Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
CommunitarianKevin

Atheism as a religion

282 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Most of you seem to be getting very irritated when I imply that some of atheism is a religion. I think most of you just ignore what I have to say, which is fair because I am just another dumbass on the internet. What I wanted to do instead was type up much of a chapter in Stephen Protheros book God is not One. I am some idiot on the internet but here is someone that at least has a degree in the area. Here is his bio…

Stephen Prothero is a professor in the Department of Religion at Boston University and the author of numerous books, most recently God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter (HarperOne, 2010) and the New York Times bestseller Religious Literacy: What Americans Need to Know (HarperOne, 2007). He has commented on religion on dozens of National Public Radio programs, and on television on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, and PBS. He was also a guest on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart, "The Colbert Report," and "The Oprah Winfrey Show." He was also the chief editorial consultant for the six-hour WGBH/PBS television series "God in America" (2010). A regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, he has also written for the New York Times, Slate, Salon, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe. In 2010 he was invited to speak about religious literacy at the White House. Prothero received his BA from Yale in American Studies and his PhD in the Study of Religion from Harvard. He lives on Cape Cod, and he tweets @sprothero.

Let me know if you need any information on what exactly a religious scholar does. I have a feeling that many if you will simply ignore this but I hope at least a couple of you read it and think about it…

If you do not like what he has to say, there is his twitter account… tell him he is wrong. The following is not my opinion so do not tell me I am wrong, though I know you will…

I will try and keep this short so I will start with the section titled But Is It a Religion. I will simply be quoting from the book.

But Is It a Religion

Some atheists, including attorney Michael Newdow, who took his complaint against the inclusion of God in the Pledge of Allegiance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, believed that atheism is, in the words of novelist David Foster Wallace, an anti-religious religion, which worships reason, skepticism, intellect, empirical proof, human autonomy, and self-determination. Most atheists, however, are offended by the suggestion that they, too, might be religious. For them, exhibit A is as simple and powerful as their denial God. But all sorts of religious people deny God, including many Buddhists, Confucians, and Jews. (p 323)

Whether atheism is a religion depends, of course, on what actual atheists believe and do. So the answer to this question will vary from person to person, and group to group. It will also depend on what we mean by religion. Religion is now widely defined by scholars and judges alike… (p 324)

According to one common formula, members of the family of religions typically exhibit Four Cs: creed, cultus, code, and community. In other words, they have statements of beliefs and values (creeds); ritual activities (cultus); standards for ethical conduct (codes); and institutions (community). How does atheism stack up on this score? (p 324)

Atheists obviously have a creed. Some atheists deny that they believe anything. Is bald a hair color, they ask? But this denial is disingenuous. In fact, atheism is more doctrinal than any of the great religions. By definition, atheists agree on the dogma that there is no god, just as monotheists agree on the dogma that there is one. Belief is their preoccupation, as anyone who has read even one book on the subject can attest. (p 324)

Cultus is trickier. Years ago I received a letter from a Boston-area chaplains group accompanying an interfaith calendar…Among the holy days was the birthday of British philosopher Bertrand Russell. More recently, the Albany, New York-based Institute for Humanist Studies published a Secular Seasons calendar with more through accounting of atheists High Holy Days, including Thomas Paine Day and Darwin Day. There is not much evidence, however, that atheists celebrate these days with any gusto or actually regard these exemplars as saints. (p 324)

Most atheists do have a code of ethical conduct. In fact, one of the most frequent claims of the New Atheists is that they are the moral superiors of the old theists. (p 325)

Although most atheists go it alone, some father into communities. There is a network of summer camps for atheist children called Camp Quest. Other prominent atheist organizations include Atheist Alliance International, American Atheists, British Humanists Association, Humanist Association of Canada, and the Germany-based National Council of Ex-Muslims…A U.S. group known as the United Coalition of Reason ran a billboard and bus campaign with ads that read, Dont believe in God? You are not alone. Thought intended to raise visibility of atheists in the America public square, this campaign also trumpeted the availability of atheist communities… (p 325)

Using this functional approach, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in 1961 that secular humanism functions like a religion, so secular humanists merit the same sorts of First Amendment protections that religious practitioners enjoy. In 2005, in a decision that irked atheists and Christians alike, a lower U.S. court held that, because atheism walked and talked like a religion, judges should treat it as such. (p 325)

Onfray, the most radical and, after Hitchens, the most gifted New Atheist writer, detects the stench of religion in much atheism today… The tactics of some secular figures seem contaminated by their enemys ideology: man militants in the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy, he writes… Onfray seems to be channeling at least some of the spirit of German philosopher Arnold Ruge, a friend of Marx who refused to jump on the atheist bandwagon not because it was too radical but because it was too traditional: Atheism is just as religious as was Jacob wrestling with God: the atheist is no freer than a Jew who eats pork or a Mohammedan who drinks wine. (p 326)

Are human beings homo religiosus? Is it human nature to grasp after the sacred? Yes, say those biologists who find evolutionary advantages in religious beliefs and practices. If they are right, if religion is an inescapable part of being human, then atheism would seem fated to take on the form of religion. But not all atheists are religious. Some take their atheist creed with a shrug, steering clear of the cultus, codes, and communities of their atheist kin. For others, however, atheism is, in the words of German theologian Paul Tillich, an ultimate concern. It stands at the center of their lives, defining who they are, how they think, and with whom they associate. The question of God is never far from their minds, and they would never even consider marrying someone outside of their fold. They are, in short, no more free from the clutches of religion than adherents of the Cult of Reason in eighteenth-century France. For these people at least, atheism may be the solution to the problem of religion. But the solution is religious nonetheless. (p 326)

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not so long ago, we had a hard-fought thread here on this very subject,

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=221298

I think the most productive and reliable sense to apporach the question of when atheism can usefully be viewed as a religion is offered by Paul Tillich.

For others, however, atheism is, in the words of German theologian Paul Tillich, an ‘ultimate concern.'

Everybody whose brain functions adequately, in Tillich's view, has their own ultimate concerns. Everybody, then, has a religion, their very own religion, meaning what they think about their ultimate concerns and what they do as a result of their thinking.

Example. A person's ultimate concerns may be focused on the teachings of the Buddha, and the person may, in point of fact, believe there is no god. That person's religion, then, is Buddhism, where their ultimate concerns lie. Atheism is not that person's religion, it is a fact about their religion, as they personally pursue it.

With that in mind, when is any umbrella term, whether atheism or theism or agnosticism, "a religion" in this sense of Tillich?

Narrowly, never. Theism isn't a religion, it is collection of many religions and constellations of religious beliefs that share something in common. The same goes for atheism and agnosticism. The same also goes for less sweeping religious groupings, like "Christianity."

We do not always speak narrowly, however. Depending on the conversation, we may talk about a collection of religions as if it were a single religion, like "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God." That can be fine, but it is shorthand for reciting a laundry list of distinct religions that have this teaching in common. That would be impractical, so we do something else.

As the collective term used gets broader and broader, the members of the collection have less and less in common. A theist doesn't necessarily believe in one god, or that any god created the Universe, or that any god will always exist. The very broadest categories, atheism, theism and agnosticism, each have just one thing in common among their membership: their answer to the question of God.

It is ironic that anybody who works in Boston would offer as a test of religion,

It stands at the center of their lives, defining who they are, how they think, and with whom they associate. The question of God is never far from their minds, and they would never even consider marrying someone outside of their fold.

For many Bostonians, that much is true of the Democratic Party, never mind the Red Sox.

Not a perfect example, since politics or sports could be an ultimate concern, and for Bostonians, God is a Democrat Red Sox fan. But except in jest, politics snd sports really aren't very often ultimate for actual people. Prothero is defining a class of concerns which includes somebody's ultimate concern. Religion, for Tillich, is only about one distinguished member of the class.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, atheism is an absence of the belief in god. In itself, it is a non-ideological position. But it becomes irrelevant if the void is filled with any other ideology, which should not be regarded as a part of atheism. That is why I can't really accept Dawkins as an atheist of any significance because by ideology he is just a British upper class traditional white conservative. His religious targets of criticism corrrespond to what were considered traditional "enemies" of the Anglican Church. He defines himself as a "cultural Christian". He forgets, however that all religion is cultural and is performed, rather than believed. He even accept the ridiculous notion that the mythological god, Jesus Christ, was a historical person, which is contrary to all scientific evidence.

In other words, he uses atheism for dubious political/ideological goals, similarly to how philosophical views of individuals (which may be theistic) are used to form political/ideological movements such as religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Everybody whose brain functions adequately, in Tillich's view, has their own ultimate concerns. Everybody, then, has a religion, their very own religion, meaning what they think about their ultimate concerns and what they do as a result of their thinking.

I can't agree with this. Religion of one person makes no sense. The point of religion is in its social potential. When a person comes to some conclusions (even theistic ones), on his/her own, for example, because he can't accept that the universe couldn't have been without a cause, or something like that, this person is basing his/her conclusion on an arguably flawed rational evaluation (even if it means some sort of god), not on a belief (opinion based on faith). Religion is not the same as philosophy. Non-religious people sometimes accept spiritualism or some sort of higher power. It still doesn't make them religious.

This is why atheism of an individual can never be religion, even if it is a philosophy. But atheists can be religious (stalinists, cultural Christians and similar), in spite of their atheism.

Edited by monstrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ideally, atheism is an absence of the belief in god. In itself, it is a non-ideological position. But it becomes irrelevant if the void is filled with any other ideology, which should not be regarded as a part of atheism. That is why I can't really accept Dawkins as an atheist of any significance because by ideology he is just a British upper class traditional white conservative. His religious targets of criticism corrrespond to what were considered traditional "enemies" of the Anglican Church. He defines himself as a "cultural Christian". He forgets, however that all religion is cultural and is performed, rather than believed. He even accept the ridiculous notion that the mythological god, Jesus Christ, was a historical person, which is contrary to all scientific evidence.

In other words, he uses atheism for dubious political/ideological goals, similarly to how philosophical views of individuals (which may be theistic) are used to form political/ideological movements such as religions.

Ahah, a dogmatic atheist denying dogma as an element of atheism?

Err, How can a belief that no god(s) exist, NOT be an ideological expression?

Adj. 1. ideological - of or pertaining to or characteristic of an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideological

People who chose not to believe in god(s), are a group who hold a specific, characteristic orientation of thought. Classic idealogues. :innocent: .

Ps, humans, apart from the very young and intellectually disfunctioning, do not naturally have or hold an absence of belief in god. That would require a person to have never heard of the concept of god, r never to have formulated the concept themselves. And every young child fromulates this concept of god for itself. So what really happens, is that when confronted withthe concept of god a person mus teither chose to believ in the construct or disbelieve in it This is not an ABSENCE of a belief in god. It is a deliberate and considered choice to disbelieve in the concept /construct.

For some, the deliberation and consideration is longer than for others, but no human being simply HAS an absence of belief in god. They create(d) that absence of belief, just as others create a presence of belief.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monstrum

I was presenting Tillich's view.

I am sympathetic to it, obviously, with the following personal addendum. I believe it is a category mistake ever to approach any classification task, a question of the form "Is such-and-such an instance of so-and-so?" as if it were a matter of fact, except in formal discourse where all non-primitive terms are explicitly defined as a condition of participation in the discussion.

A voluntary, elective classification isn't true or false, it is useful or useless, IMO. Usefulness is both personal and siutation-dependent, and only rarely univeral. There are occasions when it is useful to classify a dog as a meal, and other occasions when it is useless. Ditto atheism and religion.

To forbid a classification claim categorically and globally inhibits free inquiry into the nature of the thing classified. I find this oppressive, dogmatic and incompatible with basic respect for the dignity of the human person.

Other views are possible. Welcome aboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of these threads that claim Atheism is a religion ..Threads like this are now a religion lol tongue.gif

Religion in the traditional sense = To worship the supernatural and requires a deity... But see now, some people are not happy with that, they will add in their own personal views and touches and class everything else religion...I put that down to desperation and the want to class all religious..

Atheism only has one belief - No God or Gods exist.. that's it... Anything else they do in their personal lives is separate.. Clubs they attend.( if any of them care to ) . it is separate regardless what the club is.......... Even science they take interest in is separate, it is something even religious ( real religious) do.. so that doesn't count either.. .. and are given different titles to describe them for a reason.... But sadly not everyone clearly can understand that... .

So if you do something every day or regular in life... scrap the title that describes what it is you are doing..and just call it all religious?

Like If if - Attend school every day taking lessons, follow teachers word and rules of the school etc ... You are not a student - You are religious... School is a religion...Education is not education it too is a religion ....scrap all titles and replace them with - Religion !!

If you cook and clean every day, you are not domestic or housewife... you are following a religion

If you play football every week...... Don't call it sport.. just religion..and act like that makes sense !!!

If you work every day, following work regulations, and you do it in a group....forget the job title... just call it religion....

If you use the bathroom every day, several times a day... That's a religion...In fact if you are unfortunate enough to have a problem with your bowels.. Go to the doctor and see what he can prescribe for your religious problem... !!!

The list goes on... Just scrap all titles and names given to describe each and every day...and call everything you do in life - A religion...And pretend to yourself it all makes sense !!

Me I wont entertain it...Atheism is not a religion.. I see no logic in classing it as such, just like the long list above I made is just plain stupid to call them all religions too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahah, a dogmatic atheist denying dogma as an element of atheism?

Err, How can a belief that no god(s) exist, NOT be an ideological expression?

Adj. 1. ideological - of or pertaining to or characteristic of an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideological

People who chose not to believe in god(s), are a group who hold a specific, characteristic orientation of thought. Classic idealogues. :innocent: .

Ps, humans, apart from the very young and intellectually disfunctioning, do not naturally have or hold an absence of belief in god. That would require a person to have never heard of the concept of god, r never to have formulated the concept themselves. And every young child fromulates this concept of god for itself. So what really happens, is that when confronted withthe concept of god a person mus teither chose to believ in the construct or disbelieve in it This is not an ABSENCE of a belief in god. It is a deliberate and considered choice to disbelieve in the concept /construct.

For some, the deliberation and consideration is longer than for others, but no human being simply HAS an absence of belief in god. They create(d) that absence of belief, just as others create a presence of belief.

I am not a dogmatic atheist. I am rather open for a possibility of god if someone provided a proof for his existence.

You misunderstood my post. I do claim that personal atheism is not ideological by default. But I also think that personal belief in god can be non-ideological as well. What is always ideological is religion and possibly socio-political manifestations of atheism.

Finally, I am ambivalent towards ideology itself. In my opinion, it is not always a negative term. In fact, some historical moments needed ideology in order to make things work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monstrum

I was presenting Tillich's view.

I am sympathetic to it, obviously, with the following personal addendum. I believe it is a category mistake ever to approach any classification task, a question of the form "Is such-and-such an instance of so-and-so?" as if it were a matter of fact, except in formal discourse where all non-primitive terms are explicitly defined as a condition of participation in the discussion.

A voluntary, elective classification isn't true or false, it is useful or useless, IMO. Usefulness is both personal and siutation-dependent, and only rarely univeral. There are occasions when it is useful to classify a dog as a meal, and other occasions when it is useless. Ditto atheism and religion.

To forbid a classification claim categorically and globally inhibits free inquiry into the nature of the thing classified. I find this oppressive, dogmatic and incompatible with basic respect for the dignity of the human person.

Other views are possible. Welcome aboard.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another one of these threads that claim Atheism is a religion ..Threads like this are now a religion lol tongue.gif

Religion in the traditional sense = To worship the supernatural and requires a deity... But see now, some people are not happy with that, they will add in their own personal views and touches and class everything else religion...I put that down to desperation and the want to class all religious..

Most of what you posted makes no sense according to the book. He does not make the claims you suggest.

I will say this though...the definition of religion has changed. It is not that people want to classify everything, rather the definition has changed. The same goes for the definition of marriage. I would imagine you would be annoyed if I were to sit here and argue that marriage is only an exchange of property, because that is what it was in ancient times, or even in some places today. Marriage in the traditional sense = exchange of property.

Definitions change. I find your definition of religion rather dogmatic.

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Most of what you posted makes no sense according to the book. He does not make the claims you suggest.

Yes but see I don't believe and suck in all I read.. So I care not for what some author who cannot understand what religion is says...His ideas do not mean all are true and must be taken in by all...If you choose to believe his words, that is your personal choice.. It does not make it fact for everyone else

I would imagine you would be annoyed if I were to sit here and argue that marriage is only an exchange of property, because that is what it was in ancient times, or even in some places today. Marriage in the traditional sense = exchange of property.

Good grief.. it just gets worse lol.....Look Marriage in the traditional sense = Long commitment between two people who love, honour and are loyal to each other... Property follows... A dictionary would tell you that..............

I do not get why people think.. If they see some change the meaning of traditional words, this MUST mean we all must adopt and accept it ...What a silly concept... Glad I am not tha silly...Nor do I suck in all I am told or follow the sheep

I find your definition of religion rather dogmatic.

And I find yours illogical...Your personal choice is to follow and beleive n some authors words and definitions... That is your choice... Do not lump it on anyone else... Doing that makes you religious lol w00t.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes but see I don't believe and suck in all I read.. So I care not for what some author who cannot understand what religion is says...His ideas do not mean al are true and must be taken in by all...

Yeah, good point. You know everything you know by not reading anything. I guess all of the world's answers just magically appear in your head right? I'm sure you know more about religion that someone who actually studies it...knowing everything without reading or researching anything is dogmatic, is it not?

reply to your edit:

I held this view before I read his book. It is a view I have held since I started learning about religion. I just happened to read his book and he had the same opinion. I posted his view because everyone ignores mine.

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a dogmatic atheist. I am rather open for a possibility of god if someone provided a proof for his existence.

You misunderstood my post. I do claim that personal atheism is not ideological by default. But I also think that personal belief in god can be non-ideological as well. What is always ideological is religion and possibly socio-political manifestations of atheism.

Finally, I am ambivalent towards ideology itself. In my opinion, it is not always a negative term. In fact, some historical moments needed ideology in order to make things work.

I want to clarify that. One socio-political manifestation of atheism is the New Atheism. Similarly, the socio-political manifestation of belief is religion. The paradox is that neither of these is actually about the philosophy it was based on. The New Atheism is not neccessarily fighting for non-belief. They are more like a right-wing ideologues who happen to have an atheistic leitmotif, a right mirror image of communists. I am not saying all of them are bad, far from it. Just as I admire some communist thinkers, I greatly admire Christopher Hitchens, for example. Maybe because he was often conscious of these dynamics and always questioning his own stance.

As of religions, they are all about retaining tribal power trough oppression. The belief in "god's truth" is far down on the priority scale.

If I am to choose between the two, I would still take the New Atheism (or rather some New Atheists) over any religion because they still belong to the humanist family of thought. Of course with reservations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing, and this might be it for today: In regards to the OP, not only do I don't agree that atheism is a religion, I don't even think that religion is a "religion", in the sense that it has much to do with theistic philosophy, as opposed to gaining more power for a chosen few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, good point. You know everything you know by not reading anything. I guess all of the world's answers just magically appear in your head right? I'm sure you know more about religion that someone who actually studies it...knowing everything without reading or researching anything is dogmatic, is it not?

I feel your problem is simple as this - You have chosen to adopt the beliefs of some author .. You now are using these personal beliefs to argue with others and lump them on to everyone that reads... If anyone dares to argue, you will tell them how illogical it all is and it doesn't make sense because your book author says so ....... <-- That is like what a real religious perosn will do with their holy book filled with many words from many authors ......... ...You don't seem to see this do you?

And no not every answer in the world appears in my head.. But I still can think for most things myself.. I have a brain,I will use it .. And so not assume you know what I know about religion ..I know more than you think...

And if you call the author as someone who has studies religion all because he claims football which is a sport .. he classes it too as a religion more of an expert? Then that is just your opinion... and one you are welcome to hold ...Not one I will take on

Now you can continue arguing with anyone that disagrees with your personal beliefs and your authors..and see if you can lump them all as religious... But you will not be able to convince everyone.. It is a personal belief you are using and not fact.... I have seen multi threads like this before... They never win or get anywhere... You will lean this soon enough

You began this thread.. all because you were arguing with shadow sot in another over the same thing.. Now you are looking to take on more...I wish you luck..But please do not expect me to adopt to your ideas... I am not that easy to lead down a garden path

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of you seem to be getting very irritated when I imply that some of atheism is a religion. I think most of you just ignore what I have to say, which is fair because I am just another dumbass on the internet.

I don't think they so much ignore what you say. They simply don't agree. I don't think it has anything to do with you personally.

We basically are all dumbasses on the internet now are we? Nah. You have an opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. Others too. You may hate their opinions, love them but in the end they are only opinions.

So the only thing I have to say about it is that.

Atheism: A disbelief in the existence of deity.

Religion: A collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Ok. Now, since atheism is purely the lack of beleif in a deity, I don't think it could be considered as a religion per se.

Now, if atheists decide to go on and form a religion (as the definition implies) that's something a little diffrent in my opinion. I would rather see it as a religion in which there is no deity/God so in other words, a religion followed by atheists.

Now would that mean that atheism is a religion? I don't think so. I would rather think that it's a religion (whatever you want to call it) ruled by atheists.

So I'm not implying that atheists can't form a religion, just that the term "atheism" has nothing to do with religion at the very base.

Now if following a religion necessarily implies that you need to beleive in a God/deity (or many of them) then we couldn't consider their movement (if any) as beeing religious. But as far as I understand, religion dosen't necessarily have to be based on the beleif in a God/deity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hope you get my point.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but by using this definition (in the OP), SOME baseball is religion, Girl Scouts are a religion heck, street gangs are a religion and even jail would be a religion.

So, I disagree with this broad and stretched definition of "religion".

Nibs

(my post copied from another similar thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel your problem is simple as this - You have chosen to adopt the beliefs of some author .. You now are using these personal beliefs to argue with others and lump them on to everyone that reads... If anyone dares to argue, you will tell them how illogical it all is and it doesn't make sense because your book author says so ....... <-- That is like what a real religious perosn will do with their holy book filled with many words from many authors ......... ...You don't seem to see this do you?

And no not every answer in the world appears in my head.. But I still can think for most things myself.. I have a brain,I will use it .. And so not assume you know what I know about religion ..I know more than you think...

And if you call the author as someone who has studies religion all because he claims football which is a sport .. he classes it too as a religion more of an expert? Then that is just your opinion... and one you are welcome to hold ...Not one I will take on

Now you can continue arguing with anyone that disagrees with your personal beliefs and your authors..and see if you can lump them all as religious... But you will not be able to convince everyone.. It is a personal belief you are using and not fact.... I have seen multi threads like this before... They never win or get anywhere... You will lean this soon enough

You began this thread.. all because you were arguing with shadow sot in another over the same thing.. Now you are looking to take on more...I wish you luck..But please do not expect me to adopt to your ideas... I am not that easy to lead down a garden path

I have not adopted the beliefs of some author, I simply agree with them, as I am sure you agree with many people. Agreeing with someone does not mean you adopted their beliefs. I am willing to bet that someone as intellectually superior as yourself agrees with an author even now and again even though you can think for yourself.

I do not mind if people argue with me or do not agree with me. I do not call them illogical. Many people that I do not agree with, I would consider very logical. The problem I have is when people are arguing about with me about something I did not say, for example, all atheists are religious. I never made this claim.

Once again, you do not read or understand what I am saying. This author never argues that football is a religion but you would know that if you read anything I typed. I simply said that there are definitions of religion that could include football, meaning football, or more specifically football fans, meet the criteria of a religion. I agree that football is not a religion but it can fit some definitions, mainly in the sociology field. This does not mean everyone that likes or plays football is religious, it just means that some are. If I pray one time do you now consider me religious? Not every action that can be considered religious makes a religion.

I will not argue with people simply because they disagree with me. I will argue with them if they miss the point or do not even attempt to read it before commenting. Do you see me arguing with anyone that says “I do not agree?” No, because that is fine. I am not here trying to get people to accept my beliefs. I know the vast majority will not. I only wish they will entertain the though, something that you will not do because of your dogmatic beliefs. You do not even entertain ideas because your beliefs are so dogmatic you already have all the facts and know all of the answers.

And do not tell me why I made this thread…I know why I made this thread, and I said so in the very first paragraph of this thread, which clearly you did not read. You have a real bad habit of not reading anything you comment on. You just go around barking your dogmatic opinion whether you read something or not. I imagine that is why you have nearly 46,000 posts…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they so much ignore what you say. They simply don't agree. I don't think it has anything to do with you personally.

We basically are all dumbasses on the internet now are we? Nah. You have an opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. Others too. You may hate their opinions, love them but in the end they are only opinions.

So the only thing I have to say about it is that.

Atheism: A disbelief in the existence of deity.

Religion: A collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Ok. Now, since atheism is purely the lack of beleif in a deity, I don't think it could be considered as a religion per se.

Now, if atheists decide to go on and form a religion (as the definition implies) that's something a little diffrent in my opinion. I would rather see it as a religion in which there is no deity/God so in other words, a religion followed by atheists.

Now would that mean that atheism is a religion? I don't think so. I would rather think that it's a religion (whatever you want to call it) ruled by atheists.

So I'm not implying that atheists can't form a religion, just that the term "atheism" has nothing to do with religion at the very base.

Now if following a religion necessarily implies that you need to beleive in a God/deity (or many of them) then we couldn't consider their movement (if any) as beeing religious. But as far as I understand, religion dosen't necessarily have to be based on the beleif in a God/deity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hope you get my point.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Thank you for your reply. I agree with most of what you are saying…specifically this…

So I'm not implying that atheists can't form a religion, just that the term "atheism" has nothing to do with religion at the very base.

That is my argument…not that all atheism is a religion but some atheist act religiously, or form a religion. I have never said that atheism at the very base is religious but that is what everyone is claiming I am saying.

I agree that religion does not need to have a belief in a deity, many do not, and that is the reason some atheists can be considered religious. Many people believe religion = belief in a deity. That is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but by using this definition (in the OP), SOME baseball is religion, Girl Scouts are a religion heck, street gangs are a religion and even jail would be a religion.

So, I disagree with this broad and stretched definition of "religion".

Nibs

(my post copied from another similar thread)

Yes, that is true and that is why I can see your disagreement. The point is that there are many definitions of religion, which makes it hard to study. Many of the Eastern religions would not fit the common mold of religion, that is why some definitions are so broad. Most of us think about things in a Western mindset. It was the attempt to rid us of this Western mindset that led to such board definitions of religion. The current definitions of religion were made to try and include Eastern religions and Eastern philosophy, which is very different than the Western view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nibs

It's unclear which definition you're commenting on. Your criticism has been acknowledged to fit Tillich's, so I'll step up for his.

Ok, but by using this definition (in the OP), SOME baseball is religion, Girl Scouts are a religion heck, street gangs are a religion and even jail would be a religion. So, I disagree with this broad and stretched definition of "religion".

That's not quite true. Baseball could be an "ultimate concern," but that doesn't imply that it actually ever has been one for any person who has ever lived. I doubt it has.

The potential range of choices of an ultimate concern needs to be broad, because of the recorded human experience of what has been an ultimate concern. Mere absurdity doesn't help.

The Hebrew Bible, for example, points out that some of their neighbors worshipped rocks or logs. These practices seemed absurd to the Hebrews, even as they themselves worshipped an invisible - what? It is plausible that the neighbors found this idea absurd.

Christians worship a "fully human" being whose father wasn't a man and who is himself a god. Muslims agree about Jesus' humanity, but think that he didn't have a father at all, and find it absurd that the unfathered fully human being is divine.

Until I see the threads about "Are the Abrahamic Faiths Religions?" I will accept that a useful definition of religion must accommodate ideas that seem absurd to non-adherents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The question of God is never far from their minds, and they would never even consider marrying someone outside of their fold.

And yet - here I am. An Atheist, happily married to a Christian.

Everybody whose brain functions adequately, in Tillich's view, has their own ultimate concerns.

Whilst I could easily believe that all Religions are Ultimate Concerns, I find it impossible to believe that all Ultimate Concerns are Religions.

That's not quite true. Baseball could be an "ultimate concern," but that doesn't imply that it actually ever has been one for any person who has ever lived. I doubt it has.

Mine is to set a good example for my Children.

Feel free to spin that into my worship of the Religion of Good Example.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have not adopted the beliefs of some author, I simply agree with them, as I am sure you agree with many people.

You said you felt different before you read it... and now you beleive his words.. His words are his personal beliefs on what region and atheism is.. You believing it and going all out to make threads and argue it.. telling me and anyone else that dares to say likewise.. we are not making sense... You have in fact adopted his beliefs on atheism as your own..like it or not ..No differ in that and what a Christians does with a bible.. They all felt different at 1st, then later held different beliefs and views later.. and so many will do what you just did....

Make note..In general and not just about your beliefs, there is nothing wrong with reading material from other people and later believing in their word ....it happens to us all at some point.. But it doesn't mean we should take those beliefs and peg them on to anyone else.. We all are entitled to make our own minds up.. ...Remember I said in general.. it means about any given topic

I do not call them illogical

Yes you have.. I'll show you... see below ...

Most of what you posted makes no sense according to the book. He does not make the claims you suggest

As you agree with ALL this author says on religion and atheism.. then .. then you telling me I do not make sense with anything I put forward that opposes all you posted.. is the same thing as saying - Not logical..

Does not make sense.. AKA not logical. according to the author of the book you like to adopt as your new belief on what atheism is.. So obviously you too feel the same..

for example, all atheists are religious. I never made this claim.

You are still trying to speak for many atheists regardless... Don't you think it is up to the atheist on their own personal level to make that decision and not yours to make for them? You brand so many of these people religious ..but it is not up to you is it? ...Do you Ike people sticking labels on to you all because they view you some way?

I agree that football is not a religion but it can fit some definitions, mainly in the sociology field.

I never looked at your post about football to be honest.. I listed it in my own post because it has been listed it as one of my own examples... Further more... I was making a point, that just because something is like a religion in some way, does not mean it is religious.. Just like Atheism ...It does not make any of them religious in any way... So I was just making it as part of my own points...

it just means that some are.

That's the problem... you have lumped so many Atheists with a label you chose to use because of what you now believe... This I see as wrong.. Atheists have the right to label themselves... Just like you have aright to label yourself what suits you... Who is anyone else to lump you with a lable you may not agree with?...

Do you see me arguing with anyone that says "I do not agree?"

Me for a start.. The moment you saw my post not agreeing you were quick to tell me how I do not make sense, because your author says so.. You believe in what the author says so yes you have done

You do not even entertain ideas because your beliefs are so dogmatic you already have all the facts and know all of the answers.

There is nothing about what my points I made forceful or even arrogant...I am not dictating anything... That is what dogmatic means...All I am doing is listing points on how I view it all..and actually how I have always viewed it in every topic that its titled - Atheism is a religion <-- the title alone is already sticking Atheists into some category ...it saying - I have my mind made up, and this is what I believe....

. You cannot see that all I have done is post up how I see the idea of Atheism being a religion.. I simply disagree... You seem to be using the dogmatic label on to me all because you are not liking what i am saying..... You are lumping another personal belief you have of me on to me... All I am doing is telling you how I see it and how I do not agree. and listed my own points .. So no it is not dogmatic ... If you find you do not like my personal views on how I see it, that is your right, but it does not mean you can call my personal view point dogmatic all because you don't like it or agree. In fact you have called me dogmatic several times I do not appreciate it.. .. That is wrong And please do not say you like my views, if you liked them you would not call them dogmatic lol

And do not tell me why I made this thread…I know why I made this thread, and I said so in the very first paragraph of this thread, which clearly you did not read. You have a real bad habit of not reading anything you comment on. You just go around barking your dogmatic opinion whether you read something or not. I imagine that is why you have nearly 46,000 posts…

See all of that especially the bold part I highlight from your personal view on me.. I sense anger from your choice of words towards me personally ........ And mentioning my post count is not going to make your side convincing. It is just another personal remark. aimed at me assuming you know the contents of all my posts I hold no real interest in any personal remarks you wish to make

.Neither is you now making it a personal thing... This only tells me you cannot handle stronger opposing view points made... Continue to make it personal will result in having a mod close it... You do not want that.. So it is wise not to keep making personal comments out of anger... I am not interested in how you feel about me..I am interested in sharing view points... Can you do that? If not ( and I only mean IF ) and you still push out your personal remarks aobut me and what you feel about my post count and how I deal with things.. Then a mod will have to sort that out... I cannot waste time on any personal issues.. I am here to discuss the points only.

Please note I said IF not because you might decide to stop the personal stuff and focus on sharing points.. it's up to you

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet - here I am. An Atheist, happily married to a Christian.

But not all atheists are religious. Some take their atheist creed with a shrug, steering clear of the cultus, codes, and communities of their atheist kin.

This is in bold in the OP. I do not believe in God, yet I am also happily married to a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism has become a stereotype, and yeah the stereotype has leanings towards the religious but we cannot assume the stereotype defines all/most atheists...

Some atheists treat it as if it were a religion.

Some think of it very little, it is merely a part of their awareness of the world, as their lack of belief isn't all that important compared to what they are doing with their lives.

The majority are usually somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.