An Idea Regarding Atheism

Aside from Dawkins, who you and I agree is kind of an ***hole, I don't know of many vocal Atheists who are out to prove that the literal interpretation of the 7-day biblical creation story (assuming you're pulling from Genesis 1:1, not 2:4), is wrong. It seems to be widely accepted as being allegorical.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally. It's the responsibility of the individual to justify their beliefs, and the 1st amendment guarantees no protection against dissenting beliefs, or disagreement, nor does it guarantee deference to a specific group's beliefs.

Framing disagreement as an "attack" is a little over-dramatic.

 

Who was talking about an allegorical interpretation? Not me. I take a literal view of the story of the creation as spoken of in Genesis. From an allegorical point of view, that story could be made to have several trillion interpretations.

I am not taking anything personally, as there have been no comments directed at me personally.

I agree with your idea of framing a disagreement as not being an attack, but when that disagreement includes cutting remarks that reflect upon the sanity of the person to whom those comments are directed, then there is an attack (both personally and against the belief).

 

Atheism in no more a religion then theism is a religion. Neither of them are religions. Granted, both deal with a religious topic, but they lack everything else that makes a religion.

Atheism is a rejection of somebody elses claim. That's it. If you can all that a religion, then you can call any belief, idea, ideology or rejection therof a religion, and the word no longer means anything.

 

"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."

1.a. would pertain to Christians and other similar theists.

4. would pertain to atheists and other non-theists who would zealously hold to the thoughts and convictions pertaining to those people.

"the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

"a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods."

All definitions taken from the same source dictionary "thefreedictionary.com"

Based upon the #4 definition of religion, atheism would fall in that category, therefore, atheism is a 'religion'.

 

Only if it is "pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" which, for the vast majority of atheists (the millions nobody notices), is not the case.

Atheists can be religious but that does not make atheism a religion by definition.

 

Ahhh... but for those atheists attending such forums as this one, are noticed and it is relatively apparent that they are very zealous in their pursuit and conceivably even conscientiously devoted. So, for such people (atheists) on this forum, atheism is a 'religion' based upon that definition.

As for your closing statement. You need to take that matter up with the authors and publishers of the dictionary. Until you can convince them of your views to such a degree as to cause them to change the meaning, then you as well as any other atheist are stuck with that definition coming from a standard dictionary.

 

No. Some of the atheists using forums like this are zealous just as some of all the people using them are. Lots of us aren't but you don't notice (or wilfully ignore) us.

Regardless, my fundamental point still stands - just because some atheists are "religious" doesn't make atheism itself a religion. Lots of men are religious but that doesn't make masculinity a religion. And still, most theists are religious but theism itself is not a religion.

Why? I've no disagreement with what is written in the dictionary. My disagreement is you misrepresentation of what the dictionary definitions actually mean and your ridiculous position that if some atheists do something it makes all atheists the same.

You clearly object to and resent some of the people posting here (and elsewhere) who viciously attack your faith and you for following it and quite frankly you're more than entitled to be in many cases. What I object to is you implictly lumping me in with those various idiots, thugs and trolls for the sole reason that I also happen to not have a belief in the existance of any god or gods.

 

Then you admit that you are an atheist, thus lumping yourself in with all those other atheists. Now if you have a problem being lumped in with those that you describe as "various idiots, thugs and trolls", then perhaps you should direct your attention toward them, else change your position with regard to who you volunteer to be associated with. Atheist = Atheist.

 

If you have a problem being lumped in with bad Christians, perhaps you should direct your ire towards them, instead of the atheists.

That's an irrational and evasive position you take, Incorporeal. It makes it look like you know you can't defend your own position. I mean, why else would you evade discussing the actual issues in favor of guilt-by-association tactics?

 

First of all, I have no problem being lumped in with Christians (whether you declare them to be bad or good is irrelevant). Only Gods judgment is what matters.

First of all, it was another poster who brought up the subject of 'guilt by association' by stating his objection of being lumped together with others that he further described. Secondly, I have not evaded any issue within this thread. I have responded to all of those issues in the same manner as I am responding to your false claims. As for your claim regarding 'irrational'. Well of course my tactics are 'irrational'. Rationalizing is the making of excuses for ones behavior. I don't make excuses for my behavior. My behavior is my behavior... regardless of what you think about it. Anything else you might want to add?

 

Admit? It isn't some dirty secret, it's just an adjective that happens to describe one tiny aspect of me. I also "admit" to being British, blond, male, tone-deaf and a Formula 1 fan. Each of those identify a general group of people but that doesn't automatically mean I have any direct association with those people, especially given the hundreds of other adjectives that differentiate each of us.

I can't change my position. I can't choose to stop being an atheist any more than you could choose to stop being a theist. You might as well tell me to simply stop being a man to avoid being associated with all the violent men in the world.

To put it bluntly, the people you (often rightly) object to have more in common with you than they have with me and I probably have more in common with you than I do with them. We're all still individuals though and one of the many differences between us remains that you follow a religion and I don't.

 

Ah, but your presence on this forum, advertising the fact that you are an atheist, taking a stand against religion, is a voluntary act and that voluntary act, places you in direct association with those other atheists. Much like you attending the Formula 1 event places you in direct association with those others that also attend those functions.

I learned a very valuable lesson from my older brother many years ago. I used to have the habit of saying "I can't " His response was always "Can't never could do anything." You "can't" because you already have your mind set upon the idea of not changing anything about you. However, your restriction that you are attempting to place on my abilities, is flatly rejected. I can do whatever I set my mind to do. It might take me longer than I could imagine, but I can accomplish that which I set out to do.

What people have I objected "to have more in common with" me "than they have with" you?

You are obviously speaking of an individual within the context of a 'secular' individual. I draw that distinction, because within this body of mine I am not alone. the Holy Spirit is with me, therefore, when you speak about what you perceive to be just another flesh and blood body, is one which has more than one entity residing within that body. I also have frequent visitors which I have to stay constantly on guard about and am required to chase them away as uninvited intruders of this physical domain. So, NO! When you speak about what you perceive to be an individual, I must remind you that this body is not an 'individual'.

 

I'm not taking a stand against religion (though your presumption that I am because is a clear demonstration of the issue I'm trying to address here).

I don't "advertise" that I'm an atheist, only mentioning it where it's relevant to the topic of discussion (and don't really like doing it then given the misrepresentation and false assumptions it can lead to).

As for presence on this forum, well you're here too so aren't you in direct association with others (atheist or otherwise) posting here too?

That's not what I meant. I could change my position (as could you). I could (and have at times) seek religious teaching or look within myself and find some kind of religious belief as a result. What we can't do is simply choose to believe or not believe - I couldn't wake up tomorrow morning and decide "Today, I'm going to be a Christian".

Belief isn't an active choice, it is a reaction to experience and environment. We can control our experiences and environment (to an extent) but we can't control our fundamental reaction to them.

With respect to your beliefs, I think that's something of a pedantic distraction from the key point I was making. Though all of this interesting (if slightly off-topic) conversation, it remains a fact that atheism, in itself, is not a religion.

 

Well then, we can now consider your doctrine to be equivalent to the KKK's and work forward from there, and you have no grounds to object.

_You_ initiated the claim that zealous atheists prove, through guilt-by-association, that atheism is a religion. Since that was major logical fallacy on your part, of course people pointed it out.

You've been very evasive on the "Atheism is a religion!" topic, constantly veering off into red herrings and irrelevant legal nitpicks.

If you want to prove atheism is a religion, then simply explain why a lack of belief in deities would qualify as a religion, while a lack of belief in Santa Claus would not qualify as a a religion. Anything else is just a smokescreen.

 

Let me get this stright, someone calls asinine arguementation athtarded, but you can compare someone else's to the KKK and its all good?

Hypocrites galore.

 

Well, I guess I will just have to consider your comments above as a personal attack. Why? Because I don't have any doctrines that are my doctrines.

No... you brought up the 'guilt by association' thing. All I mentioned was that by associating with those others, you volunteer to be a part of that group. What I have done is called a spade a spade. On the other hand, you have not denied being associated with them by title and purpose on this forum. So, you are still one of them.

Perhaps you should read more of my writings on this forum. I have repeatedly stated within this forum, that according to the US Supreme Court, Atheism is recognized as a religion for the purposes of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. So, that claim of yours is absolutely empty.

I have done that also, but seeing that you are presenting a special request, I will do it again...

"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.[/QUOTE]"

See the definition highlighted in red letter above? That is why. By definition of the term "religion".... Please pay attention to what has been written in past postings, it helps one to be on a more solid foundation.

 

I didn't say it was good. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Incorporeal, being he's the one who endorsed guilt-by-association tactics.

You certainly think guilt-by-association is a valid tactic to use against atheists, given you created a massive thread based solely on that tactic. Given your adoration for guilt-by-association, you look staggeringly hypocritical to be complaining about it. Why should I pay any attention to such hypocrisy?

Either guilt-by-association is a valid tactic, or it isn't. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways, even though you'll always try.

 

The point here is to get you to renounce your reprehensible guilt-by-association tactics.

So, by your logic:

1. Obnoxious atheists are atheists.
2. We associate with atheists.
3. Therefore, we volunteer to be part of the obnoxious atheists.

And:

1. The KKK are Christians
2. You associate with Christians.
3. Therefore you volunteer to be part of the KKK.

Still want to cling to that guilt-by-association argument?

Blatant evasion. I didn't ask you about legal technicalities in the USA. I asked you to show why a simple lack of belief in deities would qualify as a religion.

It also defines being a football fan or coffee gourmet as a "religion". That's been pointed out, and you evaded it, over and over.

The name for what you're doing is "Equivocation fallacy", the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. In this case, you show atheism fits "religion = enthusiam", and then pretend that means atheism fits "religion = belief in supernatural power."

 

Are you embracing and supporting religion and the various activities of religion? No?

But you did advertise that fact. By making a public declaration attesting to that fact, you advertised that fact.

That is correct.. I have direct association with Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and probably some others not mentioned... But I PROFESS Christianity.... and you PROFESS atheism. Have you ever taken your wife or girlfriend to a favorite sporting event like perhaps a pro football game?

Now you are saying just the opposite of what you previously stated. Are you confused or perhaps you just don't understand the importance of choosing your words more carefully.

Then you are saying that belief can be measured by action or inaction (energy spent or energy conserved)? Are your thoughts a part of your experience? Can you control all of your thoughts (only you can answer that one)? Of course people can control their fundamental reaction to environmental stimuli. People running hooks and huge needles and even swords through their flesh and not showing any type of reaction to such extreme physical stimuli tells me that it is possible for people to control their 'fundamental reactions'.

A childlike distraction? Something that you cannot rebut, so you attempt to launch a smear campaign against such behavior? Oh my. How scientific that is. As for the religion aspect of Atheism. If you reside in the United States, then take your complaint up with the US Supreme Court. The members of that court are the ones responsible for making that Legal interpretation of what Atheism is. Good luck with that one.

 

So have you. And you are telling me to take up the issue with the offender - yet when I do ... its not your fault?

How is that not blatant hypocrisy?

Right, the OP of that thread has a thesis, supporting evidence, rebut common criticisms and has a strong conclusion.

But of course, that is is teh guilt by association tactic because you say so - not because you demonstrate so.

Do we see teh emotional, rather than logical, handling of teh subject?

But noticing that is bigotry and you are a victim. Which is of course what most science looks like.

Who are you lecturing?

When YOU use it, its valid as taxes. When someone else is even alleged to have used it, now is wrong.

Its not our standards that are in question, it is, EXACTLY as predicted, that atheists are applying the same standard in very different ways.

If you have a problem, take it up with the person. I do and you scream bigotry and opression when that standard is aimed at you.

In short, exactly like I say, its emotion and arrogance that drives such BS, not evidence or reality.

That you don;t like that? Muh.

 

No. I'm neither specifically for or against religion - I think it's far too wide a term for anyone to be rationally for or against it.

Yes, but only after I was accused of acting in a particular manner by association. I'm presenting myself as evidence against your flawed generalisation of atheists, here and in general terms. If you were suggesting that all F1 fans were idiots, I'd be doing the same on that basis.

I don't profess it, certainly not in the same way you might your Christianity.

Let's put it this way. When you demonstrate your ability to wilfully change from believing in the existence of God to not believing in the existence of God, I'll accept that belief is a choice.

Not childish, pedantic - picking at a literal definition of individual rather than addressing my actual point. And quite frankly, I didn't want to rebut you point about not being an individual because it would basically boil down to rubbishing your beliefs.

I still don't live in the US, still don't agree that the ruling you referred to literally declared atheism a religion. I frankly don't care what the USSC declares anyway - they're perfectly capable of being wrong (as I'm sure you'd agree on other USSC rulings). I talking about the real world, not legal technicalities.

 

That almost seems like a fair assessment.

"Yes, but....." is a known psychological game. See the works of Dr. Eric Berne in one of his books entitled "games people play". You go on to say that you are 'presenting' your 'self' (myself) as evidence. I see no evidence of self being presented. I only see words that are magically appearing on the screen of my computer. Use spell check to correct your 'flawed' spelling. "generalization". Have I stated any particular behaviors that are common among atheists? No? Then your generalization of what I am doing is also flawed. I have merely stated that you have admitted to being an atheist, and by you advertising that fact, you are voluntarily placing yourself in the same category as other atheists. So if the shoe fits, then wear it. But don't try to make it appear that I have said something that I have not stated.

The degree of your professing atheism is irrelevant. If you have in fact professed atheism, then you have professed atheism. Plain and simple. I also did not place any standard level of professing anything,,, but you are attempting to.

Then what you are saying is that all of us are either forced to believe or forced not to believe in God or anything else where belief is applicable? If that be the case, then what force is it that is being applied to each and everyone of us? Please be specific in your answer and provide provide proof of the existence of such a force that acts upon our psyche.

Well goodness gracious. Here I was thinking that people like you preferred scholastic ability as opposed to mere opinions that are not necessarily justified or verifiable. So you have a problem with people who are too literal? Does literalism present a stumbling block on your ability to express your inner most thoughts and desires?

Well, this forum hails from within the boundaries of the US, and therefore US laws are applicable to the operation of this forum.

 

That's evidence, though not proof. There's no proof that any of us really exist but if we start digging in to that, we'd quickly go insane.

In all this definition of words, we're talking about perception rather than reality anyway.

In British English, words like generalisation are spelt with an "s" rather than a "z". I'll make no apologies for the "u"'s in my colours either.

Yes. You stated that atheism is a religion on the basis of a definition describing something "pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". When I pointed out this is not true of most atheists, you retrospectively restricted the claim to only atheists on forums like this one, which is still not true of all and no longer supports the idea that atheism in general is a religion anyway (only that some atheists are religious).

I wouldn't use the word forced for exactly the reason that I don't think there is a particular active "force" involved - it just happens.

If you eat a kind of food you've never had before, you will either like or dislike the taste. There isn't any force involved and nor is their any active choice. There is just a complex function of your senses, memories and thoughts that generates the conclusion in your mind. Belief or non-belief in a deity, on being first presented with the concept, will work in a similar way.

All of this is my opinion of course, based on personal experience and a layman's understanding of what the relevant professions understand of the workings of the human brain.

If we were discussing a point of legality, that would be relevant. We're discussing philosophy though and no legal jurisdiction applies there.

 

We get this a lot.

If you cannot prove that you exist then you are not using logic in the slightest. That you think such efforts would make you go insane? Well, that's just silly.

This is called an arguement from absurdity, and its why the only ones who get themselves involved in these things are the fringe epistiologists, who - at some level - may actually be trying to solve the issue.

For the rest of us, there is a little thing called practicality. In practical terms what you say above is the equivalent of saying, "Well, we can't know anything so I can never be wrong."

Well, that really isn't much of a position is it? It offers nothing useful in the slightest.

 

If this were so, it would have much in common with the content of your posts. I conclude that you are a bot from the repetitious inanities emitted over time. The classic circularity and diversion combined with the lack of actual engagement with the topic are diagnostic.