Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism

Atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism. I wanted to repeat it to see if it would make more sense. Nope.

Atheists believe in the Catholic version of God the same as they believe in Islam's version of God; not at all.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism

Atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism. I wanted to repeat it to see if it would make more sense. Nope.

Atheists believe in the Catholic version of God the same as they believe in Islam's version of God; not at all.

when you think of an argument against the validity of say, "the mahabharata"? what text do you use for the critical retort? take your time. *jeopardy music*

Originally posted by neo96
...

The thing with all religions no one can force another to believe either a person does or they don't, and whether or not atheists like it or not "morality" has a basis in religion.
...

No to everything you say.
But more specifically, as for morality having a basis in religion, yeah, technically it does, but its root basis is in the evolution of group strategy. Social biology.
People just attach religious feelings to what is basically 'doing good' according to group law. Religion is a great way to organise what the main mode of morality is going to be. Not the only way.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism

Atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism. I wanted to repeat it to see if it would make more sense. Nope.

Atheists believe in the Catholic version of God the same as they believe in Islam's version of God; not at all.

when you think of an argument against the validity of say, "the mahabharata"? what text do you use for the critical retort? take your time. *jeopardy music*

The Jeopardy music is going to be playing for a bit longer because I am not following you. Perhaps you could reiterate your point for me. Paraphrase. And if you don't mind, turn down that music.

The Op question is basically poorly phrased.
Technically and logically it can be answered in the negative, and that's all there is to it.
But what the question is really addressing is missionary atheists who act like missionary religiousts (that's probably a word yeah?).

What has to be differentiated is the behaviour of someone who doesn't believe something, versus someone who actively believes that the belief in something is wrong and will go out of their way to prove it.
Even if they do, that does not equal religion.
I believe belief in chemtrails and a faked space program are wrong, and I will go out of my way to a CERTAIN extent to show that, but my belief that those beliefs are wrong does not make it a religion.

Calling atheism a religion is basically a debate tactic of turning the thing they are attacking into the thing they are. It's a sophistry with no real bearing on reality, but every bearing on creating an ego defense reaction, which makes your opponent look weak.

Even if an atheist acts obnoxious and dogmatic and you get annoyed with them, that doesn't automatically make atheism a religion. That's where the parallel is being drawn and where the confusion lies, because religion is associated with those behaviours. Not neccessarily correctly, but there is historical precedent to link them.

What the question really is, is are atheists dicks?
Some are.
Still nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The Jeopardy music is going to be playing for a bit longer because I am not following you. Perhaps you could reiterate your point for me. Paraphrase. And if you don't mind, turn down that music.

trim yer werds. ty

Alrighty. Let's just have a hypothetical conversation. I say, "god(s) are real" and as evidence, I present some ancient text, like the mahabharata. since you don't really know that much about the mahabharata (hypothetically, cause i don't know if you do or not), you decide to draw on your extensive knowledge for why god(s) don't exist. You have a large repertoire of reasons for why that is true -- et.al that god(s) don't exist. for example, you could choose from:

1. no evidence.
2. personal evidence is not valid.
3. too many translation errors
4. all the animals in the world on a boat and a global flood?
5. flat earth
6. unicorns and dragons
7. earth center of universe
8. talking snake in a garden
9. planet is 6000 years old.
10. christmas the winter solstice

where'd you get those particular criticisms? papal interpretation of the bible and the papal interpretation of ancient history. where else. lol

and if i tell you that's the wrong interpretation and try to prove it to you with the actual text in its original languages, you refuse to hear it because you only accept the papal interpretation. that makes you a catholic.... albeit an estranged catholic, cause you only accept a 300+ year old catholic interpretation of the text. now multiply that by thousands of ancient texts. their higher critics were the ones that trashed the ancient world before they had even developed archaeology.

Originally posted by WhiteHat


I found that is very hard, if not impossible for people who takes sides to imagine a neutral position. "If you don't believe in God, then in what you believe?" "Do I need to believe in something?" "What, you live just like that, without any belief?" "yep, just like that...."
It happened to me with almost everyone around me. Threads like this is a good example. If you have no belief, then your non-belief is a belief.

It amazes them a mind without belief, and it amaze me this need for a belief.

Middle way, people, is the best.

edit on 3-12-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

Exactly.

NO belief is true. Ever.

Originally posted by undo

papal interpretation of the bible and the papal interpretation of ancient history.

Sorry I just cannot have this hypothetical conversation.... if we are working on the premise any and all rebuttals against 'God' is somehow based on papal interpretation.

You would have to sell me on that before I willingly responded under it's constraint.

I also don't quite understand what this has to do with atheism. Atheism's only argument would be against the existence of God itself and not against any other aspect of any said religion. Of course most atheists would argue against the other aspects if they are said to be the Word of god... but atheism just means the lack of belief in God. Which is why I am confused with this statement "atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism", and further confused on how what you're saying ties into it.

If I am being slow I apologize. I am trying to understand.

atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism

atheism, truly, is as old as any religion on the planet. people have moments, even while practicing some religion or another, where they could be considered atheist, because they lose their faith, either privately or publically.
i think, however, what he/she meant by that was, if an atheist is going to use something as an argument for why god doesn't exist, they tend to use papal interpretations, such as the "earth is the center of the universe" thing. in effect, they aren't using talmud, or quran or the writings of the buddha, they are using 300+ year old papal pronouncements, more often than anything else. that may be an artifact of the western world, but the fact remains, if they are gonna be atheist against anything religious, it's usually that. it's so easy to debunk.

It's clear that for a lot of people in this thread 'atheist' equates to 'someone who tries to make me feel bad for being religious and thinks they are smarter than me.'
Because to some, that WAS there experience. But now that paranoia and assumption is being projected onto anyone who falls into the atheist category.
(and I think for some, it wasn't even their direct experience, they've just heard someone talk about it and reacted to the story of it, and they now assume that's what all atheists are doing and read it into their statements when it's not neccessarily there).
Just the brain doing what it does best, organising the world according to categories. The same way atheists do for theists.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Now, I don't mean to get us bogged down in a debate about the nature of reality. I just want to point out that you've gotta have faith in something, even if it's faith in the ability of the human race to correctly perceive reality and measure it accurately via science and reason.

But what about those who are aware of the large body of scientific knowledge on the fact that the human brain does NOT percieve reality correctly? (eg. youarenotsosmart.com )
We still manage to get through life.

reply to post by undo


Okay I see what you're getting at. Makes sense to me... and I agree to an extent. Surely there are lots of atheists though, for instance whom are scientists, that disbelieve in God merely because they don't see god under the microscope (so to speak). I'm very reluctant to say majority of atheists would be using those Biblical arguments which were papal influenced to make their mind up. Instead I would think atheists worldwide have a plethora of reasons, and not necessarily based Biblically. As vast as people worldwide have reasons for believing in the existence of God (taking into account deists and everyone else).

I think the majority will concede that atheism cannot "officially" be catagorized as a religion.

But for a proportion of them, they can be considered and responded to as if they were.

That is, responded to as dogmatic, closed minded, disrespectful of others, with beliefs in their own ethical superiority and a sacred mission to wipe out what they judge evil and save humanity . They will even show a marked lack of rational thought, making claims such as "we KNOW no God exists"( - that is not a scientific type of claim, by the way) .

But what I see at the root of this parallel is a focus on the collective reality and community. These behaviors are part of forming a glue between peoples, creating a sense of collective identity.... like someone here mentioned "religion is about a sense of being part of a larger thing." So is science! It searches to determine and uncover our shared reality.


That is social conscience, and though I just pointed out some of it's characteristics that can be seen as detrimental in some circumstances, it also has another side which can be quite beneficial.

There are religious people who do not have such a strong focus- their religion is more of an individual experience; just as some atheists are more individualistic and you won't find them trying to push their atheism on anyone else.


As someone that is more individualistic, I may feel irritated by the pressure that either of those sides may put upon me, but objectively as possible, I must admit that society needs people who care about the cultural glue and shared world views, and make effort to bring us together in cooperation.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

Atheist are open minded?

Some are.

Some are not.

Atheists are not one group.

Why is this so difficult to grasp

Christians are part of a group that has official reading material and subsequently a whole slew of beliefs and rules. We can judge a Christian on countless things as a result. Since atheism does not have mandated doctrine and rules, the only thing one can say about an atheist is they don't believe in God. That's it. Again I bring up this point. Does this not make sense? I can infer many beliefs and moral opinions knowing someone's a Christian simply because I know they read from the Bible. The religious person cannot infer anything similar from atheists in general since they do not have a Bible of their own. You can't lump atheists together for this reason. Not one group.

edit on 3-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

You say things like this, but it's a false hood. Heck, one could make an equal argument that atheists are as predictable as Christians off their non belief in the Bible. There is a whole slew of beliefs outlined that all atheists claim to be nonsense. And I haven't meat an atheist yet that doesn't follow evolution as official reading material, and no it's not fact, it's NEVER been observed, it's believed, not proven.

One universal truth I have found with all atheists... they think they are the more intelligent, enlightened ones. Even your post smacks of such language. I mean It's simple, why can I not grasp it?

Lumping everyone together that claim the title "follower of Christ" as the same minded is the same as lumping atheists. I cannot control the actions of everyone that reads and believes in the Bible any more than you can control the actions of other Atheists... But somehow it's ok to label me and Group me as a close minded and dumb? yeah okay, have it your way.

reply to post by CalebRight14


You'd be surprised. There are open-minded atheists out there, and Lucid's actually one of them, from what I've read of his other posts. Sure, he sounds a little short with you now, but this is a very sensitive topic.

There are atheists in this very community who do not accept evolution, and you can find them in the Origins and Creationism forum. Believe me, they do exist. As for all atheists thinking they're the more intelligent and enlightened ones, you couldn't be further from the truth.

For ages I used to struggle with religion, and thought I was really messed up because everyone else around me just seemed to 'get it'. In that vein, I still feel rather spiritually dysfunctional. Certainly don't think I'm a genius either.

Once again, however, it needs to be said: the only thing that all atheists have in common is their lack of belief in God. Some still believe in the metaphysical in another form, several do not accept evolution, some really do believe in a Flat Earth, etc.

reply to post by CalebRight14

One universal truth I have found with all atheists they think...

Universal truth?

One truth I have found with all the atheists I have met myself.

That's as far as you can take that.

they think they are the more intelligent, enlightened ones.

Some sure. Lots? Probably. Obviously if a religious person thinks he or she is worthy of eternal life over the atheist lots can be said about that! Obviously when a religious person believes they have the sole domain on morality lots can be said about that!

Even your post smacks of such language. I mean It's simple, why can I not grasp it?

So because I am befuddled that some are erroneously lumping all atheists into one group, means I believe myself to be more intelligent and enlightened?? Why can't it simply mean I believe myself to be right on a particular point?

Lumping everyone together that claim the title "follower of Christ" as the same minded is the same as lumping atheists.

Not same-minded.

The point is there is something collectively shared that allows them to be put into a group. I can say with certainty someone that claims to follow a religion like Christianity is by proximal reasoning claiming to follow the Christian Bible.

You cannot with certainty say someone claiming to be an atheist follows any specific book, philosophy, scientific theory, etc. You can surmise many atheists believe XYZ in addition to not believing in God but that is not drawn from atheism. Atheism is simply the non-belief in God. There is no mandated text that would unify them and thus allow them to be grouped as one.

Lets take a deist. The deist believes in "God" but like the atheist has no particular doctrine to calls its own. We can't lump all deists together because they draw from a multitude of sources. In fact because of that, many probably vehemently disagree on how each other reached the conclusion of God's existence. Whereas, someone can say the Mormon reached it through faith in their scripture.

any more than you can control the actions of other Atheists...

I said it a few times before in the thread but I am not an atheist. I agree with atheists often on many matters, and agree with atheism not being a religion. I am a deist however.

But somehow it's ok to label me and Group me as a close minded and dumb?

Which I never said. Nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

You'd be surprised. There are open-minded atheists out there, and Lucid's actually one of them, from what I've read of his other posts. Sure, he sounds a little short with you now, but this is a very sensitive topic.

There are atheists in this very community who do not accept evolution, and you can find them in the Origins and Creationism forum. Believe me, they do exist. As for all atheists thinking they're the more intelligent and enlightened ones, you couldn't be further from the truth.

For ages I used to struggle with religion, and thought I was really messed up because everyone else around me just seemed to 'get it'. In that vein, I still feel rather spiritually dysfunctional. Certainly don't think I'm a genius either.

Once again, however, it needs to be said: the only thing that all atheists have in common is their lack of belief in God. Some still believe in the metaphysical in another form, several do not accept evolution, some really do believe in a Flat Earth, etc.

This was a good post, anything that gives the person you are arguing against pause speaks of some truth.

To address your post, I wouldn't say I'd be surprised, I learned early from a Hindu friend that people can have vastly different beliefs and still have very good thought patterns.

I will not be so arrogant as to say Atheists all believe evolution for a second time, Allow me to rephrase and say I haven't met one that doesn't. I would be curious to hear where they think we came from then, or where anything came from. No sarcasm here, I'd legitimately like to hear it and I'll be checking in on those forums.

I don't know many people that haven't struggled with Christianity, myself included. I'm different than you in that I never thought people just "get it", because they couldn't answer very basic, and to me fundamental questions. It wasn't until I got older and wiser and could answer those questions myself that I really came to my current beliefs.

I would make the same argument then. All Christians really have in common is their belief in God, All the teachings in the Bible are often viewed differently. I would like to talk to some flat Earth types, that sounds interestingly fun

Originally posted by delusion


Exactly.

NO belief is true. Ever.

I don't know about that....
Some people have beliefs about the make up of an atom (and that atoms exist) despite never having seen one themselves, never having witnessed any evidence that they actually exist.
They were just told that by people who claimed to have seen such evidence, and they put faith in them, as they considered them authorities in that area.

Some beliefs might be true. Belief and faith is very necessary when it comes to areas of knowledge in which one does not have direct access to themself.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

One universal truth I have found with all atheists they think...

Universal truth?

One truth I have found with all the atheists I have met myself.

That's as far as you can take that.

Correct, my mistake and I apologize for it. Though I did say what I have found, which limits the statement to my experience.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

they think they are the more intelligent, enlightened ones.

Some sure. Lots? Probably. Obviously if a religious person thinks he or she is worthy of eternal life over the atheist lots can be said about that! Obviously when a religious person believes they have the sole domain on morality lots can be said about that!

Agreed. But I don't think Christians are more moral than anyone else. The sole difference, In my view, is that Christians understand they fail, and ask for forgiveness.. Potentially a spark raising statement I know, but understand my intend. I'm not trying to say you are less of a person, less good, less aware ect. I'm just saying what I believe to be true... ha, as are you

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Even your post smacks of such language. I mean It's simple, why can I not grasp it?

So because I am befuddled that some are erroneously lumping all atheists into one group, means I believe myself to be more intelligent and enlightened?? Why can't it simply mean I believe myself to be right on a particular point?

I do see your point, I'm probably just as frustrated as you are when I so often get thrown in the westboro gay bashing crowd and so resorted to being curt in my response. again, I apologize.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Lumping everyone together that claim the title "follower of Christ" as the same minded is the same as lumping atheists.

Not same-minded.

It shows the same biased and close minded thinking. Not same minded, but you knew what I meant.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The point is there is something collectively shared that allows them to be put into a group. I can say with certainty someone that claims to follow a religion like Christianity is by proximal reasoning claiming to follow the Christian Bible.

I wish this were true, but it's not. If I look at Christ, the number one thing I think of on how I should treat ANYONE, is mercy. Never condemn. That I believe is what Christ was teaching.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You cannot with certainty say someone claiming to be an atheist follows any specific book, philosophy, scientific theory, etc. You can surmise many atheists believe XYZ in addition to not believing in God but that is not drawn from atheism. Atheism is simply the non-belief in God. There is no mandated text that would unify them and thus allow them to be grouped.

I kinda can though, just in the same way people group Christians. As I said, there are people that label themselves as followers of Christ that are anything but... at least IMO. The Bible is not really a mandated text that all Christians must memorize and follow. The path to salvation is a belief in Christ and a request for him to save you. Not reading the Bible. So I would argue this point.You'll also have people get very different opinions from the same Bible verse.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Lets take a deist. The deist believes in "God" but like the atheist has no particular doctrine to calls its own. We can't lump all deists together because they draw from a multitude of sources. In fact because of that, many probably vehemently disagree on how each other reached the conclusion of God's existence. Whereas, someone can say the Mormon reached it through faith in their scripture.

Okay... I'll cede you that.

You haven't been anything but cordial and reasonable Lucid, and I find fault with you no more than I do myself. I get tired of arguing with people that just can't listen to reason(at least in my mind). That said Lucid, I thank you for your reply, you have shown logic and reason in your statements, and I appreciate it.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by delusion


Exactly.

NO belief is true. Ever.

I don't know about that....
Some people have beliefs about the make up of an atom (and that atoms exist) despite never having seen one themselves, never having witnessed any evidence that they actually exist.
They were just told that by people who claimed to have seen such evidence, and they put faith in them, as they considered them authorities in that area.

Some beliefs might be true. Belief and faith is very necessary when it comes to areas of knowledge in which one does not have direct access to themself.

Yeah okay, I think maybe I'm drifting off a little into phenomenology or solipsism here.
The object of a belief can be true, but the act of belief will always just be belief; it's a verb.
We don't have to 'believe' in truth or reality, we just experience it, no story about it is necessary.
But this probably isn't relevent, it was just a phase of realisation that was important to me at one point.

HERE YOU GO


/ END THREAD