Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

I rest my case. End of thread.

You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.

Rather than ridicule the source, why don't you refute the message? Why? Because you really hate to admit what is says is true. How typically liberal of you!

Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable. Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about. How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.

I'm betting your eyes are brown.

Nope! Wrong again. But if it's any consolation I do believe that brown eyes exist.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable. Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about. How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.

You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.

 

[Pogo]

Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable. Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about. How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.

You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.

Uh ....nnnnnnno.
Where is it?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable. Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about. How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.

You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.

Uh ....nnnnnnno.
Where is it?

Uh... yes

You said that the source was a "birfer rag"

 

[Pogo]

Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable. Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about. How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.

You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.

Uh ....nnnnnnno.
Where is it?

Uh... yes

You said that the source was a "birfer rag"

That's not a political comment. It's a journalistic one. And that was after you had already brought in "communism". Anyway, Astartlemeyer tried to fling political poo and I called him on it.

 

[HUGGY]

Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

Oh for fyuck's sakes... You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.

If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists. AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.

Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously.

Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats. Self defense is a two way street.

Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads. It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.

You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games.

Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.

We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously.

BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

Oh for fyuck's sakes... You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.

If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists. AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.

Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously.

Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats. Self defense is a two way street.

Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads. It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.

You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games.

Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.

We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously.

BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.

And you believe you evolved from a snake and somehow millions of years later, you can talk but the snake can't. Which one is worse?

 

[HUGGY]

Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

Oh for fyuck's sakes... You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.

If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists. AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.

Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously.

Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats. Self defense is a two way street.

Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads. It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.

You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games.

Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.

We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously.

BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.

And you believe you evolved from a snake and somehow millions of years later, you can talk but the snake can't. Which one is worse?

Who says we don't need a mental health forum?

Talking snakes..etc...??

That's in your bag of tricks Sparky.

If that's some ass backwards reference to evolution you are just proving my point that there is no talking to crazy people and expecting anything resembling a rational conversation.

I don't know exactly what the breakdown of the trail of creatures we came from is.

All kinds of animals communicate to some degree. That is obvious.

If you are asking about "talking" I suppose in some sense survival which is the prime contributor to evolution includes the ability to convey some basic animal sounds all the way to a percentage of humans that can share information in several languages.
There are probably a chimp or two that can communicate with people and even some family dogs that can speak "dog" and also respond to some visual directives and verbal human noises.

That is not the same thing as what the bible says about talking snakes though is it.

Christians are constantly attempting to "normalize" the myths they privately take at face value.

The fairly recent push by many Christians to call much of their mysticism "Intelligent design" is an example of the dishonesty of religion. You people just don't get that at the foundation of your beliefs is a crazy concept that no matter how you try to clean it up it is still madness.

In short, glib responses to serious questions about your beliefs don't advance any better or a more positive understanding.

If you have a serious explaination of the myths in your bibles I'm all ears.

 

[PratchettFan]

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something. There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine" required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you need atheism to be a "religion"?

How does one treat Atheism correctly? What are the standards to be applied? What are the rules? You can't have it both ways. You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.

.
Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules". Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else. They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term. That's all they are.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion? The church of "Abunnyism"?
Same thing.

[I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.

In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".

I don't need it to be a religion. I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion. Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?

Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity. Theism is a belief (in a deity). It refers to a concept, however imaginary. All atheism does is reject that belief. That's it. The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.

You still haven't told us why you're doing that.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org
​

So it is a definition, not a doctrine. And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference. Replacing one word with another does not change the action. Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face. If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity. You have negative beliefs about it. What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs. The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma.... oh excuse me, the definition.

Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality. That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

What is Atheism American Atheists

It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in. It is bullshit. You do not lack beliefs. If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief. You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.

For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a conclusion that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.

Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. Only then can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.

The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise.

The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.

I will accept as a given that there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are gods. However, at the same time there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are no gods. You have stated, for you at least, there is a conclusion gods simply don't exist. Given your position has no more factual support than the position that gods do exist, how is it anything more than believing A rather than B?

Mind you, I do not object to your belief in the least. Your beliefs are certainly as valid as my own since neither of us has a clue about the subject.

No, I haven't stated that. I'm in no position to know. And actually I have evidence to the contrary.

We're not talking about personal beliefs here -- we're talking about what "is" is. So to speak.

I was responding to Hollie.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?

Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?

I have no idea.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.

But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.

Why the belligerence? Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?

It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.

But...as all good atheists do...they never give up! They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions. Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists. This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.

Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the POINT?
What exactly can you do with a "church" with no doctrine? A car with no engine? A stove with no food?

Ergo, not a "religion".
And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy.. See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.

Well, everyone likes a good sing-song and smores are more fun with other people.

 

[PratchettFan]

Isn’t atheism a religion?
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm guilty of that

And another thing... a confession:

"Hi everybody, my name is Pogo and I'm a non-alcoholic.

Every damn day I think, this is gonna be the day I take a drink. But I keep forgetting.
I've kept my job, still have friends, and now I'm stuck with a perfect driving record from never getting pulled over.
I keep coming home early, my family knows me.... I'm afraid I'm never going to get cirrhosis!
The damn bottle -- it's all I never think about."

An interesting comparison. Do you frequent message boards about your non-alcoholism?

The only thing pithy little sayings prove is that you can come up with pithy little sayings.

 

[HUGGY]

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?

Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?

I have no idea.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.

But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.

Why the belligerence? Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?

Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?

Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?

I have no idea.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.

But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.

Why the belligerence? Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?

Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.

If you could just clarify this for me because I don't want to assume I understand you. Are you saying that you actively trying to convince people to become Atheists?

 

[Pogo]

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something. There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine" required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you need atheism to be a "religion"?

How does one treat Atheism correctly? What are the standards to be applied? What are the rules? You can't have it both ways. You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.

.
Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules". Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else. They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term. That's all they are.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion? The church of "Abunnyism"?
Same thing.

[I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.

In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".

I don't need it to be a religion. I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion. Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?

Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity. Theism is a belief (in a deity). It refers to a concept, however imaginary. All atheism does is reject that belief. That's it. The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.

You still haven't told us why you're doing that.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org
​

So it is a definition, not a doctrine. And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference. Replacing one word with another does not change the action. Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.

No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
Stop being obtuse.

If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.

That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists. If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.

You have negative beliefs about it.

There's no such thing as "negative belief". And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.

What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs. The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma.... oh excuse me, the definition.

What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk. Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism. It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present. Shadow is not a thing; silence is not a thing; bald is not a thing. They are the absence of light, sound and hair. They are abstract concepts. And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.

Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality. That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.

"Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism? Not sure where you're going here.

 

[PratchettFan]

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something. There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine" required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you need atheism to be a "religion"?

How does one treat Atheism correctly? What are the standards to be applied? What are the rules? You can't have it both ways. You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.

.
Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules". Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else. They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term. That's all they are.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion? The church of "Abunnyism"?
Same thing.

[I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.

In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".

I don't need it to be a religion. I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion. Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?

Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity. Theism is a belief (in a deity). It refers to a concept, however imaginary. All atheism does is reject that belief. That's it. The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.

You still haven't told us why you're doing that.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org
​

So it is a definition, not a doctrine. And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference. Replacing one word with another does not change the action. Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.

No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
Stop being obtuse.

If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.

That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists. If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.

You have negative beliefs about it.

There's no such thing as "negative belief". And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.

What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs. The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma.... oh excuse me, the definition.

What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk. Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism. It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present. Shadow is not a thing; silence is not a thing; bald is not a thing. They are the absence of light, sound and hair. They are abstract concepts. And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.

Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality. That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.

"Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism? Not sure where you're going here.

You mentioned impultuous convanescence. Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject. I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible. That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate. The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible. Neutral. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.

Of course there are negative beliefs. If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief. I believe Jesus is not a god. That's a negative belief. What there is not is a non-belief. So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me.

Your comparisons are meaningless babble. They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the POINT?
What exactly can you do with a "church" with no doctrine? A car with no engine? A stove with no food?

Ergo, not a "religion".
And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy.. See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.

If you have a belief that is important to you, ie atheism, that means you have a religion. The rest of that stuff you insist is all important is merely window dressing for fools.

Are you a fool?

 

[Pogo]

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something. There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine" required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you need atheism to be a "religion"?

How does one treat Atheism correctly? What are the standards to be applied? What are the rules? You can't have it both ways. You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.

.
Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules". Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else. They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term. That's all they are.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion? The church of "Abunnyism"?
Same thing.

[I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.

In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".

I don't need it to be a religion. I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion. Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?

Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity. Theism is a belief (in a deity). It refers to a concept, however imaginary. All atheism does is reject that belief. That's it. The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.

You still haven't told us why you're doing that.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org
​

So it is a definition, not a doctrine. And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference. Replacing one word with another does not change the action. Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.

No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
Stop being obtuse.

If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.

That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists. If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.

You have negative beliefs about it.

There's no such thing as "negative belief". And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.

What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs. The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma.... oh excuse me, the definition.

What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk. Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism. It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present. Shadow is not a thing; silence is not a thing; bald is not a thing. They are the absence of light, sound and hair. They are abstract concepts. And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.

Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality. That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.

"Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism? Not sure where you're going here.

You mentioned impultuous convanescence. Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject. I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible. That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate. The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible. Neutral. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.

Of course there are negative beliefs. If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief. I believe Jesus is not a god. That's a negative belief. What there is not is a non-belief. So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me.

Your comparisons are meaningless babble. They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.

I'm afraid they do. You considered "impultuous convanescence" and determined that it had no basis for belief. So you don't believe in it -- which is fine, but it doesn't make that disbelief, in itself, a "religion". It would be silly to do so. Same thing. You're not about to found a church for the purpose of knocking on doors to convince people that impultuous convanesence does not exist. It would be pointless.

And that in a nutshell is the point of this thread.


>> I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it. <<

-- which perfectly illustrates the nonexistence of a religion called "Atheism" and explains why they walk among us unnoticed. And puts the lie to the mythology of "proselytizing atheists". Because, again, it's by definition a personal conclusion, not a communal one.

 

[HUGGY]

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?

Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?

I have no idea.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.

But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.

Why the belligerence? Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?

Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.

If you could just clarify this for me because I don't want to assume I understand you. Are you saying that you actively trying to convince people to become Atheists?

I actively try to convince people to tell the truth and only share knowledge they can prove to be true.

I don't mind people using their imagination as long as they lable it so.

Many people are gulible or or living in fear and willing to grasp at straws. It is immoral to offer them false hope. They tend to give up on improving their situations and just resign themselves to having a better life after they are dead. That is called fraud.

Do you promote truth or fraud?

 

[asaratis]

No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
Stop being obtuse.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument! You truly take the cake here.

You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist. Atheism has been shown to be a religion.

Here, Thomas! Deal with this:

Atheist Prayer Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers
Atheist Prayer: Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers

A Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein spotlighted the fascinating phenomenon of a minority of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated who take to prayer, chaplaincy and other commonly religious practices as a way to experience community with others, relax, meditate and connect to something other than the physical.

....

Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.

....

Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had it's first meeting in New York City.

Did you get that ^^^^^ , Thomas? There's another Atheist church in New York!

Coming soon to your hometown...Atheist Preachers and Choirs...spreading the Word of the Ungodly!