Can atheists be religious?

[Tridimity]

Good to see that you've brought something new to the table. Congrats.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Tridimity,

 

Please stick to the topic presented in the OP.

 

Any more posts that are not in line with the OP will be removed.

 

[s1eep]

Good to see that you've brought something new to the table. Congrats.

No-one has mentioned that there is a Man that inherits the title of Atheist, and this man believes in something, and is religious by nature. There is no hiding the fact Atheists are religious; the people who assume the role of an Atheist are the more suited definition. It is you, directly, that Theists are addressing when they claim you have beliefs, or that Atheists bare the characteristics of religion. We all wish things could be perfect, but there is no perfection attained by the word "Atheist", you are not the correct representation of your beliefs. If you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't discuss or debate it. You would treat it as any other hobby people have--you don't see religious groups against stamp collecting (people simply don't collect stamps). I think Atheism is very childish, and unwise, acting. Though the premise is understandable, the people that accredit Atheism are often silly or anti to their own beliefs.

Edited November 15, 2013 by s1eep

[Tridimity]

!

Moderator Note

Tridimity,

 

Please stick to the topic presented in the OP.

 

Any more posts that are not in line with the OP will be removed.

 

I was replying directly to posts directed to me - mostly by Villain

 

The topic of my posts is also in line with the OP - the thread title is, 'Are atheists religious?'

 

It has been argued that atheists are religious because they take an active position on the matter of the existence of God.

 

I outlined the reasons why atheists become involved in the God question - and so why the argument that 'atheists are religious because they are involved in the God question' is fallacious. You will notice that this directly relates to the thread title.

[john5746]

...If you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't discuss or debate it. You would treat it as any other hobby people have...

hobby? really?

 

 

I think if you had true faith, you wouldn't feel the need to discuss anything. You would leave it all up to God and keep your mouth shut. Don't vote, don't express your opinion about anything. Why would you do that? God will take care of it, have faith. To do anything else is childish and unwise. I understand your desire, but to do anything else but what I just said is anti to your beliefs.

[Ringer]

No-one has mentioned that there is a Man that inherits the title of Atheist, and this man believes in something, and is religious by nature.

That's because there isn't one.

 

There is no hiding the fact Atheists are religious;

Saying it's a fact doesn't make it one.

 

the people who assume the role of an Atheist are the more suited definition.

WTF is the role of an atheist? To work on holidays?

 

It is you, directly, that Theists are addressing when they claim you have beliefs, or that Atheists bare the characteristics of religion.

Having a belief =/= being a religion. I don't believe in ghosts, but there is no religion for non-ghost belief.

 

We all wish things could be perfect, but there is no perfection attained by the word "Atheist", you are not the correct representation of your beliefs.

What are you even saying.

 

If you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't discuss or debate it. You would treat it as any other hobby people have--you don't see religious groups against stamp collecting (people simply don't collect stamps).

We don't discuss our disbelief in a god. We may express it, we may show why certain beliefs are improbable, but what you won't hear is (most of us) pontificate about our non-belief. Just as I don't debate the reliability of lie detectors unless someone brings the subject up. Because it's not part of my life and I don't think or care about it.

 

I think Atheism is very childish, and unwise, acting. Though the premise is understandable, the people that accredit Atheism are often silly or anti to their own beliefs.

Name calling is very adult of you. You should probably actually make an argument, or at least explain your assertions.

[Arete]

No-one has mentioned that there is a Man that inherits the title of Atheist

 

"Atheist" is not a title. "Sir" or "Mr" is a title. Atheist is an adjective, describing non - belief in a deity. We've covered this multiple times already.

 

 

 

and this man believes in something

 

As per the definition, "athiest" describes non-belief. Not the opposite.

 

 

 

and is religious by nature

 

and what religion is that?

 

 

 

It is you, directly, that Theists are addressing when they claim you have beliefs, or that Atheists bare the characteristics of religion

 

You speak for all theists, and all theists are addressing a particular member of this forum?

 

 

 

We all wish things could be perfect, but there is no perfection attained by the word "Atheist

 

This doesn't make any sense, "atheist" is merely an adjective.

 

 

 

you are not the correct representation of your beliefs

 

Wait, now there's a "correct" representation for an atheist, and YOU decide what it is? That like saying that YOU personally get to decide how a not-football "fan" is supposed to be represented. I.e. It's nonsensical.

 

 

 

If you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't discuss or debate it.

 

I just spent a good portion of this evening hashing out with a six year old discussion the likelihood of the existence of a closet ghost. By your definition, I now must believe in closet ghosts.

 

 

 

You would treat it as any other hobby people have--you don't see religious groups against stamp collecting (people simply don't collect stamps)

 

So someone becomes a "religious" atheist when they start discussing their atheism. I get it, perfect sense - not. If that were the case me discussing my passionate dislike of football would make me a football fan. It's a nonsensical proposal.

 

It's also getting dangerously similar to don't ask, don't tell.

 

 

 

I think Atheism is very childish, and unwise, acting.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

 

 

Though the premise is understandable, the people that accredit Atheism are often silly or anti to their own beliefs.

 

And yet, atheists tend to be better educated and of higher IQ than theists.

[s1eep]

That's because there isn't one.

 

 

Saying it's a fact doesn't make it one.

 

 

WTF is the role of an atheist? To work on holidays?

 

 

Having a belief =/= being a religion. I don't believe in ghosts, but there is no religion for non-ghost belief.

 

 

What are you even saying.

 

 

We don't discuss our disbelief in a god. We may express it, we may show why certain beliefs are improbable, but what you won't hear is (most of us) pontificate about our non-belief. Just as I don't debate the reliability of lie detectors unless someone brings the subject up. Because it's not part of my life and I don't think or care about it.

 

 

Name calling is very adult of you. You should probably actually make an argument, or at least explain your assertions.

Of course there is "one", you are this person (I assume) who is Atheist. It's a fact that the Man who believes in Atheism, is more a suited definition than the meaning behind the word Atheist--it speaks for itself. The role you play for your belief in Atheism, such as contributing to debates and discussion not forced upon you, but offered to you as any other of people's passions would. And you don't even see my point. You ARE a activist group for, hypothetically, not collecting stamps. Why are you winging at particular points I made instead of reasoning with the semantics of my entire post? You are discussing your belief now, this is you and not the Atheist title; it's pedantic mind control; you want me to believe in what you believe in the same way a Christian wants me to believe what he believes, except you use science. and obviously you believe that science is ultimate truth to back up your "non-belief", it defeats God, in your opinion. You think that your non-belief is the truth, and it's what you preach, sometimes on the offhand. Well, being religious, I think some character traits are more relevant since prestige is placed upon you which may not necessarily be there--call it a better judgement of character than what Today's science can offer, for that would be too nice.

Edited November 16, 2013 by s1eep

[Tridimity]

you want me to believe in what you believe in the same way a Christian wants me to believe what he believes

 

 

Nobody cares whether or not you believe in God - we just are not willing to passively tolerate the assertion that 'atheism is a religion'

 

obviously you believe that science is ultimate truth to back up your "non-belief", it defeats God

 

 

 

'Science is ultimate truth', as a statement, does not make sense. Science is a way of thinking not a list of facts and any scientist worth their salt will readily admit that they cannot claim absolute truth. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, if there were a scientific perspective on God, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to confirm his existence, and so the scientific perspective would technically be Agnostic in the same sense as the scientific community are agnostic about Earthly life forms that use a non-DNA or RNA code for inheritance (only the latter is more likely than the former). It is not possible to defeat something which does not exist.

 

I think some character traits are more relevant since prestige is placed upon you which may not necessarily be there--call it a better judgement of character than what Today's science can offer

 

 

When did character traits enter the discussion? It is futile to try to associate belief or non-belief in God with certain character traits - for example, some theists are (on the whole) kind while some are not; some atheists are (on the whole) kind while some are not. If this is intended as a tirade against Science - frankly nobody cares whether or not you agree with the scientific approach - but at least be consistent if you do not, start by turning off your PC.

[Ringer]

Of course there is "one", you are this person (I assume) who is Atheist.

I inherited the title of atheist? Do you know inheritance works? Do you know that women can be atheists?

 

It's a fact that the Man who believes in Atheism, is more a suited definition than the meaning behind the word Atheist--it speaks for itself.

The fact that a man who believes the word atheism is a proper noun is less suited to define atheism than a child.

 

The role you play for your belief in Atheism, such as contributing to debates and discussion not forced upon you, but offered to you as any other of people's passions would.

My discussions of theism in my life is solely due to the actions of people bringing it up and actively asking me or somehow making negative remarks about non-theistic beliefs. So yes, they are forced upon me, unless I want to lie.

 

And you don't even see my point. You ARE a activist group for, hypothetically, not collecting stamps. Why are you winging at particular points I made instead of reasoning with the semantics of my entire post?

Activism requires activity. My non-understanding of you is because you don't actually bring anything to the table other than bald, unsupported assertions.

 

You are discussing your belief now, this is you and not the Atheist title; it's pedantic mind control; you want me to believe in what you believe in the same way a Christian wants me to believe what he believes, except you use science. and obviously you believe that science is ultimate truth to back up your "non-belief", it defeats God, in your opinion.

I don't give a damn what you believe, I won't ever know what anyone believes unless they bring it up. As I said, I don't think about religion until it is brought up, it's not part of my life unless put there.

 

Science doesn't touch on supernaturalism and has no part of this discussion.

 

You think that your non-belief is the truth, and it's what you preach, sometimes on the offhand. Well, being religious, I think some character traits are more relevant since prestige is placed upon you which may not necessarily be there--call it a better judgement of character than what Today's science can offer, for that would be too nice.

As usual you are incorrect. Belief in the supernatural has never had an effect on my life other than negative (when I did belief in a god), it made more sense to me to just not think or care about the supernatural.

 

Again, what are you talking about character traits?

[ralfy]

What's your point? The existence of different definitions does not alter the broken logic structure you put forth. You misspoke, and I demonstrated that by analogy so it was more clear where, how, and why.

It's the other way round: the "existence of different definitions" alters "the broken logic structure you put forth." I'll demonstrate below.

 

Either way, no need to perpetuate a petty and silly disagreement like this. This thread is laden with a countless many of them already (seriously, people are arguing that buddhism is not a religion FFS).

No, my argument addresses the question raised in the title thread. It even addresses your last point: based on the various definitions of "religion," Buddhism is and isn't a religion. Apply the same point to the question in the title thread, and read my previous messages for details.

 

It's pretty clear to me that you intended to convey a message more aligned with the structure put forth by Villain, which is frankly something nobody in this thread has disagreed with anyway.

 

As a reminder, here's how Villain expressed the position:

"because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious."

 

I agree 100%. Either way, it's a red herring so is moot. Nobody here is saying that atheists are necessarily irreligious. What people ARE saying is that atheism is not a religion, and to suggest otherwise is to expand the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless.

No, I didn't, as religion <> religious.

[iNow]

based on the various definitions of "religion," Buddhism is and isn't a religion.

Was your intention here to support my position (and the position expressed by several others in this thread) that you are merely expanding the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless? If so, you've just done that.

 

This thread was absurd when it began. It's only become more so since.

[John Cuthber]

The question raised in the OP was answered by the second post in the thread. Arguably, everything since then has been off- topic.

[Amanbir Singh Grewal]

John - Atheism is the world's oldest religion. It is a belief in no God but that of the truth.

 

I think it is the strongest definition of God that any religion can offer.

 

we good.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Amanbir Singh Grewal

[ralfy]

Was your intention here to support my position (and the position expressed by several others in this thread) that you are merely expanding the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless? If so, you've just done that.

 

This thread was absurd when it began. It's only become more so since.

Expanding a definition of religion as to "render it useless"? That point makes no sense at all. What I did is show, correctly, the various definitions of religion, and you did not counter that in any way.

 

If any, what makes this thread "absurd" isn't the fact that religion has several definitions. It's that you can't accept that.

[s1eep]

Expanding a definition of religion as to "render it useless"? That point makes no sense at all. What I did is show, correctly, the various definitions of religion, and you did not counter that in any way.

 

If any, what makes this thread "absurd" isn't the fact that religion has several definitions. It's that you can't accept that.

You are not the definition of the word Atheist, but you are the Atheist in question. Are YOU religious? Yes. I believe that it's wise to know that Atheists are people, and that people have beliefs. A belief an Atheist has, that is, the man who is the Atheist, is in Atheism. He is not an Atheist because of his character if he discusses his belief, he becomes the man who discusses it. It not the definition of Atheist that were referring to, therefore; again, it's the man or men in question. Are you trying to tell me there aren't a group of Atheists advocating beliefs? I see them everywhere, it speaks for itself. You are religious, but you don't believe in God, and this is your religion, otherwise be incognito and stay away from God--then you are the meaning behind the word Atheist, because your character shows it. Right now you don't possess the self-awareness to know that you're really deluded to think that what you're doing isn't religious.

[Phi for All]

Are you trying to tell me there aren't a group of Atheists advocating beliefs? I see them everywhere, it speaks for itself. You are religious, but you don't believe in God, and this is your religion, otherwise be incognito and stay away from God--then you are the meaning behind the word Atheist, because your character shows it. Right now you don't possess the self-awareness to know that you're really deluded to think that what you're doing isn't religious.

 

"... be incognito and stay away from God" or you'll be religious, the same way you prove yourself to be political if you ever tell someone you don't vote! Don't talk about how you hate motorcycles or you'll be a biker! Don't talk about loving meat or you're a vegetarian! That sports team you claim to hate, we know that makes you an ardent fan! Denying Thor makes you an Olympian at heart!

 

Not believing in God is NOT a religion, but I understand how SOME theists desperately want it to be to make themselves look less crazy.

 

I have to go now. I told a friend that I don't believe in stealing and the police are here to arrest me for being a thief.

[s1eep]

 

"... be incognito and stay away from God" or you'll be religious, the same way you prove yourself to be political if you ever tell someone you don't vote! Don't talk about how you hate motorcycles or you'll be a biker! Don't talk about loving meat or you're a vegetarian! That sports team you claim to hate, we know that makes you an ardent fan! Denying Thor makes you an Olympian at heart!

 

Not believing in God is NOT a religion, but I understand how SOME theists desperately want it to be to make themselves look less crazy.

 

I have to go now. I told a friend that I don't believe in stealing and the police are here to arrest me for being a thief.

It's not such a hard world, you're not struggling being religious, I'm merely trying to strip you of credibility when you say you're not religious. Stop making this some rigmarole of self-importance.

[Moontanman]

Since atheism is nothing but a lack of a belief in a god and some religions do not believe in a god as part of their belief system then it is evidently true that atheists can be religious but "not buying what theists are selling" is not a religion by any definition...

[Tridimity]

I just realised how scary it must be to reject a marriage proposal from s1eep. "You said no! That means you love me, you love me!"

[Phi for All]

It's not such a hard world, you're not struggling being religious, I'm merely trying to strip you of credibility when you say you're not religious. Stop making this some rigmarole of self-importance.

 

This sounds like fear, based on a need to strip credibility from a stance that discredits your worldview. Atheism NEEDS to be a religion in order for your not-such-a-hard-world to make sense, doesn't it?

 

I find it intellectually dishonest of you to start a discussion about god(s), claim I'm religious because I don't believe in them, and then accuse me of being self-important when I defend my position that not-believing ≠ believing. Like many others, I'm finding your arguments to be highly irrational and not reality-based.

[s1eep]

 

This sounds like fear, based on a need to strip credibility from a stance that discredits your worldview. Atheism NEEDS to be a religion in order for your not-such-a-hard-world to make sense, doesn't it?

 

I find it intellectually dishonest of you to start a discussion about god(s), claim I'm religious because I don't believe in them, and then accuse me of being self-important when I defend my position that not-believing ≠ believing. Like many others, I'm finding your arguments to be highly irrational and not reality-based.

Religion isn't only about Gods, it also is associated with other beliefs. Where in Taoism is God?

 

That's the same as thinking Nature is just trees like some unwise people; you think Religion is just God, but it is much more than that. It's commonly God, but that's due to socialization, not the reality of religion.

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[iNow]

We've already established... Repeatedly... in this very thread... that atheists CAN be religious. The point that people seem to keep missing... whether through sheer ignorance or being intentionally obtuse... is that atheism itself is NOT a religion.

 

Now, please continue missing this childishly simple point and let's go around in circles for another 8 pages. That'd be great.

[s1eep]

We've already established... Repeatedly... in this very thread... that atheists CAN be religious. The point that people seem to keep missing... whether through sheer ignorance or being intentionally obtuse... is that atheism itself is NOT a religion.

 

Now, please continue missing this childishly simple point and let's go around in circles for another 8 pages. That'd be great.

I agree with what you are saying, except Atheism is not a belief in God, not anti-religion, it's anti-God; and therefore I don't agree with the statement "atheism is NOT a religion". You can also call religions, cults or groups; you are a group of people and you have beliefs (or you can also say, codes, morals, values). This defines Atheism as a religion. That doesn't mean you believe in God--the definition of Atheist doesn't assert that Atheists are against religion, only God.

[overtone]

 

 

A belief an Atheist has, that is, the man who is the Atheist, is in Atheism

I am atheistic, in a sense (none of the recognized deities exist in my personal life, nor do named deities make sense to me), but I do not believe in any particular Atheism.

 

In my cultural heritage, the question "Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" makes perfect sense. I'm a Protestant atheist. Where my people come from, that would at one time have put my life at risk at the hands of Catholic atheists, who had different morals, codes, values, and core beliefs.

 

 

 

You can also call religions, cults or groups; you are a group of people and you have beliefs

They - the Catholic atheists, and the millions of others different from me - are not all in my group, and our beliefs are not held in common - I don't share any beliefs with all, or even most, other atheistic people.

 

(or you can also say, codes, morals, values)

No, you can't. Values and codes and morals are all different things, none of them are beliefs, and I share as many of them with you as I do with many atheistic folks - does this mean you are an atheist, like me?

 

This defines Atheism as a religion.

I don't belong to it. I don't share the codes, values, or morals of a Stalinist priest-killer or a Sinhalese mosque-burner, for example. Neither do the atheistic Taoists - they're Taoists, that's their religion.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean you believe in God--the definition of Atheist doesn't assert that Atheists are against religion, only God

Whether you know it or not, that is a direct physical threat to your neighbors who have done you no harm and threatened you not at all. Theists who start talking like that have, regularly, throughout history, banded together in packs and done horrible things to anyone they suspect of being "against God". It's a flaw in your morals, a problem with your value system, a loophole in your code - anyone not "for" your deity is "against" Him, you feel called to defend your deity against those you think are "against" Him, and you have no limits or compucntions in you in response to that call.

 

Unlike you I do not presume that Theism is a single religion, that believers in Theism are all alike and belong in a group, that they share the same morals and codes and values, so that the lot of you are dangerous lunatics who think I am some sort of agent of evil, "against" the foundation of their lives and fighting to destroy their source of all that is good and true. But as you remind me, repeatedly, a good many of you are alike and do belong in that group.