Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

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.

can you explain that a bit better,
particularly the last part?

Originally posted by undo

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?

How can a baby be agnostic without the knowledge of deity’s or supernatural it would first have to question existence in some way first? With time I guess a baby could ask itself the question of what is holding it or taking care of it however I think babys main emotion has to do with need.

reply to post by undo


I think that would be more accurate. It will take years for them to decide for themselves, through their youth they'll be exposed to whatever beliefs those around them have, (and that's putting it lightly some will have it painfully shoved down their throats). As they become an adult and have the ability to examine their own personal feelings and ideas they will eventually solidify their beliefs regarding whether they believe in deities or believe in trees or believe in science and what can be proven to them.

reply to post by Pixiefyre



Not really because I was considered an atheist long before I even knew what one was I never even heard of such a thing as a god until I asked my parents one day about existence. I didn’t set foot into a church until I was in my 30s it wasn’t until 7 or 8 until kids even mentioned things like god. By all accounts I have been an atheist since I was born.

Actually I fluctuate between atheist and agnostic now.

You do not need to reject the principle of deity’s to be an atheist you just do not need to believe in any.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


So you only consider a person an atheist after they reject the idea of deity’s I simply consider a person who does not believe in them as one. I think before I ever heard of the definition of atheist I was called a heathen.

I am curious what would you call a person that has never even heard of the concept of deity’s.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Prezbo369

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.

can you explain that a bit better,
particularly the last part?

Simply put, if you need to be threatened with violence (of the worst kind) to not murder and kill, then it's merely abject and cringing submissiveness.

What's your point? isn't this obvious to you?

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.

Your cat may have developed into a fussy eater, but it still had its ancient instincts as a predator to stalk, hunt, ambush and kill prey. It just didn't have the tools to finish the Job. Your 'hunter' cat? sounds incredibly unlikely that a hunter that counts on it hunting and killing to survive would take the risk of losing its prey due to it playing with it's prey. A very unlikely story.

And as any cat owner will know, a cat with blunt claws isn't very good at anything, not just tearing flesh.

Yep the natural order between predator and prey is pretty ruthless. A fox will kill every last chicken in the coup but take away and eat just one. This isn't because the fox is evil and naturally disposed to murder and death, but because its instincts are telling it to kill any moving prey in sight. Again this is due to the fox counting on its prowess as a hunter to survive, and taking advantage of every opportunity that presents itself.

ruthless. clearly this is an example of how lacking a moral reason to treat humans as sovereign beings, ends badly.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Actually I think you were labeled inappropriately. You did not have sufficient information to reach a solid decision one way or another. It was something unknown to you for a number of years, as such you really held neither position.

I changed online dictionaries for this one...just for variety.

Origin: < Greek ágnōst ( os ), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- a-6 + gnōtós known, adj. derivative from base of gignṓskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective

4. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

source

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Pixiefyre

 

I am curious what would you call a person that has never even heard of the concept of deity’s.

Innocent

reply to [url= by Pixiefyre[/url]


This might help you with your confusion

reply to post by Pixiefyre


To be an agnostic you first have to hold a position or have at least heard of one from your definition so default is atheist. Innocent just does not work it would presume a person guilty of something otherwise.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Thanks. I would be an agnostic atheist in one of those categories and before I had ever had a thought about any of it I was an atheist.

Originally posted by undo
ruthless. clearly this is an example of how lacking a moral reason to treat humans as sovereign beings, ends badly.

How much do you want to bet one of those guys was religious that was doing that?

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by undo
ruthless. clearly this is an example of how lacking a moral reason to treat humans as sovereign beings, ends badly.

How much do you want to bet one of those guys was religious that was doing that?

what religion? be careful how you answer this

reply to post by undo


Any that believes in a deity or deities. They are all equal in my eyes.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Naive would probably have been a better answer than innocent.

I say innocent because they are not touched by demands that they follow others belief systems or suffer fire and brimstone once they've passed this life.

When you think about how many religious belief systems there are, each one absolutely certain their faith is the one true path to salvation, even under the label of Christianity there are countless denominations each one believing they are following the one and only true path to salvation. So how does one decide which ONE is the ONE true path. That's an incredible amount of stress, and options to fail.

So initially I chose innocent as they are not subject to the judgement and anger that sometimes follows discussions regarding various beliefs.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

Any that believes in a deity or deities. They are all equal in my eyes.

so why should i obey the orders or laws or moral codes of society? you gotta think this thru, not because it might have some bearing on how i might behave in society but rather how a person who has his eyes on the big prize, might. to my mind, we have had an endless stream of sith lords running the planet, for thousands of years. we just managed to get lucky every so often and get a jedi instead. lol that's rare. and the reason? cause to put it in the infamous words of yoda, it's "quicker, easier, more seductive."

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

Any that believes in a deity or deities. They are all equal in my eyes.

so why should i obey the orders or laws or moral codes of society? you gotta think this thru, not because it might have some bearing on how i might behave in society but rather how a person who has his eyes on the big prize, might. to my mind, we have had an endless stream of sith lords running the planet, for thousands of years. we just managed to get lucky every so often and get a jedi instead. lol that's rare. and the reason? cause to put it in the infamous words of yoda, it's "quicker, easier, more seductive."

I can only speak for myself as far as why I obey the codes of society and that is because it is my nature or perhaps it is only because I was instilled with a good moral compass in my upbringing by my family but it is not due to a fear of retribution or a need to be rewarded after death.. Are you saying without the promise and reward system of an afterlife you would become a psychopath?

I would say from that video many of those men sought solace and forgiveness through some deity for their actions otherwise I would think they would find it hard to go on living with their guilt. The prisons are full of people who have turned to religion and claim redemption through it once they have had time to reflect on their deeds.


I think that one of the major reasons that those who follow Buddhism are generally very peaceful people is because they take time to reflect inward so often therefore they strive for purity in life.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


One thing calling someone naïve or atheist have in common is they are both words used to describe or label.

moved