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: 18
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
HERE YOU GO


/ END THREAD


Please don't do that, you are not a moderator.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


Here is the FAQ from that "church", just for perspective.


The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men. When Paul and Jacki were wed, they hired a non-denominational minister to perform the ceremony. They requested that the ceremony be entirely faith neutral, as they were both devout atheists. To their dismay, the ceremony that the minister submitted for their approval was littered with references to, and direct statements about, god. They pulled out a red pen and started editing, paring down the ceremony into a 2 minute long affair.

For the next year, they would laugh about that story, telling their friends about the “non-denominational” minister who read them their vows in a Friar Tuck shirt, complete with collar. While funny, this also says something tragic about the state of our society when it comes to atheists. Non-denominational means generally Christian. For atheists, this is impossible to accept.

So the couple decided to form a society to provide others with what they did not get for their wedding.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Any atheist who says he/she are not following by "faith" scientific hypothesis and principles (which are subject to change on a whim) and therefore are not a religion is as absurd as a Catholic saying they dont worship idols.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Atheist follow science with just as much zeal as any person of religious faith and by that principle alone become adherent to a form of religiosity, be it "scientific" or not.

And this doesn't even count militant atheists yet.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I would start a new thread for this question however I believe it would devolve into something else like many other threads have. My question is why does it seem that so many people wish to have atheism classified as a religion? What is the purpose? What do they gain from such a thing?

Earlier in this thread I stated that one possibility would be that if such a thing were to happen as in having atheism accepted and classified as a religion I believe that some would try to use that as a way to have things like evolution and or the big bang theory excluded from the curriculum in school. I stated that mostly as a joke because one shouldn’t have anything to do with the other. To be more precise even if atheism was considered a religion those sciences wouldn’t be considered as doctrine and there is no way it would be banned from being taught in school. Even though I know this and most people I assume do as well could there be some people that are actually pursuing that course of action based on the premise I just suggested?

I certainly hope that isn’t the reasoning people are using but either way I would like to know why there seems to be such a push for theists wanting atheism classified as a religion. Can some people please answer this question honestly?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

edit on 4-12-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14I had a post no thanhk you

edit on 4-12-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I am actually thinking of becoming ordained depending on the cost. I know most of it is free but there seems to be some administrative fee. Just thinking of doing it because I think it would be interesting. I did check into if it could lead to a tax free status however it seems the courts have a problem with that. At least in Florida I had a long conversation with my neighbor about it because he has the legal background on those matters.

If you read the site they are trying to raise money to actually build a church and it’s kind of funny because they have only raised $ 226.50 with their goal at $900,000.00 so it doesn’t seem to have much support. It is still funny though.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
My question is why does it seem that so many people wish to hav:-) e atheism classified as a religion? What is the purpose? What do they gain from such a thing?


It seems to me that religion has become a dirty word filled with undesirable repercussions to the point where even those practicing religions or just following a religious figurehead will accuse those of no faith of being in one.

I think subconsciously and in many cases entirely consciously, they are perfectly aware just how ridiculous their position is and they're attempting to make those of no faith to feel just as silly as they do.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Grimpachi
My question is why does it seem that so many people wish to hav:-) e atheism classified as a religion? What is the purpose? What do they gain from such a thing?


It seems to me that religion has become a dirty word filled with undesirable repercussions to the point where even those practicing religions or just following a religious figurehead will accuse those of no faith of being in one.

I think subconsciously and in many cases entirely consciously, they are perfectly aware just how ridiculous their position is and they're attempting to make those of no faith to feel just as silly as they do.


religion is actually not what it's presented as today.
for example, initially, religion was just a set of rules/laws for governing society, with traditions and holidays. it served as a means of government. it created the rules of behavior in a community. it established normative morality. it tried to define the universe, both visible and invisible. it gave more weight to some definitions than others. it had all the same functions that modern western society has. all that has changed are the extent of the laws and normative morality. everything else is nearly identical in function and application, with only different language sets to define things and more sharing of knowledge.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 

I'm very reluctant to say majority of atheists would be using those Biblical arguments which were papal influenced to make their mind up.


you should try an ats search on that lol
they aren't using it to make their minds up. they're using it to discredit anybody who puts stock in ANY ancient texts in which there is written evidence of "super"-natural events. for all we know, supernatural events could be entirely explainable with advanced enough science, since the term supernatural just suggests it's greatly enhanced nature. could be the ancient world texts are the smoking gun on the topic of extra-terrestrial or inter-dimensional beings. i mean, i think they are.

the enlightenment didn't just seek to discredit the bible, in fact, it started off as an attempt to prop up the papal interpretation whilst discrediting every other ancient text. so they threw away every bit of ancient history including any timelines they had established, and started over again. the egyptian pharaonic line was then used to date human civilizations. the problem with that was that manetho had hacked up the pharaonic timeline centuries before that, when he had a showdown with berossus on who's civ was the oldest. berossus argued for mesopotamian civ was oldest, using the sumerian king's list and manetho argued the egyptian civ was oldest by forcing the pharaohs reigns into one linear line, ignoring that on many occassions there were two pharaohs ruling at once (the source of the two crowns of upper and lower egypt).

any time that their refurbished timeline has proven inaccurate, they just ignore it because way too many critical articles have been written on the subject by respected enlightenment scholars. and so we trudge along pretending nothing's wrong with the picture. we can't even get them to correct even the slightest error cause someone might have to admit they made a mistake when they used some enlightenment scholar's critical argument against ancient history. it guarantees every generation will reuse the same faulty premises. so yeah, the earth is the center of the universe, part 10,742


edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
religion is actually not what it's presented as today.
for example, initially, religion was just a set of rules/laws for governing society, with traditions and holidays. it served as a means of government. it created the rules of behavior in a community. it established normative morality. it tried to define the universe, both visible and invisible. it gave more weight to some definitions than others. it had all the same functions that modern western society has. all that has changed are the extent of the laws and normative morality. everything else is nearly identical in function and application, with only different language sets to define things and more sharing of knowledge.


Even if the above were true, that's not what religion is today..........thankfully..


written evidence of "super"-natural events


Such claims could be written down, carved in stone, sent by text or pigeon, it doesn't make them evidence.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Hmm Atheist only listens to scientific explantion because it offers proof of whatever.

Ex. Fire is hot.

They are well aware that this will change when we learn more science.

Thats why they don't pray to science, or have "faith" in it. They know its a learning process and not an 2000yr old absolute non changing rule.

Atheists are not the same, they don't go to church, or follow certain doctrine(with no evidence) and pray to the almighty to win a lottery ticket.

2 Atheists are only related that they don't have a belief in something supernatural, other than that they are 99.99% different. It like saying, just because i don;t believe in Unicorn, i should be categorized with a all the people who don;t believe in unicorn as the same.

Atheism is human default. Religion came afterward.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

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.
edit on 4-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)


Which would presumably lead to the question: if the scientific knowledge indicating the brain does not perceive reality correctly is acquired via the human brain...is it correct?

And yes, we still manage to get through life, most of us. But I think it's pretty hard to get through life without belief in something.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




Such claims could be written down, carved in stone, sent by text or pigeon, it doesn't make them evidence.


they were never meant to be the type of evidence you require. they were meant to be historical. but a bunch of catholic professors decided they weren't historically valid. none of them. not just the bible, but anything older than themselves. and they did this BEFORE the science of archaeology was created. so they weren't working with any measure of empirical evidence for texts even.

the snowball effect that ate ancient history started with frederick wolfe's mistaken belief that the ancient greeks couldn't write when their texts were said to be written. so the greek texts were ruled mythological. without ancient greek history to support them, surrounding ancient histories were ruled to be mythology as well. imagine if we suddenly pitched out the last 300 years of science or the last 6000 years of astronomy, based on a mistake and NEVER RECANTED even the slightest bit, when evidence was found to the contrary on any portion of it, even the tiniest inkling of a thing?


edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by snowen20
 


Atheism is human default. Religion came afterward.

Agnosticism is human default, paired with curiosity. As soon as your curiosity reaches the boundaries of your knowledge and perception, the realm of supernatural begins. To claim that something does exist, you have to give one single example of it, but to claim that something does not exist, you have to travel through all of the Universe and check every corner. And even then you can claim only that it does not exist in this Universe, and you don't know how many Universes exist.
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: spellcheck



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by snowen20
 


Atheism is human default. Religion came afterward.

Agnosticism is human default, paired with curiosity. As soon as your curiosity reaches the boundaries of your knowledge and perception, the realm of supernatural begins.


i don't think that's accurate enough of an explanation. as i mentioned earlier, seems more likely that supernatural just means exaggerated, sexed up, teched up nature, nature that is not mundane in the every day sense. most of the old texts seem to suggest that as well.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
as i mentioned earlier, seems more likely that supernatural just means exaggerated, sexed up, teched up nature, nature that is not mundane in the every day sense. most of the old texts seem to suggest that as well.

Exactly. Supernatural is exaggerated natural, but it includes such natural phenomena that are not yet explained. Basically, everything that exists is natural, so if God exists, God is also natural, if soul exists, soul is also natural. Not only natural, but also scientific. I see no link between atheism and science on one end and deism and mysticism on another. This is purely artificial division. Positivistic science of 20th century has something to do with atheism, but science existed long before positivism was invented. And now is 21th century already and most of 20th century science quickly become outdated. Now we know that we don't understand matter, we don't understand genes, we don't understand evolution. In year 1980 we believed we understood it all. Also there is a growing demand for spiritual component in the world view of an average person. If not being spiritual, then at least participate in discussions about spirituality, etc. From all this I conclude that spirituality is as natural as anything else. But talking about whether deism is natural is a completely different argument. I think that specific beliefs are very personal. And they can be very different.
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
As far as I am concerned the only thing that qualifies a person as an atheist is not believing in deity’s of the supernatural type.

Supernatural to me is simply the unexplainable or immeasurable occurrences through science at the moment. You can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural occurrences. I had a book fly at me from across a room once from the bookshelf. It kind of freaked me out especially because that week my girlfriend and I were messing with an Ouija board. My girlfriend thought it was a spirit we were living in an old house in Savannah. I didn’t know what to think of it. Walla “supernatural” I don’t know what it was and I don’t really care anymore but I call it supernatural. I still don’t believe in deities.

I consider myself agnostic atheist because I am open to the idea that there could be a creator of some kind I just do not think humankind has a clue as to what that is nor do I see anything that points to there being one. I am open to the idea. If a being beams into existence and states they are god or if Jesus all of a sudden shows up I will just shrug my shoulders and say well look at that I was wrong. I think it would be great but I will not bet on it ever happening.

To sum it up to me atheist just doesn’t believe in deities. (The creator type) I think there is more of a possibility that some being has proclaimed themselves to have been a god to our species at some point and the stupid humans that we are believed them although I don’t put much stock in that either I just think there is more of a chance that may have happened than the real deal omnipotent type being possible. I think about Hinduism or the ancient gods like Thor or Zeus could have been more likely to have existed at one time or another in which case we would have thought of them as gods but if something like that were to appear today we would poke and prod it until we had some kind of measurable scientific term for what it was.

Being an atheist does not require me to believe in anything. As I stated I consider myself as an agnostic atheist however that changes with my mood. Sometimes I am agnostic sometimes I am not. To be honest the only time I ever give it any thought is when a thread like this pops up or something or someone brings it to mind otherwise there is no atheist chant, prayer, ritual or anything like that. At least I do not know of one.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mrkeen
 





Agnosticism is human default, paired with curiosity. As soon as your curiosity reaches the boundaries of your knowledge and perception, the realm of supernatural begins. To claim that something does exist, you have to give one single example of it, but to claim that something does not exist, you have to travel through all of the Universe and check every corner. And even then you can claim only that it does not exist in this Universe, and you don't know how many Universes exist.


Isn't Agnosticism just an "I Don't Know".. meaning... in the case of a diety... you accept the idea of a diety in the first place in order to be an agnostic about it.

I say Atheist is default because, the whole idea of a diety is rejected before its inception.

___


imagine an isolated humans, with no teaching of a deity, would assume cloud gives water, and thunder...plants give fruits...sun gives light...

They will have no reason to believe in a deity. imo, Agnosticism is a factor when an Deity is already introduced into the targets world.

In our current world, Agnosticism is possible..i could say all Atheists are Agnostics, leaning more toward atheism.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
moved
edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join