Is Atheism just an Antichristian Religion?

a reply to: seagull

"IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE, THERE ARE MANY ROOMS." [John 14:2]

I, and many who are much better educated than I in these matters, take this to mean that there are many paths to the truth, to meeting the godhead if you will. 

Do you believe that when somebody was writing that verse, he/she was thinking, "Oh yeah, the Herodian way, that's cool, and the temple way, and the Samaritan way, and the Pharisees, and high priest, and doctors of the law, oh yeah all good"?

a reply to: pthena

Probably not. Doesn't really matter what they thought. They're dead and gone. It matters what I think it mean, or you, or anyone else.

What do you suppose it meant to the Christ when he said it? Personally, I think he'd agree with me.

That phrase has been said in many ways, in many other places, by many other people. Wisdom like that is universal.

of course it is.

originally posted by: Raggedyman



Nobody practices atheism, that's interesting
I believe a small minority does practice atheism

They read, study, proselytize, idol worship and dwell on it as a single issue
There are some people on ats who make it their primary focus

it is interesting when you give more than a knee jerk reaction to it. Yes some of us do read and study. We read the books from as many cultures and religions as we can. It's called theology and debate, which is what you are describing that we do.

Which is more than most christians can claim for themselves. You see, we are not afraid of ideas, not even your's. We are open to discuss them and that has led us to see the plagiarism that has built the multiple christian models. Even the ones you reject. We can have these discussions peacefully, which by the many manners violations you rack up in these types of threads, you are either unable or unwilling to do.

I know atheists who don't believe in God/s

yes you do. That's what atheists are. People who don't believe your claims about gods. I bet there are many more that are afraid to admit to you that they don't believe. You don't seem like the type who could let that go without chastizing or threatening them. Which is what produces anti theists. Most of them have had an abusive believer who physically or mentally pushes these stories as fact to get their victim to act in line with their own interpretation of the texts. Which is terrible.

and others who preach atheism as a solution

i love how you use words like "proselytize" and "preach" as derogetory things that atheists do. You are one of the worst offenders when it comes to calling atheism a religion. But you are also not the average christian. You are a militant christian. You are the type of believer that most of us atheists fight so hard against. You are the type who throws reason and manners to the curb to berate people about not getting in line with your way of thinking. All the while claiming some kind of superiority for not needing facts and evidence to come to your conclusions. I always look forward to rubbing your nose in your own mess of hateful comments you leave laying around here.

You, and people like you, are why so many people's eyes are opened up to the hypocrisy of the christian religion. Keep doing the good work, you are helping atheists more than we could help our own cause. If atheism is the solution, people like you are the problem.

a reply to: seagull

What do you suppose it meant to the Christ when he said it? Personally, I think he'd agree with me.

Who/what is the Christ?

When you say "The Christ" are you referring to Jesus of Nazareth the man? If so, why do you call him "Christ" and not "Jesus"?

Or, are you referring to the Christian's supposed spiritual being, born of a virgin, died as a sin sacrifice, rose from the dead, is God and the only way to "God's Kingdom" is through believing in his death and resurrection?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh woodcarver, well done you

I listen to all you cooky atheist fundys all the time

I am never surprised about what they say and do

Militant, I hear many atheists calling for an end to religion, death to choice, some of you atheists are far more militant than I could ever imagine to be
Strangely, most of my friends are atheists and never act like some here

I can in the real world discuss religion with many atheists and walk away still friends, it doesn't happen here

So I am rubber you are glue

Many preach hate, blatant hate, no middle ground, just hate
Atheist extremists, I believe some substitute atheism and science to a religion, it's documented, Google it
Atheism is a religion, great argument, even by atheists who have noted extremist atheists operating beyond its nor,al parameters

And notice your whole post is a personal attack, that's what it is to you, personal.
It's a religion when it becomes personal, like sacrificing your holy cow, poor atheism...

a reply to: seagull

Doesn't really matter what they thought. They're dead and gone.

Doesn't make much sense to me to take random scraps of religious texts and simply give them whatever meaning is desired.

What do you suppose it meant to the Christ when he said it? Personally, I think he'd agree with me.

The Jesus character in the story seems to be offering something different to these followers of his than what had been the pretty much universal Middle Eastern understanding of the afterlife. Instead of shades in the Great City of the underworld, they are offered a hotel room in the heavens.

Here's a music video depiction of the Great City.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

ok then, they idol worship science and atheism.

"They worship atheism!"

"How?"

"By worshiping Atheism!"

You've explained nothing.

Science isn't a single thing, so how can it be an Idol? You also realize that science is for humanity as a whole, not strictly Atheism. But I guess you know that otherwise you wouldn't be using a computer, would you?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
They make it their life

That must be why there are tons of religious scientists then...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
some people turn their sports team in to a religion

I make a point of breathing every few seconds, I do it religiously. That does not make it my religion in the same context as Christianity. In the English language a single word can have many different definitions.

This is first grade knowledge. This is what is taught on the first day when you decide to make English a second language. I can't possibly believe you think that using the term "religion" in any context always and only means the same thing as referring to christianity, Islam, Hindi, and so forth.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
like how some people just cant stay out of threads titled Is Atheism just an Antichristian Religion?
They dwell on them, live them are emotional involved in them

You're viewing it from an inaccurate angle. Many people here have no emotional ties to the conversation at hand whatsoever, but are simply here to help educate people whom may simply and humbly not have known better, or have been taught something that is inaccurate.

I have no personal vendettas against anyone here simply because they honestly believed that atheism meant anything other than what it is really defined as.

I'm not going to scold anyone for saying "atheists worship satan" because that's what they learned elsewhere. However, I will attempt to help them understand why that notion isn't accurate.

You seem to believe that every atheist is personally offended every time a topic comes up like this. I'm sure some of them are. But what I see more of is people offering more accurate information, and nothing more.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Its not just a question they can answer with a yes, no or maybe, it becomes a banner that needs to be carried into battle, a fundamental call to fight.

I think you're confusing some kind of "atheist patriotism" with simply answering the same questions over and over again. If you haven't noticed, your posts in these threads are like a broken record. The same points are brought up time and time again, and every time they arise the same answers, both simplistic and elaborated are given to you.

It is not that Atheists are 'coming into a battle with a banner' it's that some people simply refuse to acknowledge something they were originally taught for whatever reason, no matter how many verifiable facts are handed to them to confirm their preconceived view is inaccurate.

What I find hard to understand is why it matters to those people whom are unwilling to accept that Atheists really have nothing to do with worship or science or anything else? Why does it matter that a person simply doesn't have to believe in a god?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yes, there are definitely people who turn their beliefs into a religion, not many, but definetly

I don't deny this.

Perhaps you can explain how atheism does this?

a reply to: windword

Just to back up a bit: What I was originally saying to seagull was that I'm a bit disturbed by the notion of determinism and the absence of will, which notion is quite foreign to me.

Sam Harris seems to be the person most behind publishing the "will is illusion" ideas. I read his Wikipedia entry. He dropped out of college after ecstasy testing, went to India for 11 years studying Hindu and Buddhist stuff, went back, got his BA, and his whole PhD seems to have been completely on "finding faith and religion regions of the brain". Now he's pushing a form of atheist spirituality.

He does not strike me as a reliable source of science or religious knowledge.

Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus by Glenn Greenwald
A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism
...
Contrary to the assumptions under which some Harris defenders are laboring, the fact that someone is a scientist, an intellectual, and a convincing and valuable exponent of atheism by no means precludes irrational bigotry as a driving force in their worldview. In this case, Harris' own words, as demonstrated below, are his indictment.

Let's first quickly dispense with some obvious strawmen. Of course one can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That's self-evident, and nobody is contesting it. And of course there are some Muslim individuals who do heinous things in the name of their religion - just like there are extremists in all religions who do awful and violent things in the name of that religion, yet receive far less attention than the bad acts of Muslims (here are some very recent examples). Yes, "honor killings" and the suppression of women by some Muslims are heinous, just as the collaboration of US and Ugandan Christians to enact laws to execute homosexuals is heinous, and just as the religious-driven, violent occupation of Palestine, attacks on gays, and suppression of women by some Israeli Jews in the name of Judaism is heinous. That some Muslims commit atrocities in the name of their religion (like some people of every religion do) is also too self-evident to merit debate, but it has nothing to do with the criticisms of Harris.
...
The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening: "While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."

a reply to: pthena

Okay, fair enough. I don't want to derail your conversation, and I can see the validity of it.

I just get confused when in an atheistic discussion and someone cites "Christ", not Jesus. I dislike the use of conveniently blurred lines.

a reply to: windword

I don't want to derail your conversation, and I can see the validity of it.

No. What I meant was: my conversation with seagull was going nowhere as far as determinism and will goes. I would like out of that conversation and engage you instead, if that's OK.

originally posted by: makemap
waiting for the right moment to strike humanity with your machines aren't you?

Sabbatarian Christians are machines. They lie about the lack of contradictions that are present in the Bible. Like the Georgian pastor they # kids of the same sex in the ass then say gays deserve to die.

My own grandfather said that if someone got caught sleeping with a Mason's wife, they'd find him on the side of the road dead and no one would ask any questions. He is also a baptist. And also brought one of his floozies home to his wife's house and her response to his blatant adultery was "HOW COULD YOU BRING HER HERE?"

These people are demonic machines if you believe in demons who are guilty of the same crimes they say others deserved to die for.

I'm an atheist. It means after many years of searching for the answer. I came to the conclusion I don't believe any of it. Nothing, Nathan, Nada. It's not a religion, it's a conclusion. It boggles my mind at times why, I wasted so many years "searching" for the answer. Simply because there is no answer. Should have known at 7 when I asked God to shut off my light in my bedroom.......stayed on all night. It also means I'm not gonna try to convince a non-atheist that I'm right nor am I going to "ring your doorbell" with some nice scripture to "save your soul".

It means I will never ask you to "donate" to my cause.
.

a reply to: pthena

Okay cool!

What I was originally saying to seagull was that I'm a bit disturbed by the notion of determinism and the absence of will, which notion is quite foreign to me.

I'm not sure I understand. I watched your video on Firebrand Atheism, which appears to be a movement to save the religious from religion. I read the commentary you cited about atheism and bigotry, which of course also makes sense. But I don't understand the philosophic details of an atheistic viewpoint of [self] determinism without [free] will or where it originates.

I've watched a few Sam Harris lectures and debates, and find him to be logical in his rejections of religious doctrine and his comparisons seem valid. But, he seems to me to be a person who doesn't believe in "holy owners' manuals" to the human condition, and feels his experience is just as valid as any ancient holy man's or shaman's.

For me, back on the topic of determinism without free will, I'm not sure. I'm agnostic, if you will, on the matter of consciousness (life and the will to live and thrive), and whether is arises naturally from the physical universe or whether it is imposed on the physical from without, from another dimension of reality. It seems to me that the matter of the religious belief in "free will" assumes that consciousness imposes itself, mind over matter, on an otherwise inert physical reality. I.E. Jesus' resurrection was divine mind over matter, a result of a "conscious" will to live.

a reply to: windword

But I don't understand the philosophic details of an atheistic viewpoint of [self] determinism without [free] will or where it originates.

I guess I'll have to look into that some more.

I looked up wikipedia's Will_(philosophy). I pretty much fall into Aristotelian, with some medieval elements. That's pretty much the only view I grew up with, internalized. Now if I apply the Chesterton's fence, I must know exactly what my own view is there for before tearing it down. This new notion of "will is illusion" has already been tested to show less than recommendable results.
There’s No Such Thing as Free Will: But we’re better off believing in it anyway.

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing: Why I am a Catholic, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity": "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

I think I'll have to dig a bit more. In the mean time I have some Rolling Rock beer to drink. Have one on me.

ETA

One of the factors which led me to eventually come out as polytheist goes back to the 1970s. I was comparing various creeds and confessions of Christendom. I carried around stapled together zeroxed copies of Formula of Concord(Epitome) and the Belgic Confessions, reading them over and comparing and weighing the Lutheran and Reformed views. Different takes on the same god. Then, I got ahold of The Canons of Dort. And Whoa Nelly! That's a different god!!!! Eventually, decades later, it seemed logical to embrace polytheism.

a reply to: pthena

You couldn't find the original source for the statement on the internet.

That doesn't mean it isn't true.
It is simply a part of humanity's collective awareness.

Just like The Golden Rule. It long predates any religion we know today.

Treat others the way you want to be treated. It is so elementary. All social species manage it. Why is it so hard for us to implement??????

Treat others the way you would want others to treat your most cherished loved one.
It isn't hard.

The hard part is refraining from criticizing people who don't get that.

a reply to: skynet2015

No it isn't. In the USA many atheists have had bad experiences with Christianity.

I am agnostic. I will/do speak out about any actions of bigotry/discrimination that is fueled by religion.

I also respect other's beliefs, of course until they infringe on other's rights.

Islam seems to be the most troublesome religion right now, seeing as how gays are thrown off of buildings and women are stoned to death for being raped. Most Christians I know usually leave people alone for the most part. I do seem to see a lot of Christians online pretending to be God and letting everyone know they are going to hell for __________ insert sin here.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It is simply a part of humanity's collective awareness.

Collective consciousness in Durkheimian social theory

Durkheim used the term in his books The Division of Labour in Society (1893), Rules of the Sociological Method (1895), Suicide (1897), and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912). In The Division of Labour, Durkheim argued that in traditional/primitive societies (those based around clan, family or tribal relationships) totemic religion played an important role in uniting members through the creation of a common consciousness (conscience collective in the original French). In societies of this type, the contents of an individual's consciousness are largely shared in common with all other members of their society, creating a mechanical solidarity through mutual likeness.

"The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness."

— Emile Durkheim
...
Various forms of what might be termed "collective consciousness" in modern societies have been identified by other sociologists, such as Mary Kelsey, going from solidarity attitudes and memes to extreme behaviors like group-think or herd behavior.*

When exactly did human collective consciousness go from tribal/clan/state to global and universal? Isn't that a modern development? Isn't it a bit of reading the present internet age of today into the past as if it were always as it is now?

In the past, certain horizontal hybrid ideas of the gods and the rules of sustainable culture occurred through the physical interactions of trade and war and appropriations and thought and debate and sifting. Attributes of similar gods shifted from one clan to another with name changes. Lots of centuries required, lots of debates etc.

The hard part is refraining from criticizing people who don't get that.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

A likely scenario: around the year 2012, a new agey despiser of Christian proselytizers sat down and wrote the thing. Being so new-agey as to grant her/himself honorary Hindu status, therefore what was written is a Hindu proverb.

a reply to: Ghost147

Ghost
Go google why atheism is a religion
Nothing I say will make you think you are a zealot to your beliefs

a reply to: pthena

The Evolution of God