Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

BTW. If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are. But there is no evidence regarding gods available. So that image can only be belief. It really is hard to escape our nature.

Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
I said above, "in a Western sense".

Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.

Yes, I saw that. I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief. We have already agree religion does not require Theism. Which is why Atheism can be a religion.

 

[asaratis]

What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up? You are a demented fuckstick!

Why else would you try to paint me as a 3 year old child as being able to understand engineering principles?

Wait, I forgot, you can always fall back on outright ignorance and stupidity.

Firstly, I doubt that you remember anything in particular from when you were three years old. Secondly, to observe that blocking a stream of water makes the water pool up does not require an understanding of engineering principles. You merely observed the laws of physics in action.

 

[asaratis]

Strawman argument. I did not say that humans do not have instincts. Read the thread again, Bozo.

Seriously? Did your account get hacked?

Not that I know of.

Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors. (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others. We learn from experience. We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation. All these homes we build do not occur naturally. We have taught ourselves to build them.

You should take some time to educate yourself o the various things that people that actually know what they are talking about consider to be instincts of humans. Or would learning that humans have multiple instincts related to eating itself upset your delusion that you know what you are talking about?

We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do. If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material. That was my point. I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.

 

[asaratis]

Woven cotton does not exist in nature. Neither does plastic. Both are man made.

Good point, if we ignore the fact that rocks actually contain plastic.

Plastic Garbage Is Turning Into a New Kind of Rock in Hawaii - weather.com

Nice try, but no cigar! Plastic does not occur in nature. Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.

 

[Pogo]

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...


I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

BTW. If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are. But there is no evidence regarding gods available. So that image can only be belief. It really is hard to escape our nature.

Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
I said above, "in a Western sense".

Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.

Yes, I saw that. I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief. We have already agree religion does not require Theism. Which is why Atheism can be a religion.

Does not follow. We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a component (modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism itself a religion. In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition exclude atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.

But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".

Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they do believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them. Hence, in no way a "religion".

Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a conceptual term to exclude the first group--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products". They simply take no action at all.

A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker. A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step. A non-action; the absence of action.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does not follow. We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a component (modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism itself a religion. In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition exclude atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.

But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".

Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they do believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them. Hence, in no way a "religion".

Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a conceptual term to exclude the first group--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products". They simply take no action at all.

A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker. A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step. A non-action; the absence of action.

So Pogo;

You hiding under the bed, pissing yourself in fear of me, is me getting my ass kicked?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Beavers have been building dams much longer, tens of millions of years, than human beings have been building dwellings.

I wouldn't be surprised if man learned about the fort or moat concept from the beaver...and possibly the concept of changing one's environment to promote the growth of food...AKA farming.

Strangely enough I believe the best evidense that man was placed here on earth by some outside entity...god..etc...
is that man seems so obviously ill equiped physically to survive compared to just about any other animal form. We, our ancient ancestors, were slower, reproduced less often, gestated 9 months compared to most life forms dangerously much longer and had numerous other inherent dangerous dissabilities.

Looking back honestly our probability to survive was improbable...very unlikely.

It seems we must have needed some help not obvious.

Man has been making excuses and blaming or crediting unseen forces for a very long time....much longer than the existance of any organized societies.

Still all this making shit up and not a scrap of evidense to support much less prove any truth to all the mumbo jumbo.

I don't know about any god/s but why all the hulabaloo for all these millennia?

Even those old sketches on the walls of caves...what was the point?

One would think that way back then there would be no time whatsoever to do anything that wasn't directly applicable to survival.

Maybe all the wall paintings were done by women ..pregnant women. They were probably the only humans that were not forced to do anything desperately needed for the tribes to survive after the woman got real big.

Personally I think that the concept of "other" beings like gods or any number of made up beings came from the toxins in plants and animals that were meant originally to kill predators by poisoning them. Taken in smaller doses by experimentation or accidentally by curiosity these toxins can make an animal like a human believe they see all kinds of strange manifestations.

If you want to "see" god you need to go no further than a hit of LSD. The human mind under the influence of a drug like "acid" can and will cause one to "witness" and see amazing hallucinations that could easily be attributed to the will of a god showing itself.

Damn, another idiot that thinks he knows more than the scientists of the world.
FYI, there are two types of beavers, the North American beaver and the Eurasian beaver. Neither of thees beavers have ever been seen in Africa, yet there is solid evidence that mankind managed to build a civilization there without watching the beavers build things.

In other words, you are a complete moron who likes to pontificate on subjects he has no knowledge of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

You know this because you know everything ever argued by every single theist in history, right?

By the way, if you look up the word faith in a dictionary you might out that you don't know what the word actually means, and find yourself admitting that you don't understand the meaning of the word, and that the only people who believe things without evidence are the idiots that insist that the FDA keeps people safe from food borne illnesses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.

The definition of religion in the OP is wrong. The fact that you do not understand that is the primary reason this thread has gone on so long, people keep insisting that they know more about English definitions than the dictionary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists". It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion". Try paying attention to the words, willya?

And it has been conclusively proven that, under some circumstances, it does. The government recognizes this, and so do the atheists that gather together to form churches. Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, insist that only you can be right, and that all evidence that contradicts your position is bullshit.

Funny thing, that is the same approach used by religious fundamentalists and zealots.

 

[Pogo]

Troll shift clocks in, right on time. We'll just wait it out.

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is."

Actually this is ludicrous, as it fails as an argument from ignorance fallacy. That no one has proven 'god' as perceived by theists doesn't exist doesn't mean it does, nor does it 'prove' being free from faith is a 'religion.'

Moreover, those free from faith don't 'browbeat' anyone into anything, as that fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

It's also telling the desperation of some theists as they seek to propagate the lie that to be free from faith is a 'religion,' where some theists unwittingly attempt to portray those free from faith as being as irrational as they.

​

You should stick to misrepresenting the law, at least you can fool the idiots that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

News flash: this is not a politics thread.

Who knew?

Oh wait, that's right -- everybody.

Newsflash, everything is politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...you are a theological non-cognitivist" A what? A who?

Basically he is saying that he doesn't know how to think, so he has to pretend that everyone else is just as stupid by insisting that language is meaningless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......

No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature. If man somehow existed outside of nature, or was able to make things that exist outside the known universe, then you could say that we are able to make things that are not natural.

For example, this is natural.

So is this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does not follow. We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a component (modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism itself a religion. In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition exclude atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.

But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".

Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they do believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them. Hence, in no way a "religion".

Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a conceptual term to exclude the first group--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products". They simply take no action at all.

A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker. A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step. A non-action; the absence of action.

Do you know what the word doctrine means?

Despite your ignorance, there have been examples of atheist propositions within this thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Troll shift clocks in, right on time. We'll just wait it out.

​

You bragged that you kicked my ass - yet all I see is you hiding under the bed pissing yourself.

Where is this "ass kicking?"

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

Stick to sucking off ISIS, you're no good at this debate thing....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Firstly, I doubt that you remember anything in particular from when you were three years old. Secondly, to observe that blocking a stream of water makes the water pool up does not require an understanding of engineering principles. You merely observed the laws of physics in action.

Firstly, what evidence do you have that I don't remember my father? Since he died when I was 4, and I remember numerous things about him, I obviously remember things from when I was 3. I also remember our horse, and even the wringer washer that my mother used to use to wash clothes. I even remember being in the carnival and watching the marks stare at us. But, please, feel free to keep expounding on your ignorance.

Secondly, your claim was that I learned about building dams from watching beavers and figuring out how they managed to stop the water from flowing. Not an exact quote, but you obviously meant to imply I understood things a 3 year old cannot understand unless he is a genius. Like I told you then, if you want to butter someone up go try it on an idiot that will fall for it. To be honest, I still don't understand the engineering principles involved, I have no need to because the knowledge is instinctual. That is why, despite the fact that I never studied engineering, I can use dirt and rocks to guide runoff in a garden to where I want it to go.

And I have still never seen a beaver build a dam. In fact, I have never seen another human being build one either.

Want to say something else stupid because it is your opinion?

 

[Pogo]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do. If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material. That was my point. I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.

We don't? Can you prove that, because I can provide hundreds of examples of humans building shelters, even if it is just a lean to intended to block the wind.