17 replies to this topic

[rob86]

I don't think Atheism is a religion. For example when I think of some cult like the Mansons or something, I don't consider myself a Non-Mansonist because I don't agree with what they believed in.

Regarding Kris Kringle, I don't consider myself a Non-Santa-ist.

I also don't consider myself a Non-AmonRa-ist. Does anyone?

So I don't consider myself a "Non-religionist" or Atheist. I just consider myself a human being living on this world! I PERSONALLY have no reason to believe that I'm wrong about the lack of existence of a God, because if I knew I was wrong, then I'd convert pretty quick!

It's not that I'm comparing the big religions to violent cults and santa claus in an offensive way, and I don't mean for that to offend anyone, they are just big name things that most people don't believe in I can use for an example. From my personal experiences, I find it hard to believe in Christianity or Islam or Hinduism etc more than I believe in things such as Zeus or Amon Ra, or whoever. I respect those who strongly believe in God, and I'm completely open to the possibility that there is one, but I'm not getting much proof. Most of my friends and some of my elder family are strongly religious, and not even the same religion. Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Catholics, whatever, I've talked to them all with an open mind and tried to understand why they believe so strongly in something and it never makes any sense to me and I don't feel what they say I should be feeling.

And with this explanation I'm not talking about semantics and blah blah blah. I could whip out a dictionary and say Atheism is a system of beliefs regarding the in-existence of a God therefore it is a religion. I'm talking about how I FEEL about the word Atheism and what it should mean. More accurately, to an Atheist who does not believe in any supernatural or religious stuff, I don't think Atheism and Religion should even be words, they should be "Extinct" -- like the other thread on word extinction on here! We should all just be human beings, believing in the common denominator , our selves!, and stop labeling everyone.

But yeah I know religion is a sensitive topic and I sure don't mean to offend anyone with my lack of belief, my beliefs just come from my life experiences and I could be completely wrong and going to hell, which would suck!

[KansukeKojima]

In my opinion, I think it is reasonable to classify atheism as a religion. However, I think that it is really irrelevant whether or not we do. I don't see a point to classifying atheism as a religion or not classifying it as one. Regardless of that, lets take a look at the definition of religion:

Quote

From Dictionary.com

re⋅li⋅gion  [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Definition one, I think, does describe the atheist position. Why? They do indeed have a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. The cause is usually believed to be a scientific explanation of the origin of life, the nature of the universe is usually regarded as a set of random occurrences, etc., and (depending on the atheist) it is often believed that the universe has no purpose other than to fulfill our own desires, etc.

Definition two also adequately describes the atheist position. Just take a look at YouTube for evidence of this. There is essentially an "army" of atheists, many of whom support each other in their endeavors such as disproving theism etc. Many of them share extremely common beliefs about the world and I would say that the vast majority of atheists all share the same core beliefs about the world.

Definition six is also another point I believe describes the atheist position. Many atheists make a point to demonstrate their atheism and they actively denounce and attempt to refute theism. In essence, their atheism is a point or matter conscience in which it becomes a ethical system to proliferate.

In my opinion, the actions and core beliefs of atheists demonstrate that they do have a religion in the "dictionary-style" of the word. They do not believe in a God, but the definition of religion accurately describes some of their core beliefs and their actions. Though this be my conclusion, I do not think that it is really an important issue - and the issue that need be discussed is the issue of truth. The issue that needs to be discussed is whether or not there is a God and if there is, who is He?

Cheers,
Davis

Edited by KansukeKojima, 12 June 2009 - 05:00 AM.

[PhoenixGFX]

Quick and Simple, Religion is the belief in a God.

I think Atheism is just a way of life, not a religion.

[sheepdog]

Might as well add my 2 cents worth here. Yes, Atheism is a religion. It is a belief, that there is no God, just as other religions are a belief that there is a God. The very defination of religion as KansukeKojima pointed out with his excellent post seems to me to make it perfectly logical to consider atheism a religion.

And I'll go one further.
I believe animal rights activisim is also a religion. They worship animals, giving them the same statis as a human being. (despite the biblical references to man having dominion over animals) Much like other religions who will wage war on others of different religious beliefs, animal rights activists wage war against all who would use an animal in any way, from as a sourse of food, fiber, entertainment, or companion. They are without a doubt, zealots with a cause. They wish only to enforse their beliefs on others, one way or another.

[Baniboy]

I think there is a little too much playing with words and assumptions here...
Atheist is non-theism. Theism in itself is not classified as religion, it's belief in a deity, religion is a specific belief in a deity. And even if it was, atheism would be as much a religion as not-mountain biking is a hobby. Atheism describes one position and one position only, and that is non-theism, or lack of belief in a deity. The more religious people argue over this, the more moronic their arguments get. You (probably... and hopefully) don't believe that I have a retarded monkey in my room that makes me Latte every morning. You have been to my room and there is no sign of monkeys not to even mention retarded ones. You don't believe me because I can't justify my position, but you don't say that it's impossible, so are you holding a belief? Not believing in something doesn't equal to believing it doesn't exist.

Quote

Culturally atheism means a lack of belief in any gods and is not itself a positive assertion that there are no gods. The lack of assertion of knowledge is known as agnosticism, "a" again meaning "without" while "gnostic" means "knowledge," and can refer to a theist or an atheist. The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, is gnosticism and can also be attributed to theists or atheists.

Now those the the meanings of the words.
After clearing that out, let's talk about the real issue. The real issue is religious people trying to point their fingers at atheists and tell them it's a religion because they don't have good arguments to play with.

Quote

They worship animals, giving them the same statis as a human being. (despite the biblical references to man having dominion over animals)

They don't worship animals, sheepdog. Treating a living being like you would like yourself to be treated is called empathy, and you don't need Jeesus or the bible to figure this out on your own. So how do you feel about using your puppies as food? No? Also, using the bible as some kind of an absolute science reference book isn't very smart.

[sheepdog]

Quote

They don't worship animals, sheepdog. Treating a living being like you would like yourself to be treated is called empathy, and you don't need Jeesus or the bible to figure this out on your own. So how do you feel about using your puppies as food? No? Also, using the bible as some kind of an absolute science reference book isn't very smart.

Actually, they do worship animals. Maybe your not familiar with the lunitic fringe of the animal rights movement. They believe we should not enjoy animals in any way shape, fashion or form. They consider pet ownership the same thing as slavery. They do put animals at either equal or above humans. Did you know that one animal rights idiot had to be taken to court to stop him from donating one of his own daughters kidney's to save a sick monkey? (notice I said his daughters, not his own) It isn't empathy to do something that insane.

No, personally I wouldn't care to eat dog meat. But that is a personal preference of my own, and I am smart enough to realize that not everyone feels the same way. In countries other than the USA it is common to eat dog. And believe it or not, I would never try to force my personal opinions on someone else just because I wouldn't eat dog. It is within their rights to have the choise especially when it comes to something as critical as the food you eat. No one should make that choise for another person due to his or her own "personal" beliefs.

Now, for the Bible as a science reference book? No, maybe not science, but certainly a code of morality and decency. Weather one is religious or not. You wouldn't say it is dumb to not steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc would you?

[Baniboy]

Technically, pet ownership IS slavery due to the fact that the pets don't have the chance to CHOOSE whether they leave or stay with their owner.

Having a book as your own moral guide... I don't have a problem with it (well, unless you don't cherry pick the teachings, I wouldn't like one promoting slavery, stoning people to death on sabbath and murdering infidels, but if you cherry pick the ones that you feel you're okay with, I don't care). But when you use a BOOK to tell OTHERS what they are justified to do or not do, you have gone too far. That is wrong in every way possible. You can't use gods or souls as a rational argument/backup for anything. Especially if they're mentioned in a fiction book that is inconsistent with reality.

Now, I give you one more chance to tell me why other animals' life is less important than, for example, your life.

Quote

You wouldn't say it is dumb to not steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc would you?

You can derive why one shouldn't generally steal, lie, cheat or kill without using any supernatural elements. If the bible told that stealing was wrong but killing was fine, would you be okay with it? Morals don't come from books. Morals come from within, based on what one feels about certain action/thingy. However, by manipulating one's mind and changing the models you can change how one feels about certain action, thus changing their "morals".

And by asking you to eat dog I specifically meant one of your OWN puppies/dogs. Or just killing one of them for no reason.

[anwiii]

Quote

Technically, pet ownership IS slavery due to the fact that the pets don't have the chance to CHOOSE whether they leave or stay with their owner.

haha you are too funny bani. i think technically you are correct if you want to twist the definition. for the most part though, owning a pet is not slavery at all. what you are basically saying is that having kids is slavery too until they are free to do what they want after 18 years.

Quote

Having a book as your own moral guide... I don't have a problem with it (well, unless you don't cherry pick the teachings, I wouldn't like one promoting slavery, stoning people to death on sabbath and murdering infidels, but if you cherry pick the ones that you feel you're okay with, I don't care). But when you use a BOOK to tell OTHERS what they are justified to do or not do, you have gone too far. That is wrong in every way possible. You can't use gods or souls as a rational argument/backup for anything. Especially if they're mentioned in a fiction book that is inconsistent with reality.

i agree 100%!

Quote

Now, I give you one more chance to tell me why other animals' life is less important than, for example, your life.

in most of the united states, it is legal to hit and run a cat and ILLegal to hit and run a dog. dogs have more rights over cats. therefore, why shouldn't humans have more rights over dogs? in fact, under the law, we do! i think all living beings have their own purpose, but an animals purpose compared to a human's purpose is different.

Quote

You can derive why one shouldn't generally steal, lie, cheat or kill without using any supernatural elements. If the bible told that stealing was wrong but killing was fine, would you be okay with it? Morals don't come from books. Morals come from within, based on what one feels about certain action/thingy. However, by manipulating one's mind and changing the models you can change how one feels about certain action, thus changing their "morals".

i agree for the most part. you're talking deep now. basically though, morals are generally learned from what is accepted by society. the proof is in the other thread where we are discussing the death penalty. one way we learn what is generally accepted is through books. i think if people looked inside themselves to truely know themselves and distinguish what is right from wrong, the world would be a better place. you are right. there are some things that the bible and other books can never teach which pretty much makes the bible incomplete for anyone to follow word for word.

Quote

And by asking you to eat dog I specifically meant one of your OWN puppies/dogs. Or just killing one of them for no reason.

who would want to murder a cute puppy?!? shame on them! actually, if i was in a country that served dog, i would probably try it just to say i tried it. it reminds me of an old television series though called "china beach". someone wanted to buy a puppy and said they needed a couple minutes before they can take it. they came back to pick up their puppy and it was in a brown paper back already butchered.

i know i commented on this thread about if atheism is a religion. we do use "religiously" as an adverb to describe someone who is passionate about doing something. i still don't think atheism is a religion only because it's a belief NOT to believe and there are no rules governing that belief for it to be a strong belief. all an athiest is is someone who is limiting themselves to believe in something. how can limiting beliefs be considered a religion??? personally, i don't know why anyone who isn't religious would want to label themselves as atheist. they don't like to consider themselves as followers of any one religion but would group themselves together with a label? that is religious-like or cult like if they don't want to follow the rules of the majority. almost to the extreme of anarchy thinking. if they are unable to follow natural law? they wouldn't be suspeptable to man made laws either(for those who will label themselves atheist) since they are arguing that they don't believe in something that not only can't be proven, but going against the general belief within their own society.

personally, i am not religious, but i would rather be living in the middle of a 99% christian society rather than a 99% atheist society ANY DAY! to me, there is a HUGE difference between someone who just doesn't believe in certain things, and someone who would label themselves an atheist.