Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

reply to post by undo


Amongst their peers.

But you misunderstood my post, or I just wasn't clear. I don't buy into the 'to be cool', that was a response to SisyphusRide who was stating atheists are doing it to be cool.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I was paraphrasing I should have put more emphasis on the part where there is no way mankind could know or understand such a force and less on acknowledging that such a force could exist.

For myself and many others yes agnostic and atheist can be combined or interchanged easily.

A deist is absolute with no room for doubt where an agnostic can doubt all day long.

This is the part I was trying to describe.

humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

An agnostic could also think there are many powers but a deist is limited to one source.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Depends on your perspective, I suppose. I think deGrasse-Tyson's but-kissing type comments and other observations got rightfully and completely pwned at the end there.

reply to post by undo


you have to listen to the beginning closely... "you're not the professor of bringing truth to the public"

but I can see where you're coming from... Dawkins looks just like another preacher man with some new message they think revolutionary.

I'm just waiting on the suicide cults after they begin to realize their lives are insignificant and meaningless without purpose or God.

Myself I just can't see how we seemingly intelligent and organic beings came from a rock, it bums me out just thinking about it... feels like de-evolving

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

does it matter? this just means a think tank was on it...

It absolutely matters. A think tank? How many think tanks can we introduce here for comparison!?

Only a think tank with relevant expertise should be thought of as authority. If you don't agree I don't think we could see eye to eye without long deliberation.

atheism has a history which hasn't gone anywhere

Where is it supposed to go? O.o

some even claim it is older than most religions but i digress, I say it rose from the advent thereof.

I completely agree. The concept of God first, the rejection of its reality second.

Law is what matters in this world we currently occupy

How poetic.

there need be no experts on anything such as philosophy and theology when making Law.

So then we should allow a supercomputer without emotion and sentience to make our Laws. That's the implication. Fortunately less barbaric people understand the role of philosophy of ethics/morality in Law.

from a historical perspective looking at the gene pool as a whole, using my natural gestalt psyche technology it easily appears that atheism is a disease, a curable corruption of otherwise normal healthy cells. Considering of course that 98% of the rest of the planet do not think like atheists do.

Now that sounds new thread worthy I encourage you to make a new thread and expand on it. I will post.

reply to post by Grimpachi

humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

would depend on the definition of deity. remember now, we're working with the concept that somebody else's definition of supernatural and deity, is accurate. and that the rules governing etymology and meaning of ancient writings should all be based on what a couple of guys with alot of clout, decreed.

most don't even know for example, if the meaning of elohim (the actual word for god in the book of genesis, for example, which is actually a plural word ) means exactly the same thing in each case it is mentioned because of the fact, it has been used in the bible to refer to people who have died (the dearly departed), angels, gods with a little g, god with a big g in the royal "we" voice and even more ancient references to the method of creation as opposed to the creator (in effect, the method used and the user of the method were combined into the same action/event). so how can we claim, beyond the shadow of a doubt, when the word elohim is used regarding the creation of the universe that the text means "god" in the sense that it has been taught by papal authority? we can't know that. we can only make assumptions, but we can study it to see how it might fit into what we do know. and there's where atheists say, "nah, maybe some other time."

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Depends on your perspective, I suppose. I think deGrasse-Tyson's but-kissing type comments and other observations got rightfully and completely pwned at the end there.

yes a very professional response... that coming from this seemingly intelligent rock-man?

it was very rude actually, his face was beet red and being he is a zoologist I am sure he grasps the concept of "preservation of the favored races" Dawkins is a racist on top f it all and you can tell by his demeanor.

poor little man...

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Strange that is kind of how I think about religion. I do believe it was once useful and was necessary for mankind’s survival in history but I now view it as the restraint on humanity from becoming united and prosperous the cure has become the disease. I am all for spirituality and see that as helpful to society but the dogma and organization of religion hurts us as a species now.

I do not necessarily think atheism is what the world needs but if everyone was agnostic I think there would be a bright future for all of us. I also take into consideration that almost every major religion has an end of day’s scenario and at some point I believe that some of their prophecies will become self-fulfilling given mankind’s nature.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

there is no reason to have fear of God all in the name of looking cool amongst your peers..

Looking cool is why people pickup smoking not why they become atheists

Let's give what you said some credence though, and say some people claim atheism to look cool amongst peers.. Considering there is much much much more community in religion, it would make sense a lot more religious people would be doing it just to be cool and fit in

actually where you been man? being an extrovert and recluse/independent/odd/eccentric/ect is the way you look cool.

nothing was said about fitting in... what was said was "looking cool amongst peers"

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

does it matter? this just means a think tank was on it...

It absolutely matters. A think tank? How many think tanks can we introduce here for comparison!?

yes a think tank of our nations laws... it is all that matters in this case.

atheism has obviously infringed on others freedom of thought, not just their freedom of speech.

live and let live a concept atheist cannot seem to grasp.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Depends on your perspective, I suppose. I think deGrasse-Tyson's but-kissing type comments and other observations got rightfully and completely pwned at the end there.

yes a very professional response... that coming from this seemingly intelligent rock-man?

it was very rude actually, his face was beet red and being he is a zoologist I am sure he grasps the concept of "preservation of the favored races" Dawkins is a racist on top f it all and you can tell by his demeanor.

poor little man...

oh i gotta watch that again. i suspect the black people are just as favored as any other, particularly since they have so much to offer. i have a very deep appreciation and empathy for the black community. in fact, i get down right ticked off that they are being used to cull alpha whites from south africa, because it's hurting not just the whites but the poor blacks. it's painful to watch it. eugenicists suck nasty pickles.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Strange that is kind of how I think about religion. I do believe it was once useful and was necessary for mankind’s survival in history but I now view it as the restraint on humanity from becoming united and prosperous the cure has become the disease.

I am sorry... globalism is a British concept, unfortunately the rest of the world is not your backyard... the cruel reality of the real world should be enough to convince anyone of that.

I believe spiritualism is the key to our evolution to a point where the rest of the world can be everyones playground... there is one form of it holding us back (Islam)

come to think of it why is it dangerous to travel in Mexico? they are Christians down there... do you believe religion has anything to do with the nature of man? I believe it is still very much needed.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


no it could be considered a belief but not a religion. a religion is something you follow which has rules and practices like praying and attending mass or reading a book, if atheism had the same sort of stuff then it would be a belief in a religion.

all atheism is, is a belief there is no god, they don't attend mass and have some sort of practice they must do everyday or at weekends.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

atheism has obviously infringed on others freedom of thought, not just their freedom of speech.

live and let live a concept atheist cannot seem to grasp.

Pot calling the kettle black times 9000.

Since you brought up history more than once.

You're saying historically atheists, and not religion, has been guilty of infringing on 'freedom of thought/speech'?? That religion historically has embodied the 'live and let live' ideology??

I think this might be my last response to you. This is getting silly.

reply to post by undo


you should know a little history about Dawkins...

He is a failure at being a father, his wife left him and took away custody of his daughter and then she schooled her daughter in a Catholic school.

hence his angst...

Originally posted by lifeform11
all atheism is, is a belief there is no god, they don't attend mass and have some sort of practice they must do everyday or at weekends.

i don't go to mass or have a practice i must do, so i'm gonna venture a guess that what you're describing is just the opposite of catholicism, not the opposite of every religion or philosophical view that favors supernatural/hyperdimensional/extra-terrestrial or what have you, beings capable of manipulating time, space, gravity, biological matter and other forms of physics.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by undo

 

you should know a little history about Dawkins...

He is a failure at being a father, his wife left him and took away custody of his daughter and then she schooled her daughter in a Catholic school.

hence his angst...

oh i didn't want to know all that about him. having marital problems is unpleasant, especially if the family splits along such drastic forms of world view. ugh. i feel bad for all of them. that's gotta be rough.

Originally posted by undo


so do you think taking a word and assigning it its correct definition is an example of filling in gaps?

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

No it's a way of establishing a common base for communication.
What word?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Pot calling the kettle black times 9000.

lets use ats as a microcosm... when I first came here I was interested in discussing the mysteries of religion and the wonder of it all. It would appear there is a majority of theists in these religious sections.

now lets look upon how atheist present themselves in a discussion amongst theists... why would they even enter such a topic in the first place?

I am speaking mainly of the other section (religion, faith and theology) the titling of the section mentions nothing of conspiracy or disproving religion.

I know an attack move and aggressive posturing when I see it... even if it is under the auspice of furthering knowledge. Atheist's (on ats anyway) do not appear to be good people.

reply to post by undo


it's in the outcome... the determination to prove to his wife that he is right in the end. (even though they are disbanded)

psychology 101

thinking about it seems funny he was "married" isn't that a spiritual or religious concept?