Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

If Atheism is a Religion.

then.

"Off" is a TV Channel.

Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.

Gee, if only someone had said this earlier, the thread would have been over.

Wait, they did, and were ***** slapped for it.

 

[sealybobo]

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god. Only theists do this. They actually claim to have talked to him. Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.

YIKES! So what DO you call such people who become so fundamentalist and absolutely
BELIEVE there isn't a god?

Because it can never be proven or disproven either way, that person can believe that absolutely
and never be proven wrong because it is impossible.

The most I can do is offer:
* to prove spiritual healing works effectively, naturally and consistent with science and medicine as a natural process
* to prove people can AGREE to form a consensus on what God means even if we can never prove or disprove either way

But I do know at least one atheist who is absolutely deadset in that belief there is no God period,
and knows it cannot be proven otherwise, so uses that point to harp on it knowing it is uncontestable.

Your atheist friend doesn't claim to know 100% for certain there is no god. There is no way for him to know that 100%. He can not state it as a undeniable fact. What proof does he have?

The only ones who claim 100% that they know are organized religions who claim they have spoken to the lord and that it is all written in their sacred texts.

 

[sealybobo]

Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc... I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.

The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.

I never said that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, I just like to rub the fact that it is a religion to some people in the face of the people that are annoyed by the concept.

That said, even if atheism was a religion that insisted that evolution is a fundamental tenet of their faith, that would not make it illegal to teach it, anymore than it is illegal to teach the Bible in public schools. The key part would be if the teachers tried to use either of those as a springboard to talking about their beliefs. That upsets people on both sides of the issue, but that is the way the law works.

Personally, as long as parents can opt out of religious education, I would have no problem with schools actually teaching about religion. I think it is better for kids if they are presented with as much information as possible, and they can then make their own decisions, but I recognize the right of parents to want to raise their children by their values. The problem with schools now is that, in attempting to not break the very confusing legal morass about separation of church and state, they nave essentially create a culture where religious expression is not tolerated. That, in my opinion, is the worst possible way to approach the issue.

It also explains why some Christians, and even Muslims, are trying to force the schools to treat atheism, and secular humanism, with the same standards they use for religion. Doesn't make them right, but they see a major problem, and are trying to fix it in the only way the legal system will allow.

I would not have a problem with a school teaching the history of religion.

And I went into a public elementary school the other day and along the wall were words put up: respect, kindness, friendship, be helpful, courteous, inclusive, etc. In my opinion, god is not necessary to teach people to be good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

As I have been trying to point out to you for months, the law has already accepted that any belief is protected by the 1st Amendment, even if no one else on the planet holds it. I haven't seen that result in a theocracy yet, and don't expect it to happen in the future. The only way we can get a theocracy is if the government gets to define what is, and is not, a religion. If we "nullify" the meaning of religion it cannot do that.

If, on the other hand, we suddenly decide that religions have to meet your definition, we actually give the government that power, and are taking the first steps on the road to a theocracy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S. I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to. Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal. Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals. So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we. What religion does your cow belong to? That's my religion.

My dog thinks I am god, when can I expect you to show up and lavish your worship on me?

 

[sealybobo]

The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S. I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to. Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal. Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals. So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we. What religion does your cow belong to? That's my religion.

My dog thinks I am god, when can I expect you to show up and lavish your worship on me?

If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god. Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god. We thought the sun was a god. We prayed for it to come back every night.

And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).

But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off. Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly. Well, some of us don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god. Only theists do this. They actually claim to have talked to him. Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.

All I have to realize is that you are wrong. After that, everything become clear.

This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.

Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.

Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes . . . Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism . . . Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist . . .
Matt: That is what I said . . . which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained . . .
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.

An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God Atheist States There Is No Proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god. Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god. We thought the sun was a god. We prayed for it to come back every night.

And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).

But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off. Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly. Well, some of us don't.

It is also a great argument for the fact that gods used to interact with men.

By the way, I have been around pit bulls, and not one of them ever bit my face off. I guess that makes you wrong, just like when you claimed that no one on Earth says they are 100% certain that god does not exist.

 

[Marianne]

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]

I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.

Enlighten me on what atheists believe what religious peoples gods are. I was always under the impression that they think other peoples gods are myths or imaginary and simply don't exist. If something doesn't exist than it basically is the belief in nothing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your atheist friend doesn't claim to know 100% for certain there is no god. There is no way for him to know that 100%. He can not state it as a undeniable fact. What proof does he have?

The only ones who claim 100% that they know are organized religions who claim they have spoken to the lord and that it is all written in their sacred texts.

It is completely faith based! Same as the faith of those who claim to know when this cannot be proven either.

The most I could argue with him is he wasn't perfectly objective and neutral.
If he were perfectly without any beliefs, then he would be open either way.

He was okay if people believed the world was preexisting and had no beginning and thus needed no creator.
He just absolutely rejects the idea of a creator because it makes no sense. if there is a finite creator
then where did that thing come from? Thus he was more comfortable with the idea of an infinite thing
that is faith based. But not a finite creator that does all these things people say.

I caught him being biased and not neutral on proof of spiritual healing.
He assumed it was as fraudulent as false faith healing, but I explained it was different
and he doesn't believe either are real. he doesn't believe witchcraft or occult/voodoo/sorcery is real.
And I tried to explain it is, but it is different and clashes with the spiritual healing and can't be mixed together.

We agreed this all depended on scientific, peer-reviewed proof by research conducted formally
and published in accredited journals. And I said yes it would be, but hasn't gotten to that yet.

Because it has not been formally researched and proven, he questions how can this spiritual healing be real.
I said because people are too busy, divided and separated, segregating the known process in ministerial
healing practices from the academic science and medicine that is secular, the knowledge is not getting out
and studied but is censored and rejected as religious. So the social segregation is blocking the process.

But I explained that process can be demonstrated and proven to be consistent and replicable.
We don't have to prove or disprove God to resolve the real issue.

If we prove the significance of forgiveness on healing the mind and body of various mental and medical conditions,
that is enough to prove what the religions such as Christianity are trying to teach. And that is enough to
bring peace as symbolized in the Bible.

So I argued instead of debating God or creation, atheism or evolution, etc.
why not focus on proving the process of spiritual healing and how it works, in conjunction with science and medicine,
and why it fails in the case of false faith healing that fraudulently rejects science and medicine.

That part can be proven and satisfy both the theists and atheist who want proof if people are going to make claims. Why not start with something tangible and replicable that can be proven so people can agree that's what the process means
of being healed or freed by receiving forgiveness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.

 

[emilynghiem]

If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god. Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god. We thought the sun was a god. We prayed for it to come back every night.

And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).

But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off. Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly. Well, some of us don't.

1. yes and no, sealybobo
If God means Life or Nature,
then yes we made up the terms and figures REPRESENTING God as the source behind the forces/laws of Life and Nature
The LANGUAGE is manmade

but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
are not made or made up by man

We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world

so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP

2. as for dogs and gods
you can substitute what is GOOD

So if the dog sees the master as GOOD because that means F-O-O-D or getting to go for a walk,
that person is associated with getting something GOOD

Now, do we make up in our minds what is good?

yes and no. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, that nothing is either good or bad but our thinking makes it so,
YES we can change our perceptions and see the good or the bad in anything, there is some of that which is manmade

However, some of this is given and not in our control:

* I cannot help that I respond more to my boyfriend and being with him
than with other people. I did not choose that. I accepted that I respond to him that way as a given.

* I cannot help that I am GOOD at some things and horrible at other things.

So you can take what is Good and define the collective of all good will, or greater good for all people,
and that is the equivalent of what is meant by the ideal or God's will.

Whatever is meant to be that is the maximum Good which people normally seek by free will.

We can CHOOSE to be at peace and make the best decisions within what we are given in life.
And have "faith" that whatever is the ideal will is what is in charge anyway.

So that is what it means to have faith that God's will is greater than anything that appears negative.
Greater good will come from things anyway; having faith that there is a reason and purpose for everything
to happen exactly as it does.

If you define what is "from God" to mean what is the "greatest good" in each thing in life,
that is consistent in spirit and meaning. What purpose does it serve and how is that ideal or perfect.

 

[sealybobo]

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god. Only theists do this. They actually claim to have talked to him. Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.

All I have to realize is that you are wrong. After that, everything become clear.

This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.

Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.

Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes . . . Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism . . . Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist . . .
Matt: That is what I said . . . which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained . . .
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.

An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God Atheist States There Is No Proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

In your own article the atheist said "As much as knowledge can tell us yes". That's not saying 100% he knows. That's saying "as far as he knows".

Then he said: It's a reasonable assumption.If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.

I'm almost certain there is no god because there is no evidence. Science suggests god(s) were made up.

And I'm even more certain that the Jesus and Mohammad and Greek God stories are all made up. Can you say 100% Zeus doesn't exist? No. Can you? So are you agnostic about Zeus? Are you a weak or strong atheist when it comes to Zeus?

 

[sealybobo]

If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god. Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god. We thought the sun was a god. We prayed for it to come back every night.

And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).

But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off. Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly. Well, some of us don't.

but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
are not made or made up by man

We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world

so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP

2. as for dogs and gods
you can substitute what is GOOD

So if the dog sees the master as GOOD because that means F-O-O-D or getting to go for a walk,
that person is associated with getting something GOOD

Now, do we make up in our minds what is good?

yes and no. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, that nothing is either good or bad but our thinking makes it so,
YES we can change our perceptions and see the good or the bad in anything, there is some of that which is manmade

However, some of this is given and not in our control:

* I cannot help that I respond more to my boyfriend and being with him
than with other people. I did not choose that. I accepted that I respond to him that way as a given.

* I cannot help that I am GOOD at some things and horrible at other things.

So you can take what is Good and define the collective of all good will, or greater good for all people,
and that is the equivalent of what is meant by the ideal or God's will.

Whatever is meant to be that is the maximum Good which people normally seek by free will.

We can CHOOSE to be at peace and make the best decisions within what we are given in life.
And have "faith" that whatever is the ideal will is what is in charge anyway.

So that is what it means to have faith that God's will is greater than anything that appears negative.
Greater good will come from things anyway; having faith that there is a reason and purpose for everything
to happen exactly as it does.

If you define what is "from God" to mean what is the "greatest good" in each thing in life,
that is consistent in spirit and meaning. What purpose does it serve and how is that ideal or perfect.

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

God created the world in 7 days. Love did not create the world in 7 days. The universe is not god either. You are trying to redefine god. Sorry epic fail.

 

[PratchettFan]

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science. Is science my religion? Not to be confused with scientology of course.

Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.

There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.

I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
I am 1 and 3.

Agnosticism is a philosophy which deals with the nature of belief, not of gods.

 

[emilynghiem]

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.

Hi QW what evidence are you talking about that can be evaluated to "prove positively that god exists?"
God being infinite cannot be represented by any such subproof or demonstration on a finite level
without still requiring some faith to connect the two.

Even if all people AGREE to connect the tangible proof with the higher concept of an infinite God,
that is still faith-based. What you are doing is reaching a consensus, but it is still faith-based and not 100% proven.

I propose to use spiritual healing to prove that what Christians are teaching is true,
natural and consistent with science and medicine.
And in the process, the action of replicating the healing builds the same kind of consensus
as "proving" it but again this is all faith-based. Even if all or most diseases can be proven
cured or prevented by healing the spirit which then affects the mind and body,
saying this comes from "God" is still faith based because we would be inferring that.

We cannot contain all what God means in finite form, perception or expression
so there is no 100% way to prove it. The most we can do is reach an agreement or consensus
and say it is proven to be consistent.

 

[sealybobo]

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.

What proof do you have? Let's have it.

And you are wrong that we would deny god if he showed himself. That is exactly what proof an atheist will accept. God actually showing himself.

Please don't say the Jesus myths are your proof.

 

[emilynghiem]

but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
are not made or made up by man

We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world

so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

God created the world in 7 days. Love did not create the world in 7 days. The universe is not god either. You are trying to redefine god. Sorry epic fail.

Hi sealybobo: That's my point!
We take concepts we already have names for and align them.
This is not converting anything. Exactly!

Some people may agree that all these things come from the same source.
Some may not.

The point is we don't have to agree on that!

As long as we agree how to use the universal laws themselves,
we can still work out conflicts into solutions, regardless what we believe is behind these laws.
[One person may use Christian law against killing, another Buddhist law
or state or federal law, as long as we agree to respect the consent of others.
we do not necessarily need to convert anyone to another system, but just use the ones they already agree to follow.]

We can still reach a consensus, and not believe the same things about where the world came from which cannot be 100% proven.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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]

I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.

Enlighten me on what atheists believe what religious peoples gods are. I was always under the impression that they think other peoples gods are myths or imaginary and simply don't exist. If something doesn't exist than it basically is the belief in nothing.

Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I don't understand what a supreme being means to a Christian. And I say "Christian" because that is the doctrine I'm most familiar with. But yes, when you pray to the Lord, I feel as though you are just praying to an imaginary friend.

"If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system."

Actually, atheist have many different beliefs, just not one you can consider a religion.

 

[the_human_being]

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]

You will put me on your list and send me tons of postpaid tithing envelopes?