Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

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

 

This might help you with your confusion

To that...

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well I generally don't apply labels, I don't see where it does anyone any good, it doesn't do anything to foster peace or friendship.

You mentioned that naive was applying a label, maybe now you can understand why I chose the word innocent before you corrected me.

I answered yes to the original question because I do believe that the definition of religion, defines a wider scope than strictly applied to deities.

When one holds strongly to a belief, whether it applies to the existence of a deity or the lack there of, whatever belief one holds so strongly that they will not be budged in changing their view unless presented with solid persuasive evidence in opposition. It equals the depth of what is traditionally considered religious. In my opinion such could be said to be holding on religiously to their belief, unbending and unchangeable.

Are you saying without the promise and reward system of an afterlife you would become a psychopath?

no i'm saying thats what happens when we get leaders that don't feel there is anything more powerful than them they must answer to. quit worrying about what i may do for once and look at the guys that are prompting us to kill each other in massive numbers. what's their impetus? they have no restraints once their guns are big enough. they need to believe in something bigger than them but apparently none of them honestly do! the end results are thousands of years of awful.

i have a video i need to show you, to explain how frustrating all this is, from my position.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


I will have to think about that for a bit because Buddhists are atheists and yet when asked their religion it is Buddhism and not atheism. People can definitely act religious about atheism but I cannot label them as religious. You call them a Darwinist or other things that many atheists seem to follow but atheist is just a label for someone who doesn’t believe in deities. We don’t call the atheist Buddhist we just call them Buddhist.

reply to post by undo


I would have to disagree that for a leader to be considered good they have to believe in deities and think they will be held responsible after death.

The reason I asked you if without religion you would become a psychopath is because you asked the question of why you should follow society’s rules without deities. I think it is a fair question that you could answer considering you made it about yourself first. Do you think without the promise of a reward or punishment after death you would become a psychopath? Are atheist really that different from people that believe in the afterlife? I have asked these questions in other threads but no one has ever answered. I honestly want to know.

For some reason I can’t view any videos at the moment I do not know if it is my browser or what but it stopped working can you describe what the video says?

Original post by Spiramirablis

Spiramirablis, "uncertainty" is a good idea, but I need a little more understanding. That, in itself, doesn't seem to be a strong enough emotion to cause some of the craziness we see, but I might be missing it.

Uncertainty isn't an emotion - it's a state

You've chosen to go with emotions as examples of why we can't seem to get along - but the conditions that drive emotion are more obvious and I think examining them makes it a little easier to understand our emotions

Here in America - everywhere, but also here at ATS of course - the uncertainty about which way the election would go was driving us all up the wall

It's not hard to see the difference in the conversations leading up to the election - and how they've changed after

The stock market is driven by uncertainty and certainty - people hire, fire, buy and sell based on uncertainty

Uncertainty for a human being is stressful - we want to be certain

We will manufacture certainty out of nothing - just for how much better it makes us feel

Even if it's based on nothing but consensus

Original post by grayeagle

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We hate ambiguity! It threatens our sense of substance! That is why so often our battles form along the line of either black or white. We want what we believe to clearly define us. We want our drink to be either hot or cold. You are either with me or against me. We want a recipe that will always give us a perfect cake! The same way when it comes to our sense of salvation. We want a perfect recipe to guarantee our eternal lives.

I am most familiar with the Christian faith as I was a pastor for many years. Even though scripture states that we are saved by faith, not by works, so much of church effort revolves around following a perceived recipe of spiritual ingredients. Tithes, offering, baptism, speaking in tongues, bible study, visiting the sick, wearing the right clothes, not wearing jewelry or make up, not utilizing musical instruments, and so on and on.

We stubbornly hold onto rigid beliefs because we are often afraid of the alternative. Ambiguity doesn't appear to offer hope. So we place our faith in what is black or white. Faith is the greatest equalizer. It gives no advantage to the greater intellect nor to the richer man.

I read this in another thread and I found it very enlightened and I thought it was worth posting here for others.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

I would have to disagree that for a leader to be considered good they have to believe in deities and think they will be held responsible after death.

The reason I asked you if without religion you would become a psychopath is because you asked the question of why you should follow society’s rules without deities. I think it is a fair question that you could answer considering you made it about yourself first. Do you think without the promise of a reward or punishment after death you would become a psychopath? Are atheist really that different from people that believe in the afterlife? I have asked these questions in other threads but no one has ever answered. I honestly want to know.

For some reason I can’t view any videos at the moment I do not know if it is my browser or what but it stopped working can you describe what the video says?

and i stipulated in the question, NOT because of what i might or might not do (because i don't want to be a leader) but because of what someone else might do that wants to be a leader. the premise being that if i ignore morality laws, stealing laws, murder/killing laws, i can rise to the top as well. that's how they do it!

the video explains that morality laws are designed to keep everyone obedient to government. but governments deliberately untether themselves from things like morality laws. they create universal laws of morality and then create exceptions for themselves. of all peoples on the planet, those most in need of belief in something bigger than themselves, are leaders. they need it, cause without that, they are walking time bombs as evidenced from thousands of years of horrible badness.

of course, this is predicated on the idea that leaders who claim to be one religion or another, are only opportunists, not actual believers, who have found it useful to drag the morality codes of that particular religion into the political arena as a context of war. stealing from their own people and others, etc. doesnt mean morality is bad. means people who manipulate it from rulership positions, because they can, need to get a clue. something much much bigger than themselves, needs to wake 'em up or something. barring that, there really, truly, is no justice anywhere. ever.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

Do you think without the promise of a reward or punishment after death you would become a psychopath? Are atheist really that different from people that believe in the afterlife? I have asked these questions in other threads but no one has ever answered. I honestly want to know.

I know you presented this question to undo, but I wanted to put my 2 cents into the conversation. I do not think that the lack of belief in a deity and the promise/threat after death would lead one to become a psychopath.

For years I could not claim any religious belief system, I am very technically minded by nature and tend to seek solid proof of something before I believe in it. When I was a teenager I considered myself christian and went to church diligently, and participated in many church activities, this due to an amazing pastor. After he was moved I saw so much harm caused by those claiming to be Christians, there was no way I could align myself with a group so completely different than what I had learned before.

The thing is, my lack of belief did not make me a psychopath. My early learning in the church with that amazing pastor perfectly coincided with the person I am. I have always been caring, giving, willing to help someone when they were down, reaching out to those whom everyone else turned their back on. Protecting the fuzzy little critters too. What I saw in the majority of Christians I encountered after that special pastor was moved was not any of those good things I had seen before. I pastor hated younger people and called me a street walker because I was late to a Youth Fellowship meeting, the next pastor decided to start his own church where he bilked large sums of money from the small town farmers that attended church, his wife wore furs, they both drove Lincoln Continentals. They started their own (non accredited school) and convinced the small town farmers to pull their children from the devil worshiping public school which they did. The government became aware of the situation a year later and the school was closed and the clergy exposed. All of those children came back to the public school a year behind the peers they had before.

Oh and just a small thing....my older sister spent a couple of years as David Koresh's aunt....I think enough said there!

I don't believe I was a psychopath, but I can't say the same for those I described to you.

reply to post by undo

morality laws are designed to keep everyone obedient to government. but governments deliberately untether themselves from things like morality laws. they create universal laws of morality and then create exceptions for themselves

You do not see the parallel here? Religion creates exceptions and even forgiveness for any act committed so the idea that religion is what a leader needs to be good does not hold water. You said if you were not tethered to religious beliefs you could become a leader and I think it takes other quality’s to have that drive not just the freedom to do so. By that reasoning then every major leader of the world should be an atheist because they are not bound to a belief system.

I have lived in countries where religion was extremely prevalent in society and if anything they as a people less moral than the countries where religion was not prevalent. The idea that morality laws are to keep people subservient to government is not the case. Society is what dictates laws it is the shared belief in the correct way of life and its boundaries.

I understand what you are saying I just disagree with it I do not see the evidence that supports your presumptions. It really makes me wonder if some people are just wired mentally to have a need for religion so they follow society’s laws. Where others do not need threats or reward to live there life by society’s rules.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


Thank you for answering you are the first person who has ever done so. So would you say it was the nature of the society’s that made the difference in those areas the conviction of their faith? What do you think made the difference in the overall attitude between those places and people? I’m glad to hear it isn’t a medical reason people are moral or not. I have been seriously wondering because no one would ever answer that question.

I lived in Central America for over a year just traveling and I found as a whole even though the countries were much poorer than those in America they were happier as a people and satisfied with life compared to us. It was a great experience and even though the countries are predominantly catholic the individuals never talked about it that I can remember. So much more is either legal or tolerated yet no one seemed deviant. Americans are so angry compared to the people there.

Religion creates exceptions and even forgiveness for any act committed so the idea that religion is what a leader needs to be good does not hold water. You said if you were not tethered to religious beliefs you could become a leader and I think it takes other quality’s to have that drive not just the freedom to do so. By that reasoning then every major leader of the world should be an atheist because they are not bound to a belief system.

it creates the exception for forgiveness, not the exception for leadership. leaders can be forgiven, of course. but i don't see any of them asking for our forgiveness, do you? they don't think they owe us anything, even though we pay for their cushy lifestyles with our labor, blood, sweat and tears.

yes i am essentially saying that every major world leader is an atheist in the sense that they think they are above their own laws, the moral laws of any religion they may or may not believe in. yet they inflict on us and the rest of the planet by threat of death, hellfire, or both. do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is not a footnote, even. if someone tried to do to them what they were doing to others, they'd blow the whole damn planet up in revenge. that's why they NEED, desperately, to have a belief in something supernaturally bigger and more powerful than them, that isn't also rotten to the core.

reply to post by undo


You see that idea hasnt proven to be true. The Popes which have not been atheists and have certainly been world leaders are far from moral people the current one is a piece of work. In my opinion Obama has been the closest to being an atheist however his past certainly does not show that with his church attendance but overall I think he is a decent guy. Bush was definitely a Christian he was a bit fanatical in my opinion but I think as a person he is a decent guy I just do not care for many of his decisions. Like I said earlier I do not consider him to be too bright. The proposition that all world leaders are atheists that you put forth I find it ludicrous. Sorry if that is a bit blunt but there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. You think the world would be better if our leaders were more religious and I think if they were you would have a worldwide Jihad or another crusade. The idea that a person’s morality is dependent on their religion is unfounded. It depends on the person and there upbringing and not where they think they will go when they die.

The Dali lama is probably the most moral world leader in society and you what religion he is.

I have to take a break from this for a while my eyes are straining to see the screen.

well if you think lack of religious reason will fix that, you're mistaken, since they will still have laws in place to make you behave yourself, while they do whatever in the hell they want. just for the record. lol

Originally posted by undo
i'm not saying atheists are psychopaths. what i'm saying is the entire principle of survival of the fittest, almost always assures the most psychopathic amongst us, rise to the highest positions of leadership.
....survival of the fittest is viewed as the natural order, particularly by atheists. ....

Just have to correct this, if somebody hasn't already.
'Survival of the fittest' does NOT mean survival of the strongest or most ruthless - it means those that are best able to adapt to change will tend to survive. That's all. What that change will be, and what the thing is that allows for a succesful adaption, is not known until after the fact.
The phrase itself wasn't termed by Darwin.

What's more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word "fittest" seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.
evolution myths

Also...
www.google.com.au...:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

Originally posted by undo
you have to admit, even before religious groups go wacko, the first thing they try to do is convince themselves that the people they are about to attack, are somehow unworthy of their consideration. they dehumanize them, in the sense that they remove any need to think of them in a personal moral sense beyond that. they are just one step removed from full on atheism as far as survival of the fittest goes. and that one step at least gives people a chance to defend themselves and appeal to the moral fiber of the person.

edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

although I don't quite follow your last two sentences, it is a sad truth how consistently we, any group that we've defined, will dehumanise outsiders. This is present in varying degrees of extremism in religion, as well as anything else.
Why do you think some people believe the 'elite' are blood-sucking reptilians, or cold psychopaths without any human empathy?
So it's easier to hate them.

well before reading through this I would have considered myself to be an atheist, but apparently if I were forced to give a label to my belief Agnostic Atheist seems to most closely fit,and with that being said after all I've read here I do not consider atheism to be a religion. A belief, yes, a religion....no. I believe that no omnipotent, omnipresent, parent like creator god exists, but I do not worship or deify that lack of a god. I could even go so far as to call it a belief system, but certainly not a religion. Not by a long shot

reply to post by undo

NO. i'm saying leaders use atheistic rationale for it.

Since I am still quite confused, if you would, could you clarify what exactly you mean by "atheistic rationale".

reply to post by Grimpachi

The idea that a person’s morality is dependent on their religion is unfounded.

Religious people think they own morality. I see it in every religious thread. Clearly this is indoctrinated. Ironically that thinking is immoral as it disregards/denies the veracity of ethical codes non-religious in nature, which of course largely makes up the fabric of society. They can look at a very good non-religious person on a daily basis and still maintain religion is needed for meaning and morality.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo

 

NO. i'm saying leaders use atheistic rationale for it.

Since I am still quite confused, if you would, could you clarify what exactly you mean by "atheistic rationale".

alrighty, we the little people of the world (citizens), follow the rules because if we don't, the bigger people of the world (leaders and their police, secret services, military, etc) will come and get us and do mean things like deprive of us freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but leaders don't have that hanging over them. they do whatever they want because, as i mentioned earlier, they write rules of universal morality but make exceptions for themselves. if they are not answerable to anyone, who's gonna make sure they behave? we really have to wait while they murder millions of people? that's illogical.

maybe i should rephrase that just a bit, because the way it is written almost sounds like i'm expecting the impossible -- et.al for god to intervene and make the rulers and so forth, behave, since we can't make them do that, as citizens of their countries (at least not any more). to an atheist that probably seems like a pipe dream since you don't believe that kind of deity exists (which is essentially a father figure, but in this case would be bigger than any earth government or banking institution or religion).

i admit it seems irrational on its face, but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave. it seems the fox is in the chicken coop, the gate is locked, and the owner has vacated the premises.

reply to post by undo

alrighty, we the little people of the world (citizens), follow the rules because if we don't, the bigger people of the world (leaders and their police, secret services, military, etc) will come and get us

I subscribe to the belief goodness is good in of itself. That it's innate, and not strictly as an evolutionary trait. I suppose this makes me spiritual in a sense

As for laws. There are plenty of social reasons outside of punishment being moral is rewarding. You're ignoring this or just don't believe it. However, yes of course the consequence of punishment factors in. Of course. But what's also obviously true is how that applies to the religious. The fear of not winning Gods love by not following the holy rules, or the fear of eternal Hellfire for the same.

and do mean things like deprive of us freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but leaders don't have that hanging over them.

Some leaders well-being and happiness surely depends on the welfare of the People. But I understand what you're saying about 'bad leaders'. What I don't yet agree on is the idea it's connected to atheism.

they do whatever they want because, as i mentioned earlier, they write rules of universal morality but make exceptions for themselves. if they are not answerable to anyone, who's gonna make sure they behave?

If you're talking about sociopaths then I would agree.

dictionary.com : a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

However that's not where you are leaving it. You're trying to bring in atheism. And since you replied to me with "NO" you're not saying atheists are void of meaning and morality earlier. We are left with the idea they are sociopathic atheists. It is the sociopath part that is responsible for failing as moral person and a leader.

we really have to wait while they murder millions of people? that's illogical.

If instilling these leaders with religion was a solution how do you explain religious leaders that have committed murderous atrocities?

but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave.

I believe this World would be a better place if the Abrahamic religions were completely eradicated That's what I mean when I say I am anti-theist.

But really I am not anti-God belief, at all in fact since I am a deist. I most definitely do not agree with you the World would be a better place if everyone believed in the God as described in these particular religions.