Is Athiesm a Religion?

[Robert.Evans]

We might add that, I suppose. But we should attempt to find out whether there is any truth to it first, which I doubt to be the case.

While with theism there is not room for any reasonable doubt, and has not been for centuries if not millenia.

Romania and Russian. Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ. Appalling. But stick with your dreams if that is what you like.

 

[LuisDantas]

Romania and Russian. Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ. Appalling. But stick with your dreams if that is what you like.

No, you bring evidence that there is anything to that. Do you have any sources, for instance? At least a wikipedia link, if nothing else?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, you bring evidence that there is anything to that. Do you have any sources, for instance? At least a wikipedia link, if nothing else?

That is a book. Google it on your Pc ... it is not difficult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And good ways. just to keep the argument balanced. Of course we might also add that atheism has tortured and kille d many also, and should not be encouraged.

One difference, of course, is that the few atheists who did kill people are almost universally condemned by modern atheists. OTOH, figures like John Calvin, who had Michael Servetus burned at the stake, and Martin Luther, whose anti-Semitic religious writings were a major inspiration for Hitler to undertake the Holocaust, are still held in high esteem by many theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a book. Google it on your Pc ... it is not difficult.

If your claim is not serious, just say so.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If your claim is not serious, just say so.

I even found a PDF - the whole thing!!

http://www.thelegacypodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/tortured_for_christ.pdf

It's good...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And good ways. just to keep the argument balanced. Of course we might also add that atheism has tortured and kille d many also, and should not be encouraged.

If you're going for balance then you're subscribing to false equivalencies. While your one example of tortured christians in Romania is pretty much frowned upon today's atheist....we still have religious extremist in this day and time willing to kill others for defecting from the religion, willing to die and kill others to martyr themselves. It wasn't so long ago that the catholics and the protestants were at each others throats...and jews and muslims are still killing each other...so there's no way to balance your argument in light of such theocratic destruction...done in the name of "God"....

 

[jonathan180iq]

It wasn't so long ago that the catholics and the protestants were at each others throats...

Don't think that's over yet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you're going for balance then you're subscribing to false equivalencies. While your one example of tortured christians in Romania is pretty much frowned upon today's atheist....we still have religious extremist in this day and time willing to kill others for defecting from the religion, willing to die and kill others to martyr themselves. It wasn't so long ago that the catholics and the protestants were at each others throats...and jews and muslims are still killing each other...so there's no way to balance your argument in light of such theocratic destruction...done in the name of "God"....

It may be frowned upon by some.. but can you speak for all? I think not. Either way, we see with the right mind set and power, there is no difference... it is just human nature. It is not right to demonise a group of people

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It may be frowned upon by some.. but can you speak for all? I think not.

Being an atheist and actually conversing with many atheist from across the globe puts me in a better position than you to know what atheist think.

Either way, we see with the right mind set and power, there is no difference... it is just human nature. It is not right to demonise a group of people

You can't claim victory by simply putting everyone in a box. If you met me you wouldn't even know I am an atheist. You'd only know here on RF. I don't walk around displaying my atheism or call attention to it in any other way. As far as demonizing....that's a two way street. I have strong opinions about theism and in a debate or discussion situation I should be free to express those opinions....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You just answered yourself. Athiesm in the modern day have all those 3 points.

Which ones do they have?

1) Answers fundamental life questions and possible origins. It does no such thing.

2) It does not have a deity or higher power by definition.

3) Atheism itself does not have a moral code. Humanism and secular morality are usually present but it is not an "Atheist" tenant.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Being an atheist and actually conversing with many atheist from across the globe puts me in a better position than you to know what atheist think.



You can't claim victory by simply putting everyone in a box. If you met me you wouldn't even know I am an atheist. You'd only know here on RF. I don't walk around displaying my atheism or call attention to it in any other way. As far as demonizing....that's a two way street. I have strong opinions about theism and in a debate or discussion situation I should be free to express those opinions....

The point of me saying that you should not demonize a certain group of people was that you didnt put them in a ''box''.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The point of me saying that you should not demonize a certain group of people was that you didnt put them in a ''box''.

I think that goes without saying. This is not a personal thing. There are good theists, obviously. So trying to make the argument that all religious people are bad would only ever fail.

The greater point is to highlight the fact that religion is historically driven to remove opposition against it.
Say what you want about any other group - religion itself, as an institution, is far more guilty of human atrocity than any other institution.

Now, you could make the argument that it's simply the leverage used in social settings to propel people towards violence - and that the actual blame should be placed on human nature, thus absolving religion from the charge...but I think that's moving goal posts. For better or for worse, it is the religious and cultural beliefs of people that motivate them to their actions.

I mean, it's not ALL bad. Without religious belief and deep-seated cultural mores, things like the pyramids would have never been built...and people wouldn't have been slaughtered to appease the rain gods and women wouldn't starve themselves to death just to be more peaceful... Dangit!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think that goes without saying. This is not a personal thing. There are good theists, obviously. So trying to make the argument that all religious people are bad would only ever fail.

Exactly...We may have strong opinions about religions but day to day we're just not that into the religious folks. Unless we outwardly displayed we're atheist or it came up in a discussion most people don't even know we're atheist. When it comes to the religious in this country injecting their theology into government or if we're discussing/debating religion then for the most part we don't usually care about the religious.

I come from a large diverse family of religious people (christian, muslim) as well as other "theist" such as buddhist...I have a few agnostics sprinkled in there..and even some people in the family with mixed views all around. They all know I'm an atheist yet this hasn't strained the relationships I have with them.

 

[Sapiens]

I am starting to believe that Athiesm starting to be like a religion. They already have their own scholars, proselytization, and prophets(hawkins)

What horse puckey, yes there are scholars who are also atheists but we have not profits and Dawkins (whom I guess you are referring to) does not prophesize the future, he describes the past.

You are explicitly comparing the stature of Christianity as the basis of your analysis. Christianity isn't the groundstone of what religion is.
As for faith, Athiests do have faith. They have faith that everything came from nothing and that humans evolved from minuscule microbes without any clear evidence. Yes Athiesm is scattered and not under a standard roof, but they have one call: eliminate other religions and disbelieve in them. Now you have proselytizers such as Dawkins openly debating other religions.

Atheists do not have faith, they are characterized by skepticism, the opposite of faith.

In regards to the scientific evidence-there is no plausible evidence of any sort or any scientific methodology that proved the accuracy of evolution. On the other hand adaptation is believable and I have researched it thoroughly. Adaptations: Certain bacterias are able to become resistant to certain drugs if given the right environment and pressure. But you see this bacteria did not evolve but certainly did adapt to its environment. This bacteria did not become a fungus or an amoeba.

I am able to put testimonies because I have the credibility to do so. Don't feel insulted and feel like I am claiming these terms based on bias or hateful premise. I have taken many evolution courses from human paleontology to evolution of primates.

No it did not become a fungus or an amoeba, those lines split off long before antibiotics were discovered, only a fool would claim that happened or ask for it to happen now.

Don't equate Adaptation to evolution..

All species experience adaptation but do not experience evolution. You have belief that a fly can be a dragonfly?

As you use the terms (incorrectly might I mention) "adaptation" is a subclass of evolution, analogous to the similarly incorrect use of microevolution and macroevolution.

There is not 1 evidence of a specie becoming into another specie. Those are all theories that do not follow the scientific method.

There's plenty of such evidence, all you have to do is look.

I don't deem you to be any sophisticated. You have not given me any proof.

I don't have to give it to you, you can find it yourself, easily, just type "google: 29 examples of evolution."

Don't equate Adapation to evolution, they are 2 different and discrete words

No, they are not, sorry.

Give me one example of observable evidence 1 specie becoming into another specie?

See above.

 

[Jared Jammer]

It depends on how one defines religion.

What about atheists who have dogmatic adherence to views on:

• The existence of, well, existence (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of our universe (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of Earth-based life (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of human life (ultimately purposeless and unintentional).
• Morality (no ultimate foundation; based entirely on [evolved] reason).
• The (absence of) an afterlife.

…and who:

• Frequently read atheistic literature.
• Proselytize for atheism (including on the Internet).
• Attend church-like atheist sermons conferences.

I know many people who fit every single one of the above listed criteria. Should these people be considered religious atheists? If not, why not?

What is it about their strong adherence and devotion to atheism that differs from, say, the devoted Christian’s adherence to Christianity?

Is it simply that they lack faith in God(s)? But, then, religion doesn’t require faith in God(s), as you’re clearly aware of, hence your comment on Buddhism.

What is the demarcation line that separates religion from non-religion?

In my opinion, atheists who fit the above criteria are religious.

On, and one last thing: Religion does not require belief in god. So, if you're argument against atheism being a religion comes down to a lack of belief in god, then you've lost right out of the gate. Furthermore, even if it did, one could argue that nature is the atheist's god. After all, the atheist ascribes to nature all of the powers most ascribe to their god.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It depends on how one defines religion.

What about atheists who have dogmatic adherence to views on:

• The existence of, well, existence (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of our universe (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of Earth-based life (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of human life (ultimately purposeless and unintentional).
• Morality (no ultimate foundation; based entirely on [evolved] reason).
• The (absence of) an afterlife.

…and who:

• Frequently read atheistic literature.
• Proselytize for atheism (including on the Internet).
• Attend church-like atheist sermons conferences.

I know many people who fit every single one of the above listed criteria. Should these people be considered religious atheists? If not, why not?

What is it about their strong adherence and devotion to atheism that differs from, say, the devoted Christian’s adherence to Christianity?

Is it simply that they lack faith in God(s)? But, then, religion doesn’t require faith in God(s), as you’re clearly aware of, hence your comment on Buddhism.

What is the demarcation line that separates religion from non-religion?

In my opinion, atheists who fit the above criteria are religious.

On, and one last thing: Religion does not require belief in god. So, if you're argument against atheism being a religion comes down to a lack of belief in god, then you've lost right out of the gate. Furthermore, even if it did, one could argue that nature is the atheist's god. After all, the atheist ascribes to nature all of the powers most ascribe to their god.

Hi, JJ...
Assuming truth in your post, it's still not possible to conflate atheism with religion, since you're talking about a subset of atheists. It would be like conflating Roman Catholocism with theism.

 

[Katty]

Well, sorry, I do not think Athiesm could be seen as a religion. Religion now is really from something supernature or the theory supernature. And it could not been proven in a very long time. Athiesm is simply based on a hypothesis to some degree by scientific methods, really different from religion.

 

[Bunyip]

It depends on how one defines religion.

What about atheists who have dogmatic adherence to views on:

• The existence of, well, existence (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of our universe (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of Earth-based life (purposeless and unintentional).
• The existence of human life (ultimately purposeless and unintentional).
• Morality (no ultimate foundation; based entirely on [evolved] reason).
• The (absence of) an afterlife.

…and who:

• Frequently read atheistic literature.
• Proselytize for atheism (including on the Internet).
• Attend church-like atheist sermons conferences.

I know many people who fit every single one of the above listed criteria. Should these people be considered religious atheists? If not, why not?

Well no of course not - none of those characteristics you list infer that those atheists are in any way religious.

What is it about their strong adherence and devotion to atheism that differs from, say, the devoted Christian’s adherence to Christianity?

Is it simply that they lack faith in God(s)? But, then, religion doesn’t require faith in God(s), as you’re clearly aware of, hence your comment on Buddhism.

What is the demarcation line that separates religion from non-religion?

In my opinion, atheists who fit the above criteria are religious.

On, and one last thing: Religion does not require belief in god. So, if you're argument against atheism being a religion comes down to a lack of belief in god, then you've lost right out of the gate. Furthermore, even if it did, one could argue that nature is the atheist's god. After all, the atheist ascribes to nature all of the powers most ascribe to their god.

 

[icehorse]

And good ways. just to keep the argument balanced. Of course we might also add that atheism has tortured and kille d many also, and should not be encouraged.

I'm borrowing from Hitchens when I say: Show me a civilization that's run amok and was based on the ideas of Spinoza and the enlightenment, and then you'll have my attention. The various fascist and totalitarian regimes of the last hundred years or so were really just attempts at new dogma, not at all representative of the way I think most atheists think.