Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Originally posted by blackcube
Let's pretend god exists.... Which god?

And after that the most important of question : WHY should I worship such god? Give me good reasons for me to do it. It's simple question and I never heard a good reason to do such thing.

cause he's even more talented than the guy that edited this video


he's a better guitar player than this guy


he's a better singer than this guy?


more creative than this guy?


i guess the idea is that abilities we have as a species that are pleasant, exciting, fantatstic, like music, art, creativity, etc were from him/her as he designed our repertoire of abilities. so if'n ya can worship metallica....ya get the idea. i mean you give these guys your money for their stuff (theoretically since i don't know your particular taste in music).

reply to post by Seede


the burden of proof lies with those making the claim (there is a god)

atheists are people that have not accepted that particular claim

simples

If the case for a god was in a court of law it would be found 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence, and thrown out.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

atheists are people that have not accepted that particular claim

don't panic. no one is forcing you to accept the claim and if they do try to force you,
they aren't speaking on behalf of the god who gave you free will.

reply to post by undo


If anything, the artists you list there are proof that there is no god, or that he simply has no taste.

Text Let's pretend god exists.... Which god? And after that the most important of question : WHY should I worship such god? Give me good reasons for me to do it. It's simple question and I never heard a good reason to do such thing.

reply to post by blackcube


Let's pretend that god does not exist. Which God? All gods??
Why should you worship such a thing as a god? If you do not believe there is such a thing as a god then by all means do not worship a god. That choice is yours. No one frowns at you for your choice. Does that make you mentally superior to any one who believes in a god? In most cases it does not but then in some cases it might if it involves harming other people.

You have never heard a good reason for believing in a creator and that is a valid reason that I accept. Most atheists have the same mindset with many reasons for disbelief. The foremost reason, that I am aware of, is that most atheists require physical evidence. Yet when physical science does show physical evidence then it is ignored by most.

Modern science tells us that the universe is rapidly expanding but science cannot explain exactly where and what it is expanding into. Some religions have told the creationists this answer thousands of years ago but it remains ignored simply because physical evidence is not available. But now the science of today confirms the literature of the ancients without any due credit to these ancients. Why? Because of the vast division between theology of creationism and theoretical science. It's a club mentality and if you are not a member of the good ole boy club and pay your dues then you are ignored. Most science today requires a sponsor and it is the sponsor who dictates product. Very few scientists in this country are self governed or employed. In this country we are rated as 25th - world wide - in science and math.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by undo

 

If anything, the artists you list there are proof that there is no god, or that he simply has no taste.

hehe. i knew that was sure to be rolling around in somebody's head. the obvious answer to that is he also gave beethoven his abilites, and michaelangelo, his abilites, and jackson browne, garth brooks, the london symphonic orchestra, and one my personal favorites, the collected movie scores of john williams

Text the burden of proof lies with those making the claim (there is a god) atheists are people that have not accepted that particular claim

reply to post by Prezbo369


@ Prezbo

You missed the point altogether. The point being that a true creationist does not make a claim of fact for their belief. Their belief is a statement of theology. Theology is belief and not a statement of fact. Common sense tells almost everyone that belief in a creator is simply that. If it were intended as a fact then it would not be a theological belief where as an atheist makes a factual claim that there is no god. If an atheist would state their claim as theory then that hypothesis would be the same as a creationist theological statement. Then both camps would be on equal footing and the rules applied would be equal. The rules that atheist make up are silly and without any sense of comprehension.

hey by the way, they are saying now that neandethrals were building boats and navigating them on the water, even into the mediterranean. i'm beginning to think neandethral was not exactly how he was presented originally lol

reply to post by undo


Now that's enough to make me a believer!

Originally posted by Seede

@ Prezbo

You missed the point altogether. The point being that a true creationist does not make a claim of fact for their belief. Their belief is a statement of theology. Theology is belief and not a statement of fact. Common sense tells almost everyone that belief in a creator is simply that. If it were intended as a fact then it would not be a theological belief where as an atheist makes a factual claim that there is no god. If an atheist would state their claim as theory then that hypothesis would be the same as a creationist theological statement. Then both camps would be on equal footing and the rules applied would be equal. The rules that atheist make up are silly and without any sense of comprehension.

You're joking right?

If creationists weren't attempting to throw their 'beliefs' down children's throats then you'd have a point. If creationists weren't attempting to hijack fact-based scientific theories with their 'beliefs' you'd have a point.

But they are, and they continue to do these things, even going as far as to build a [url= museum[/url] filled fact based claims.

Infact, you'd struggle to find creationists that do not have some kind of fact based 'belief' on creation.

Now I admit all they're doing is making things up and being dishonest, but they attempt to present their claims as-though they are 'fact-based'.

The Origins and Creationism forum is obviously a place you've not yet visited. Its filled with creationists attempting to make fact based claims, even if they're totally ridiculous. And that's just here at ATS, have a poke around youtube and other such places and you'll soon see.

What you describe as a 'true creationist' is a very rare creature these days (not as rare as atheists who make fact based claims that there is no god/s), and not the norm in 2012, unfortunately....

And these 'rules' apply to everything, not just theism.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Prezbo369

atheists are people that have not accepted that particular claim

don't panic. no one is forcing you to accept the claim and if they do try to force you,
they aren't speaking on behalf of the god who gave you free will.

edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

Were you asked if you wanted free-will?

I wasn't.....

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Prezbo369

atheists are people that have not accepted that particular claim

don't panic. no one is forcing you to accept the claim and if they do try to force you,
they aren't speaking on behalf of the god who gave you free will.

edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

Were you asked if you wanted free-will?

I wasn't.....

that's what you call a conundrum. but gimme a sec, this maze is easy. if you were asked, then you would have free will to provide the answer, and i'm assuming the answer was yes, or you wouldn't still have it. or something like that. so you must've forgot your answer lol

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by undo

 

Now that's enough to make me a believer!

john williams fan or acapella fan?

reply to post by Prezbo369


this is true, as a believer, i do make claims that i personally think are true, so they become fact to me, but that's completely personal. if they are not well supported, then i call them theoretical opinion. the argument of atheism is that personal evidence is not admissible. the only real issue i have with that, is that personal evidence is accepted to one degree or another in science, such as the concept of correctly dated and thoroughly vetted dig sites can some times be a bit questionable.

however, i tend to believe there is a limited amount of evolutionary process to begin with but that it was artificially or sentient-ly, might be a better way to put it, enhanced. i also believe for the obvious reasons, that microevolution is real. i have personal evidence of that, as well, since i can no longer use some antibiotics as my immune system has mutated into a resistant state.

so i'm not against the idea of a pre-adamic world, although i think even that is a 3 phase component. adam (plural word) and then later, a different kind of adam. and then an even older civilization that had no adam (first or second). i think the planet is incredibly old as a result. i don't think the opening passage of genesis (verse 1) is talking about an event that directly preceeded verse 2, because the text of torah/pentateuch is apparently only regarding the dispensation of the second adam, starting with the ending of the last ice age.

i'm also working on the idea that the reference to the creation of the universe in verse 1, is related to this (there are five videos in all to get the full picture you need to watch all five, but here's the first one anyway):

and that as a creative function, or the machinery for creation / destruction and who knows what else, the elohim as creators of life, became synonymous with the method of creation of the material universe and that these may be two entirely different things that share the same name because of their creative functions. that's not to say they absolutely didn't use the method for material universe creation, to create, just that they may be occassionally confused due to the fact the word "elohim" in the torah is applied to several different types of sentient beings, most of which apparently don't exist in this dimensional space unless they cross over/materialize/phase shift or something .

my newest working theory is that it has something to do with quantum entanglement.

No, it is not and can not be "technically" considered a religion.

As a non-believer in any creator or follower of any religion, here's what I've found: Those that do believe can not understand not believing or even accept that it's possible to not believe in "something somewhere."

For the record I do not argue or debate with religious people about religion. I do not think I'm smarter or more advanced or anything like that.

It's just my way and everyone in my life knows and respects that - and I'm constantly around Christians, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Agnostics and Muslims every single day it doesn't effect me (or them) in the least... well, that's not 100% true - our company parties are way better because of all of the different foods available!

reply to post by undo

don't panic. no one is forcing you to accept the claim and if they do try to force you, they aren't speaking on behalf of the god who gave you free will.

What does the Christian's Bible say on the matter? I would say it's rather clear the religious are commanded not to be passive in their personal beliefs, but to convert everyone on the planet

Matt 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Matt 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

James.2:24-26
You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.

Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

I wonder what this God feels about people trying to change the Christians mind or the non-religious or those of different religious views?

Exodus 22:20
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.

Deuteronomy: 13:9-10
No, you must kill them with stones. You be the first one to pick up stones and throw at them. Then everyone must throw stones to kill them, because they tried to pull you away from the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own

Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest.

So God commands you to convert the World. God commands you to kill those that try and convert you. Or simply those that hold different religious views or those that won't listen to priests. I would say that's rather pushy!!!! Now before anyone gives me the 'New Covenant' speech... it doesn't change that God commanded this at a point in time!! But okay... here is New Testament.

Mark 6:11
And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when you depart there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Sounds like a threat to me...

I have also seen and heard about a lot more religious standing around in public wanting to 'talk about Jesus' than atheists doing the same wanting to talk to strangers about 'nothing' 'science' 'non-belief'. I have yet to have an atheist knock on my door with a book in hand wanting to spread the Gospel of Dawkins or Hitchens

Undo if there is no reason to panic it's only because people are not following that God

edit on 7-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

lucid

now now you know the new rules were new testament not old testament. and the rules were, preach it, if they say, no thanks, say okay and leave. don't go back and bug 'em. don't force the issue. and certainly don't threaten them with death or inquisitions, torture, etc. that's another reason why the text was hidden for 1500 years. if people knew the vat was way off in the left field in their application and teaching off it, they would've started asking questions way before 1500 AD.