atheism is a (religious position)

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not an atheist.

It was not about you. It was about the atheists, that claim that just because they are atheists, they are not religious.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, "organisations that meet up" does not a religion make. There are hundreds of philosophical societies that meet on a weekly basis as well - does that mean that philosophy is a religion? What about self-help groups? Horticulturalists? Businesspeople who have weekly staff meetings?

These would all count.


Right, because neither theism nor atheism are religions on their own. They are specific responses to singular claims. To count as a religion requires far more than just one position on one subject.

If you disagree, then explain to me why believing one plus one equals two is NOT a religion.


They are lots of things. No ONE thing they are determines that they are a religion. Again, by this logic, Zen Buddhists are also vegetarian pacifists. Why isn't vegetarianism or pacifism a religion, then?


Right, because they meet a whole set of complex criteria. Not just because they happen to have one particular position about one particular thing.

ONE POSITION does not a religion make. The definition you provided makes that explicit.

It is not just ONE position among Atheists. Like Theism not all Atheists are alike. But YES the ONE position that defines the religion of Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. YES there are many different Theists, abd some ONLY believe in ONE God Nothing else, but ONE Position is common to all Theists is the belief in one God or God(s).

 

[shunyadragon]

It was not about you. It was about the atheists, that claim that just because they are atheists, they are not religious.

Yes some Atheists claim Atheism in not a religion. Yes Many Theists claim their religion is not a religion. So what?!?!!?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes some Atheists claim Atheism in not a religion. Yes Many Theists claim their religion is not a religion. So what?!?!!?

Well, that is cultural relativism in the end.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, this is in effect a religion for a general academic understanding of it:

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

Read up on academics descriptions of religion and then reread the text and you can spot it, if you are objective.

I am objective and like Theism there are many diverse views as to what people call a religion, but the many organization of Atheist accept the government definition as Atheism as a religion and accept the tax status and benafits of being part of the Atheist religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, any organisation that accepts tax breaks and government benefits is a religion?

Of course NOT. The government defines the criteria for many groups that recieve tax breaks and beniaits that the government defines them as not religions nor religions. The government specifically defines Atheism as a religion, and the Atheist Churches and organizations accept the benafits of being a religion as defined by the USA government.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You replied to 5 more posts of mine after this one - can you please interpret: 'I see no further reason to continue responding to you'

And not one of those times did you provide a thoughtful response, or even demonstrate that you read any of it. All of your responses are flippant hand-waving, which indicates that you are not a person who is interested in honest discussion.

Prove me wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is not just ONE position among Atheists.

No, "atheism" is a singular position on a singular subject. That's what defines atheism.

Like Theism not all Atheists are alike.

Except for the fact that they all share the position of BEING ATHEISTS.

But YES the ONE position that defines the religion of Atheism is the disbelief in Gods.

Then it's NOT A RELIGION.

YES there are many different Theists, abd some ONLY believe in ONE God Nothing else, but ONE Position is common to all Theists is the belief in one God or God(s).

But THEISM ITSELF IS NOT A RELIGION.

Once again, if atheism is a religion, then how are vegetarianism, pacifism, mathematics and philosophy NOT religions? They meet all the same criteria.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course NOT.

Right, so your argument fails.

The government defines the criteria for many groups that recieve tax breaks and beniaits that the government defines them as not religions nor religions.

The government doesn't define atheism as a religion. It just extends certain benefits that religions have to atheist organisations. That doesn't mean that it DEFINES atheism as a religion in and of itself.

I presented to you a link which was very explicit about that.

The government specifically defines Atheism as a religion,

No it doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, "atheism" is a singular position on a singular subject. That's what defines atheism.


Except for the fact that they all share the position of BEING ATHEISTS.


Then it's NOT A RELIGION.


But THEISM ITSELF IS NOT A RELIGION.

Yes, but that is never the only position for both cases that any human holds.
So the question is not if atheism or theism are religions, but if humans in general are religious regardless of these categories.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then that makes Zen Buddhism a religion, not atheism. For example, I could have, as part of my religion, a strict adherence to vegetarianism. But that does not make vegetarianism itself a religion.

Vegetarianism makes no statement as the existence of God(s) or not. Your somewhere past left field grabbing at straws to justify your agenda.
Like all variations of religions Zen Buddhism is a variation of Atheism as a religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Vegetarianism makes no statement as the existence of God(s) or not.

Making a statement as to the existence of nonexistence of God does not make something a religion. That is just ONE position. A singular position does not make something a religion.

Your somewhere past left field grabbing at straws to justify your agenda.

What agenda?

Like all variations of religions Zen Buddhism is a variation of Atheism as a religion.

NO. Zen Buddhism is a variation of BUDDHISM. Atheism is ONE POSITION THAT IT HOLDS.

That is one of the most absurd things you've said so far. How can you POSSIBLY think that Zen Buddhism is a "variation of atheism"? Again, this is no different to arguing that Zen Buddhism is a "variation of vegetarianism". It isn't. It's a variation of Buddhism WHICH INCLUDES VEGETARIANISM.

You are exceptionally confused about this. Your allegations about me having an "agenda" are pretty indicative that you're not being good faith here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right, so your argument fails.

No, your attempt at a narrow self-serving definition of atheism to fit your own agenda fails.

The government doesn't define atheism as a religion.

Yes it does very literally defines Atheism as a religion in all legall matters.

It just extends certain benefits that religions have to atheist organisations. That doesn't mean that it DEFINES atheism as a religion in and of itself.

I presented to you a link which was very explicit about that.

You have a problem with reading comprehension and interpret everything to fit your own personal agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

You are exceptionally confused about this. Your allegations about me having an "agenda" are pretty indicative that you're not being good faith here.

Your personal agenda to define Atheism as not a religion is the same narrow agenda that JW defines their church as not a church or a religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, your attempt at a narrow self-serving definition of atheism to fit your own agenda fails.

How exactly is it self-serving or narrow? Now you're just being absurd.

Yes it does very literally defines Atheism as a religion in all legall matters.

No, it does not. It just extends religious protections to atheism. That doesn't make atheism a religion. The definition of religion you provided yourself clearly shows this.

You have a problem with reading comprehension and interpret everything to fit your own personal agenda,

Once again, you keep alleging some mythical "agenda" here. What "agenda"?

And, on top of that, you insult my intelligence. So, thanks for that.

Instead of getting all conspiratorial and alleging I have some nefarious "agenda" (despite the fact that I have been very clear that both atheism and theism don't count as "religions", so what on earth could I possibly gain from this position), how about you engage with what I'm actually saying? Don't allege bad faith just because your arguments fail under the slightest scrutiny.

And, while on the subject of reading comprehension, here are the definitions of religion you gave earlier:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

4. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

5. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

Atheism, by itself, does not meet ANY of the above criteria. It is not a SET OF BELIEFS because it is a singular position on a singular subject, so that rules out one and two. There are no sets of beliefs or practices ascribed to atheism itself, so that rule sour three and four. And atheism doesn't necessarily entail devotion to any particular belief or system of ethics, so five doesn't fit.

And, remember, the above is all equally true for theism.

So, what am I not comprehending, here?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your personal agenda to define Atheism as not a religion is the same narrow agenda that JW defines their church as not a church or a religion.

And what is that? What do I gain from that? What's my angle?

Please do tell.

 

[shunyadragon]

And what is that? What do I gain from that? What's my angle?

Please do tell.

No angle and nothing to gain. Atheism remains atheism regardless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No angle and nothing to gain.

So alleging I am arguing this point because I have an "agenda" is very silly.

Atheism remains atheism regardless,

I agree. And it's not a religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

How exactly is it self-serving or narrow? Now you're just being absurd.


No, it does not. It just extends religious protections to atheism. That doesn't make atheism a religion. The definition of religion you provided yourself clearly shows this.


Once again, you keep alleging some mythical "agenda" here. What "agenda"?

And, on top of that, you insult my intelligence. So, thanks for that.

Instead of getting all conspiratorial and alleging I have some nefarious "agenda" (despite the fact that I have been very clear that both atheism and theism don't count as "religions", so what on earth could I possibly gain from this position), how about you engage with what I'm actually saying? Don't allege bad faith just because your arguments fail under the slightest scrutiny.

And, while on the subject of reading comprehension, here are the definitions of religion you gave earlier:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

4. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

5. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

Atheism, by itself, does not meet ANY of the above criteria. It is not a SET OF BELIEFS because it is a singular position on a singular subject, so that rules out one and two. There are no sets of beliefs or practices ascribed to atheism itself, so that rule sour three and four. And atheism doesn't necessarily entail devotion to any particular belief or system of ethics, so five doesn't fit.

And, remember, the above is all equally true for theism.

So, what am I not comprehending, here?

\
Just literal facts the government defines Atheism as a religion in ALL legal matters nit just religious tax eligibility. No conspiracy unless you are going to come up with one going to propose one.

The conclusion is religions are defined by religious positions as the original post proposed the questioned.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

\
Just literal facts the government defines Atheism as a religion in ALL legal matters nit just religious tax eligibility.

No, it doesn't. I've already explained this.

By your logic, if there is a country that DOESN'T treat atheism as religion, that makes atheism NOT religion. Correct?

No conspiracy unless you are going to come up with one going to propose one.

I never alleged a conspiracy. I provided a source earlier that explained, very explicitly, that atheism is not DEFINED as a religion in law but is TREATED as one in order to extend religious protections to atheists.

I've been over this, I will not go over it again.

The conclusion is religions are defined by religious positions as the original post proposed the questioned.

Except the definitions you provided earlier contradict that.