This is just a few questions I have.

Is atheism a religion?
Atheism - To acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs.
So is a religion just the belief in something? Whether or not a God? Do Atheists contradict themselves by saying that there is no god. To say you know that there is no god, you have to know everything. Just as if I were to say "there is no yellow pin cushion in your closet." I would have to know that closet from the inside out to be able to say that. Is it the same with God?

I won't get on untill late tomorrow so please, leave your comments, so that I can read them later.

a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you're going to define atheism as an asset to your point, you might want to make sure you actually know the definition of atheism.

Secondly, to say you know that evolution is a fallacy must mean you know everything as well, which you are making increasingly clear through your posts that you do not.

Interesting that you have just joined and this is all you'll talk about. Sounds like you believed something just because someone told you it was true and now you want to troll forums and do the same to others. Fortunately, many of us think for ourselves. Try it.

Depending on your definition of religion (a set of beliefs)... it might vary for people. Atheism is really just one belief, or lack thereof, not a set of beliefs. There are no other characteristics associated with atheism than that. Let's see what others have to say.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I forget who said that.

I forget the name, but there is some guy who is supposed to be considered the father of atheism and alot of the hardcore atheists worship him and his books like he is a jesus figure. I questioned on one of their boards before how, with their stance against religion and "belief" in this guy and his writings, can they not consider themselves a religion. All I got was a bunch of definitions of atheism, etc.

My stance on the whole thing is they arent a religion...more like a cult. Eventually dividing off of them are the agnostics when the atheists got too fanatical, then neo-atheists (or whatever they are) and all the crazy ones that stemmed off of those.

Nobody wants to take responsibility for their beliefs when they get to be too organized.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I forget who said that.

Especially when you start evangelising about it, make Tshirts and form clubs. :p

http://outcampaign.org/

I wish Dawkins would come out.

Not this again..

Not this again..
My thoughts exactly.
I suspect that even though it has yet again been answered, we'll be here a while.

Dictionaries often record usage as the primary reference, and in several I have checked they use the commonly held misconception that being an atheist means a belief in the absence of a god, rather than an absence of belief in any god or gods.

Atheism quite simply means we don't believe. It is NOT a belief system in itself. How many times do we have to tread over the same ground.

And Killian, you beat me to it on the quote, and no, I can't remember who said it either!(Google time.)

There are a lot of different kinds of atheists. They have no common creed, etc.

They vary considerably in their opinion of religion, for one thing - everything from the blight of all to the finest spiritual creation.

The ones that were raised in cultures without strong and particular theistic beliefs tend to be less actively rejecting, and more indifferent, in my personal experience. The ones surrounded by the more cult-like or abusive monotheistic institutions are more strident, or closeted.

For example: A certain percentage of Catholic priests - I recall an estimate of 4 - 11%, from an anonymous survey - are atheistic. Clearly these are not the same sorts of atheists that one sees stereotyped around this forum.

There are several formally atheistic religions, or religions with atheistic sects and branches.

So atheism would be several religions, if it's any, and very vaguely defined ones. It seems a useless attempt at applying an irrelevant concept to a poorly understood situation, to me, but if you really feel you gain something by trying to make it fit, have at 'er.

This is just a few questions I have.

Is atheism a religion?
no

Atheism - To acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs.
no again,atheism is just a lack of belief in gods

So is a religion just the belief in something? Whether or not a God? Do Atheists contradict themselves by saying that there is no god.
not if the definition of god is so contradictory it cant possibly exist
such as xian god
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/god.html

I don't believe in santa. This is my religion.

No wait,

I don't believe in fairies. That is my religion.

On second thought, I don't believe in flying pigs. That is my religion.

Hang on...

I don't believe in the IPU or the FSM (sacrilege, I know). This is my religion.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unless you're a theist.

I don't believe in santa. This is my religion.

No wait,

I don't believe in fairies. That is my religion.

On second thought, I don't believe in flying pigs. That is my religion.

Hang on...

I don't believe in the IPU or the FSM (sacrilege, I know). This is my religion.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unless you're a theist.

sounds like you have a belief in methodological naturalism
;)

sounds like you have a belief in methodological naturalism
;)
Why yes. Yes I do.

Why yes. Yes I do.
and furthermore, when you address issues about god or the ontological status of the universe, it becomes metaphysical naturalism
;)

and furthermore, when you address issues about god or the ontological status of the universe, it becomes metaphysical naturalism
;)
Why yes. Yes it does.

Why yes. Yes it does.

hence atheism is a metaphysical stance, much like theism

hence atheism is a metaphysical stance, much like theism
Yes, of course. But the contrast couldn't be more plain. Taking a stance is clearly not equivalent to implementing a religion.

Yes, of course. But the contrast couldn't be more plain. Taking a stance is clearly not equivalent to implementing a religion.
what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)?

what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)?

Interesting question. Brain fried. Just took an antianxiety pill. Going to bed.

Remind me that I want to anser this. tnx.

Religion to me is defined by the *worship* of some spiritual being or entity.

This is why Buddhism in its original form may be a form of spirituality...but not a religion.

Atheism...a religion??? Ha! :p

Religion to me is defined by the *worship* of some spiritual being or entity.

This is why Buddhism in its original form may be a form of spirituality...but not a religion.

Atheism...a religion??? Ha! :p
this is a pop-culture sort of way of defining distinctions between "religion" and "spirituality", but it doesn't really hold for serious investigation of religion.
For instance many buddhists actually worship Buddha.

Religion - From outside to in. Spirituality - From in to outside. ? .

For instance many buddhists actually worship Buddha.
Yes, but this is not Buddhism "in its original form"...as stated.

I have so never seen this thread before!

hence atheism is a metaphysical stance, much like theism Better put, it's something several otherwise quite different metaphysical stances have in common - much like theism.

Theism is, of course, not a religion either.

Is atheism a religion?
I don't think so.
I think atheism is merely a theological stance, and does not encapsulate all that religion covers- i.e the entire gamut of philosophical stances and categories. Atheism can be a component of a religion or philosophy, such as Humanism or Objectivism, but is not in and of itself a religion or religious belief system.

Yes, but this is not Buddhism "in its original form"...as stated.
techically, is it possible for Lord Buddha to be a Buddhist? (after all, he is the Buddha)

I don't think so.
I think atheism is merely a theological stance, and does not encapsulate all that religion covers- i.e the entire gamut of philosophical stances and categories. Atheism can be a component of a religion or philosophy, such as Humanism or Objectivism, but is not in and of itself a religion or religious belief system.
same can be said of theism - its just a theological stance but it finds its expression in something more particular

eg - undifferentiated monism, non-dualism, dualism, etc

This is just one of the creation ignorances that occur every month or so, along with :

Anthony Flew has converted, Second law of thermodynamics, Evolution cannot show how universe was created, odds against DNA are zillions to one, no evidence of transitional fossils, atheism has killed hundreds of millions of people, etc. Boring!

I have so never seen this thread before!


So, only 364 days to go before your first birthday.

Religion is belief in the supernatural.
Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural.

This is just a few questions I have.

Is atheism a religion?

Do you see tax-free atheist institutions littering the landscape? Do you see "In The Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on dollar bills? Do you see atheist TV Evangelists demanding you empty your wallets in the name of their god? Who is the atheists god?

So is a religion just the belief in something? Whether or not a God?

It is a belief in supernatural powers that control human destinies. Gods are part of the supernatural, apparently.

Do Atheists contradict themselves by saying that there is no god.

Have you seen a god? How can you say there are gods? Theists contradict themselves when they claim there IS a god.

To say you know that there is no god, you have to know everything.

To say you know there IS a god, you have to have seen one. Talked to one in which they talk back.

Just as if I were to say "there is no yellow pin cushion in your closet." I would have to know that closet from the inside out to be able to say that. Is it the same with God?

No, you simply have to demonstrate there IS a yellow pin cushion in the closet. Can you demonstrate there IS a god?

techically, is it possible for Lord Buddha to be a Buddhist? (after all, he is the Buddha) Same way Lao Tzu was a Taoist and Muhammed was a Muslim and Confucius was a Confucian.

What a strange question. The only religion I know of that would have trouble along those lines would be Christianity, if we assume it was founded by Jesus rather than Paul.

techically, is it possible for Lord Buddha to be a Buddhist? (after all, he is the Buddha)
The word Buddha is derived from the verb 'budh' which means 'to know'...at least according to the 16 volume oxford dictionary.

Knowing as opposed to ignorance...so the word Buddha really means 'the knower'.

A few historical Zen masters I used to read about claimed that no monk is truly a Buddhist until they attain some measure of enlightenment.

The only religion I know of that would have trouble along those lines would be Christianity, if we assume it was founded by Jesus rather than Paul.
If Jesus thought it was appropriate to create a new religion, separate from the Jewish tradition he upheld all his life...dont you think he would have said so???

SL:

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)? ”
Interesting question. Brain fried. Just took an antianxiety pill. Going to bed.

Remind me that I want to anser this. tnx.

Ok.

what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
Well, taking a stance on an issue and implementing a policy on an issue are two different things. I'm against the war in Iraq vs I am going to throw myself in front of the next tank that tries to enter Iraq. Or, I dismiss the claims of theists vs My idea of atheism will now rule your every move.

One involves an opinion, the other action. Pretty obvious, huh?

(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)?
Religion is the action, atheism is the opinion.

Religions are not passive, atheism is (Oh I can hear it coming now...). As in, religions make claims, atheists do not. The definition of atheism I am using is the common one that state we simply have no belief in a god(s). NOT that there emphatically is no god. Therefore, our stance is passive. That does not mean we do not take action to keep the active forcing of religious doctrine out of public policy (government).

A religion is a collection of archetypes: instinctive, irrational beliefs that occur in nearly all cultures in nearly all eras. The specific archetypes are beliefs, unsupported by empirical observation, that the natural universe is not a closed system and that an unobservable supernatural universe--usually humanlike creatures that populate that universe--control the behavior of the universe and especially the conditions of our lives.

The Dao and some of the currently popular forms of Buddhism fall a little short of this definition, since the metaphorical and allegorical nature of their supernatural components is often freely acknowledged without lessening the "spiritual" value of their teachings. The same is true of the teaching of Kong Fuzi. The Unitarian church is seen in the same light by many of its members, as are many of the more liberal Christian churches by many of their more liberal members.

It's difficult to call atheism a religion except by a colloquial stretch of the word's meaning, a stretch usually performed by religionists as an attempt to discredit its message and make it a less attractive alternative for the dissatisfied in their own community. Atheism of the pure variety is an entirely rational and empirical system and stands in opposition to the beliefs based on instinctive, irrational faith that define religion. Since almost all humans are born with the archetypes that preprogram us to accept religion without argument, and to believe in things which are not only unobservable but with every passing era increasingly contradict what we have learned empirically about the workings of the universe, atheism can be seen as a reasoned and learned behavior, one of a growing set thereof that have guided us toward the transcendence of our primitive nature and allowed us to create civilization.

The first of these was the overriding of our pack-social instinct itself, instinctive behavior that defines all species of group-hunters and many species of gatherers, including all of the other hominids ("great apes") except the solitary orangutan. It was a great leap of logic to learn that living in larger social units with domesticated animals and cultivated crops would provide a more secure, comfortable and enjoyable life than the survival-obsessed life of nomadic extended-family units of hunter-gatherers; and to reason that to gain this security, comfort and enjoyment was worth the loss of the instinctive familiarity of the pack.

Our ancestors continued to teach their children to overcome their instincts and live in increasingly large communities of increasingly less familiar fellow citizens, until they achieved the age of civilization (literally "the building of cities") and learned to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers. These communities continued to enlarge into kingdoms, states and nations.

For eons, religion undoubtedly played a positive role in the transcendence of the pack-social instinct and our cultural (but NOT physiological) evolution into a herd-social species. Neighboring packs of humans would have usually been genetically related by diaspora and culturally related by the occasional summer festival and the more frequent intermarriages, so they would have shared identical archetypal beliefs and would have woven recognizably similar fables around them. As religion became more formal, neighboring villages and later neighboring cities would have been pleased to find that they had something so basic in common, and it would have fostered a sense of trust and community.

It's easy to suspect that atheism would not have taken hold in this era. The rare person who was born without the archetype for belief in the supernatural, or who through dogged reasoning began to doubt the old fables, would not have gathered much sympathy or support when even the more skeptical elders could see that religion was part of the glue that held civilization together.

Unfortunately religion seems to stall out at the tribal level. Once communities number in the millions, their common belief system unravels and what was once a binding force becomes an engine of hatred and conflict. Common faiths--even when spread by aggressive evangelism rather than discovered by related cultures--fragment into cults. And when civilizations with different religions encounter each other, the results can be catastrophic--particularly the diverse, competing, intolerant offshoots of the recently created monotheistic religions.

Now that an increasing number of people find it easier to see religion as a divisive force that threatens to stall the advance of civilization or--to use one of the favorite metaphors of one of the Christian nations--"bomb us back to the Stone Age," it's easier to make people pause and examine their instinctive beliefs and find them lacking in logic and empiricism.

So atheism is growing as a movement of rationalism, of empiricism, of the advance of civilization. But it is not a religion because it rejects outright the instincts that give rise to religion.

Same way Lao Tzu was a Taoist and Muhammed was a Muslim and Confucius was a Confucian.

What a strange question. The only religion I know of that would have trouble along those lines would be Christianity, if we assume it was founded by Jesus rather than Paul.
Carcano was suggesting that buddhists that worship Buddha are somehow removed from the original standard of Buddhism ... which struck me as a strange suggestion

The word Buddha is derived from the verb 'budh' which means 'to know'...at least according to the 16 volume oxford dictionary.

Knowing as opposed to ignorance...so the word Buddha really means 'the knower'.

A few historical Zen masters I used to read about claimed that no monk is truly a Buddhist until they attain some measure of enlightenment.

that Sanskrit root (budh) also appears in numerous vedic texts too and is explained in the same way (knowledge which gives enlightenment etc)

Obviously to be a "buddhist" suggests more of a methodology than a linguistic investigation of "budh" suggests

Supe



“
what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
”
Well, taking a stance on an issue and implementing a policy on an issue are two different things. I'm against the war in Iraq vs I am going to throw myself in front of the next tank that tries to enter Iraq. Or, I dismiss the claims of theists vs My idea of atheism will now rule your every move.

One involves an opinion, the other action. Pretty obvious, huh?
but isn't there a spontaneous relationship between opinion and action?
for instance if enough americans are against the war in iraq, won't the tanks stop rolling?

“
(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)?
”
Religion is the action, atheism is the opinion.

Religions are not passive, atheism is (Oh I can hear it coming now...). As in, religions make claims, atheists do not. The definition of atheism I am using is the common one that state we simply have no belief in a god(s). NOT that there emphatically is no god. Therefore, our stance is passive. That does not mean we do not take action to keep the active forcing of religious doctrine out of public policy (government).
this seems contradictory
atheism is passive -atheism is a passive .... yet there are very clear social policies that are enacted that are distinct of atheism

In short there are three scopes for action

action of the mind - opinion
action of words - working others to come to that opinion
action of the body - bringing some "result" or "effect" in place as a consequence of that opinion

for instance the fact that you contribute to this site indicates you are acting with your words for the cause of atheism - if you were truly passive there would be no discussion

Carcano was suggesting that buddhists that worship Buddha are somehow removed from the original standard of Buddhism ... which struck me as a strange suggestion It struck me as an obvious and unremarkable statement of fact.

What would you think of a Taoist who worshipped Lao Tzu? A Muslim who worshipped Muhammed ? Certainly they would be removed from the original standards of their respective religion.

Again, Christianity is the only religion I can think of that has the difficulty you describe, in that there is a possible real question of whether Jesus was a Christian. If you take Paul as the essential founder of the religion, Jesus was of course dead by that time, and never a Christian. If you somehow take Jesus as the founder, then the question arises. But that is a very unusual situation.

It struck me as an obvious and unremarkable statement of fact.

What would you think of a Taoist who worshipped Lao Tzu? A Muslim who worshipped Muhammed ? Certainly they would be removed from the original standards of their respective religion.

Again, Christianity is the only religion I can think of that has the difficulty you describe, in that there is a possible real question of whether Jesus was a Christian. If you take Paul as the essential founder of the religion, Jesus was of course dead by that time, and never a Christian. If you somehow take Jesus as the founder, then the question arises. But that is a very unusual situation.
A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus

what is it exactly that buddha, Muhammed and Jesus are following?

A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus

And an atheist follows the example of...?

And an atheist follows the example of...?
I know, I know. Hitler. Stalin. Dawkins...

There are a lot of different kinds of atheists. They have no common creed, etc.

They vary considerably in their opinion of religion, for one thing - everything from the blight of all to the finest spiritual creation.

The ones that were raised in cultures without strong and particular theistic beliefs tend to be less actively rejecting, and more indifferent, in my personal experience. The ones surrounded by the more cult-like or abusive monotheistic institutions are more strident, or closeted.

For example: A certain percentage of Catholic priests - I recall an estimate of 4 - 11%, from an anonymous survey - are atheistic. Clearly these are not the same sorts of atheists that one sees stereotyped around this forum.

There are several formally atheistic religions, or religions with atheistic sects and branches.

So atheism would be several religions, if it's any, and very vaguely defined ones. It seems a useless attempt at applying an irrelevant concept to a poorly understood situation, to me, but if you really feel you gain something by trying to make it fit, have at 'er.

You could be talking about theism.

That Sanskrit root (budh) also appears in numerous Vedic texts too, and is explained in the same way (knowledge which gives enlightenment etc)
Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.

If that were the case enlightenment could be learned in a classroom.

A paradigm I often teach:

Observation --> Data --> Information --> Knowledge --> Wisdom

Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.
But we're all clearly, religious, or spiritual, or animistic. We all believe that there is something we can experience which is "beyond" our thinking. Don't you do this?

A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus No they don't. They live ordinary lives enlightened and informed by the teachings of their prophet.

In an ordinary Christian's case, the teachings of Paul and the Gospel writers, mostly.

The original question was about "worship", not "follow the example of", anyway. You seemed to think it strange that a Buddhist would not normally, or originally, worship the Buddha.
You could be talking about theism. As I mentioned above, of course. Theism is not a religion. There are even areligious theists - and would be more, one would think, if the choice were not hidden and confused. The cooption of all deity - even all spirituality - by organized religion is one of the crimes on its account.

No they don't. They live ordinary lives enlightened and informed by the teachings of their prophet.

In an ordinary Christian's case, the teachings of Paul and the Gospel writers, mostly.
and such writings are esteemed by the practitioners because they indicate something of the nature of the original preceptor

The original question was about "worship", not "follow the example of", anyway. You seemed to think it strange that a Buddhist would not normally, or originally, worship the Buddha.
any sort of following, if the preceptor is sufficiently awed and revered, easily becomes worship.
And in the case of Buddhism, it is the later schools (zen) that are most strictly opposed to it (and you find also, by no coincidence, that it is the zen buddhists who are most spontaneous in their habits and practices)

Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.

If that were the case enlightenment could be learned in a classroom.

yes I agree
my point was that your breaking things down etymologically doesn't indicate a difference between the vedic and buddhist use of the root - I mean to suggest that Buddhism has something else packed into it apart from the traditional usage of the root "budh"

There's the thing about the thing, if it can't be 'described' in any way, shape or form: trying to look for meaning is pointless. Any Zen master or Oriental guru will probably tell you this. It isn't anything to do with the meanings of words (or what words are).

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I forget who said that.
I always preferred “Atheism is a religion like 'I don’t play football' is a football team."

Atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack of a religion.

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

It doesn't make any sense to me, aetheism is not organized, no rules, no beliefs, nothing. I do not see the paradox you are trying to describe.

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

Ok, what supernatural entities that control human destinies do atheists claim to exist?

It doesn't make any sense to me, aetheism is not organized, no rules, no beliefs, nothing. I do not see the paradox you are trying to describe.

Paradox? It's not a paradox.

What if my atheism is organized and has rules, and beliefs? What if I put my faith in Modus Ponens or something.

Since we lack complete information, anything we do will inevitably involve beliefs. So if I want to tack on a bunch of wacky beliefs to not believing, then, there you go.

I'm fairly sure I could construct an atheist religious organization.

Ok, what supernatural entities that control human destinies do atheists claim to exist?

I don't know; I can't speak for all atheists.

I think the case here is that people confuse atheists with atheists who think that their way is the only right way, so they have the right to convert others into atheism, i.e., people who are bothered by theists and "have to show the way to reason", just as christian missionaries have to show the way to Christ.

In this regard atheists can exhibit religious people like simptoms.

Oh, and I think such atheists suck monkey balls - the same I think about any religious zealot or extremist. They lack respect for other people, a simpe courtesy they are too childish to allow themselves.

I think the case here is that people confuse atheists with atheists who think that their way is the only right way, so they have the right to convert others into atheism, i.e., people who are bothered by theists and "have to show the way to reason", just as christian missionaries want to show the way to Christ.

In this regard atheists can exhibit religious people like simptoms.

Oh, and I think such atheists suck monkey balls - the same I think about any religious zealot or extremist. They lack respect for other people, a simpe courtesy they are too childish to allow themselves.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for explaining that to all these monkey ball sucking atheists.

I don't know; I can't speak for all atheists.

But, you just said that atheism can be a religion. In order for that to occur, atheists must make claims to supernatural entities that control human destinies. What claims have you seen that would lead you that conclusion?

But, you just said that atheism can be a religion. In order for that to occur, atheists must make claims to supernatural entities that control human destinies. What claims have you seen that would lead you that conclusion?

Whoa whoa, I was putting a possibility out there. You know, something like "a unicorn could totally tear your fucking throat out, fucktard," except I've never actually seen a unicorn, much less watch one tear a fucktard's fucking throat out.

But to more directly answer your question:
Your behavior convinces me that atheists can, and do, behave just as religious people do.

So thanks for the (Q)ED.

QED indeed.

But to more directly answer your question:
Your behavior convinces me that atheists can, and do, behave just as religious people do.

Sure we can. And do at times. But the point is that our stance is in no way a religious one. By definition. As Q pointed out above.

Sure we can. And do at times. But the point is that our stance is in no way a religious one. By definition. As Q pointed out above.

Religion's the results. You know, sort of like how the good book says thou shall not kill and turn the other cheek, but every good jesus lover wants to see some dead ragheads?

Same thing.

Oh shit, let me quote Richard Dawkins now, pbuh.

Whatever you guys.

But to more directly answer your question:
Your behavior convinces me that atheists can, and do, behave just as religious people do.

So thanks for the (Q)ED.

My pleasure. :)

But, let's get something straight. The behavior you refer to and the object of that behavior should be clarified before you begin to make comparisons.

Can you explain the behavior you refer?

and such writings are esteemed by the practitioners because they indicate something of the nature of the original preceptor That seems approximately backwards, at least among the religious people I know.

Sure we can. And do at times. But the point is that our stance is in no way a religious one. By definition. As Q pointed out above. ”

Religion's the results. - - You seem to be equating the existence of arrogant jerk behavior with the presence of religion.

Seems unlikely, to me.

That seems approximately backwards, at least among the religious people I know.
.
so the christians you know all gather around and talk about what a great writer paul was or something?
:confused:

Paradox? It's not a paradox.

What if my atheism is organized and has rules, and beliefs? What if I put my faith in Modus Ponens or something.

Since we lack complete information, anything we do will inevitably involve beliefs. So if I want to tack on a bunch of wacky beliefs to not believing, then, there you go.

I'm fairly sure I could construct an atheist religious organization.

Good for you, what about the other 200,000,000 *rough estimate* atheists out there? Are they following the atheist religion?

yes I agree
my point was that your breaking things down etymologically doesn't indicate a difference between the vedic and buddhist use of the root - I mean to suggest that Buddhism has something else packed into it apart from the traditional usage of the root "budh"
Well you could say that Buddhism is also defined by the path or the means to enlightenment. The eightfold path.

However Ive noticed in the far eastern versions there is little talk of such things. They have drawn their own maps to the same destination.

Your behavior convinces me that atheists can, and do, behave just as religious people do.People can act that way out of patriotism, love, and many other motivations including--in the case of many of us atheists--pure exasperation. This does not mean that any of those things are religions.Religion's the results. You know, sort of like how the good book says thou shall not kill and turn the other cheek, but every good jesus lover wants to see some dead ragheads?Religion is not defined by its results, it is defined by its premises. Religion is belief that a supernatural universe and the creatures who inhabit it control our lives. The statements and commands attributed to specific prophets define the differences between their religions.

You can only make atheism a religion if you redefine "religion" in a way that robs the term of most of its normal meaning. Religion is the worship of or belief in supernatural forces, deities, or realities. Since atheism isn't a belief in a supernatural force, deity, or reality, it is by definition not a religion. If you want to call anything that anyone believes in and is pationate about a "religion," then sure, I guess atheism is a religion. So is belief in gravity, or the U.S. Democratic party, or your spouse, or anything else. Hey, I like the French language and I try to get other people to learn it. I guess that’s my religion now :rolleyes:

so the christians you know all gather around and talk about what a great writer paul was or something? That would be more in line with your assertions, than mine.

No one I know worships Paul, and I doubt many Christians ever did. Most Christians I know follow his teachings and belong to a religion largely founded by him.

Foillowing the teachings of a founder of a religion, thinking very highly of said person as a person of enlightenment and worthy insight, is not the same thing as worshipping that person, agreed ?

Is this a difficult concept, for some reason ?

You can only make atheism a religion if you redefine "religion" in a way that robs the term of most of its normal meaning.And people do that because they have this annoying habit of revising their languages in real time. :) Many people called communism a religion. In my own field, IT, people say that in some organizations the Capability Maturity Model is a religion.No one I know worships Paul, and I doubt many Christians ever did. Most Christians I know follow his teachings and belong to a religion largely founded by him.Poul Anderson maintained that Christianity should really be called Paulism.

My pleasure. :)

But, let's get something straight. The behavior you refer to and the object of that behavior should be clarified before you begin to make comparisons.

Can you explain the behavior you refer?


You wouldn't get it. But that's ok. Religious people rarely do.

Good for you, what about the other 200,000,000 *rough estimate* atheists out there? Are they following the atheist religion?

How should I know?

People can act that way out of patriotism, love, and many other motivations including--in the case of many of us atheists--pure exasperation. This does not mean that any of those things are religions.Religion is not defined by its results, it is defined by its premises. Religion is belief that a supernatural universe and the creatures who inhabit it control our lives. The statements and commands attributed to specific prophets define the differences between their religions.

Hmm, well, yeah, alright. If you define a religion that way, sure. Maybe a better term would be cult?

Regardless, hardcore religious people and hardcore democrats and hardcore atheists all have the same sort traits.

You can only make atheism a religion if you redefine "religion" in a way that robs the term of most of its normal meaning. Religion is the worship of or belief in supernatural forces, deities, or realities. Since atheism isn't a belief in a supernatural force, deity, or reality, it is by definition not a religion. If you want to call anything that anyone believes in and is pationate about a "religion," then sure, I guess atheism is a religion. So is belief in gravity, or the U.S. Democratic party, or your spouse, or anything else. Hey, I like the French language and I try to get other people to learn it. I guess that’s my religion now :rolleyes:

Depends on the level of belief, really. Or rather, the level of attachment. Semantically, atheism isn't a religion, if we define religion as a belief in supernatural stuff, etc. However, I know atheists that behave the same way religious people do. Their behavior is a product of their (non)beliefs, and in the case of atheists, it doesn't really make sense. But that's ok; fundamentalists rarely make sense.

Hah! Roman has you pegged to a tee. :D

Hah! Roman has you pegged to a tee. :D

How so? Please explain as it would appear Roman is unable to do so. I would really like to know this so-called behavior he refers. Clearly, you seem to know, so let's hear it.

Can one educate a racist on racism? A sexist on sexism? An intolerant bigot on tolerance?

Beyond my abilities I fear :shrug:

Can one educate a racist on racism? A sexist on sexism? An intolerant bigot on tolerance?

Beyond my abilities I fear :shrug:

A theist on theism ? :bugeye:

A theist on theism ? :bugeye:

Sure. Look at all the atheists following theists around on this board. :p

Sure. Look at all the atheists following theists around on this board. :p

And vice versa..

And vice versa..

Someone has to look out for the persecuted!:p

I was wondering why atheism has a symbol? Why is it so organized that it has a symbol?

Everyone wants to be part of a group.

Have you heard of the Carvakas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka)? We've already had our organised atheist movement a couple thousand years ago.

Everything ultimately becomes just another religion.

so do you have to have a written set of rules to be a religion?

You have to agree to a set of beliefs. The rules part I think (organised religion) is more the natural consequence of the human desire for a structural pattern to every part of his life.

You have to agree to a set of beliefs. The rules part I think (organised religion) is more the natural consequence of the human desire for a structural pattern to every part of his life.

and atheists have a set of beliefs, they have meetings, they raise their children to believe as they do, they have a symbol, they think people who don't believe as they do are stupid....but its not a religion??

and atheists have a set of beliefs, they have meetings, they raise their children to believe as they do, they have a symbol, they think people who don't believe as they do are stupid....but its not a religion??

They have no God. So its more like a club.

But they will aggregate around charismatic personalities so they do have prophets. But no God.

I think this thread ended at post #76. The rest lacks any debate worthy arguments.
So to keep conclusions fresh I'm locking this thread so it doesn't sink in further off topic.