Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Hollie]

A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.

This is quite true. I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist. Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!

The tooth fairy does not exist.

That is a belief that you hold.

To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does. Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.

That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you. You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.

I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion. It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny. Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.

What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is quite true. I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist. Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!

The tooth fairy does not exist.

That is a belief that you hold.

To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does. Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.

That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you. You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.

I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion. It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny. Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.

What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?

Although this question is likely rhetorical, the answer is nonetheless warranted: nothing.

 

[LittleNipper]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

 

[Carla_Danger]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

You can word it any way you like. Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.

 

[Hollie]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

Let's rethink this: To a child the thought of Gawds is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe.

How interesting. Substituting gawds for Santa in your statement alters nothing regarding the context of what a child will believe.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

Let's rethink this: To a child the thought of Gawds is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe.

How interesting. Substituting gawds for Santa in your statement alters nothing regarding the context of what a child will believe.

I grew out of both, except one did take me 40 years. And I did have to go to Religulous Anonymous for 8 years to get over my past religion. I was a late bloomer!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

You can word it any way you like. Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.

Correct.

It takes no 'act of faith' to acknowledge the fact that religion and 'god' are creations of man.

As already noted, there is no 'Santa' or 'Easter bunny,' and no one is challenged who makes that statement; nor does anyone perceive as 'religion' to acknowledge the fact that there are is no 'Santa' or 'Easter bunny,' where the same applies to those acknowledging the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, as such an acknowledgment does not manifest as 'religion.'

 

[asaratis]

This is quite true. I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist. Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!

The tooth fairy does not exist.

That is a belief that you hold.

To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does. Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.

That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you. You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.

I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion. It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny. Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.

What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?

Neither Santa nor the Easter Bunny caused the resetting of the world's system of counting years. BC and AD, recently amended to pacify the atheists, represent two distinct periods on either side of a significant happening related solely to Jesus Christ. There's the period before Him and the period after Him. This distinction can be attached only to Jesus.

Jesus changed the world.

 

[asaratis]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

You can word it any way you like. Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.

Correct. Simply "not believing" is not a religion. However, proclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument. Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.

 

[CynthiaZ]

Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.

No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.

A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.

I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

 

[Hollie]

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...

You can word it any way you like. Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.

Correct. Simply "not believing" is not a religion. However, proclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument. Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.

That's an unworkable analogy. It's a simple matter to conclude that your gawds, the gawds that have come and gone before your gawds, Santa, the Easter Bunny etc., don't exist. There's no requirement for faith to reach such conclusions. Additionally, such a conclusion requires no traditions, tax exceptions, multiple versions of texts detailing magical events, men in robes wearing big pointy hats, magic beads, rituals, special crackers and wine, holy men managing child sex syndicates, et., etc.

 

[Hollie]

No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.

A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.

I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

 

[Hollie]

The tooth fairy does not exist.

That is a belief that you hold.

To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does. Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.

That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you. You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.

I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion. It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny. Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.

What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?

Neither Santa nor the Easter Bunny caused the resetting of the world's system of counting years. BC and AD, recently amended to pacify the atheists, represent two distinct periods on either side of a significant happening related solely to Jesus Christ. There's the period before Him and the period after Him. This distinction can be attached only to Jesus.

Jesus changed the world.

The jeebus changed the world no more than a host of other figures who were the object of legend building. The gawd Isis was worshipped for 5,000 years, far outlasting jeebus. It's interesting to note that Isis was a relatively obscure gawd but grew in importance as the Egyptian Dynasties progressed. There are obvious parallels to jeebus.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ASARATIS SAID:

“[P]roclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument. Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.”

Incorrect,

To acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists is not a 'belief,' nor is it 'religion'; one cannot make a 'religious argument' where no 'religion' is present to begin with.

Again, theism is the aberration, the contrivance, a myth created by man, where theists incorrectly perceive their faith as 'fact' and their beliefs as 'objective truth,' when in fact that's not the case.

 

[CynthiaZ]

A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.

I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

 

[Hollie]

I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

I don't see christian non-believers as being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their non-belief. And I think it's important to point out that the "Atheism is a religion" comments come exclusively from the more excitable component of the Christians on the board, at least in my experience. I get a sense of real anger coming from the more dogmatic Christians who take any criticism or critique of their dogma as an affront to their religious beliefs.

Although this has been gone over both repeatedly and tediously, Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs or “ideologies.” To claim a conclusion as to the non-existence of something is a religion is nonsense. To be A-theistic belief is not a religion. There is no religion of A-Bigfoot'ism or A-Santa'Clausism. In reality, there is no real A-theist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation not at all unlike the conclusion relative to Bigfoot and Nessie.

It appears to me that the visceral reaction of selected christian board members to rejection of their beliefs is a conclusion that they're intent to force their dogmatic opinions as "evidence" to fit into their particular world-view is flawed and untenable. The more excitable Christians apparently believe their entire world-view and existence breaks apart and collapses into nothingness if the fundamentalist interpretation of their creation fables aren't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of any of the bibles is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every reason to be in panic mode).

 

[asaratis]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

 

[Hollie]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

 

[asaratis]

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

Just as there is no proof that God exists, there is no proof that God does not exist. You claim presumes an unsubstantiated, unprovable posit...that you claim to be a fact. Your argument is nothing more than the negative of the believer's argument. No concrete proof on either side. Especially on yours. One cannot prove a negative. One can only point to one's perceived ridiculousness of a posit that something exists.

The existence of Russell's Tea Pot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is a ridiculous posit. The 'analogy' fails in that there is no fundamental similarity between any supernatural being and any man-made construct, such as a tea pot or cartoon character.

The arrogance of atheists is displayed in their insistence that there is nothing that they do not understand.