[Locked] Atheism is not a religion
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Don't forget newborn babies.I can't remember who exactly said this, so if someone can source it that would be great. but I believe the old quote was:
"There is no such thing as christian (religious) children, just children brought up in christian (religious) homes"
I know when I was 5 the last thing on my mind was religion, I dont think I even knew what it was back then. I was interested in ninja turtles, astro boy, power rangers, basketball, all that stuff. Wouldn't we have a natural interest in religion if it was really that important to a person from birth? Im not sure truth be told, the first 10 years of my life memory wise are hit and miss :P But looking at how I am now, I would have to guess for me personally, it wasnt :D
But off topic again, apologies.
This question was answered a long time ago, or at least everyone has stated their opinion on the subject, and when it comes to opinions concerning religion, its VERY hard to change them.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
g-money wrote...
Waar wrote...
Everyone is just misunderstanding everyone else now, this debate has run its course.It's why we can't have nice things.
@Kalistean: it's not my responsibility to correct my own arguments unless you prove to me that your arguments are more logical and correct. It is incumbent on the person refuting to present a counterargument against the current argument. I will not guess at what you consider an inaccurate analysis of your argument because your argument (from what I saw and picked out) is spread between 14 pages worth of arrant nonsense, separate points, and personal attacks.
If you have any issues with my argument, speak up. I feel that your argument (if we take the first page as the core of your argument) has already been disapproven by me. If you don't agree, refute me. Then I'll take it from there. I am not and will not treat you as if you were the reigning authority on this matter, which in my opinion gives you the attitude that I need to correct MY argument to suit YOUR feeble attempt of a counterargument of two sentences. And that's laughable.
And I don't feel any need to make any new arguments, because you didn't do shit towards the arguments other than argue against things you thought I was saying for the most part.
I told you to go reread, because you didn't seem to get anything I was saying. Instead, it seems you just picked a random thing you thought I was saying and went off on some huge ass argument on it instead.
So the fact that you think you did anything against me is laughable.
0
Omegakill wrote...
I'd also like to add what would the first man ever born (in whatever way you believe he was) be? Would he have a religion even though he'd have no such concept as religion or god or any other higher power or would he believe that he was made out of pixy dust or would he be atheist because he would have no clue about any such god or other higher power.He would be neither, since being a/theistic requires at least a hum of the concept of god so that he can make a concious stand. Being oblivious is simply being oblivious and renders you unable to take a stand on the question.
I know that Wikipedia states that "most inclusively" atheism is only the lack of belief but I don't really agree.
0
Kalistean wrote...
And I don't feel any need to make any new arguments, because you didn't do shit towards the arguments other than argue against things you thought I was saying for the most part.I told you to go reread, because you didn't seem to get anything I was saying. Instead, it seems you just picked a random thing you thought I was saying and went off on some huge ass argument on it instead.
So the fact that you think you did anything against me is laughable.
It is funny you say that because you have no idea how many times I see you and the other two blow off other peoples’ comments and arguments when in fact they have everything to do with the debate at hand. YOU choose to ignore them and decided that YOUR argument is the reigning one. Chio’s and Noutakun’s and many other peoples’ arguments are especially enlightening and true and I agree with them, therefore I have nothing to say against them.
I am arguing against things YOU are saying. I am picking a debate with YOU. There is nothing hard to understand about that. I picked my argument based on certain things you mentioned that I do not agree with, and I countered each and every point. When you picked up my side of the debate by refuting, you and I had a debate going. Each response from you became more and more short in length and had less and less substance to argue with me. It was not until the 15th page where you decided to be laconic in answering and give me the, "you misinterpreted my posts, go reread them," treatment. You know what that sounds like? To me, that sounds like you have nothing to argue against me and that this statement is just another façade for conceding the debate to me. You argue with me with what I assume IS your arguments when you counter mine, but when you can’t find anything to logically or rationally counter my argument, you give that, "Oh, you just misread my argument." See how that sounds like a cop out?
Your argument has been spread and scattered throughout the 14 pages; in other words, you have one, big, incoherent mass of arguments that sum up your argument. In other words, anyone is highly liable to interpret your arguments erroneously. If my interpretation of your argument is wrong, correct me then. Or are you so satisfied from “winning” the previous arguments that you can't spare some time to correct me? Either way, as long as my argument stands uncontested by another argument, I am going to treat it as if I have countered your arguments unless someone else tells me otherwise. I am a reasonable person; I am willing to review what I did and correct them if necessary. That is all part of having a good and exciting debate. You debate with the attitude that your views are superior to others even though you have failed to counter my arguments, my rationale, my logic, which means that it is your responsibility to further refute my arguments but you shirk it. If that is how you conduct debates, then there’s nothing left to be said, and your arguments will remain countered by me. I am fine with that result.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Actually g-money, I was referring to the direct post you were arguing against. As in you didn't even get what I was saying in that single post you were arguing.
I didn't change my initial argument. And I still state the way I see things. That doesn't mean I didn't argue about different aspects and such. But yeah.
But alright.
I'm not making it fact without basis. Everyone has one because everyone has an opinion and beliefs about the situation. The only way possible not to do this, is to not care, at all. Which is virtually impossible. You'd have to have some type of defect to be capable of this. Either that, or a baby, a very new born baby. And even then it's not known if they are capable of this or not.
I said you could call it a belief system. I never said it was the entirety of your belief system. Not once did I say it was such. So yeah, you putting words in my mouth.
No, see I was challenging what you were saying for a good reason. Because you seem to be misunderstanding how philosophy works.
Philosophy doesn't incorporate empiricism. This would imply that it has it inside of its structure.
Not in Philosophy of sciences does this. It is still based on rational thought, not empiricism. It does talk about empiricism, but only in context of Sciences needing them. Basically put, it's a theory in philosophy ABOUT the sciences.
No where, does Philosophy incorporate this. Because it can't do this. So yeah, major herp derp on your part there.
*sighs* Well considering you can't make this sort of thing in a scientific approach. And religion and philosophy are related in the sense that religion could be consider a subset of philosophy.
But even that part, stating yourself to be a Atheist means that you are designating a portion of belief that relates to this topic at hand. It is a religious distinction about what you believe to be true.
It doesn't matter how you go about reaching the conclusion. You are still answering the question.
Let's see, how many times did I mention Atheism in that portion.
Hrm, none. Guess I wasn't discussing Atheism and something else. Go figure.
Hrm, I did use support and logic to demonstrate why I believed thing I did. So yeah.
And I already stated what I believe about the topic at hand multiple times too, so I did make an argument about the topic at hand. And since most of the "side topic" as you refer to it was about information that was needed to help support the main topic at hand, it was relevant to the conversation.
As for the information that wasn't relevant, I wasn't the one who initiated the situation. Maybe you could go blame and yell at the one responsible instead?
I didn't change my initial argument. And I still state the way I see things. That doesn't mean I didn't argue about different aspects and such. But yeah.
But alright.
Spoiler:
I'm not making it fact without basis. Everyone has one because everyone has an opinion and beliefs about the situation. The only way possible not to do this, is to not care, at all. Which is virtually impossible. You'd have to have some type of defect to be capable of this. Either that, or a baby, a very new born baby. And even then it's not known if they are capable of this or not.
I said you could call it a belief system. I never said it was the entirety of your belief system. Not once did I say it was such. So yeah, you putting words in my mouth.
Spoiler:
No, see I was challenging what you were saying for a good reason. Because you seem to be misunderstanding how philosophy works.
Philosophy doesn't incorporate empiricism. This would imply that it has it inside of its structure.
Not in Philosophy of sciences does this. It is still based on rational thought, not empiricism. It does talk about empiricism, but only in context of Sciences needing them. Basically put, it's a theory in philosophy ABOUT the sciences.
No where, does Philosophy incorporate this. Because it can't do this. So yeah, major herp derp on your part there.
Spoiler:
*sighs* Well considering you can't make this sort of thing in a scientific approach. And religion and philosophy are related in the sense that religion could be consider a subset of philosophy.
But even that part, stating yourself to be a Atheist means that you are designating a portion of belief that relates to this topic at hand. It is a religious distinction about what you believe to be true.
It doesn't matter how you go about reaching the conclusion. You are still answering the question.
Spoiler:
Let's see, how many times did I mention Atheism in that portion.
Hrm, none. Guess I wasn't discussing Atheism and something else. Go figure.
Spoiler:
Hrm, I did use support and logic to demonstrate why I believed thing I did. So yeah.
And I already stated what I believe about the topic at hand multiple times too, so I did make an argument about the topic at hand. And since most of the "side topic" as you refer to it was about information that was needed to help support the main topic at hand, it was relevant to the conversation.
As for the information that wasn't relevant, I wasn't the one who initiated the situation. Maybe you could go blame and yell at the one responsible instead?
0
As an atheist myself I can add a lot to this discussion.
I don't want to however so instead I will leave you all with Patrick Stuart as my representative while I go masturbate to pictures of young anime girls fucking dogs.
I don't want to however so instead I will leave you all with Patrick Stuart as my representative while I go masturbate to pictures of young anime girls fucking dogs.
2
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
Atheism isn't the lack of a religion.Everyone else wrote...

0
I do not have a religion.
If believing whether the ice cream will be eaten by your roommate when you get home is a part of a religion then I belong to that.
For anything pertaining to live or death and origin then I use science for my views.
If someone asked me do I believe there is life after death I would say no.
That is not because of some sort of knowledge but instead the lack of there being evidence to show that there is a life after death.
So if their is a religion for the lack of belief in something then I guess I am part of that.
Just like not collecting stamps would be a hobby of mine.
If believing whether the ice cream will be eaten by your roommate when you get home is a part of a religion then I belong to that.
For anything pertaining to live or death and origin then I use science for my views.
If someone asked me do I believe there is life after death I would say no.
That is not because of some sort of knowledge but instead the lack of there being evidence to show that there is a life after death.
So if their is a religion for the lack of belief in something then I guess I am part of that.
Just like not collecting stamps would be a hobby of mine.
0
Dunno if somebody already posted something like this, but this is what religion means in the dictionary:
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.
A specific fundamental set of BELIEFS and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of BELIEFS and practices: a world council of religions.
I dunno. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god....
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.
A specific fundamental set of BELIEFS and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of BELIEFS and practices: a world council of religions.
I dunno. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god....
0
There is already 6 pages of this exact same debate which starts at the beginning of the thread. Why are you arguing something we've already found the answers to?
The end result:
- Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in the existence of any deity. It is the doctrine or belief that deities do not exist.
- Atheists can be religious if the religion they follow does not involve the act of believing in a deity.
-
The end result:
- Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in the existence of any deity. It is the doctrine or belief that deities do not exist.
- Atheists can be religious if the religion they follow does not involve the act of believing in a deity.
-
NeoStriker wrote...
Kalistean is “super special”. He has his own “super special” definitions of the English language.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
b4k420 wrote...
Dunno if somebody already posted something like this, but this is what religion means in the dictionary: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.
A specific fundamental set of BELIEFS and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of BELIEFS and practices: a world council of religions.
I dunno. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god....

Ooh, I can do that too, look!
ship /ʃɪp/ noun, verb, shipped, ship·ping
†¢ A VESSEL, esp. a large oceangoing one propelled by sails or engines.
†¢ A sailing VESSEL square-rigged on all of three or more masts, having jibs, staysails, and a spanker on the
†¢ The crew and, sometimes, the passengers of a VESSEL: The captain gave the ship shore leave.
vein /veɪn/ noun
†¢ One of the system of branching VESSELS or tubes conveying blood from various parts of the body to the heart.
†¢ Any blood VESSEL.
0
WEBSTER COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY (c. 1975)
These are two word-for-word excerpts from my dictionaries on my bookshelf. I says circa because I ripped off the covers when I was a toddler. (I need new dictionaries....)
re†¢li†¢gion (ri†¢lij'É™n) n 1 A belief binding the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being, as involving a feeling of dependence and responsibility, together with the feelings and practices which naturally from such a belief. 2 Any system of faith and worship: the Christian religion. 3 An essential part or practical test of the spiritual life. See James i 27. 4 An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous cares: His work is a religion to him. 5 Obs. Religious practice or belief. [OF < L religio, -onis]
Synonyms: devotion, faith, prayer, worship. Piety is primarily filial duty, and hence, in its purest sense, a loving obedience to God as the heavenly Father; pietism often denotes a mystical, sometimes an affected piety; religion is the reverent acknowledgment of a divine being. Religion includes worship whether it be external and formal, or the reverence of the human spirit for the divine, seeking outward expression. Devotion, which in its fullest sense is self-consecration, is often used to denote and at of worship, especially prayer or adoration; as, He is engaged his devotions. Godliness is a character and spirit like that of a God. Holiness is the highest sinless perfection of any spirit, whether divine or human, and often used for purity or for consecration. Faith, strictly a firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines, is often used as a comprehensive word for a whole system of religion considered as the object of faith; as, the Christian faith. The Buddhist faith. Antonyms: atheism, blasphemy, godlessness, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, profanity, sacrilege, unbelief, ungodliness.
a†¢the†¢ism (Ä'thÄ“†¢iz'É™m) n. 1 The belief that there is no God. 2 The disbelief in the existence of God. 3 The Godlessness in life or conduct. [< F athéisme < Gk. atheos a- without + theos god]
So yes, atheism is not a religion, nor do we need to capitalize it as so.
These are two word-for-word excerpts from my dictionaries on my bookshelf. I says circa because I ripped off the covers when I was a toddler. (I need new dictionaries....)
re†¢li†¢gion (ri†¢lij'É™n) n 1 A belief binding the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being, as involving a feeling of dependence and responsibility, together with the feelings and practices which naturally from such a belief. 2 Any system of faith and worship: the Christian religion. 3 An essential part or practical test of the spiritual life. See James i 27. 4 An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous cares: His work is a religion to him. 5 Obs. Religious practice or belief. [OF < L religio, -onis]
Synonyms: devotion, faith, prayer, worship. Piety is primarily filial duty, and hence, in its purest sense, a loving obedience to God as the heavenly Father; pietism often denotes a mystical, sometimes an affected piety; religion is the reverent acknowledgment of a divine being. Religion includes worship whether it be external and formal, or the reverence of the human spirit for the divine, seeking outward expression. Devotion, which in its fullest sense is self-consecration, is often used to denote and at of worship, especially prayer or adoration; as, He is engaged his devotions. Godliness is a character and spirit like that of a God. Holiness is the highest sinless perfection of any spirit, whether divine or human, and often used for purity or for consecration. Faith, strictly a firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines, is often used as a comprehensive word for a whole system of religion considered as the object of faith; as, the Christian faith. The Buddhist faith. Antonyms: atheism, blasphemy, godlessness, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, profanity, sacrilege, unbelief, ungodliness.
a†¢the†¢ism (Ä'thÄ“†¢iz'É™m) n. 1 The belief that there is no God. 2 The disbelief in the existence of God. 3 The Godlessness in life or conduct. [< F athéisme < Gk. atheos a- without + theos god]
So yes, atheism is not a religion, nor do we need to capitalize it as so.
0
....i always thought a religion was something of a group of people that think the same way of our origin.......and if atheism is a religion then im a 7 foot tall blonde dude fuckin C2 while fighting on a mother fuckin gundam!
0
Lol. Atheism is not a religion. Why? Cuz they don't believe in a deity(s), NOR USE IT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OR PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE.
Next. Strong atheist: claims that there IS NO DEITY.
Weak atheist: does not know if there is a deity(s) or not, but claims that there is no deity IN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM.
Meaning what? That weak atheists claim that they do not know all things, nor the objective truth, but DO NOT BELIEVE in a god(s). Thus they do not claim truth, only their belief.
Those who have personal religions but do not go out of their way to make it known to the general populace are known as people who are afraid OR people with psychosis. Those who make their personal "religion" known to a small group of people have created a cult (if they agree). And why is cult and religion differentiated? Because not everyone has a religion.
Next. Strong atheist: claims that there IS NO DEITY.
Weak atheist: does not know if there is a deity(s) or not, but claims that there is no deity IN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM.
Meaning what? That weak atheists claim that they do not know all things, nor the objective truth, but DO NOT BELIEVE in a god(s). Thus they do not claim truth, only their belief.
Those who have personal religions but do not go out of their way to make it known to the general populace are known as people who are afraid OR people with psychosis. Those who make their personal "religion" known to a small group of people have created a cult (if they agree). And why is cult and religion differentiated? Because not everyone has a religion.
0
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Atheism isn't the lack of a religion.Everyone else wrote...


Definition of atheism:
* noun: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Definitions of religion:
* noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
* noun: institution to express belief in a divine power
I love quoting definitions and posting funny pictures.
Although days/weeks late, op (fuck if I know), this is also the clearest way to explain what atheism and religion is, and their corresponding associations with each other.
0
Space Cowboy wrote...
Definition of atheism:
* noun: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Definitions of religion:
* noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
* noun: institution to express belief in a divine power
I love quoting definitions and posting funny pictures.
Although days/weeks late, op (fuck if I know), this is also the clearest way to explain what atheism and religion is, and their corresponding associations with each other.
Agreed, besides religion governes your life with preset rules. That can't really be said about atheism and anyone who argues differently is an idiot.
0
Spoiler:
Formally Atheism is the lack of belief in a divine power and therefore is the lack of belief in religion.
Atheism cannot be considered a religion formally because it is the lack thereof.
Informally Atheism is the lack of belief in a divine power only and not the lack of religion. Someone can be an atheist and still have an object, interest or practice of conscientious regard and pursuit. For example, Pyschology is my religion.
Atheism still cannot be considered a religion informally because having a weak or strong belief that a divine power does not exist implies doubt in ones mind, which would mean they are considered Agnostic and not Atheist.
Atheism is not a religion and Atheists can be "religious". Most of this thread is just wordplay and a certain individual's inability to take the matters at hand in the proper context. Everything you are debating now we have already debated, everything being pointed out has already been pointed out. The original purpose of this thread was completed; need we continue it any longer?
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Droomy wrote...
The original purpose of this thread was completed; need we continue it any longer? It was completed at the time of creation; the title is indicative of this. However, someone will inevitably find a way to continue it.
0
Tegumi wrote...
Droomy wrote...
The original purpose of this thread was completed; need we continue it any longer? It was completed at the time of creation; the title is indicative of this. However, someone will inevitably find a way to continue it.
Especially when they don't read 16 pages of non-sense and just post their opinion.
/me whistles innocently