Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism IS a Religion

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The definition of "religion" in the dictionary is "a system of beliefs and worship".

If we look at atheism we can see that it meets the criterion of "a system of beliefs and worship" very well:

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist
2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist
4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)

Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 11:00:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Continuing the trend started by Bulproof...

Arguing that atheism is a religion is as silly as arguing over what vehicle a pedestrian drives.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 11:13:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeeaah, but wuddabout when your dogma gets run over by your karma because you didn't take a stigma to the dumb mutt, huh? Wuddabout that! No, seriously, Atheism IS a religion because it takes blind faith in fellow atheists' hearsay opinions to hold the atheist theology that there is no God and no spiritual phenomena. It's all make believe. Atheists truly and fundamentally BELIEVE in this theology that doesn't exist with God, theos, smack in the middle as Great Satan mesmerizing believers when they should be paying attention to atheists posters.

You hear our Evangelical Atheists always trying to sell their "oh no, we don't believe in Anti-God, we could care less" and yet the Evangelical mania propels our Evangelical Atheists to zoom to internet religious forums to tell theists just why God doesn't exist over and over and over again, countless times per day of Evangelical Atheists fanatics at work, i.e. easily the telling marks of True Believers.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 11:14:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Abstinence is a form of sex!
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bulproof
Posts: 25,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:44:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Did you know that the colour of god's hair is identical to hair colour of atheism?
Yes you can impress your friends with that.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:46:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you bring your skeptical tool kit to say the claims of aliens are running our world and some of the leaders are some kind of alien/human hybrids then sure no problems, that isn't a religion.

If you do the same thing to the existence of God/s in all the various conceptions.............ATHEISM IS A RELIGION !!!

Right.............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 2:02:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:46:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not collecting stamps IS a hobby.

Romani

Arguing that atheism is a religion is as silly as arguing over what vehicle a pedestrian drives.

Perfect meaninglessness.
bulproof
Posts: 25,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:54:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 2:02:51 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:46:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not collecting stamps IS a hobby.

Romani

Arguing that atheism is a religion is as silly as arguing over what vehicle a pedestrian drives.

Perfect meaninglessness.

Yep, just like the OP but we're heaps funnier. pmsl
thesecondview
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:05:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 11:13:35 PM, biomystic wrote:
No, seriously, Atheism IS a religion because it takes blind faith in fellow atheists' hearsay opinions to hold the atheist theology that there is no God and no spiritual phenomena. It's all make believe. Atheists truly and fundamentally BELIEVE in this theology that doesn't exist with God, theos, smack in the middle as Great Satan mesmerizing believers when they should be paying attention to atheists posters.

If you want to put it that way- atheists don't 'believe' in the absence of a god in the same way that theists do. When we say we don't believe in a god, we mean we have studied the available evidence, theories, and facts, and come to a conclusion that gods do not exist. Effectively we know that there isn't a god, just like how everyone 'knows' rather than 'believes' that the Sun rises from the east. In common conversation, we say we 'believe' that there isn't a god 1) to sound a little more modest and a little less provocative and 2) because, perhaps some time in the future, there'll be a breakthrough in scientific theory that does actually allow for a god to exist. (It's just that that possibility is negligible, and hence ignorable in everyday life.)

On the other hand, theists believe in a god based on pure faith and no concrete, reliable evidence whatsoever. Belief based on faith and belief based on evidence are not in any way the same thing.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:29:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:46:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not collecting stamps IS a hobby.
Thank you for this. I was kind of bored.

Oh my... how many hobbies I have... Best not to go into detail, there are some really nasty ones.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:32:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh do carry on.. At the end of the day though what we theists and any objective observer sees of atheist posters, is typical religious fervor of the True Believer who no matter how many times facts refuting the True Belief are presented to the True Believer, he cannot see it. Like the atheist mantra repeated endlessly that there is no proof of spirituality which is a flat out lie that 40,000 years of human obsession with spiritual phenomena should instantly overturn in minds that think logically. Why? Because no, repeat no, species can survive to become the top species on the planet if they are devoting tremendous amounts of time in response to imaginary events as atheists claim all spiritual events are. Atheists never put this historical fact into their computations. Top species devotes top amount of time to "imaginary" things yet still becomes and remains the top species. Think about it.

The other fact is spiritual events DO create physical manifestations that show the person experiencing some form of invisible energy, the only form that leaves behind identifying mentality, repeated patterns of spiritual contact over thousands of years. I've had such experiences that caused my body to shake and sweat profusely whenever spiritual epiphanies were happening to me. Quakers and Shakers were named for this physical phenomena and Muhammad too reported sweating when he received his spiritual visions. Physical characteristics when atheists say it's all imagination. Where do we read in the literature of creative artists and scientific discovery shaking and sweating and reports of common religious tradition's being retold or extended into the future? Atheists won't check this out as I've never been asked by an atheist to give proof of my experiences nor read of atheists asking others religious visionaries about theirs. Atheism is a fundamentalist mindset and denies such realities exist as physical manifestation of spiritual phenomena.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You atheists can post your rebuttals all day long and it won't do you any good because I've heard it all before. Been there, done that. Was myself an atheist until age 35 and know all the dogma inside and out. It doesn't hold up under religious experience and that's the bottom line no atheist will ever be able to erase as outsiders to religious experience.
bulproof
Posts: 25,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:42:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 6:37:10 AM, biomystic wrote:
You atheists can post your rebuttals all day long and it won't do you any good because I've heard it all before. Been there, done that. Was myself an atheist until age 35 and know all the dogma inside and out. It doesn't hold up under religious experience and that's the bottom line no atheist will ever be able to erase as outsiders to religious experience.

Has anyone posted one yet you drug addled wannabe profit?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 8:54:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 6:32:17 AM, biomystic wrote:
Oh do carry on.. At the end of the day though what we theists and any objective observer sees of atheist posters, is typical religious fervor of the True Believer who no matter how many times facts refuting the True Belief are presented to the True Believer, he cannot see it. Like the atheist mantra repeated endlessly that there is no proof of spirituality which is a flat out lie that 40,000 years of human obsession with spiritual phenomena should instantly overturn in minds that think logically. Why? Because no, repeat no, species can survive to become the top species on the planet if they are devoting tremendous amounts of time in response to imaginary events as atheists claim all spiritual events are. Atheists never put this historical fact into their computations. Top species devotes top amount of time to "imaginary" things yet still becomes and remains the top species. Think about it.

We don't have to be optimized to be better than everything else. You don't seriously think we'd lose to dolphins because we occasionally waste our time on rituals, do you?

But in any case, it has been demonstrated in at least one case that secular civilizations can do better than religious ones:

http://pri.org...

The other fact is spiritual events DO create physical manifestations that show the person experiencing some form of invisible energy, the only form that leaves behind identifying mentality, repeated patterns of spiritual contact over thousands of years. I've had such experiences that caused my body to shake and sweat profusely whenever spiritual epiphanies were happening to me. Quakers and Shakers were named for this physical phenomena and Muhammad too reported sweating when he received his spiritual visions. Physical characteristics when atheists say it's all imagination. Where do we read in the literature of creative artists and scientific discovery shaking and sweating and reports of common religious tradition's being retold or extended into the future? Atheists won't check this out as I've never been asked by an atheist to give proof of my experiences nor read of atheists asking others religious visionaries about theirs. Atheism is a fundamentalist mindset and denies such realities exist as physical manifestation of spiritual phenomena.

Most of this is due to confirmation bias and your mind playing tricks on you. I found a nice explanation for this, but I'll want to wait until I get home to show it to you, because I'm having some trouble finding it right now.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The definition of "religion" in the dictionary is "a system of beliefs and worship".

If we look at atheism we can see that it meets the criterion of "a system of beliefs and worship" very well:

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist
2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist
4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)

Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.

Agreed.... I have known this for years. I was raised in a family of atheists by atheists. Yes, I know they do not like this comparison because it is completely contrary to their idea of what a belief system is and is not. Truth be told they are strikingly similar to fundamentalists. They have very ardent, hard to change beliefs, they are very close minded, they believe they have market share on "truth" and they obsess over God -- or the lack thereof as much if not more than most religious fundamentalists I come across from time to time.

Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

So yeah, the cause / belief system is loosing credibility.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:10:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist

Here they would say you are ignoring the problem of evil, which is not an easy issue that is just tossed aside.

2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet

Find me an atheist who believes Dawkins and Dennett are infallible.

3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist

Please provide specifically what "theoretical" scientific system you are referring to. In science, theories are not mere "explanations," they are falsifiable explanations of a group of facts and observations.

4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)

All human beings long for community, that doesn't make them religious.


Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.

I don't get why so many people attempt to argue this point. That atheism is a religion, or that evolution is a religion, ad nauseaum. What do you hope to accomplish by making such an argument?

I've never once seen an atheist convinced, and for good reason. The arguments for the contention are rubbish.
Jacketh
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:12:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The definition of "religion" in the dictionary is "a system of beliefs and worship".

If we look at atheism we can see that it meets the criterion of "a system of beliefs and worship" very well:

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist
2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist
4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)

Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.

Its a plausible argument, but is Atheism, as you suggest, a system of beliefs? A religion, obviously, is a system of beliefs illustrated by the Bible and Ten Commandments and such. Atheism, however, has no system. Its one single belief, or rather better put, disbelief, that there is no God in existence.

Bringing me onto your second flawed argument that Atheists worship certain figures as Gods. - The whole idea of Atheism, like I said, is that there is no Gods. Looking in your dictionary will tell you that. Not only that, but a God is someone is Omnipotent, a Creator, Superhuman, and someone who may have power over nature and the world we live in. Dawkins, you might be upset to know, has none of these characteristics; therefore being unable to be defined as a God.

Your third point can be simply deconstructed by simply stating that faith doesn't equal religion. We all have faith in our lifes, every day. Whether it be getting on a plane, crossing the road, going to school or whatever. We're forever putting our trust in people with our lifes and our well-being. That doesn't mean we're all religious now, does it?

'Atheists have congregating places online' - Irrelevant to Religion. People congregating could be a society of people, an organisation or even a cult.

I'm an agnostic myself, but that argument completely absurd.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:18:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 6:32:17 AM, biomystic wrote:
Oh do carry on.. At the end of the day though what we theists and any objective observer sees of atheist posters, is typical religious fervor of the True Believer who no matter how many times facts refuting the True Belief are presented to the True Believer, he cannot see it. Like the atheist mantra repeated endlessly that there is no proof of spirituality which is a flat out lie that 40,000 years of human obsession with spiritual phenomena should instantly overturn in minds that think logically. Why? Because no, repeat no, species can survive to become the top species on the planet if they are devoting tremendous amounts of time in response to imaginary events as atheists claim all spiritual events are. Atheists never put this historical fact into their computations. Top species devotes top amount of time to "imaginary" things yet still becomes and remains the top species. Think about it.

The other fact is spiritual events DO create physical manifestations that show the person experiencing some form of invisible energy, the only form that leaves behind identifying mentality, repeated patterns of spiritual contact over thousands of years. I've had such experiences that caused my body to shake and sweat profusely whenever spiritual epiphanies were happening to me. Quakers and Shakers were named for this physical phenomena and Muhammad too reported sweating when he received his spiritual visions. Physical characteristics when atheists say it's all imagination. Where do we read in the literature of creative artists and scientific discovery shaking and sweating and reports of common religious tradition's being retold or extended into the future? Atheists won't check this out as I've never been asked by an atheist to give proof of my experiences nor read of atheists asking others religious visionaries about theirs. Atheism is a fundamentalist mindset and denies such realities exist as physical manifestation of spiritual phenomena.

Found it:

http://www.christianitydisproved.com...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:32:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Agreed.... I have known this for years. I was raised in a family of atheists by atheists. Yes, I know they do not like this comparison because it is completely contrary to their idea of what a belief system is and is not. Truth be told they are strikingly similar to fundamentalists. They have very ardent, hard to change beliefs, they are very close minded, they believe they have market share on "truth" and they obsess over God -- or the lack thereof as much if not more than most religious fundamentalists I come across from time to time.

Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being religious, as it is defined: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."[1]

While I would agree that this is somewhat characteristic of the New Atheist movement, the comparisons are really with regards to fundamentalism, not their being religious.

Fundamentalist attitudes are particularly generated when a group has the belief that they are the ones who have a true understanding of the truth, and if everyone simply agreed with them, the world would be a better place. It's a rather naive position, for anyone to have that kind of attitude, because we live in a complex world where things are not black and white, and a strict adherence to that kind of system ends with that person being extremely annoying to everyone else around them.


Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

Well people who believe they have everything figured out, generally want everyone else to know about it... sadly. This leads to an army of zealots who raise the same arguments and evidence over and over again.

I still wouldn't call it a religion, more so a secular movement that is in response to religious fundamentalism... which ironically took on many of that movement's characteristics.


So yeah, the cause / belief system is loosing credibility.

Atheism, is simply a statement, and are not a monolithic group. Perhaps the argument would be better if you guys claimed it was just the "New Atheist" movement, but it seems that most evangelical people are so obsessed with finding everyone else's idols, that they forget to look out for their own.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:48:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The definition of "religion" in the dictionary is "a system of beliefs and worship".

If we look at atheism we can see that it meets the criterion of "a system of beliefs and worship" very well:

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist
2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist
4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)

Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.

Agreed.... I have known this for years. I was raised in a family of atheists by atheists. Yes, I know they do not like this comparison because it is completely contrary to their idea of what a belief system is and is not. Truth be told they are strikingly similar to fundamentalists. They have very ardent, hard to change beliefs, they are very close minded, they believe they have market share on "truth" and they obsess over God -- or the lack thereof as much if not more than most religious fundamentalists I come across from time to time.

So are you stating that being closed-minded and having hard to change beliefs are essential traits of religion?

Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

Could you point out some examples of this happening?

It is rather difficult to not be perceived as insulting when you are part of a group that is less trusted than rapists (which is true, look it up). Especially in the Bible Belt, people tend to make assumptions about your character when they are told that you are an atheist. People tend to immediately assume that we have no morals, that we worship the devil, and that we hate their god. Some people even get kicked out of their house by their parents for simply stating that they do not believe in a god. When people are at the point where they are offended by the fact that I disagree with them on something, it is irrational to think that I am the one who needs to be less controversial or insulting, when it is clear that the only thing that wouldn't be considered controversial or insulting would be me submitting to their belief system.

So yeah, the cause / belief system is loosing credibility.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Mysterious_Stranger
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 10:37:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:32:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The definition of "religion" in the dictionary is "a system of beliefs and worship".

1) Atheists have faith in the belief that there is no God, in spite of the fact there is no
evidence against an all-loving Creator existing, who made the universe or caused it to exist
There is no evidence to prove or disprove God, people just assume it does or does not exist.
2) Atheists worship certain figures as gods who can speak no wrong, such as Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
No, they are not Gods they are merely people, some atheists may look up to them but they are far from worshipped
3) Atheists have faith in certain theoretical scientific systems which have not been empirically proven to exist
Does not make it a religion, just a belief system
4) Atheists have congregating places online, such as the science forum here, or r/atheism, and most college campuses, where disagreement over theoretical concepts is considered herecy (See the case of Anthony Flew for what happens when someone denies atheist claims about the universe)
People gathering in places does not make it a place of worship nor a religious gathering, maybe we should make the groups of teens who hand around Starbucks a religion?, or maybe make the local alcoholic's anonymous a religion to?
Atheism should e treated as a religion from now on. It fits all the criteria.

The lack of logic here pains me.
Turn around, go back.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 11:35:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

So are you stating that being closed-minded and having hard to change beliefs are essential traits of religion?


Specific to religion as a whole? No, I did not say that. However; it would be difficult for say a Jew to deny Exodus or the great flood. Likewise, it would be hard to find a Christian to claim Jesus was not the Messiah, likewise how could a Muslim deny Muhhammad was not the last prophet of God. Specific to some dogmas and/or traditions e.g. Baptism, Circumcision, Contraception, Halal. Absolutely. There are a variety of theological differences where the believers of a specific forms of faith that teach strict adherence to 'certain' beliefs in order to be considered a member of the congregation. Do I really need to spell it out? As it pertains to specific beliefs, your either on the bus or you are not. It is the exception, not the rule a person is on the fence regarding the religion they practice.

Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

Could you point out some examples of this happening?

Examples of what? Proselytizing Atheists?

Wikipedia definition
"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Article: The Church of Non-Believers
Excerpt: "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking. Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith."
http://www.wired.com...

Article: Richard Dawkins and the "New Atheists" Represent the Dark Side of Atheism
Excerpt: "This "New Atheist" movement comes across as quite different. In stark contrast to the atheism of Russell or Chomsky, it seems to be based in large part out of hatred and contempt for religious people themselves. "
http://www.policymic.com...

Article: The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview
Excerpt: "The new de"bates a"bout the mor"al val"ue of re"li"gion as"sume mono"the"ism as a cen"tral pre"mise. Har"ris and the oth"er horse"men are wring"ing their hands pri"mar"i"ly a"bout Is"lam and Chris"tian"ity, which they think con"sti"tute our main com"bat"ants in a "zero-sum con"flict" with sci"ence."
http://chronicle.com...

Article: Atheist Mega-Churches Are the Bizarre New Trend For Unbelievers
Excerpt: "The shocking growth in the popularity of America's so-called mega-churches has taken on another bizarre twist. These giant complexes house hundreds or even thousands of worshipers gathering every week for prayer, song, and community, and have grown startlingly quickly. It's been a successful franchise for the faithful and now, it's a business model that's expanding its market share. Mega-churches are not just for the faithful anymore. They're for the unbelievers."
http://www.policymic.com...

Article: Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?
http://www.salon.com...

Article: The Explosion of the New Atheists Churches: What It Means To Christians
Excerpt: "Some atheists have begun "evangelizing" Christians by going into their churches and "planting seeds" but they claim it is not to "steal their flock" but to plant a seed toward what they call "unconversion."
http://www.patheos.com...

Need I go on?

It is rather difficult to not be perceived as insulting when you are part of a group that is less trusted than rapists (which is true, look it up).

...and what group would that be? Are you under the impression I belong to a specific religious group? The fact is, I affirmed an observation the person who started this thread made. Don't label me as "them" or "that group" You don't know me or what I believe....

Who is less trusted than rapists? Theists or Atheists? Seriously, look it up? You want me to find evidence for your absurd argument that rapists have a higher social standing than people who have faith or a lack of faith? I am not even sure how you thought this was a reasonable assertion regardless of who you were making the assertion about - this is a non-starter.

Especially in the Bible Belt, people tend to make assumptions about your character when they are told that you are an atheist. People tend to immediately assume that we have no morals, that we worship the devil, and that we hate their god. Some people even get kicked out of their house by their parents for simply stating that they do not believe in a god.


So what? Do you know how many times I have been told I am going to burn in hell. This does not insult me. I do not concern myself that much what others who believe in a specific dogma think of what is in store for me. This is merely a manifestation of competing interests. Do you get offended by when a marketing campaign says their product is better than the product you use or a political party tells you you are wrong in your ideas regarding how "we" should be governed. This is not insulting. I am talking about the attacks on a whole group of people that are intended to be demeaning. e.g: Christians are stupid, Mormons are racists, Jews are thieves, Muslims are terrorists,

Article: Proof that Christians are stupid and hateful morons
Excerpt: "We are so sick of hearing those ignorant and self-righteous Christians complain about the problems in our society. Boo stinkin" hoo. They"re too stupid to know they"re the ones causing all the problems."
http://roadkillgoldfish.com...

Article: The Church of non-believers
"No, not substantive arguments for disbelief, which are as perennial as the case for God. Rather, a tactical lurch toward emotion-laden partisanship and take-no-prisoners rhetoric that might make a Fundamentalist blush. Such tactics win visibility and sales, much like what we get in current U.S. politics and political media. Wolf said the new approach demands uncompromising hostility by folks like himself, "we lax agnostics, we noncommital non-believers, we vague deists." The New Atheists insist that such fence-sitters must arise to "help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith" They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it"s evil. This is the same thing fundamentalists say...
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:46:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Not collecting stamps IS a hobby.

Atheism is denial of God? Isn't it?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 9:32:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Agreed.... I have known this for years. I was raised in a family of atheists by atheists. Yes, I know they do not like this comparison because it is completely contrary to their idea of what a belief system is and is not. Truth be told they are strikingly similar to fundamentalists. They have very ardent, hard to change beliefs, they are very close minded, they believe they have market share on "truth" and they obsess over God -- or the lack thereof as much if not more than most religious fundamentalists I come across from time to time.

Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being religious, as it is defined: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."[1]

While I would agree that this is somewhat characteristic of the New Atheist movement, the comparisons are really with regards to fundamentalism, not their being religious.

Fundamentalist attitudes are particularly generated when a group has the belief that they are the ones who have a true understanding of the truth, and if everyone simply agreed with them, the world would be a better place. It's a rather naive position, for anyone to have that kind of attitude, because we live in a complex world where things are not black and white, and a strict adherence to that kind of system ends with that person being extremely annoying to everyone else around them.


Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

Well people who believe they have everything figured out, generally want everyone else to know about it... sadly. This leads to an army of zealots who raise the same arguments and evidence over and over again.

I still wouldn't call it a religion, more so a secular movement that is in response to religious fundamentalism... which ironically took on many of that movement's characteristics.


So yeah, the cause / belief system is loosing credibility.

Atheism, is simply a statement, and are not a monolithic group. Perhaps the argument would be better if you guys claimed it was just the "New Atheist" movement, but it seems that most evangelical people are so obsessed with finding everyone else's idols, that they forget to look out for their own.

You say potatoe i say potato. I won't argue the minutia of formal semantics or definition of concepts. For the most part I agree with your assertions. Please read my other post for further clarification if you are compelled to understand where I am coming from.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:19:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 12:03:28 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:32:43 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Agreed.... I have known this for years. I was raised in a family of atheists by atheists. Yes, I know they do not like this comparison because it is completely contrary to their idea of what a belief system is and is not. Truth be told they are strikingly similar to fundamentalists. They have very ardent, hard to change beliefs, they are very close minded, they believe they have market share on "truth" and they obsess over God -- or the lack thereof as much if not more than most religious fundamentalists I come across from time to time.

Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being religious, as it is defined: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."[1]

While I would agree that this is somewhat characteristic of the New Atheist movement, the comparisons are really with regards to fundamentalism, not their being religious.

Fundamentalist attitudes are particularly generated when a group has the belief that they are the ones who have a true understanding of the truth, and if everyone simply agreed with them, the world would be a better place. It's a rather naive position, for anyone to have that kind of attitude, because we live in a complex world where things are not black and white, and a strict adherence to that kind of system ends with that person being extremely annoying to everyone else around them.


Enter "New Atheism". These people are extreme and have completed the pattern by publicly proselytizing this "belief". What really makes them similar to religious fundamentalist is they have become as annoying as the very "street preacher" religious people they complain about. Some old-school "to each his own" atheists realize this is happening and do not like it at all. I have nothing but respect for this brand of atheists. The newer generation seem to be fighting for a cause and go out of their way to be controversial and insulting. I have about as much respect for these folks as I do the fire and brimstone preacher telling me I am wicked and judging I shall burn in hell for eternity.

Well people who believe they have everything figured out, generally want everyone else to know about it... sadly. This leads to an army of zealots who raise the same arguments and evidence over and over again.

I still wouldn't call it a religion, more so a secular movement that is in response to religious fundamentalism... which ironically took on many of that movement's characteristics.


So yeah, the cause / belief system is loosing credibility.

Atheism, is simply a statement, and are not a monolithic group. Perhaps the argument would be better if you guys claimed it was just the "New Atheist" movement, but it seems that most evangelical people are so obsessed with finding everyone else's idols, that they forget to look out for their own.

You say potatoe i say potato. I won't argue the minutia of formal semantics or definition of concepts. For the most part I agree with your assertions. Please read my other post for further clarification if you are compelled to understand where I am coming from.

The Semantic argument is on the side of those who attempt to make it into a religion. This is NOT the best representative language to describe the movement, and therefore I object to your assertions that it is a religion.

Meeting as a community does not make you a religion.
Having leaders of the community does not make you a religion.
Wanting to convince others to agree with your movement does not make you a religion.

The New Atheists are certainly a more radical from of Atheism, and is a community within Atheism. As atheism is not monolithic, and there exists many varieties in regards to the positions they assert... it is false to say "Atheism" in general is a religion.

Just because A) Religion and B) Atheism, share certain characteristics.. it does not mean that they are the same thing. This is a fallacy.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:24:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

The Semantic argument is on the side of those who attempt to make it into a religion. This is NOT the best representative language to describe the movement, and therefore I object to your assertions that it is a religion.

Meeting as a community does not make you a religion.
Having leaders of the community does not make you a religion.
Wanting to convince others to agree with your movement does not make you a religion.

The New Atheists are certainly a more radical from of Atheism, and is a community within Atheism. As atheism is not monolithic, and there exists many varieties in regards to the positions they assert... it is false to say "Atheism" in general is a religion.

Just because A) Religion and B) Atheism, share certain characteristics.. it does not mean that they are the same thing. This is a fallacy.

Okay - fine. Feel better now? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet....

It has the same effect and is perceived by the majority of those who have seen it as they same old soup, just reheated.