Atheism is/is not a religion

Atheism is not a religion.

Theism is not a religion.

The points of argument are about what should be done once a person accepts or rejects the existence of God.

 

Is this seriously what it boils down to? That you can't accept that hardly anybody actually uses the word atheism to mean the belief that there are no Gods? Every dictionary from Merriam-Webster to the Oxford English Dictionary to various free dictionaries on the web understand that there are two ways that the word can be used. Do you simply not want to admit that the other definition, the one that is simply a disbelief in gods, exists?

 

You contradicted yourself in writing just two sentences, good work. There is a difference between the legal definition and the layman definition which the Court even pointed out. You are saying that there is no difference between the legal definition and the layman definition which is entirely refuted by the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court.

<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

How have you won the debate? Oh right... because you say so, gotcha.

 

Atheisms utter inability to see itself accurate or hold itself to standards of acountability is the fatal flaw of atheism. You will forgive me for noticing the ritualistic demonization of my faith based of dogmatic misinterpretations that leave off massive portions of my faith, and routinely compare me, and other Christians, to rapists, genocidal maniacs, immoral, unhinged people, etc. etc. - oh yes, and rather routinely Hitler.

I am sure, being that the bahavior is so prevelant in atheism its my position of acknowledging it and rebutting it with actual facts that is fatally flawed?

Again, if atheist applied the same standard to their faith choice that they apply to everyone else's ... well, there really wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

 

Atheism:


1

archaic: ungodliness, wickedness


2

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity

b: the doctrine that there is no deity (of course, you guys scream you have no doctrine!) Whoops!

Religion:


1

a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


3

archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness


4

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Maybe you should check sources before you blindly throw them out, because atheism, as defined by Merriam Webster, meets three of four definitions of religion.

Now, what do we call those who blindly banter about claims without the fortitude of ability to conduct basic fact checks? Right ... we call them atheists.

 

Listen up child, no one comes into a debate forum to be insulted by people with thin skins who don't like losing debates, but who routinely offer up weak arguements and ... rather than strengthen them, will resort to ad hominems which violate the forum rules.

Grow up or leave - you sought out the debate, and you cannot handle the rebuttal? Whose fault is that.

 

I'm not rejecting or accepting it. It doesn't have anything to do with me other than it being a product of someone that probably also does not believe in God. I think it's a way to mock religion, albeit in a slightly more polite way than other people choose to use to bash religion. It's just a symbol though, like a Jesus fish.

Plus, while I may not pay attention to the FSM fad, I'm quite certain that it's not harming anyone, other than maybe ruffling a few feathers. I really don't consider it to be any different than a Jesus fish or those WWJD wristbands. In all honesty, I look at it in the same way I do religious pictures, which is to chuckle to myself. It's harmless, just like the religious pictures I would chuckle equally at.

If people had a serious belief in the FSM, not just as an internet fad, would you be just as ready to criticize them, or is it because it's mocking that it bothers you? Also, how common are atheists and flying spaghetti monsters? I mean, I know atheists, and they are not the ones who share those pictures(obviously just sampling of the people I personally know). It's the people who seem apathetic to religion, but don't really talk about being an atheist that seem to post that picture in my experience. I don't really have anything else to go on when it comes to FSM though. Is it being used in a widespread mockery campaign on religious folks?

I have a Mathematics professor from a local Ivy league university on my Facebook. I've done karaoke with him quite a few times, and he is an atheist. He's not outspoken about it and he doesn't insult religious people. He reposts FSM stuff on Facebook occasionally, and it's just a joke for him. I think even the people who perpetuate those things don't actually take them seriously.

I'm not sure I understand what this is trying to say. Replacing the Tooth Fairy and Mother Goose with figures from history that we absolutely know exist would accomplish what? There would be no argument then, because those people very obviously existed. I don't see the teapot, or the FSM, argument being any different than the argument for a belief in the Christian God, plus I don't think people are actually suggesting that FSM, unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, or Mother Goose are real and that we should fashion our lives after the things people attribute to these entities saying and doing.

I am also admittedly ignorant of positive and negative truth and what these terms actually mean. A quick Google search didn't turn up much on these concepts either.

You're reading way too much into the FSM and any other attempts at mockery by people who may not believe in God. They are just for laughs, though that doesn't mean people won't find them offensive. I think, at most though, you have a case for atheists being rude when they don't need to be, but not much more than that.

 

There is no lie there, so quite making stupid emotional claims. SD clearly stated that the SCOTUS sided with ATHEIST claims that it was a religion, and then he turns and calls your attempts to make a distinction where there is clearly no difference silly.

SOmehow, what is clear to everyone else is a lie to you?

Yep, atheist.

 

That's because most of the posters here, including myself, don't go by definition 2b, we go by definition 2a, which you are dismissing as "not atheism", when it is clearly a definition of atheism from the source you just posted.

 

I agree there. When the census came in, I put down 'jedi' as my religion, for a laugh, but if anyone seriously tried to get tax exemptions or other special legal treatment for jedis I'd feel an urge to slap some sense into them. Same with pastafarianism: it's fair game to discuss it and even of course to take a dim view of it, but do so honestly, as you have done, rather than do so with sensationalism and outright falsehoods.

 

You are the one claiming that you know what that poster believes better than himself/herself, are you not?

 

There IS a distinction between the laymen definition and the specialized acceptance of atheism as a religion which the Court acknowledges. You guys are trying to claim that there IS no distinction when the opinion clearly states otherwise.

 

Yes, yes...move on to character assassination, Sarcastic. It's the natural next step for your position.

The fact is that regardless the lark upon which FSM was created, it has come to mean more - and I'm not here to say that the symbol of your religion is in any way great or fine or upstanding.

It is exactly as credible as Atheists themselves.

Atheism requires a God for you not to believe in.

 

Okay, Subdermal, put up or shutup: what does it mean now as opposed to when it was first created?

 

So let's summarize.

You've now moved your position to the higher ground of claiming that "Atheism isn't a religion for many Atheists".

Great. You should realize that you've still lost the argument.

 

Does not believing in the flying spaghetti monster require that it must exist? That's how credible your ''argument'' is.

''Atheism'' requires that other people believe in a god or gods.

Dusty

 

The Jesus Fish is referrence to a piece of doctrine, and atheists have their little fish with feet.

What you neither accept nor reject is the deliberate fallacious presentation of starwman position of someone else's faith that is growing more vicious and extreme. You are turning a blind eye to the extremists in your midst, who are turning atheism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, in a collection of dicks who simply want to insult people. Then, when the backlash comes from such behavior, which happen no matter which faith groups acts like a bunch of dicks (just ask the Westboro Baptist Church), you want the people being continually insulted by these things to pretend that they are not happening and becomeing more common?

Well, if you have no opinion, get out of the way and let the vaccuious dumpers of fallacy defend their choices ... and their silence on the subject they deliberately stir up is ... deafening.

So, next time it happens, please don't make the silly claim that only some atheists do it but not you, because that is totally not relevant.

Really, walking around saying your faith is garbage offends no one? Its the equivalent of walking up to everyone you meet and saying, "Hi, I don;t know you, but you are f'ing idiot, and I am a jerk."

How would you react to a bunch of Christians walking around with a symbol of an atheist being sodomized into submission to God's will? I would bet your arguement that it was just harmless symbology would evaporate?

They do. They even wear littel necklaces. Again, if someone wore a t-shirt that said atheists are (*)(*)(*)(*) ... hmmm, yet you defend these antics when aimed at others?

And you wonder why we think atheists have double standards?

No it is a statement that he thinks everyone with a different faith choice is an idiot. If you do not understand how such a fallacious claim rudely generalizes everyone, literally everyone else's faith, into a callous insult ... well, that is atheism.

More curious, until yesterday, you had never heard of the FSM, yet an Ivy League freind has been posting it ... again, its the lack of standards in atheism that I find most repelling. When they are rude, its just rationalized. When people are rude back? Its persecution.

Why continue to point out the evidence for God if you ar ejust going to ignore it so you can fallaciously compare faith to Mother Goose?

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

So, as I say, you can disagree, but deliberately comparing someone else faith to a fairy tale while simultaneously ignoring thousands of years of apologetics is just being a dick. THats it. THe FSM is nothing more than overt rudeness, illogical and utterly without merit to accomplish anything other than to insult anyone who disagrees with atheism.

And it is YOUR religious symbol.

Well, ask your atheist pals, they are the ones who dump it out there all the time. I don;t have to explain atheists positions for atheists.

No, they are not, they are illogical and malicious, and they are not dumped out in close company for a few laughs, it is shoved in the faces of religious people left and right. And when its rebutted, well ... let the excuses flow.

Even if your intent is not to insult people, and seriously going from a tea pot in space to pastafarian religion is quite oviously an insult, when you realize that all you are accomplishing in needlessly antagonizing people? Well, atheists don;t care.

In my book, that is a decided strike against atheism.

 

That atheists, unable to produce evidence in support of their silly cult, must resort to angry strawmen to villify the opposition? Perhaps.

 

I think you think you're being clever by asking this question, so let's find out how clever you think you are.

The answer is: it was (without researching, because I don't care) thought up by one particularly creative and nasty Atheist as a way to make fun of other religions. What happened then was that it was quickly adopted by Atheists the world over in a galvanic action, bringing them focus, camaderie and purpose, through which all sorts of other means through which their faith can be expressed through the ridicule of other faiths. It took a leaderless miasmic cult, and brought it commonality and direction.

It is now Atheism's leading symbol - along with the Darwin fish with feet.

 

Even if there are atheists going by definition #2, atheism still wouldn't be a religion anymore than the belief that unicorns definitely don't exist. The only difference between definition 2a and 2b is that 2b would require faith. However, faith is not the definitive mark of a religion or else ufologists would be a part of a religion as well.

 

...and for that, Atheism requires a God for you to not believe in.

Otherwise, you're admitting that your entire ideology is so weak that it is merely a reaction to the beliefs of another.

How weak is that? :snicker:

 

Sure it is, because the FSM has thousands of years of APologetics and evidence suggesting probaility to support it? What we have again is the guilt by association fallacy to lazily dismiss any concept of intellectualism in ... atheism.

No evidence, cannot debate using logic? No worries the FSM is there to be a dickish denial for you.

See what I mean Junkie? Why pretend that peole who dump out opinions like that have even gram of honesty in their attempts to discuss things with honesty?

 

The humorous thing about this post is the author is one of the great purveyors of the activity he is villifying. His posts constantly make broad brushed attacks against atheists as a whole and berates them as a monolithic block, complete with very colorful language, not deliniating between the hostile, angst ridden ones (that most definitely DO exist) and those that are simply amused by the whole discussion.
Splinter, meet plank.

 

Well, that's wrong, so you obviously don't actually know what context FSM came from.

Uh... wow. Okay, so you're saying that somehow this symbol brought people together more (I would like to see proof of that claim since atheist organizations existed long before FSM was created) and that it gave them a common purpose: ridiculing of religion. Ridicule of religion has existed far longer than FSM, fyi.

 

But it's fine to call atheists (ie, including me) losers and say I drive a beat up old wagon, right?

What more? Last I checked, it's still exactly the parody it stated as. If it's changed significantly, and I am being quite honest here, I am genuinely interested to see in what way.

Let's put aside for a moment that some people (mainly very young children) haven't even HEARD of God and therefore don't believe in God, which alone would be enough to blow that out of the water, and concentrate on the majority of atheists, who have actively chosen not to believe in God.

In that context, yes, atheism requires a God. A (presumed to be) fictional one. In much the same way, I wouldn't have come to the opinion that Darth Vader isn't real, unless I had seen a work of fiction that described him to me.