Thread: Atheism is a religion

Originally Posted by Swensson

I believe that I have addressed such questions several times in the past, however, I have done so in appropriate threads. It is not that I don't want to answer your questions (since I already have), but that I do want answers to the questions that the thread is actually about, which is why I created it to begin with. If your logic is that the person who can spam their questions to the largest number of threads is most entitled to an answer, then I guess you have a point.

Anyway, your answer.



And how exactly does labelling atheism a religion deal with this issue? If, as you say, atheism has the certain flaws that also belong to other concepts, including religions, then why not just discuss those issues instead of going into an unsolvable, infected, semantic argument which only complicates things? This is why I worded the thread the way I did, I wanted to know what logical conclusions would be drawn from the decision that would be arguments in the actual debate, whether there is a god or not.

Because things, ideas, that grow into larger things are called organizations. And the larger an organization is - the more challenges it finds. And these organziational things are not specific to religion. Atheism as a growing ideological organiztion - is now facing tha same challenges and hurdles as ther established organizations.

Unfortunately, atheist defines itself by not being an organization, and thus it, as an organziation, has all the problems that come from unguided organizational drift.

The fact that it is, at its center, an organziation that is centered around God - and his denial - means it is a religious organization.

What OTHER organization could it be?

Originally Posted by tomteapack

"If religion is bad, then since atheism is bad, it must be a religion"

The above is a quote to me from a neighbor who goes to something called a "rock church", is a religious nut (cannot complete one sentence without a reference to the KJV of the bible) and leader of a local tea party congregation.

"Rock church."

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

Thank you for clarifying that. You're probably going to want to go gargle with lye at this point, because I agree with you.

Why do you agree with a statement that is blatantly incorrect?

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Why do you agree with a statement that is blatantly incorrect?

Because things are not incorrect simply because yu say so.

Originally Posted by Neutral

Because things, ideas, that grow into larger things are called organizations. And the larger an organization is - the more challenges it finds. And these organziational things are not specific to religion. Atheism as a growing ideological organiztion - is now facing tha same challenges and hurdles as ther established organizations.

I don't think atheism is an organization on it's own, and I don't believe that ideas turn into organizations by growing. To me, an organization has to at least be organized. Sure, there are organizations built around atheism, as you often mention, but they are not representing all of atheism. Just as WBC don't represent all of Christianity, American atheists or positive atheism do not represent all of atheism. Actually, they both state through their names that they are specific types of atheism, American and positive (which only includes certain versions of atheism), and to be fair, they are being quite obnoxious atheists as well.

They do definitely meet challenges that have been met by other organizations, including religious, but that does not make them a religious organization.

Originally Posted by Neutral

Unfortunately, atheist defines itself by not being an organization, and thus it, as an organziation, has all the problems that come from unguided organizational drift.

I have no problem with this, social movements, world views and so on change about.

Originally Posted by Neutral

The fact that it is, at its center, an organziation that is centered around God - and his denial - means it is a religious organization.

Here is the interesting part. There are several steps here.

The first step is that the organization (I'm just gonna go with organization for simplicity) is centred around the non-existence of God. No arguments there.

Then come a few semantic steps. An organization centred around the non-existence of God is a religious organization. I'm not really sure whether I'd go that far, it'd depend on how you define "religious organization".

And then, A religious organization is a religion. Here I don't agree with you. If you, as previously, have defined an organization with any statement about God to be a religious organization, then you cannot randomly redefine religious organization to be a religion.

Originally Posted by Neutral

What OTHER organization could it be?

That's a reasonable question. There is definitely a slight shortage of words here. For reasons above, I would not call it an organization, world view, philosophy, ideology, metaphysical statement, I'm not really sure. I'm fine with using any of them as long as we don't use the words to give atheism meanings that we're not sure that they have. If we call it an organization, I'm also fine with calling it a religious organization unless we then redefine religious organization to mean religion.

I answered you question, again, in an unrelated thread. Now will you answer my correctly placed one?

Originally Posted by Neutral

Because things are not incorrect simply because yu say so.

Says our local expert on atheism, front runner in the crusade against the vast atheist agenda to destroy our way of life and apple pie.

Originally Posted by Swensson

I don't think atheism is an organization on it's own, and I don't believe that ideas turn into organizations by growing. To me, an organization has to at least be organized. Sure, there are organizations built around atheism, as you often mention, but they are not representing all of atheism. Just as WBC don't represent all of Christianity, American atheists or positive atheism do not represent all of atheism. Actually, they both state through their names that they are specific types of atheism, American and positive (which only includes certain versions of atheism), and to be fair, they are being quite obnoxious atheists as well.

So what do you call these things then?

http://www.atheists.org/

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

http://www.csicop.org/

and so on ....

Do they raise funds? Check. Do they have founding principles? Check. Do they have management and employees or volunteers? Check. Are they mostly tax free (like religion)? Check. Is their ideology centered and focused around God? Check.

Now why is it that all other groups that meet that criteria are called organizations, but not atheism?

Atheism is right there, easily observable, but there seems to be a trend in atheism (as I pointed out) that applies one standard to atheism, and another to atheism.

When supposedly rational atheists find themselves reluctant to even acknowledge the obviousness of the organization of atheism .... that is a problem for atheists.

They do definitely meet challenges that have been met by other organizations, including religious, but that does not make them a religious organization.

Well, then what is it? Its not philosophy. Philosophy are idea written in books, and atheists don't have books do they? (Just the belief in no God I keep being told). It isn't a social movement, the protection of secularism draws people in from all over the faith spectrum. Its atheism. It is centered around God - a conclusion about God for which there is absolutely ZERO evidence - and that makes it a religion.


Here is the interesting part. There are several steps here.

The first step is that the organization (I'm just gonna go with organization for simplicity) is centred around the non-existence of God. No arguments there.

Then come a few semantic steps. An organization centred around the non-existence of God is a religious organization. I'm not really sure whether I'd go that far, it'd depend on how you define "religious organization".

And then, A religious organization is a religion. Here I don't agree with you. If you, as previously, have defined an organization with any statement about God to be a religious organization, then you cannot randomly redefine religious organization to be a religion.

Well, the error here is that I am not redefining religious organization to be religious.

I am defining organizations that are primarily concerened with God and/or religious activity to be religious. There is no redefinition and certainly no randomness.

It is a set of standards appied equally across the board. The only real problem is that I will not bend the standards to accomodate atheism's desire to not be a religion .... just because.

That's a reasonable question. There is definitely a slight shortage of words here. For reasons above, I would not call it an organization, world view, philosophy, ideology, metaphysical statement, I'm not really sure. I'm fine with using any of them as long as we don't use the words to give atheism meanings that we're not sure that they have. If we call it an organization, I'm also fine with calling it a religious organization unless we then redefine religious organization to mean religion.

So atheism is a metaphysical statement? One that requires fnd raising, book keeping, management, employment, advertising, education, etc.?

It is an organization centered around the non-belief in God. Its no different than a church - a decentralized church organization. It is, in fact, the same thing as Suna Islam or many Protestant churches.

I answered you question, again, in an unrelated thread. Now will you answer my correctly placed one?

I do not believe there is a single question you asked that I have not answered. If there is, spell it out and I will answer.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Says our local expert on atheism, front runner in the crusade against the vast atheist agenda to destroy our way of life and apple pie.

Notice the inherent double standards of atheism at play?

All about pointing out faults in others, while ignoring the faults in yourself.

That would be called the fallacy of special pleading.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

So, now that we have dealth with the allusion to the Crusades, lets move on to the figuring out how classifying, accurately mind you, atheism as a religion means someone is intent on destroying the lot of athiesm?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...l-to-fear.html

Another fallacy? Go figure.



Can I get ANOTHER super victim cape for our young hero?

Originally Posted by Neutral

Notice the inherent double standards of ???... at play?

All about pointing out faults in others, while ignoring the faults in yourself.

That would be called the fallacy of special pleading. ...

You're so funny.... Actually, simply reflecting comments which fit yourself better gets boring after the umpteenth time.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

You're so funny.... Actually, simply reflecting comments which fit yourself better gets boring after the umpteenth time.

As do you abusive one liners that never contribute to a discussion.