What exactly is in it for Theists, to claim that atheism is a religion?

Why do you keeP throwing your same strawman at me?

Let me be clear:

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

I AM SAYING THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD AND WILL NOT UNTIL POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE IS DEMONSTRATED.

 

I do not proof.

I am rejecting your philosophical stance that you need proof to prove that human imaginary creatures do not exist.

 

Where exactly am I taking that stance?

There's no positive proof for their existence, therefore you are right in you unbelief, but that doesn't mean they couldn't exist.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4577986.../earth-has-two-moons-right-now-theorists-say/

 

Yes you can prove that the Earth only revolves around one sun. Then again, stars and planets exist and are NOT man made imaginations.

 

By asking for proof that man made imaginations do not exist.

 

Um.... nope.

Atheism is not more a religion than not believing in Santa clause is a religion. To call the absence of belief based on the absence of evidence a religion is a bit silly.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists. If most were gnostic atheists you would have an argument, however you do not in this particular circumstance.

 

If you are going to take the positive stance that something doesn't exist, then you should have proof for it.

Otherwise you are no less illogical then the people who believe things exist with no proof.

 

I get tired of this crap. A belief does not constitute a religion. I can have a belief about a lot of things that are not a religion.

Not believing in something for which there is no evidence, zero evidence, is simply logical and does not constitute a religion.

 

Again, NOT when they are man made imaginary creatures. That is philosophy and I reject philosophical nonsense.

Asking for proof that a 3 legged invisible monkey does not exist is a lot less logical than rejecting philosophical nonsense.

 

Sure it does.

According to the dictionary:

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

In fact, atheism is EVERYTHING that atheists say they hate about religion!

#1 - its the rejection of science - atheists claim that science and religion leads to no God - yet the proof is decidedly NOT there - yet atheists claim they have no faith. Meaning you guys reject BOTH science and Faith.

#2 - Its combative, illogical, and prostylzes. Take a good look at stoney's trollish antics. How many times do we have to have known fallacies thrown in our face before we are allowed to conclude that the adherents of such fallacy are beyond reason?

#3 - Its prone to excusing violence. After all Stalins purges were about political thing sthat exist in no other war anywhere - the fact that atheism was the dominant form of morality is, of course, not relevant in the slightest.

#4 - Its dogmatic to the point of unreasonableness. After all you continuially claim that there is no evidence for God.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

In fact, there is an entire field of Apologetics that we will simple pull and ostrich on. Also avoided? Where o Where have our evidenced driven atheists gone looking for evidence and not found any? Oh, there is no evidence of God in your living room couch? Good to know.

Basically, atheists get to act like the very worst of religion, by claiming they are not religious at all!

Well, Cartman has spoken.



Well, Cartman has spoken, there is no God, and their beliefs (which are actually facts - but they cannot explain them) are not a religion. They have spoken, all must obey the Pope of atheism. Do not use thy God given brain and offer a rebuttal.

 

Wait, you went down to the FOURTH definition of the word? That's like saying I'm religious because I think Frank Black is a god of rock, or because I publish a book that people have called the 'technicians bible', or because I called computers a 'miracle of modern science'.

So, to get back on topic, what do you gain from making this connection?

 

How many definitions HAVE to apply? The definition also listes HOCKEY as a religion in Canada. But well, whatever excuse applies.

So why isn't atheism a religion? Because it soesn't meet ALL FOUR specific aspects of things that define a religion. Not all religions do. They are still religions. Buddhism, for example does not meet many aspects of the nominal definition of religion nor does secular humanism or Paganism/Animism.

Hmmm .. atheism is different though. For some reason ....

What we gain is the removal of the illusion that atheism is the result of logic, and we gain the reality that many, many atheists are simply hypocrites about their behavior. Most atheists are every bot as driven by faith as Creationists are.

 

You'll note that I didn't specifically deny that atheism was a religion under that definition, merely noted that it is in a trivial manner - indeed, just like hockey is a religion, as you say.

But still, what is there to gain from using that word about us?

 

If its a trivial definition then yes, you are denying it is a religion. Still its a definition that includes several listed religions that do not meet the other definitions of religion.

And your last question was just answered. Feel free to referrence it above.

 

Surely it's clear that I'm explicitly not denying it's a religion under that definition? Trivial or not, it's a word that is sometimes used in that manner, just like a diet may be a religion, or a musician may be a god.

Sorry, my bad. I don't agree with that, though, naturally, but thanks for the insight into what some people think is to be gained.

 

good example, are little children that believe in Santa.. "religious"... is Santa their religion, they celebrate their religious holiday on Dec 25th

they do believe in Santa, so it would make it a belief... but is it also a religion

 

A good example of sophistry perhaps. Particularly when we know Santa is the .. secularized (thanks for that atheists) version of Saint Nicholas - which seem a tad more relevant and celebratory than ... magic reindeers we created because atheists will sue you if venerate a real and worthy person.

Now, what do atheists get by denying that their faith is a religion? Or even a faith all? Santa perhaps?

 

I has assumed that Clement Moore was a Christian, and that both atheism and flippant litigation were less prevalent in the 18th century

 

thank America, were the ones that transformed Christmas into a family oriented holiday rather then a raucous carnival holiday

http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/ch/in_america.htm

"The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings."

"It wasn’t until the 19th century that Americans began to embrace Christmas. Americans re-invented Christmas, and changed it from a raucous carnival holiday into a family-centered day of peace and nostalgia. "

 

Well, I'm not saying atheism is a religion. I just want to know what is the cash value of the claim that it is a religion. How does the view that atheism is tantamount to religious belief, make a difference in the debate between theism and atheism? If one side can prevail over the other with better arguments, who cares just how you style the belief system - ?

Personally I think that parsing degrees of atheism/agnosticism is unhelpful and confuses things. Both atheism and agnosticism represent a particular attitude towards propositions asserting the existence of supernatural beings and forces, particularly forces where there is a moral dimension to our relationship with them.

It is misleading and confusing to call the simple absence of belief "atheism." A cat has no belief in the supernatural, that does not make the cat an atheist. An infant, likewise, is not an atheist. A member of some aboriginal tribe somewhere who has animist beliefs or who engages in ancestor worship, but who does not have the concept of a single divine Author of the cosmos, is not an atheist.

Atheism, like agnosticism, represents a response to the proposition put forth by theism - that such a single divine Author does exist. This, indeed, is how atheism appeared in the history of thought. It is a distinctively Western belief system, one which presupposes religion, monotheist religion in particular. The first "atheists" in this sense were the Hebraic and Christian monotheists, who denied the existence of the pagan gods.

Atheism and agnosticism represent distinct alternate responses to the proposition "a single divine Author of the universe exists." Atheists remark that that this proposition is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of support is on the theists, to present compelling evidence commensurate to that claim; in the absence of such compelling evidence, we are at our leave to conclude that the claim is not true. Atheists further can venture a logical proof that the claim is false, by means of reductio ad absurdum arguments (in other threads I've laid out that argument).

Agnosticism represents another, wholly different, response to the proposition of Theism. The agnostic will say that the most appropriate response to the proposition, is that we must withold assent (either assent to the existence of God, or assent to the denial of the existence of God), because the available evidence, pro and con, is equal for both sides of the question. While agnosticism might be impressive in its humility, I don't think it's a reasonable position. Most people who do not assent to Theism are going to be atheists. Their atheism might be more tacit, or it might be explicitly ideological as in my own case, but as long as a person understands the concept of monotheism, and neither assents nor witholds from the proposition that God exists, that person is an atheist. You can be sure, besides, that for many monotheists, even the rare genuine agnostic is an 'infidel.'

In the end, I think it's an idle question, endless wrangling over whether atheism is a religion or not. What is believed by faith, after all, is not a matter for argument - a person can believe whatever it pleases them to believe. Once you put those beliefs into positive propositions, however, and presume that others should accept them as true - once you come into a religion forum, for starters - then it is not the atheist coming with a faith but a believer coming with an argument. We have then not atheism as a religion, but rather theism as a philosophical proposition. Atheism, properly understood, is a belief system that specifically responds to this proposition.

So understood, the burden of proof will be on the theist. And extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of such evidence, we are at our leave to conclude that the theist thesis is not true.

Again: on the question of whether atheism is a 'religion' or not - who cares? But atheism is demonstrably not a faith, since it deploys arguments against a particular proposition. Believers, likewise, when they are attempting to persuade others of the truth of their beliefs, are not operating from the stance of faith, either.

The real question, in my mind, is why so-called 'agnostics' always want to distance themselves from what they really believe. Let me tell you guys: if the theocrats ever came to power, you'd be up against the wall with the rest of us.

 

Yes, by taking away the real lesson of St. Nick ... now its family oriented ... despite Christmas trees and gift giving and Christmas tress going back hundreds of years. Why it was only with the birth of a highly legitigous atheist miniority that magic reindeer became more acceptable then real St. Nicholas and and family FINALLY became important ... though such a concept was written into the Bible quite literally thousands of years ago ...


Well, thank ... er, America (because religious Americans are actually either Canadian or Mexican - or extensions of magic floating tea pots from outer space) for that

 

I have never before said Chrisitans were idiots but this thread is pushing the envelope. I realize some are desperate to pretend they're logical but it isn't working. Belief, in the absence of evidence, is not logical. It's faith. I don't know why so many Chnristians are eager to deny their faith.

Hunting season, hockey, football, shopping are referred to as a religion as a metaphor. Believing in human-caused global warming is referred to as a religion as a metaphor. Referring to liberalism as a religion is a metaphor.

I would say the nitwits gathering as a group of atheists making demands would qualify as a metaphor for a religion. Atheists do not constitute a religion by their stand that there is no evidence that a god, or gods, exist.

 

From the Free Dictionary:

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

For those who are devout and push atheism as an activity of their conscious reasoning & logic (principles), they meet this particular definition of a religion.

 

Yes, yes, when people don't just agree with you ... on a debate forum ... they are nitwits who are pressing the envelop ... of your temper apparently.

Would you care to tell us, other than in your opinion, why atheism, which in not based in fact, is dogmatic in the extreme, preaches constantly, and has a fear based doctrine of the great evil religion that is goin to destroy the world ... is not itself a religion?

Agh, because other people are nitwits .... hence the thought from most theologians that atheism is just self worship - the ritualized worship of the self.