The Persistent And Incorrect Belief That Atheism Is A Religion

[cleanhippie]

It is suggested by many people that atheism is a religion. Before we can examine why atheism is sometimes defined as a belief, it is important to understand who defines it as such. Rarely, if ever, will you find another atheist, agnostic, freethinker, humanist, secularist, etc., putting the definition of religion in the context of atheism. Almost without exception, it is the religious who do so. The reason is simple. The religious are are so caught up in their own beliefs that imagining another person without having any religious beliefs is largely incomprehensible. Those who claim that atheism is a religion do not only lack a clear understanding of what atheism is, they also tend to use religious terms to describe atheism.

There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. There is a philosophical aspect to atheism, but it is not part of the definition, but an extension of the individual. Atheism, in of itself, cannot be described as religious because it takes mental gymnastics to attach the narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material aspects of religion to atheism because it is not a structured system with defined rules. It has no uniform beliefs and is not a means of understanding our existence.

--snip--

Thus, any comparisons that put atheism in the same context of religion are dishonest dialogue. Atheism includes nothing even remotely similar to the religious. Atheists can and do adopt a wide variety of points of view that can include anything except the belief in gods and still fit the definition of atheism. Even those who are outspoken, widely read and well known cannot be intelligently compared to religious leaders, and atheist organizations cannot be compared to religious congregations. There exists none of the aspects that command such designations.

--snip--

Defining atheism as a religion is embellishment and bad philosophy. Atheism has no dogma, no rites, no holy books, no places of worship and no clergy of any description. It offers no moral guidance, no political opinions and no world view. Atheism is a religion like “off” is a channel on your television or bald being a hair color.

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/10/05/the-persistent-and-incorrect-belief-that-atheism-is-a-religion



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that this will not deter some of the regulars that insist otherwise, but for those who have not given it any thought, or who hear another repeat that nonsense, you now have a good working knowledge of just what "atheism" really is: A Lack Of Belief In A God.

And. Nothing. More.

[MineralMan]

1. K&R

Now prepare for the usual arguments. Many people have them stored in a Notepad file so they can cut and paste them very quickly.

[cleanhippie]

3. Yeah, I've taken to giving a canned response to most of those usuals...

I think it pretty much sums up their argument, don't you?

[cleanhippie]

16. Here is an example that just arrived downthread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=307021&mesg_id=307045

[Goblinmonger]

2. Cue "someone" incorrectly referring to

a recent SCOTUS decision in 10...9...

[mike_c]

4. "atheism is a religion like off is a channel on your television..."

Brilliant.

[salinen]

5. The religious

always tell me(atheist) that my religion is Science. Odd. Makes no sense.

[Thurifer]

6. Logical fallacy

My problem with Atheism is that logically you cannot prove a negative, thus one cannot logically know God does not exist. Agnosticism makes more sense.

[cleanhippie]

7. Considering that atheism does not try to prove anything, I'm unsure your premise is correct.

Perhaps you didn't read the article? Nowhere did it state that atheism tries to prove god does not exist.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.

Additionally, almost everyone is either an atheist or a theist; either belief present, or belief absent. The only middle position is the failure to understand your own beliefs.

Additionally-additionally, some negatives can be proven; e.g., someone can prove there is no CD in a CD case.

edit: Additionally-additionally-additionally, I am not expecting you to answer these questions here, but consider them: Is there a literal Easter Bunny hiding eggs for children? Is your microwave oven planning on implanting false memories into your brain? If you stayed in bed all day yesterday, would there be world peace today?

[Celebration]

9. you are correct

Scientifically, you cannot probe a negative.

[cleanhippie]

10. He is not correct.

Atheism does not try to prove anything.

:shrug:

[trotsky]

93. Actually, scientifically you can.

There are many negative statements that can be proven.

[Shadowflash]

18. OK.

Do you believe in Vishnu? Ra? Set? Jupiter? Isis? Poseidon? Zeus?

You must, because you cannot prove they DON'T exist. so by you're definition Christians have to believe, on some level, that these deities exist as, by their own admission, No one knows for sure if they exist or not so to deny the existence of these gods without proof is faith.

So, if not believing in God is a religion so is not believing in Vishnu. So is not believing in Apollo. As is not believing in Jupiter.

So how many religions do you have? And why am I considered an 'Atheist' when I only disbelieve in one god more than you do?

[pdx_prog]

11. I prefer "realist"

Atheism would mean that you are acknowledging religion. I simply say "I do not believe in the supernatural", because that is exactly what it is. If you do not believe in the easter bunny you are not called an aeasterbunnyist.

[starroute]

51. But you can believe in the supernatural and be an atheist

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Some atheists are hard-nosed materialists, others are mystics, and others believe in the efficacy of ritual magic.

The only common factor is the refusal to invoke a god as the explanation of their varying understandings of the universe.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. I just can't dredge up much care what they call it.

The religious world largely passes by without me noticing what they do, other than enjoying less traffic on Sunday mornings on those occasions when I'm making an early run to the auto parts store or home improvement store.

My youngest daughter just started school and I was expecting questions about what "god" was when she recited the pledge of allegiance to me but she just went by it like any other word, by rote.

[humblebum]

13. It is an anti-theistic religion with its own mantras and large following.

People gather in its name and are drawn to hear its leaders speak. Its a religion without a god.

[Goblinmonger]

14. ...........

[cleanhippie]

15. Hey, look everyone! It's one of the usual suspects spewing the usual drivel!

[humblebum]

17. And, I neglected to add it has its own symbols, and martyrs, too. nt

[cleanhippie]

19. What is that sound?

[humblebum]

20. Hark, I think I hear the voice of a martyr now! NT

[Goblinmonger]

22. Get a few of your friends in here and...

[cleanhippie]

24. ...

[Goblinmonger]

21. ........

x(

[LeftishBrit]

32. Well, if you want to describe people who are physically attacked or threatened with execution for

so-called blasphemy as 'martyrs', then go ahead.

Personally, I'd stick with 'victims of human rights abuses'. Less punchy, but more accurate.

[humblebum]

40. That's what makes organized atheism's antireligious activities so

potentially dangerous. It has a strong history of human rights abuses. Never again.

[Shadowflash]

42. I assume

this is one of the people you are incorrectly referring to?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY>

[humblebum]

43. Nope. nt

[Shadowflash]

46. Sure, then

Enlighten us on who murders and persecutes people in the name of the atheistic religion?

[humblebum]

48. Yemelyan Yaroslavsky. nt

[Shadowflash]

53. Wrong

He killed to gain power and influence NOT because he had philosophical differences in worldviews.

Try again.

[humblebum]

54. He did MUCH as a leader of an atheist organization and

in the name of atheism. Sorry. Denial will get you nowhere with me.

[Shadowflash]

56. He was and atheist

that did things to gain power.

If you have proof these things were done purely in the name of atheism and not just trying to gain power please post the link here.

Thanks.

[humblebum]

59. Well. When thousands upon thousands were summarily executed, imprisoned,

and persecuted for their religious associations, in a variety of ways by a group that called itself 'League of Militant Atheists'- it can safely be said that it was done in the name of atheism. This subject has been discussed countless times in this forum. And every excuse and dodge has been put forward, but the fact remains that much was done in the name of atheism and by declared atheists.

[Shadowflash]

61. So what you are saying is

That you have no links to post to information to support you assertions.

[humblebum]

62. I never said anything of the sort. Where did you find out about

Yemelyan Yaroslavsky?

[The Magistrate]

72. Since You Continue This, Sir, The Fraud You Engage In Should Be Pointed Out Clearly For All To See

Your line here is a reaction to statement of a fact, variously phrased, that religion has been the motive for the killing of a great many people down the course of human history. Being a religious person, and one who conflates 'religion' with 'good and moral', this troubles you, particularly when it is stated by persons who do not believe there is any Deity, and that all religion is therefore fraud and lies. So you attempt to throw the charge back at them, and claim atheism is the motive for mass murder on a scale that dwarfs killing done from religious motives. In doing this, you engage in a variety of distortions of meaning and shadings of fact. They are pretty obvious, but worth stating openly, as you persist in them so energetically; room must be left for the possibility you really are not aware of what you are doing.

When people say religion has been the motive for killing a great many people, they do not mean that people who hold religious beliefs have killed a great many people, from whatever motive: that would be a wholly unremarkable observation, and hardly worth the typing out. They mean that people have killed other people from motives of religious belief, killed to suppress a dissident sect in their society, or to extend the range of dominion their religion exercises, or killed to enforce a code of behavior inherent to their religion, or killed as matter of religious ritual or rite. And in fact a tremendous number of people have been killed down the course of human history over these directly religious motivations. These are killings which, it could be fairly claimed, would not have taken place without religion, or more precisely, without the religious beliefs the killers felt directed them to kill others as a matter of sacred duty.

When you say in response, 'well, atheists have killed lots and lots of people,' you fail absolutely to tie this into any element of atheist doctrine or belief that requires such killing, and so do not actually mirror the statement you are attempting to defend against, that religion has been the motive for a great deal of killing, that a great deal of killing has owed to the killers subscribing to a religious belief the killing they engaged in was required by their Deity, by their holy law. Since there really is no 'doctrine' of atheism beyond the statement that there is no Deity, it is hard to see how you could tie killings by atheists into some atheist doctrine, in the way that, say, the persecution of heretics or wars of conversion can be tied directly to items of religious doctrine, or the killing of persons on a high altar by priests, or in funerary rites, can be tied directly to requirements of religious ritual or enforcement of a sacred code.

Adopting the standard you wish to apply to killing by atheists, you would have to accept that every killing throughout human history by a person who held a religious belief was a killing that should be charged up to the account of religion, and that it would owe to religion, regardless of its actual motivation. This would chalk just about every death from human agency since we first appeared as a species to the account of religion; indeed, it would include a great many of the killings you ascribe to atheism on religion's side of the ledger, since the actual agents of death, the guards in the camps, the personnel of the squads that carted away the grain, were as a matter of practical fact shot through with persons who retained religious beliefs; even if they were acting on the order of an atheist, they were the ones actually doing the killing, after all.

[cleanhippie]

74. ^^^THIS RIGHT HERE^^^

:applause:

Well done, Magistrate, well done.


But I think you will have better luck beating your head with a hammer...

[darkstar3]

75. Absolutely perfect response.

Magistrate, you are one of the most articulate writers on this board. Even when I don't agree with your point (which is rare) I can see the clear effort and skill you put into your communication.

[westerebus]

89. Shall we exempt the politics?

Has humankind murdered in the name of religions? History tells us, yes it has.

Has humankind murdered in the name of politics? History tells us, yes it has.

Is there a difference in their murdering? Not to the victims, dead is dead.

If the state kills in the name of the state are the killings political? Yes, the authority derives from the state's government.

If the state kills in the name of state are the killings religious? The authority determines the answer.

Is it possible for both to occur at the same time? Yes, under a theocratic government.

Would religious people find themselves on either side of the killings? Yes.

Are religious people engaged in politics? Yes.

Are all politics of a religious nature? No.

Is it possible to have a government that does not have a religious nature? Yes.

Is it possible to have a government that has a religious nature? Yes.

Are non religious people engaged in politics? Yes.

Would religious people engage in murder in the name of the state? Yes.

Would non religious people engage in murder in the name of the state? Yes.

Would the religious engaged in murder in the name of the state define their actions as justified politically? Yes.

Would the non religious engaged in murder in the name of the state define the actions as justified politically? Yes.

Would the religious murder on religious grounds? Yes.

Would the non religious murder on religious grounds? No.

Is it historically accurate to say the religious have killed in the name of the state? Yes.

Is it historically accurate to say the non religious have killed in the name of the state? Yes.

In a religious state is killing by the state justified under religious grounds? Yes.

In a non religious state is killing by the state justified under religious grounds? No.

What is the difference between the two?

Where the authority of the state comes from and who is in authority.

Render to god what is god's, and to Cesar what is Cesar's.

Does that lessen the burden of proof on the scale of justice? I think not.

Give all the kings and those under crown their tally.

And the gruppen fuhrers and commissar's their's.

Could any one tell by the pile of bones who was religious and who was not?

Yet, the argument is about who's pile is larger?

How sad.

[The Magistrate]

90. Well Said, Sir: Well Said Indeed

My only comment would be to this point, what it is that gives this argument over the size of the piles some bite. Devotees of religion are wont to proclaim the very existence of moral behavior is largely owing to religious belief, which makes the historical fact of a good deal of killing owing to religious belief a difficult thing for devotees of religion to wrap their minds around. Few people consider state power to be a source of, or example of, let alone essential to, moral behavior, so there is much less of the twist of the blade involved when someone states the historical fact that a good deal of killing owes to state power. What shapes this particular passage here to the form you see is the dishonesty of response by some debators who are devotees of religion, and seek to evade the dissonance between history and their moral claims by conscious distortion of historical fact.


"The dead know only it is better to be alive."

[westerebus]

111. Agreed.

It's good to hear your voice.

[Nihil]

94. Excellent post!

I particularly like your closing words:

> Could any one tell by the pile of bones who was religious and who was not?
> Yet, the argument is about who's pile is larger?
> How sad.

Poignant yet precise.

:toast:

[westerebus]

112. Thank you.

:toast:

[bananas]

96. Excellent example of atheist double-speak

You wrote: "there really is no 'doctrine' of atheism beyond the statement that there is no Deity"
The OP states: "There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity"
Your definition of atheism is quite different from the "only" definition given in the OP.
So who is right, you or the OP?

This kind of double-speak is engaged in all the time by atheists, constantly changing their definition of atheism to rationalize whatever irrational beliefs they hold.
And because these contradictory and irrational beliefs are about religion, atheism can rightly be called a religion.
It's just another religious "-ism".
And that's why it's called a religion.

[The Magistrate]

98. Perhaps, Sir, English is Not Your Native Language?

That would account for any honest confusion on your part, perhaps, concerning two statements which convey the same meaning in the English language.

The rest of this is simply nonesense, and does not require reply.

[bananas]

99. Perhaps, Sir, English is Not Your Native Language?

That would account for any honest confusion on your part, perhaps, concerning two statements which convey different meanings in the English language.

The rest of this is simply nonesense, and does not require reply.

[The Magistrate]

100. Imitation is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery, Sir

"I hate flattery, especially the sort you have to work at believing."

[bananas]

97. "There is only one TRVE definition of atheism, thou shalt not have any other definitions before me"

That's another doctrine of atheism.

[Leontius]

106. And what is the motivation to kill to eradicate the scourge of

religion from human society? Is belief or disbelief any better a justification for killing than greed or anger or envy?

[The Magistrate]

107. No One Is Arguing, Sir, Whether One Motive Is Superior Or Inferior To Another

The argument concerns what motive persons are acting under when they kill. No one on 'Team Theist' has made even the slightest attempt to engage, let alone deny, the fact that a great deal of killing in human history has been done with explicitly religious motives, even to the point of being required as a matter of doctrine taught to believers. The only response has been to claim that atheists have killed a great many people, a plain fact which no one on 'Team Atheist' would think of denying, but in making this response, there has not been, and will not ever be, a successful attempt to demonstrate this is in any way required by atheism, in the same sense that a great deal of killing can be traced directly to actual doctrines and dogmas and ritual practices of various religions.

Communism, and for that matter Anarchism in its late nineteenth and early twentieth century form, viewed religion, specifically locally dominant Christian sects, as a major prop of the Capitalist order, as one of the forces arrayed to keep working people quiescent in the face of the injustice routinely perpetrated against them by an exploitative social order. By and large (there were exceptions) these Christian bodies regarded Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, indeed just about anybody agitating and organizing and acting to end the exploitative economic order in the here and now, as damnable criminals at war with the order God ordained. In short, each regarded itself as at war with the other, and behaved accordingly. Where this war became more concrete reality than metaphoric hyperbole, people were killed, and they were killed in the struggle over what the economic, social and political order of a place was going to be. Where Communists came to power, first in Russia, they did indeed attack religion, just as they attacked aristocracy and property. The Orthodox Church took an active role in the counter-revolution embodied in the Civil War, and clergy looked on the killing of Reds just as enthusiastically as commissars watched their firing squads at work. As matters developed, the clergy came out on the losing end of that fight, and there are consequences for this. The Communist government set out quite conciously to break anything that had taken part in or lent support to or even offered potential grounds for counter-revolution, considering this a necessity for consolidating the revolution and establishing the new Communist order.

Matters in China followed a somewhat different path, and certainly featured a great deal less singling out of religion, as religion occupies a somewhat different space in Chinese society than it does in the West. There was some specific antagonism towards missionaries and Christianity, but this had more to do with long-standing xenophobia and resentments of the privileged position Christians came to enjoy in the latter days of the Ch'ing Dynasty, and whole system of foreign privilege bound up in the 'Unequal Treaties'.

[Leontius]

108. And in proving your point you prove mine. All you offer is

justification of killing to eradicate religion and claim,' Well it's not the same thing it's SO different it involves so much more.' It's the same intellectual dishonesty I see here all the time multiple standards for one side to sidestep any blame but only one possible standard for the other side to make sure all blame can seem to be reasonably and thoughtfully attached to it.

[The Magistrate]

109. You Make No Point Whatever, Sir, And fail To Engage Mine In the Slightest

Perhaps this will be broad enough for you to grasp the contours of the thing.

Take a religion such as that of the Aztecs, which mandated human sacrifice. A man whose heart is cut out on the altar and raised to the sun is killed as a matter of religious doctrine and practice. It might be fairly said that without that specific religious doctrine and practice he would not have been killed at all.

Take a circumstance of revolution where the priests have ranged against the revolution, and a revolutionist puts a pistol to a priest's head and blows out his brains. Whether the revolutionist is a believer in some god or an atheist is immaterial to the action; the motive is that the priest opposes the revolution. It might be fairly said the priest would not have been killed had there been no revolution, but it could not be fairly said, if the revolutionist was an atheist, that he would not have been killed if the revolutionist was a believer in some deity, any more than it could be fairly said, if the revolutionist were a believer in some deity, that the priest would not have been killed if the revolutionist were an atheist.

You might be well advised, too, to rid yourself of the muddled conception that explaining something is identical to excusing it. If 'explain' and 'excuse' were identical concepts, the language would have long since shed one or another of those words. Where people make deliberate attempts to conflate differing concepts and distort motivations, it is necessary to lay out what the actual influences in a situation are, so that the fogs can be dispersed and people see the matter with some clarity.

[Shadowflash]

115. What he said.

[rbixby]

58. So one person makes the entire movement?

How about any of the Popes who supported the crusades, the spanish inquisition, etc etc? Essentially what you're saying is that sometimes atheists are crazy and murderous, but sometimes so are christians, muslims, people of all faiths and walks of life. Essentially you're giving an argument that is meaningless.

[humblebum]

60. I didn't think I could fit a few million names in my post. nt

[LeftishBrit]

49. The entire human race has a strong history of human right abuses

Never again, indeed

However, atheists discussing their opinions in a group, or demanding freedom of speech and assembly, has no more resemblance to Stalinism or Maoism, than a church service has to the Inquisition or the Ku Klux Klan.

I will defend the right of anyone to worship freely and to discuss their religion; but similarly others should defend my right to not worship!

And for example, my preferred candidate for Prime Minister (Miliband) should *not* be treated as a danger or an potential equivalent to Stalin et al, just because he happens to be an atheist!

How about preventing leaders from imposing their religious or nonreligious beliefs on others AT ALL; i.e. no penalty for thoughtcrime. Government *imposition* of beliefs, any beliefs, leads to human rights abuses! It is not the beliefs themselves, but their imposition by government, which causes the abuses!

[Leontius]

52. You state opposition to thoughtcrime in relation to religion or state

beliefs, what is your opinion of US 'hate crime' penalties that are championed by many of the left here?

[LeftishBrit]

73. I don''t live in the US; or know all the details; but in general I support penalties for hate crimes

I see what you're probably getting at, but I think 'hate crime' is a slightly misleading term. The defining feature of a 'hate crime' is not just that it's committed out of an emotion of hate (that would describe many violent crimes) but that is committed with the intention not only of injuring or killing an individual, but of intimidating an entire group: e.g. gays, blacks, etc.

Taking intention into account is a general feature of criminal cases and cannot be equated with 'thoughtcrime'. For instance, a person who injures or kills someone after long planning is generally punished more seriously than someone who does the same in the heat of the moment, who is in turn punished more severely than someone who does the same unintentionally but through negligence.

[Leontius]

76. We'll just have to disagree and maybe I see the slope as too

"slippery". I agree that motivation and circumstance is important but somehow I just think with these laws it's pushing too far into the realm of punishing for incorrect thought or belief.

[darkstar3]

77. You have yet to prove to anyone besides yourself that such a thing exists.

"Organized atheism" is nothing but your own make-believe bogeyman, an umbrella term created specifically by you for you to tie Stalin to every atheist who criticizes your belief.

[David Sky]

86. 'victims of human rights abuses'. Less punchy, but more accurate...I'd

just add, "abuses as victims of the self-described "religious" folks, from Christians to Muslims.

A strange thing for those religious folks to be proud of, their intolerance, animosity, insults, and outright aggressive behavior toward non-believers.

[Leontius]

23. Not quite, anti theism is not atheism it's just subset of atheism,

usually a crude and nasty subset but still a subset of atheism.

[humblebum]

27. Atheism is the subject, anti-theism is the verb. nt

[LeftishBrit]

34. Anti-theism is a noun

Atheism means not believing in God. Anti-theism means disapproving of others who believe in God.

It's a pretty strong distinction - similar to the one which I draw between 'religion' or 'theism' and 'anti-secularism'.

I do not disapprove of theists or religious people, so I'm not an anti-theist. I do, however, strongly disapprove of political anti-secularists, especially when, as is usual, they push their areas or countries to the political Right.

[humblebum]

38. It may be A noun, but it is THE verb of organized atheism, and becoming

more so.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Oh, look what you did there with word play.

Too bad it is fucking stupid, ignorant and bigoted.

[LeftishBrit]

44. So the Christian Right is by the same token the verb of organized Christianity?

And moderate Christians are basically the same as fundamentalists and anti-secularists?

I've just written a fairly long post OPPOSING that view on another thread, by the way. I think it is wrong to equate Christianity with the Christian Right! But by the same token, it is wrong to equate atheism with anti-theism.

I am only against anti-secularism. I consider that anyone who would campaign to defeat a liberal/left candidate because the candidate is atheist, or for that matter a religious minority member, or because they are pro-choice or otherwise socially liberal is my ENEMY. Anyone who treats me and those like me as inferior citizens or dangers to the state, because we are atheists, is my enemy - because they would seek to deprive me of rights. Religious people who treat me as an equal citizen and accept political rights for atheists are not my enemies! And most whom I know, do. I am not anti-theist; but I am very much against the religious right! I am similarly strongly against other forms of right-wing ideology, e.g. worship of the free market.

[humblebum]

47. I am not equating "atheism with anti-theism." But, I do equate

most of organized atheism with anti-theism. To deny that would be ...well... being in denial.

[LeftishBrit]

50. You think that everyone who attends a meeting to discuss atheism...

must therefore hate religious people and wish to punish or even kill them?

Look: a straight question: Do you consider support for political secularism as 'anti-theism'?

[humblebum]

55. "consider support for political secularism as 'anti-theism'?" No. nt

[Iggo]

57. Okay. We can all go home now.

He answered a straight question with a straight answer.

[cleanhippie]

65. Yeah, but next week, he will say the opposite and claim he never stated otherwise.

:shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

36. Absolutely!

Just as political anti-secularism is just a (usually nasty) subset of theism.

[Leontius]

41. You'll get no disagreement from me on that. It should not have

to be that way but it usually is, for whatever "justifiable" reasons each group has.

[Shadowflash]

25. See reply 18

I'd like your thoughts.

[cleanhippie]

26. You will NEVER get an honest answer to your most reasonable question. EVER.

But good luck. Feel free to use this ===>

when you tire of the nonsense you are going to get.

[Shadowflash]

28. Yeah, I know.

*sigh* I can dream, can't I?

[Goblinmonger]

29. Supertramp fan?

Seems appropriate

I'm old. And a little spunky today.

[Shadowflash]

31. Yup.

And I know how you feel.

[LeftishBrit]

30. No it isn't. Unless ANY opinion or interest is

Do you consider that music or sport is a religion (I suppose a few people do!)

People gather in the name of mathematics or literature, to listen to lectures in the subject. Does that make these subjects religions?

[humblebum]

37. Music or sport, mathematics or literature are not the antithesis of anything,

they are in opposition to nothing, and they do not have a world view.

[LeftishBrit]

45. But being a fan of one team is very much in opposition to being a fan of another

People who like classical music often actively and ideologically prefer it to 'pop' music, and vice versa (and that's before looking at particular composers or groups).

There are strong rival schools within the study of literature.

People who prefer PCs are in opposition to those who prefer Macs and vice versa.


Etc.

[Iggo]

35. Except, no it isn't.

[David Sky]

85. That makes about as much sense as saying Yankee's Fans are members of a religion

Or coin collectors, or history buffs, all of whom love to hear their "experts'" thoughts on their interest. Are coin collectors all members of the coin collector religion? Yankee's fans? Just what exactly makes the phenomena of people gathering around a common interest into a "religion"? Yankees fans have mantra's, too! So Yankee fans are members of a "religion"?

I guess you feel that people that have a common interest which is not your kind of religion MUST be members of some OTHER religion, by your definition.

I also guess you didn't bother to read the article, and see how SOME people who are religious fail to think outside of their religious schemas or categorical boxes as far as defining every OTHER human being's thoughts and behaviors on the planet.

[Kurovski]

33. K&R, (nt)

[A Simple Game]

63. You're close with your definition. But not quite right.

You said. "There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity"

Where the true definition is that it is the belief in the lack of a deity. Changes the whole thing doesn't it?

Believing in something without proof or believing in the lack of something without proof seem the same to me.

Me, I'm agnostic because I just don't care either way.

[Goblinmonger]

64. But the change you make is wrong.

Most all atheists, as the article claims, will use the definition in the article, not yours. Which means that yours is wrong.

[Leontius]

68. Better get started on a campaign to change the standard

definition in dictionaries. They seem to be behind the curve on this.

[Goblinmonger]

70. You really want to stand behind your basic dictionary

as the best source for a definition? Because they aren't. There are much better sources. They are fine for a general understanding of the word, but there are many better places when you want specific detail. Looking at how experts or people in the field use the word is much better.

[A Simple Game]

92. Belief equals Faith. Is that definition wrong?

Be careful, I have proof of that definition. Do you have proof there is no God?

For people that have no faith, some seem to spend a lot of time defending it.

Myself, I don't know or care if there is a God. I have no faith either way.

[Goblinmonger]

95. Why do I have to prove there IS a god?

Isn't my claim. I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no belief in any gods but make no claims to absolute knowledge.

The proof would be on those making a positive claim. I'm not even making a claim; I just don't believe. Sounds like you, too, are an agnostic atheist.

[A Simple Game]

103. You don't have to prove there is a god, that certainly is not your claim.

But if you are an atheist, do you have proof there is no god?

You said "The proof would be on those making a positive claim." The people making a positive claim have much history and literature on their side. But what do you offer to repudiate their history and literature, little of which is tangible but is still there?

Not sure what an agnostic atheist is.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist, I make no claim of a god either way.

[Goblinmonger]

104. That was my typo I couldn't fix when I realized it.

How does history and literature prove there is a god. Does literature prove there was a Jay Gatsby? Much of the bible is historically inaccurate.

Agnostic and atheist deal with two different things. Saying "I am an agnostic, not an atheist" is akin to saying "I am a blonde, not a male" Gnosticism deals with knowledge; theism with belief.

You can be:
a gnostic theist
an agnostic theist
an agnostic atheist
a gnostic theist

You make no claim of a god but do you believe in one? If you do, you are a theist; if not, an atheist. The agnostic would come in based on your making a claim of knowledge of your belief. I make no such claim and have no belief in a god. Hence, agnostic atheist.

[cleanhippie]

66. Are YOU telling ME what I do and do not believe? Really?

I do not believe in a deity. That is how I, as in ME (not YOU), define what the word atheism means to ME (not YOU) when I (not YOU) use it in conversation. The same exact definition is implied by nearly ALL self-identified atheists. This is what WE (not YOU) consider the definition of the word. Do you understand that? Do you get that?

So when YOU come along and begin to tell ME, and ALL other self-identified atheists, what we believe and do not believe, I want to ask you just how you KNOW what we believe and do not believe? Here is the answer: I just told you in the previous paragraph!


See! It's right there. Its easy to read and easy to understand. Do you get it now? Do you understand? Are you picking up what I am putting down, man?

So the next time you are talking with an atheist, and he/she uses the term, you now know exactly how that person is using the term to apply to what they are talking about. Not YOUR definition, THEIRS. That they don't believe in a god. Thats it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing different.

Are you feeling me, brother?

[A Simple Game]

91. Did I tell you I am as handsome as Brad Pitt? Smart as Einstein?

What I said, "belief in the lack of a deity".

What you said, "I do not believe in a deity". I don't see much difference in your statement and mine.

How do I know you don't believe in a deity? You told me. I'm picking up what you put down, man.

I'm not much for defending my religion or lack of it like you but by my definition, I am more handsome than Brad Pitt, and smarter than Einstein. I may also be stronger than Atlas.

By the way, one of the definitions of belief is faith, and if you want, I have proof of that definition. Do you have proof there is no God?

Personally I don't know if there is or isn't a God, I just don't care. You seem to care, don't you.

[cleanhippie]

105. Ugh. Why do so many feel the need to be so damn obtuse?

:banghead:

[darkstar3]

110. Because reveling in the ambiguity of language is the only way to make the God box shrink more slowly

[A Simple Game]

113. Sorry you don't feel up to the game.

"Why do so many feel the need to be so damn obtuse?"

I don't know, but I bet you could tell me.

[cleanhippie]

114. Wow, you are really clever!

No, not you.

[A Simple Game]

117. Obtuse to clever. I'm starting to make an impression! Yeah!! n/t

[cleanhippie]

118. Yeah, you should be very proud of the impression you are making.

Do I NEED the sarcasm tag?

[A Simple Game]

121. Come on, no comment on my being as handsome as

Brad Pitt and as smart as Einstein, and as strong as Atlas?

Or do you realize that that is worth as much as any other self description, even one by an atheist?

[cleanhippie]

122. How can I testify to your handsomeness when I have never met you before?

Maybe saying you look like Brad Pitt would be an insult, especially if you look like Ann Coulter.

[rug]

67. "It offers no moral guidance, no political opinions and no world view."

Per Pastor Al.

Hardly seems worth discussing.

[Iggo]

71. never mind...

:hi:

[darkstar3]

78. And yet an inordinate amount of time is spent by the religious

running down atheists (among other infidels) for being themselves.

If it's not worth discussing, then why did a former president tell the nation (and the world) that he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens? Clearly there is something about our neutrality that irks the religious into discussing us at great length.

(And that's not even getting in to the number of threads you've posted specifically discussing atheism.)

[tama]

69. Family resemblance

I have no argument against the OP, and over generalisations should be avoided, but there seems to be many atheist with shared world views and attitudes and strong group identification, believes in certain scientific presuppositions etc.

[cleanhippie]

79. There is also the Hair Club For Men.

As well as the dildo of the month club.

[tama]

84. Are you member in both?

If so, good for you! Life is for living! :)

[cleanhippie]

87. Are you looking for membership information?

I can probably google the first one for you is, but for the other you will just have to check a local mirror.

[tama]

88. swell :)

[socialshockwave]

80. I like fun.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmcwilson/4525075232/

[darkstar3]

81. That is some weak tea.

That long list of "evidence" at your link contains things that in no way relate to God, claims that have been completely refuted, and pure randomness like "the history of Israel."

All you've done here is prove Poe's Law.

[socialshockwave]

82. I look at it this way.

How do you know that there is no God?


It's a belief just like Christianity.

[darkstar3]

83. I never claimed to know there were no gods. I'm an agnostic atheist. Look it up.

I do however know that the God of the Bible is made up, just from the evidence of the Bible itself. The contradictions, the claims to physical involvement that have already been debunked, and much more paint a clear picture. As for other possible gods, such as Q-like beings who seeded the earth with life milllions of years ago, I have no knowledge, only skepticism.

[Goblinmonger]

102. How do you know there isn't a tooth fairy?

Is it a belief just like Christianity?

[Shadowflash]

116. Exactly

According to some, NOT believing in the tooth fairy is a religion as it takes faith to believe something doesn't exist that you can't prove doesn't exist.

NOT believing in pink unicorns is one of my other religions. That one seems to take up most of my time.

[Goblinmonger]

101. Answer any one of the following:

How does any of the following PROVE god:
1. the universe
2. life
3. DNA
4. RNA
5. Protein synthesis.

Those are the first 5 from your dumbass poster as things that atheists "ignore" as proof of god. So, do tell, how any ONE of those PROVES there is a god.

[laconicsax]

119. C'mon Goblinmonger, you know the answers.

1. Something can't come from nothing (except when it http://www.google.com/m?q=moving%20mirrors%20make%20light%20from%20nothing">can)

2. Abiogenesis is a lovely gap. (Never mind that self-replicating molecules are simple applied chemistry.)

3. JESUS (or watchmaker analogy)

4. GAWD (or watchmaker analogy)

5. See above.

[Goblinmonger]

120. So you can even tell me how ONE

of a very long list of things that I ignore as PROOF of god actually proves god.