Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 28
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by undo

soo, what atheist leaders can we examine and find out if they were really atheists? cause i think that's a pertinent question. if it turns out they were say, buddhists (LOL!!!! yes i know how unlikely that is, just saying)


Atheist leaders? not sure how you'd qualiify that, the ones with the most twitter followers? the most facebook likes? the most books published? what?

And BTW, Buddhists are atheists........this is what I meant by taking the time to learn about the subjects you choose to talk about before posting....


i know buddhists are atheists. notice i prefaced my statements above by stating that atheists are not psychopaths, but the reasoning, the rationale of not having any purpose but survival of the fittest (in the social sense), rubber stamps atheist leaders. not all atheists are psychopaths just like not all religious people are psychopaths. but somewhere along the line, having no restraints on how you treat those below you at all, other than your personal moral code, can be circumvented by things like "let's experiment on those guys. they are inferior physically anyway."

the scientists during the starving to the death of the ukraine, said they were interested to see how the people (who were apparently catholics) would respond, morally, to starvation. they wondered if they would cave in and eat each other, cannabalize each other, and stalin was interested in the concept of forcing them to realize that their prayers were not going to save them because god wasn't real, only their dear leader was. i can get exact quotes if you'd like.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



he doesn't have to wrestle with concepts like what may happen to him after he dies. he thinks he and everyone he has abused, just turns to dirt and that's the end of it. without a value above that of fatty tissues and connective tissues


It really seems like what you're saying is this.

If you're an atheist you have no meaning in life and therefore no grounds for morality.

Yay or nay?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Your whole premise depends on all leaders being devoid of a belief in gods and that has been debunked many times over. A person’s cruelty is not dependent on their belief in deities. For a present day example simply look to the Middle East.

What has been attributed to more killing than any other thing in history? The answer is simple Religion.

It is funny fact that the only religion that has not attributed to a war has been Buddhism and they can be considered atheists. It says a lot about believing in deities.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 



he doesn't have to wrestle with concepts like what may happen to him after he dies. he thinks he and everyone he has abused, just turns to dirt and that's the end of it. without a value above that of fatty tissues and connective tissues


It really seems like what you're saying is this.

If you're an atheist you have no meaning in life and therefore no grounds for morality.

Yay or nay?


NO. i'm saying leaders use atheistic rationale for it. and they aren't leaders because they are nice people. they got there by being ruthless. that is the natural order. but the natural order lacks things like compassion because natural order is instinctual programming. i'd like to quote from a seemingly unrelated film:



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


So going by what you are putting forth we do not need religion but a good philosophy but that will have no bearing on psychopaths because they can be found in all walks of life be it religious or not.

I can agree on that. Atheism has nothing to do with being a psychopath or not.

I am glad we can agree on that.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Based on the Merriam Webster online dictionary, I would have to say that yes atheism is a religion of sorts

source


Definition of RELIGION
1 a : the state of a religious

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


From the same source


Examples of RELIGION

Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.

There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.

Hockey is a religion in Canada.

Politics are a religion to him.

Where I live, high school football is religion.

Food is religion in this house[/ex]

#4 within the definitions would be a suitable fit for atheism. The items bolded in the examples show that people view religion in different ways.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


Atheism is not a belief system. It has no system. One simply does not believe in deities. When a baby is born it has no knowledge of deity’s so it can be considered an atheist.

Atheists believe in a wide range of things however the only thing that is required to be considered an atheist is that they do not believe in deities. It is as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


So going by what you are putting forth we do not need religion but a good philosophy but that will have no bearing on psychopaths because they can be found in all walks of life be it religious or not.

I can agree on that. Atheism has nothing to do with being a psychopath or not.

I am glad we can agree on that.


the atheistic position is the natural order with a few useful moral and social norms tossed in. religion is the same way. the big difference is, the people of the religion recognize when their religious leaders are not following the teachings. there's nothing for atheists to really use against atheist leaders other than the fact they can be heartless and ruthless,which when alls said and done, is just the natural order.

ever watch a cat play with its "food"? most of the time they don't even eat it. it's just for the sport of killing. cats are awesome to humans, but, at the end of the day, they are totally ruthless because they are instinctually programmed to do things like hone their hunting skills at the expense of little rodents and so forth. just elevate that a few notches and you got the same thing in leadership when there's no socially moral position for them to maintain above survival.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

i know buddhists are atheists.


Of course you did...


notice i prefaced my statements above by stating that atheists are not psychopaths, but the reasoning, the rationale of not having any purpose but survival of the fittest (in the social sense), rubber stamps atheist leaders.


This again is you merely making things up out of thin air. Atheist 'leaders' rationale their rejection of the claims made by theists through what you call 'survival of the fittest (in the social sense)'? Is is really that hard for you to imagine people behaving normally, in a good sense, without a god to threaten them with everlasting punishment?

Can you quote what you think as an 'atheist leader' stating as much?

Is this the only reason you don't go about enacting your version of social survival of the fittest? threats from a god?

Do you look at others for whatever reason as 'inferior'?

Can you quote an atheist leader stating as much?


the scientists during the starving to the death of the ukraine, said they were interested to see how the people (who were apparently catholics) would respond, morally, to starvation. they wondered if they would cave in and eat each other, cannabalize each other, and stalin was interested in the concept of forcing them to realize that their prayers were not going to save them because god wasn't real, only their dear leader was. i can get exact quotes if you'd like.


As you know (if you'd read anything about Stalin), he presented himself as a god to his people, and as 'holy' scripts have told us, gods are petty, jealous insecure creatures and they cannot abide by the though of anyone believing in another god (remind you of anyone?).



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


Atheists believe in a wide range of things however the only thing that is required to be considered an atheist is that they do not believe in deities. It is as simple as that.


And that is what makes it fall into the definition of religion. Quoted from my previous post:



4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


As you stated, the only requirement to be an atheist is that they do not believe in deities, this is a principle that they hold with ardor and faith.

As such.....it does fall under the definition of religion



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


okay, let me simplify this by asking you: what effect does the moral or ethical stance of a leader have on their decisions?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Based on the Merriam Webster online dictionary, I would have to say that yes atheism is a religion of sorts

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


This has been done, Atheists reject the claims made by theists, Atheism is the lack of belief....

A- (without) theist- (belief in god/s)

The Merriam Webster online dictionary definition in this case is inaccurate, as the comments on that very page will attest



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


It isn’t a principle it is the default setting when you are born. By your reasoning Babies have a religion when they are born.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


An atheists position can be anything except the belief in deity’s anything else assigned to a person would be relevant to anyone.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo


ever watch a cat play with its "food"? most of the time they don't even eat it. it's just for the sport of killing. cats are awesome to humans, but, at the end of the day, they are totally ruthless because they are instinctually programmed to do things like hone their hunting skills at the expense of little rodents and so forth. just elevate that a few notches and you got the same thing in leadership when there's no socially moral position for them to maintain above survival.


Sigh, again, your making things up

Cats play with their food, or more specifically house cats play with their food, because they haven't learnt to apply the killing bite, something cats learn by watching their mother. Unable to kill their prey, cats are left slightly perplexed and will often simply maul their prey..........a lot.

Again your premise crumbles



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


It isn’t a principle it is the default setting when you are born. By your reasoning Babies have a religion when they are born.


excellent point.
personally, i don't think religion is an accurate description for it anyway. particularly if the idea is to suggest that ancient books are religious in nature. many ancient books were historical in nature, with the added perk of describing some wild events which today, can almost all be defined with science. so i don't look at religious books as religious. i look at them as historical accounts of real events. granted they are occassionally, interspersed with pharaohs, kings, queens, and various other god kings, interacting with their subjects to influence the direction of whole societies, either good or bad or indifferent. and they do have moral codes and laws, but those are also for maintaining social order.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not really, because babies don't have the ability to hold onto the principle that there are no deities with ardor and faith.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]
 


okay, let me simplify this by asking you: what effect does the moral or ethical stance of a leader have on their decisions?


I would say it has a great effect, but morals and an ethical code born entirely from threats is mere subservience.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


nah my cat will only eat cat food. refuses all other kinds of food including beef jerky, steak, ham, chicken, cooked, raw, dehydrated matters not. lol i had a hunter cat who ate what he killed. but a lot of times he just played with it till it died. same reason they sharpen their claws. natural order. the natural order is ruthless, that's all i'm pointing out.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not really, because babies don't have the ability to hold onto the principle that there are no deities with ardor and faith.


so really the default is agnostic? since they don't even know they should be making a choice in the first place?






top topics



 
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join