Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

It would appear any answer I give you is simply going to be ignored. So I will simply respond.... ok.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

"...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.

He's probably young and vapid. Maybe one day he'll gain enough wisdom to realize that pretension always comes across as a defense mechanism for insecurity.

 

[asaratis]

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?

Pay attention, please. I did not say that YOU learned how to build dams by watching beavers. I did not say that you don't remember your father. I will concede that you may remember handcrafting a dam at the age of three. I remember having a diaper pin come loose and stick me in the ass. I remember who picked me up out of the crib.

Dam building is certainly no instinct-driven ability of mankind. It is for beavers. It doesn't take a genius to observe and learn that if a stream of water is blocked in will pool up. Learning that (by experience) has nothing to do understanding the laws of physics that make it happen. Learning that does not mean that one understands the engineering principles behind dam building.

I am relatively certain that you were NOT a 3 year old genius.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It would appear any answer I give you is simply going to be ignored. So I will simply respond.... ok.

I don't "ignore" you -- I was sitting out the troll storm.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Again you change the meaning of my statement. It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain. Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge. Man doesn't instinctively build a house. Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.

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.

Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.

Negative. Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals. Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.

There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pay attention, please. I did not say that YOU learned how to build dams by watching beavers. I did not say that you don't remember your father. I will concede that you may remember handcrafting a dam at the age of three. I remember having a diaper pin come loose and stick me in the ass. I remember who picked me up out of the crib.

I did pay attention.

Here is what you said.

Beavers build dams instinctively. Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).

Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked.

Unless you are suddenly claiming I am not human you just said that I either learned from watching beavers or that I someone was able to grasp what a dam was after seeing one. Unfortunately, for you, neither event actually happened outside your attempt to justify your lack of reality opinions.

Want to tell me to pay attention again? I really enjoy showing you that I am accurate remembering the stupendously stupid things you say.

Dam building is certainly no instinct-driven ability of mankind. It is for beavers. It doesn't take a genius to observe and learn that if a stream of water is blocked in will pool up. Learning that (by experience) has nothing to do understanding the laws of physics that make it happen. Learning that does not mean that one understands the engineering principles behind dam building.

How do you know that dam building is not instinctual? The mere fact that we now use modern technology to accomplish something does not mean that the underlying process is not instinctual. If it worked that way, you wouldn't be able to say that eating is an instinct. Humans have been building dams since at least 3000 BCE. This occurred in what is known as the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, despite the fact that there were no beavers in that area. How did they learn this when there were no beavers native to that area to teach them?

I am relatively certain that you were NOT a 3 year old genius.

I think I made that point myself. In fact, I made it to counter your claim that I managed to figure out dam building by seeing a dam I never saw.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again you change the meaning of my statement. It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain. Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge. Man doesn't instinctively build a house. Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.

I changed the meaning of your statement? Can you explain how you saying that man does not build instinctively can be misinterpreted to mean that man does not build instinctively?

Negative. Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals. Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.

And, by definition, that makes him natural. And it also makes everything he does part of nature.

There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.

That distinction is based on the arrogant assumption that man is able to surpass and control nature. Personally, I thought that educated people had learned to accept that man is not the the utmost of the utmost, but apparently some people still cling to that particular delusion.

By the way, if man cannot create anything that is natural except children, how do you explain the existence of corn?

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Arrogance is still arrogance.

 

[asaratis]

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

 

[Pogo]

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Since both atheism and theism are concepts (thoughts), they're not things. So the question is inoperative.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Again you change the meaning of my statement. It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain. Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge. Man doesn't instinctively build a house. Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.

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.

Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.

Negative. Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals. Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.

There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Your category of "supernatural" is contrived, absent demonstration and unsupportable. Unless of course, you can can identify something for us that is "un-natural". Shirley, you can identify for us something that can be shown to be clearly outside the bounds of natural laws or properties.

 

[asaratis]

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Since both atheism and theism are concepts (thoughts), they're not things. So the question is inoperative.

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no god. This is a man-made thing...not a tangible thing, but a thing nonetheless.

thing - definition of thing by The Free Dictionary
thing (th

ng)n.
1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2.
a. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b. An entity existing in space and time.
c. An inanimate object.
3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Again you change the meaning of my statement. It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain. Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge. Man doesn't instinctively build a house. Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.

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.

Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.

Negative. Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals. Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.

There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural

Your category of "supernatural" is contrived, absent demonstration and unsupportable. Unless of course, you can can identify something for us that is "un-natural". Shirley, you can identify for us something that can be shown to be clearly outside the bounds of natural laws or properties.

supernatural - Yahoo Dictionary Search Results


supernatural

• adj.adjective
  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
     
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
     
     
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
     
     
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
     
     
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
     

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.

 

[Pogo]

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.

Why "He"?
Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

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.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

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.

I can't either. LOL!

 

[asaratis]

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.

So, to you God is not supernatural?

 

[asaratis]

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.

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.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

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.

I can't either. LOL!

I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.

 

[asaratis]

Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.

Why "He"?
Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?

We've already been over than...pages ago.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

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.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

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.

I can't either. LOL!

I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.

I would say at least 700 posts ago.