It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
No. As the term religion means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods", then no.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
something funny...

theoatmeal.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I am sorry but the debate of atheism being a religion being based on ego is at best comical at worst irrelivant.

One just look at the court cases filled by that famous atheist and big ego takes on a WHOLE NEW LEVEL.

As for ego in general being a deciding factor then every football fan who is a overt fan is a considered a church on themselves.

The church of DA BEARS for example.

So ego just plays into if that practiciner of atheism/christianity/the great spagetti monster/evolution is an obnoxious jerk or or not.

But not a factor in if something is or is not a religion.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger

You just stated the situation that exists that logically shows that not just "belief in a supreme being" is considered a religion.

What are you referring to? I gave examples based on a 'loose definition' that I do not support.


The very definition of religion is EXACTLY THAT LOOSE AND BROAD APPLYING TO MANY THINGS EVEN TO ATHEISM.


Who's definition? The definition I am using is similar to what others here have said. Religion has dogma. Atheism doesn't. You must be using the definition that any belief system is subject to being labeled a religion.


atheism issue that now you want to limit what it means

Its meaning should be limited. It's a lack of belief in God. That's it.


Now atheism possibly faces the same restrictions they have FORCED upon christianity (for one example) and they don't like it.


What restrictions have atheists forced onto Christians?

And how would restrictions be applied to atheists? Myself and others here have tried to show before how diverse atheists are. They are not one group. So what restrictions do you speak of?...
edit on 3-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Another_Nut
 



Religion is a very loose word.

And a belief system is a religion.


Indeed that is very very loose.

So loose that anyone now is a religious person, as everyone has a belief system.

Belief in homeopathic medicine? Religion.


In short YES.

They are some that can or do fall in the class of nature based religion such as druid or wiccan.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Myself and others here have tried to show before how diverse atheists are. They are not one group.

Indeed. Pretty much every single person is an atheist to some degree. For example, most Christians don't believe into Thor or Shiva, and are thus atheists towards them. I'm sure the vast majority of Christians would readily admit that they think it's ridiculous to believe that Thor is real.
edit on 3-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Well, yes. Atheism is technically a religion according to a ruling on 2005. Whether people agree on it, it´s another question. One thing is for sure, they have their own church.


As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.


First Church of atheism

So yes, Atheism is a religion.

Peace





That may very well have occurred , but,
A court ruling also does not mean it was correct in its ruling.
You may need to specify in which country this court ruling took place and thereby specifying within which borders this ruling remains valid.

Albania could rule that Christianity is no longer a religion, does that for you change the fact that it is?
I doubt there is a court that rules for the world so then ,how does something like that simply make atheism a religion by any standard?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Myself and others here have tried to show before how diverse atheists are. They are not one group.

Indeed. Pretty much every single person is an atheist to some degree. For example, most Christians don't believe into Thor or Shiva, and are thus atheists towards them.


I would love to see that addressed every time from the religious
Especially in this thread. I won't get my hopes up.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 



Ok I will take up your challenge in this way.

Science says and claims there are sub atomic particles called Quarks.

Show me one.
Not an artist rendition but a bonafid picture of one.

Let me hold one in my hand or see one under a microscope.

Now you can't do either of these unlike (example) a diamond.

But you rely on scientist who put a formula on a blackboard explaining one.
You have them give an artist rendition of one.
You see them flick some switches, see some lights go off, some guages flicker, some computer print out some figures and VOLA PROOF but you need them to explain it.

So how is this different than a priest who puts some symbols on paper, makes a drawing of a clestial being, does a chant and show over food items and VOLA PROOF OF GOD but you need them to explain it.

See in both you have "FAITH" that what you are being told is the truth but no hard physical evidence you can independently view and determine for yourself.

Now I am not saying there is not quarks.

But I just showed you you cannot prove one exists without faith in a scientist they are telling the truth.

I am not going to rehash where science has been proven wrong or serious gaps in their facts leading to doubt.

But I will leave you with the biggest religious type faith science tries to pass off as fact.

THE BIG BANG THEORY that states something came from nothing....IN DIRECT VIOLATION of basic scientific fact.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Myself and others here have tried to show before how diverse atheists are. They are not one group.

Indeed. Pretty much every single person is an atheist to some degree. For example, most Christians don't believe into Thor or Shiva, and are thus atheists towards them.


I would love to see that addressed every time from the religious
Especially in this thread. I won't get my hopes up.

The real trick is to push them to answer why they don't believe into Thor but maintain their belief into the supernatural being that their parents/community said was real. Of course, the question includes the answer..



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 



In short YES.

They are some that can or do fall in the class of nature based religion such as druid or wiccan.


But as you said, not all people who believe in homeopathic medicine fall into line with these nature religions. What's the difference? Dogma, ritual, and depending on when/who (deity). Atheism does not have dogma, ritual, or worship. You just essentially said it becomes religion when it includes those, which supports the point atheism isn't included.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger
See in both you have "FAITH" that what you are being told is the truth but no hard physical evidence you can independently view and determine for yourself.

You may take what scientists say on good faith, but it's not mandatory. Materials and methods are always spelled out. The experimental data is usually freely available. In principle, it's always possible to check every single claim made. Not so with religions..



THE BIG BANG THEORY that states something came from nothing....IN DIRECT VIOLATION of basic scientific fact.

You should do some fact-checking before posting..



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Well first again I point out that the definition IS THAT LOOSE. It is not only shared by websters dictionary (which I previously posted) but also by the SUPREME COURT.

The fact you and "others" have similarly said is different than this is your first amendment right (which I will defend) is just that your opinion.

Your wish "Its meaning should be limited. It's a lack of belief in God" is just that a wish. It does not make it so.

As previously stated the supreme court has ruled on this. The same one that other athiest go to to get (for example) manger scenes removed from public buildings.

Now when it is not to your favor you complain.

As for what limits could be placed on atheist how about this role reversal.

You cannot (as a religion defined again by the supreme court) be taught in schools.
You cannot have atheism mentioned or applied in government documents as seperation of church and state.
You cannot hold public displays of atheism on public lands, in public buildings, or at anytime done by government workers on government time.

You cannot display any books, symbols (if they exist) if it offends co-workers.
You cannot tell others at work about atheism as it is "forcing" your beliefs on others?

Lastly (but not the end of the list) I can sue to an atheist to stop them from doing/saying/displaying anything I disagree with because it offends me or makes me feel uncomfortable.

How is that for role reversals.

Now as for your statement "Myself and others here have tried to show before how diverse atheists are. They are not one group" and that is a fair and reasonable statement.

But for some reason atheist/activists seem to do that VERY SAME THING for all religious types.

Be they quietly passing out religious materials, active school groups, posting displays on public lands, prayers at graduations or even statements on money.

Just a few examples but we here constantly ALL RELIGION is bad or no place in XX location.

So again I understand why but you are trying to change definitions, deny supreme court rulings, and pointing out atheist are not all the same when the debate/definitions suddenly are factually provable to be against your view.

Me personally I have no problem you not being religious/worship the spagetti monster/islam/ect or if your school (example) you are graduating at has the valectatorian say an islamic prayer, or you have a menorah in front of city call.

I can choose to ignore, tolerate, or just plain leave the situation.

What I oppose is one of those (or other group) telling me though the courts that because they are offended or "feel they are being forced to endure/listen to/see" something I have to stop is where I draw the line.

Unless someone is putting a gun to your head (or other physical restraint/force) to say or do something then shut up, put on your big boy/girl paints and deal with it like an adult.

If being offended is all it takes an atheist would not be able to voice their opinion about anything


edit on 3-12-2012 by scrounger because: hit post by accident



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Atheism is, by definition, a lack of religious belief. I honestly am real sick of atheists harping on those of us who believe in a higher power. If they want to be ignorant of the beliefs of others, than I encourage them to keep that ignorance to themselves. I am of the belief that it does not matter what you believe in, as long as you believe in something. However, I am also of the opinion, however, that organized religion takes most of the benefits of spirituality and muddles them in self-righteous dogma. To answer your question again, though, atheism is based in a sheer lack of any sort of spiritual or religious belief and is, I believe, also based in sheer selfishness.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Claiming atheism is a religion, is like claiming darkness is a type of light. Completely illogical. Atheism is a lack of religion, not a type of religion, same as darkness is a lack of light, not a type of light.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 



You may need to specify in which country this court ruling took place and thereby specifying within which borders this ruling remains valid.


It´s the USA. Here is the link to the article, posted by another poster here on page 6 : Court Rules Atheism a Religion

Whether or not someone agrees with the ruling is another question. For my part however "Atheism" is a " Belief". The belief that there are no Gods/Deities.

However you did´t addressed the other part of my post concerning the First Church of Atheism, since according to them :

As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.


Peace



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scrounger
 



In short YES.

They are some that can or do fall in the class of nature based religion such as druid or wiccan.


But as you said, not all people who believe in homeopathic medicine fall into line with these nature religions. What's the difference? Dogma, ritual, and depending on when/who (deity). Atheism does not have dogma, ritual, or worship. You just essentially said it becomes religion when it includes those, which supports the point atheism isn't included.


Well again yes some do,

Alot say there is no god, believe humans control their own destiny, controlled by scientific laws, and/or the universe noting but a series of random events (I know I have missed a few views, sorry).

So again by simple definition there is a dogma as you will that no god can exist, or that randomness controls our lives, ect.

So there is a belief, just not in a supernatural being.

Again the definition is not limited to or constraint by the dogma, ritual, or worship requirements you state.
They can be included but just because they are not there does not change the very basic definition of a "belief".



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
It is a religion.

The Satanic Bible was only written to contradict the Bible.

Athiests are Satanists.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Atheism is a religion and one that's been fostered upon western civilization since the days of Marx, communism and the like.
To be a religion one must have a belief system at the very least and this is Atheism in a nutshell.

To actually be an Atheist one must believe there is no diety in the first place.
There is no way around this, either you believe in not believing or you believe in something.

Either way it's a religion, just like the fruitcake scientists who act like high-priests of their own religion called 'mainstream science'



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
It is a religion.

The Satanic Bible was only written to contradict the Bible.

Athiests are Satanists.



As far as ignorant, ill educated posts are concerned, yours is legendary!

What's it like inhabiting a brain devoid of independent, rational thought? I can only imagine that just about everything in the world is somewhat of a mystery to you; which is why you insert religious ooga booga into just about everything.

IRM



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join