawkins did describe himself as religious, you may need this definition too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
Atheism in itself isn't a religion. But it forms part of a religion.

Simple as that.


The way you keep pulling out these dictionary definitions shows the argument seems to be going over your head.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Bertster7 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

For anyone still saying atheism is a religion (I'm sick of proving it isn't; it's one f*cking belief on one subject!!!!) you may want to look up this word.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenuous

P.S And if Richard Dawkins did describe himself as religious, you may need this definition too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
Atheism in itself isn't a religion. But it forms part of a religion.

Simple as that.


The way you keep pulling out these dictionary definitions shows the argument seems to be going over your head.
But we are debating the definition of something.  Nothing's going over my head it's just you are getting way too theological about the whole thing and being extremely economical with the meaning of words to get your point over.  Like saying someone getting on a bus every day is a "ritual"; it just shows a complete disregard for what the word is intended for.

To me, arguing that an atheist's everyday life is his "religion", is as ridiculous as saying all men are gay or all white people are racist.  You could probably strech the meaning of a couple of words and be all philosophical about it and prove either of those things if you wanted to but no one would take it seriously.

As far as I'm concerned, on the Census I last signed, under religion, it had them all listed and atheism wasn't one of them.  I ticked "no religion".
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

For anyone still saying atheism is a religion (I'm sick of proving it isn't; it's one f*cking belief on one subject!!!!) you may want to look up this word.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenuous

P.S And if Richard Dawkins did describe himself as religious, you may need this definition too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
Atheism in itself isn't a religion. But it forms part of a religion.

Simple as that.


The way you keep pulling out these dictionary definitions shows the argument seems to be going over your head.
But we are debating the definition of something.  Nothing's going over my head it's just you are getting way too theological about the whole thing and being extremely economical with the meaning of words to get your point over.  Like saying someone getting on a bus every day is a "ritual"; it just shows a complete disregard for what the word is intended for.

To me, arguing that an atheist's everyday life is his "religion", is as ridiculous as saying all men are gay or all white people are racist.  You could probably strech the meaning of a couple of words and be all philosophical about it and prove either of those things if you wanted to but no one would take it seriously.

As far as I'm concerned, on the Census I last signed, under religion, it had them all listed and atheism wasn't one of them.  I ticked "no religion".
Atheism itself isn't a Religion, but atheists are religious in some way.  Don't get sick just for the meaning of the word.  If you have the belief or you are sure that God doesn't exist and you debate about it, you are being religious.  You don't need to pray or worship anything.  In the same way when you are an anarchist and you express your opinion you are into politics.  I'm not more religious than you, and I really don't understand why the word offends you that much.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6998|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

sergeriver wrote:

Atheism itself isn't a Religion, but atheists are religious in some way.  Don't get sick just for the meaning of the word.  If you have the belief or you are sure that God doesn't exist and you debate about it, you are being religious.  You don't need to pray or worship anything.  In the same way when you are an anarchist and you express your opinion you are into politics.  I'm not more religious than you, and I really don't understand why the word offends you that much.
If you debate the exsistence of God you are debating ONE SUBJECT!!!!!  A religion is a magnitude of belief systems that include the acceptance of god but as I have said before, Christians, Catholics and Muslims are all theists but the theism itself isn't their religion.

You can only be religious if you follow a religion with it's thinking, teachings and rituals.  If you say someone is "very religious" you mean they follow their scriptures very strictly.  You can not talk about a mildly religious athiest or very religious athiest and thus you can not describe them as being religious at all.

Someone who doesn't like football may talk about one player but you would call him a football fan just because he's discussing it.  You're saying that just because you know of somethings existence it automatically makes you part of it even when you reject it.  Would you say an African tribe were religious if they had no contact with western civilisation and had not been told about "God"?

Atheism gets accused of being religious because its an easy way for theists to attack the practice.  Servigeriver would be more accurate if he talked about the Illuminati which was/is (depending on what you believe) a group of people that actively rejected and wanted to abolish religion.  Atheism was part of their ideology and you could describe that as a religion.

But, by no criterion by which a religion is judged can you describe the simple idea that a god doesn't exist as religion in itself.  Nor can you describe the totally individual actions, morals and mannarisms of your average athiest (or thiest for that matter) as a religion and you can not describe everyday activities as "rituals" because you are not conforming to what those words actually mean.

You can critisise me for keep bring dictionary definitions in here, but you can not say "athiests are religious because they follow rituals in their daily lives" unless you know what 'atheist', 'religion' and 'rituals' means.  You are wrong on all three, using them tenuously and you are being very metaphorical with your reasonings.

Black can be white metaphorically speaking but I prefer reality.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard