Religion and Atheism

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't.

Why not?
How do you know?

 

[Trailblazer]

Seers. Prophets. Messengers. How do you keep them all straight?

A seer is someone who can SEE into the future, but that does not mean He is a Prophet. Prophets can see into the future, but everyone who can see into the future is not a Prophet.

Prophets are Messengers but not ALL Prophets are Messengers. What I refer to as Messengers are also referred to as Manifestations of God, because they bring a message that is universal. Abdu'l-Baha explained the difference between the three kinds of Prophets:

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?
Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.
The Three Kinds of Prophets​

Who, in the Baha'i Faith considers Joseph Smith a seer? I suppose that means you also believe in the angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets?

No, to my knowledge Baha'is do not believe in the angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets?
It was Shoghi Effendi who said that Joseph Smith was a seer.

Bahá’í Views of Mormonism

Joseph Smith is not considered by Bahá’ís to be a Manifestation of God or Lesser Prophet:

Regarding your question concerning Joseph Smith and the ‘Book of Mormon’; as the Bahá’í Teachings quite clearly outline the succession of Prophets from the day of Christ as being Muhammad. the Báb, and finally Bahá’u’lláh, it is obvious that Joseph Smith is not a Manifestation of God. (Bahá'í News416 [Nov. 1965]: 15)

Regarding your questions: we cannot possibly add names of people we (or anyone else) think might be Lesser Prophets to those found in the Qur’án, the Bible and our own Scriptures. For only these can we consider authentic Books. Therefore, Joseph Smith is not in our eyes a Prophet. (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to individual, 13 March 1950)

Joseph Smith we do not consider a Prophet, minor or otherwise. Certainly no reference he made could have foretold the Coming of this Revelation in his capacity as a Prophet. (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21 Feb. 1942)​

Smith may, however, have been a “seer”—someone of unusual spiritual insight—who was attuned to the spiritual currents of the time. Ramona Brown records in her notes that Shoghi Effendi remarked, “Joseph Smith was a seer, not a Prophet of God, neither major nor minor Prophet.” The Universal House of Justice writes of Joseph Smith that “he was a religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century” (from a letter written on its behalf, 7 Feb. 1977).

The Book of Mormon is not considered an authentic revealed scripture. Its supposed historicity is, according to Shoghi Effendi, “a matter for historians to pass upon” (High Endeavours 71).

From: Mormonism and the Bahá’í Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

I learned long ago that intelligence bears little correlation to religious belief.

Why would it correlate?
Conversely, lack of intelligence does not correlate with religious belief.

All religions have their silly stories and beliefs. Silly stories like alleged first-hand accounts where there is no possibility that the account is first hand (Bahai). Silly beliefs like Golden Tablets (Mormon). Judaism has the whole OT with David and Goliath and the Exodus.

There is a possibility that the stories about the early Baha'is are first-hand, and there is no reason to think otherwise, unless you have confirmation bias.

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation

Bahai's pick and choose just like all other religious people do. That's one reason why there are so many different religions and so many different sects within any one religion.

Sure, all religions have their beliefs, but there are no sects within the Baha'i Faith, because we do not pick and choose what to believe. We believe in the authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

From your link...
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol.

So you believe Eden "must be thought of simply as a symbol". Do you feel that way about The Exodus? The Divinity of Jesus? The origins of the Universe?

No, everything in the Bible is not symbolic, but some of it is.
No, we do not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, He was a Manifestation of God.
Baha'u'llah wrote that the universe and God have always existed so there was no origin.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.............. the habitation wherein the Divine Being dwelleth is far above the reach and ken of any one besides Him. Whatsoever in the contingent world can either be expressed or apprehended, can never transgress the limits which, by its inherent nature, have been imposed upon it. God, alone, transcendeth such limitations. He, verily, is from everlasting.........” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 150-151​

I did not know the Baha'i position on The Exodus, so I had to look it up, and I found this article...
Here is an excerpt from the long article.

The lack of evidence of the Exodus events in the historical record is noteworthy. But how important should the extra-biblical historical record be to the Bahá’í community in its understanding of the story? According to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the historical record is important and can be used as an indicator of whether biblical verses should be understood literally or symbolically. In response to a question about the historicity of certain other biblical events,29 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states, “As these events have not been recorded in any history, it is evident that they are not to be understood literally but according to their inner meaning.” [SAQ44] In light of this guidance, it follows that Bahá’ís should look for inner meaning in the Exodus narrative as, to date, the historicity of these events has not been corroborated by extra-biblical records. Indeed, seeking spiritual truth without being attached to the necessity of having a literal interpretation is a fundamental principle in a Bahá’í approach to the Bible. As explained in a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi: “When ‘Abdul-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.”[LOG 494] Therefore, the possibility that the Exodus narrative is not journalistic history and that one should focus on its allegorical meanings is consistent with Bahá’í teachings.
The Ten Plagues of the Exodus in Light of the Bahá’í Writings​

 

[Trailblazer]

So some atheists told you they do not want to believe in God, but you never ascertained why. Instead, you just make up stories based on...what?

Some of them told me why and some of them explained why to other people on the forum, so that is how I know why “some atheists” do not want to believe in God. But really it might not be that they don’t want to but rather that they do not need to, that they really do not care.

There was one atheist I knew on another forum who hated the very idea that God might exist because that would interfere with their life, what she wanted to do, so she did not want God to exist even if God did exist. That really came out in her verbiage. She hated me just because I believed so firmly in God and the Baha’i Faith.

I do not like to pry so I do not usually ask atheists if they want to believe in God, not unless it is part of the conversation we are having. I have some close atheist friends and I have asked them from time to time and their answer is that “there is no evidence.” So it becomes a moot point whether they want to believe in God, because they can’t unless they have evidence.

Still making up stories about atheists.

That was not about atheists, it was about me.

What happens to you when you realize you cannot have something? Do you adjust and say to yourself you do not need it, or do you keep trying to get it?

You have your baseless hopes. I (we) have my reality - everything dies. Death is final.

You are free to believe that if you want to because we all have free will.

I will never believe that because I am sure there is an afterlife. It is not that I hope for one, I just know there is one. I am not too keen on living forever in some strange dimension, but I know there is nothing I can do about it because the human soul cannot die. So I have simply adjusted to the idea.

There are many interpretations. Just like you folks with Adam & Eve.

And people are free to choose which one they will believe, that is the beauty of free will.

You do love to make up stories.

No, I just know a lot about psychology because I studied it for many years and I have an advanced degree. Psychology was the hat I wore for many, many years before I decided to come back to the Baha’i Faith and God about 6 ½ years ago. And psychology sure comes in handy in these discussions.

Funny. You say some people don't think through the various aspects of afterlife, but you accept your version of afterlife. Sadly, you don't even realize that the basis for your beliefs is no different than the basis for their beliefs.

I accept it because I believe in Baha’u’llah. That is the basis for my beliefs.

The afterlife will BE whatever it is, because it just is, and what people believe about it won’t make it be anything but what it is, since beliefs do not create REALITY.

Baha’is have more to base their beliefs upon because more has been revealed by Bahaullah about the soul and the afterlife than in any other religion. We still do not know the details of what it will be like in the afterlife but our understanding of what it is in general far exceeds the understanding of the older religions… For example, here is an article written by a Baha’i scholar. Have fun.
Death and Dying in the Bahá'í Faith

Again, like people of all religions, you believe your interpretation is the one and only correct interpretation and people of different religions have it all wrong. Tell me again about how "they did not think it through".

Wrong. I told you that all the Abrahamic religions are right in their conceptions of God, except for the Christian belief that Jesus is God.

They did not think it through if they think there is more than one God just because there is more than one belief about God, because that is illogical.

Nonsense. Baptists, Mormons, Hebrews and Muslims do not "all describe God the same way ".

But the Bible does. Just because believers interpret the Bible differently that does not mean that God is different than what the Bible describes Him as. This is logic 101 stuff.

Once again you are saying your beliefs are right, all other beliefs are wrong. The ego of religious people is indeed something to be in awe of.

That is not ego, it is just a belief. And I never said that ALL the others are wrong, I just said that Jesus was not God. The Bible proves that because Jesus never said He was God and disclaimed that He was God. Christianity made Him into God at the Council of Nicaea.

Once again you are saying your beliefs are right, all other beliefs are wrong. The ego of religious people is indeed something to be in awe of.

That is not ego, it is just a belief.
If the Abrahamics are right then the other religions that believe there are many gods have to be wrong because there is either one God or many gods.

Yet you, yourself, just stated that Christians were wrong because they believe in the divinity of Jesus. So, clearly, 55% of people in the world DO NOT believe there is One True God.

Christians so believe there is One True God, even though most of them believe that Jesus is God.

The fact that there are more different religions than ever before attests to the fact that when there are more people there will be more different belief systems.

That does not logically follow.
What happens is determined by the Will of God. It is the Will of God that eventually there will only be one religion, so that is what will happen, eventually.

 

[wandering peacefully]

do not know why what we know about the physical universe would preclude the existence of God.

Don't feel alone. Many billions of people are in the same boat. Science is just not something that interests a lot of folks.

 

[wandering peacefully]

No, I do not insult any of those religious people simply because I have a different belief and I do not agree with their beliefs

I suppose I could start a survey of people who feel insulted by you choice of wording for the beliefs you espouse concerning their various beliefs and religions or lack thereof, but I doubt it would do any good to convince you. So I won't. But it doesn't bother you anyway as it shouldn't. You get exactly the responses you hope for. But next hundredth time an atheist or believer explains to you why they don't or do believe whatever it is, please accept they are telling you the truth. Either way, best of luck. I'm out of this convo.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't feel alone. Many billions of people are in the same boat. Science is just not something that interests a lot of folks.

It is not true that science does not interest me; I am very interested in science, but I am just not proficient in science because I do not have the aptitude for science.
So why does what we know about the physical universe preclude the existence of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I suppose I could start a survey of people who feel insulted by you choice of wording for the beliefs you espouse concerning their various beliefs and religions or lack thereof, but I doubt it would do any good to convince you. So I won't. But it doesn't bother you anyway as it shouldn't. You get exactly the responses you hope for. But next hundredth time an atheist or believer explains to you why they don't or do believe whatever it is, please accept they are telling you the truth. Either way, best of luck. I'm out of this convo.

I wonder how you think you know how other people feel about what I say, unless they said how they feel.
It would convince me that people felt insulted if they told me but they did not.
However, if people feel insulted because my beliefs offend them, that is not my fault.
I am not going to change my beliefs because people don't like them.

People make fun of my beliefs all the time and I do not feel insulted.
I only feel insulted if someone insults ME.

Anyway, best of luck on your life journey.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or, as you put it, "the evidence is the evidence". More nonsense. If there is no evidence that demonstrates the existence of God, then why do you make any claims of certainty that a God actually exists? Unless you simply just want to belief that God exists.

How many hundreds of times to I have to tell you that I have evidence that is sufficient for me and that is why I am certain that God exists?

Please do not distort my words. I never said that the evidence is the evidence. Let’s go back and look at what I have said.

Nobody can prove that anyone got messages from God, only the Messenger knows that. Whether we choose to believe the claim or not is based upon the evidence that supports the claim.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

Baha’u’llah had a good character, an important mission on earth that was completed successfully, and scriptures that contain valuable information about God and other things we need to know in order to fulfill the purpose for our existence. Those scriptures have social teachings and laws for this new age in this new age and the blueprint instructions humanity needs to build the Kingdom of God on earth. There is a religion established by His followers who are living according to the teachings and laws and completing the tasks assigned by Him. Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the Messiah and the return of Christ, many of which are so specific and that they could not be fulfilled by anyone else in the future. On top of all that, Baha’u’llah made many predictions that came to pass.

So rather than keep obfuscating with these silly semantic games, simply admit that you clearly do not know, with any degree of certainty, that a God or Messenger of God exists. Surely your convincing evidence is not based on a faith that grew out of the Shi'ite branch of the Muslim faith, by a prisoner who proclaimed himself as the prophet the Báb had proclaimed.

I am not going to admit I do not know with any degree of certainty that a God or Messenger of God exists because that would be a lie. I know that God exists and I know that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Surely the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is evidence that has convinced me that God exists. Nothing will ever change that because I have absolute certitude.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How many hundreds of times to I have to tell you that I have evidence that is sufficient for me and that is why I am certain that God exists?

Please do not distort my words. I never said that the evidence is the evidence. Let’s go back and look at what I have said.

Nobody can prove that anyone got messages from God, only the Messenger knows that. Whether we choose to believe the claim or not is based upon the evidence that supports the claim.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

Baha’u’llah had a good character, an important mission on earth that was completed successfully, and scriptures that contain valuable information about God and other things we need to know in order to fulfill the purpose for our existence. Those scriptures have social teachings and laws for this new age in this new age and the blueprint instructions humanity needs to build the Kingdom of God on earth. There is a religion established by His followers who are living according to the teachings and laws and completing the tasks assigned by Him. Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the Messiah and the return of Christ, many of which are so specific and that they could not be fulfilled by anyone else in the future. On top of all that, Baha’u’llah made many predictions that came to pass.

I am not going to admit I do not know with any degree of certainty that a God or Messenger of God exists because that would be a lie. I know that God exists and I know that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Surely the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is evidence that has convinced me that God exists. Nothing will ever change that because I have absolute certitude.

As I have stated before, it is simply frustrating, and annoying to have an honest conversation with someone with an obvious hidden agenda. You even deny your own quotes by saying they are "distorted". "No, the evidence is the evidence(#391)". How is this distorted, or even taken out of context? If you ask a scientist why the sky is blue, you will receive an answer that can be verified, falsified, objective, and observable. Ask an indoctrinated religious science illiterate the same question, and the answer might be, that God created the blue sky to remind His creation that Blue is the color for peace. This is why the scientific methods of investigation will always end, where fairy tales and God claims begin. To be objective, science cannot fabricate, make-up, accept a consensus, or distort reality to validate its explanations of reality. There is even a vetting peer review system, that oversees the objective claims by scientists. If you know a better system that can falsify subjective claims, then lets hear it?

What is the definition of evidence? It is, "the available body of FACTS or information INDICATING whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.". This means that just finding evidence to convince yourself is only part of the definition. The facts or information must also objectively exist in reality, be known, and can be proved to be true. In other words, if you think you know it, you should be able to show it. Why do you keep making claims that you have evidence to support your claims? It is not evidence(scientific), if it is not evidenced with facts. Atheists, skeptics, and rationalists, all require facts and evidence. Since all facts are objective, we should all be convinced. I'm sure that we both can be convinced about many things using facts.

Why do you think we have so many cults and religions? They also believe that their facts and evidence are also true. So true that they were willing to blow themselves up, or crash planes into buildings, because they also believed in their own facts and evidence. What makes your evidence more factual than theirs? Or the facts and evidence of thousands of other believers, who hold their own religious views? Why do you keep proselytizing your faith, by littering this forum with posts that cite quotes from the books of your faith? They have no evidential value at all.

People can be convinced of anything. Especially, if it is something that they want to be convinced of. Political propaganda, Ad and News agencies, Movie and music industries, and the Fashion industries, all know how easy it is to influence how you think and behave. By manipulating our personality traits, anyone can be convinced of anything, given the proper motivation. Most people can become aware that they are being manipulated, once they are confronted with the evidence. But no amount of evidence or facts can help those that are convinced, that they have convinced themselves of the truth. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful protective defense mechanism, that is use to relieve the discomfort of conflicting ideas or beliefs. People with this condition will "modify"(make excuses), "trivialize"(make the facts less important), "add more cognitions"(Pascal's wager), or simply deny(alter/change reality itself), just to relieve their cognitive discomfort or imbalance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0cBv39RZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=105MecpQJKk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith

I'm afraid I have serious concerns about the Baha'i's sexist and racist beliefs(Black Africans are cows...), their unity claims(covenant-breakers), their socially isolationists policies, and other repressive rules, practices, policies, and restrictions on the behavior of its members. Why would I choose to sacrifice my own evolved uniqueness, and devote my entire life in pious servitude to AIR? This creates a whole host of rational and logical red flags for me. Also, it is impossible to truly KNOW how anyone has lived their lives. People are only as perfect as we wish to believe they are. Claiming that you have convince yourself of the truth, from second and third party testimonials, or from any interpreted/translated foreign language you don't know, is just laughable, as convincing evidence.

I'm curious. Is there anything that you think you know for certain, that you would care to demonstrate why you think you know anything for certain? Or will you continue to parrot the same empty assertions, and commit more of the same fallacious arguments?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm curious. Is there anything that you think you know for certain, that you would care to demonstrate why you think you know anything for certain? Or will you continue to parrot the same empty assertions, and commit more of the same fallacious arguments?

I know for certain that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God and I know for certain that God exists. The reason I know these things is because it was ordained by God that I would recognize the truth of this Revelation.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”
The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I know for certain that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God and I know for certain that God exists. The reason I know these things is because it was ordained by God that I would recognize the truth of this Revelation.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”
The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

"Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so..". Is this how I should KNOW for certain, that God loves me and exists? Citing written hearsay translations, from any foreign book of narratives, prose-discourse, or poetry, has as much divine significance as the satirical comic genius of Li'l Abner of Dog patch. If you believe that those who have "embraced the truth", or have "attained the light", should "exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation.". then your beliefs are very similar to the beliefs expressed in the Jihadist's Salafist-Wahhabism ideology. This ideology is based on the strict interpretation of the "oneness of Allah" to influence all the thoughts and the actions of every person on earth. They also believe that it is in your deeds that proclaim your faith(Sharia Law). Salafists also implement a strict literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, which includes the hadiths of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad whom they revere as living a pure form of Islam. Yours is the Messenger/Prophet. They also believe that they should banish the darkness, superstitions, and unbelief from the midst of people. Your scriptures say the same as well. The similarities between both ideologies is striking. Yours however, tends to be shrouded behind a curtain of mysticism, new-age metaphysics, and social enlightenment. This only hides the half-truths and inaccuracies, peer pressure, and the repressive in-house rules, practices, and policies, of the faith. The latter are in stark contradiction of the religious utopia you are trying to promote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucUayw0cwjY

It is amazing how the same talking points are always highlighted by these people. It seems almost surreal, staged, and choreographed. It is amazing how the rules, practices, restrictions, selective policies, and behavioral manipulation, are never mentioned in the brochure. It is only the lure of universal peace and social harmony, and the perception of a divine truth, that is peddled as the ultimate religious utopia. Sorry, I cherish my own individual uniqueness, than to return to the herd mentality of cows and insects. Why should I give old men a false sense of importance, give women a false sense of equality, or praise the opportunity to commit to Pious servitude to air? So I will pass for the sake of common sense.

There seems to be some truth to the idiom, that some people create happiness wherever they go, and others create happiness whenever they go. I am certain that what you believe with certainty, is certainty to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is atheism a religion?

No. Just like "off" isn't a TV channel. Or "barefoot" isn't a type of shoe.

It depends on context and definitions

Yes, the meaning of words depends on their definitions.
There is no definition of "atheism" that makes it valid to call it a "religion".

Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

"great lengths"?

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

Not "especially". The correct word is "only". And the reason is not because atheism is actually a religion, because it isn't. It is just labeled as a "religious group" precisely because it is easier to communicate and relate to constitutional rights concerning freedom of/from religion.

Ironically, it is addressed as a "religious group" to more easily distance them from actual religious groups like "christians" or "jews" or "muslims".

This is all abritrary and semantics for practical legal purposes. It has no other meaning or implication.

No, an atheist does not hold religious beliefs. Someone NOT holding religious beliefs, is actually precisely what defines that person as being an atheist....

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief.

Yup.

Furthermore, I'll add that the phrase "christians have religion" is kind of pointless as well. Like saying "a ball is round!" or "squares have 4 corners!" or "a bachelor that isn't married".


It's just stating the obvious. That a christian has religion, is already implied by the word "christian". In fact, that's exactly what it means: a christian is someone that follows the christian religion.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

No.

Religious beliefs refer to positive beliefs. To have a religious beliefs means that you accept certain religious statements as TRUE.

Atheism is the exact opposite of that.
Atheism is NOT accepting religious statements as TRUE.
It is NOT having religious beliefs.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment.

No. As said, that is just legality in practical terms. It doesn't change anything about what atheism actually is. And frankly, I don't even see the need for it. In secularism, freedom of religion means that you have a right to believe what you want. That also implies that you have a right to NOT believe what you want.

Having a right to believe christian religious claims, INCLUDES by implication the right to NOT believe muslim religious claims.

So why would there need to be any additional "labeling" for invoking the right to NOT believe any religious claims?

This is, btw, also something that is exclusive to the US as far as I am aware. And I'ld wager that the reason for that, is because the US is the most religious country in the west. The most fundamentalist too. And many of them are in power. This ties into just about every poll that shows that atheists are amongst the least trusted and most shunned minorities in that country. The rest of the secular west doesn't have that problem.

So, the only reason why the US courts felt the need to label atheism like that, is because of the animosity / hatred / distrust of religious people towards atheists.

In the rest of the secular west, atheists don't require any such "additional" protection, simply because it's not needed.

Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

It's just semantic nonsense which misrepresents what atheism really is about.

As for me, I don't like to be misrepresented.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is not believing in stamps, a belief?

A belief is to accept something as true.
To NOT believe something, is to NOT accept something as true.

So how can "not believing" be a belief?

It makes no sense.

How is atheism NOT a religious/philosophical belief?

Because it literally means the opposite......
It points to what is NOT accepted as true, instead of what IS accepted as true.

And as I just told you: a belief = to accept a certain proposition as true / accurate.

Not playing football is not a sport either

Isn't denying the existence of God

Not believing a god exists, is also not the same as believing that no gods exist.
These are different answers to different questions.

The first is an answer to the question "do you believe a god exists?".
The second is an answer to the question "do you believe that no gods exist?"

As an agnostic atheist, I answer both questions with "no".

Both express a DISBELIEF of a claim.

Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Christianity
Wiccan
Atheism
Rastafarian

One of these is not like the others.
Hint: it's the one that does NOT include accepting certain religious propositions as "true" or "accurate".

Are these not all beliefs about the nature of the universe?

All of them are, except "atheism".

That one only tells you about what a person does NOT believe about the nature of the universe. It does not tell you what that person DOES believe.

All the others tell you about what IS being believed.

Is it sinking in yet?

Should not atheism receive protection and acknowledgment as a 'religious' belief?

protection against what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why the effort to distance from a term that describes one's philosophical beliefs?

Here's the core of the issue.

Atheism does NOT describe one's beliefs about anything.
What it does, is tell you about DISbeliefs of rather specific things.

It tells you about what is NOT being believed, not about what IS being believed.
And that is where the confusion comes from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see it as a very simple descriptor.

God
No God

Those are the possibilities.

Wrong.

Rather:
Belief that God exists
or
No belief that God exists.

Not that "not believing X is true" is NOT the same as "believing X is false" or "believing not-X".

"Not accepting X is true" is not synonymous with "accepting X is false".
It is compatible with it, sure. But it's not the same.

How does 'culture' change the meaning of 'atheism?' How else can you define, 'no God'?

"no belief in god".

(a)theism pertains to beliefs about the existance of Gods.
It does not pertain to knowledge thereof, nore does it pertain to beliefs about the NON-existance of gods.

It's JUST about beliefs concerning the existance of Gods (and the supernatural at large)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism has a world view that does not include God(s). Atheism

And just about all worldviews do not include 7-headed inter-dimensional undetectable dragons.
Is your disbelief of such dragons a religion?

See, this is the nonsense you end up with if you are going to try and define a worldview by stuff that is NOT being believed.

It's completely meaningless, pointless and just a plain distraction.

 

[shunyadragon]

And just about all worldviews do not include 7-headed inter-dimensional undetectable dragons.
Is your disbelief of such dragons a religion?

See, this is the nonsense you end up with if you are going to try and define a worldview by stuff that is NOT being believed.

It's completely meaningless, pointless and just a plain distraction.

It is a plain simple usable definition in the English language, nothing more nor nothing less.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a plain simple usable definition in the English language, nothing more nor nothing less.

It actually isn't.

A worldview is defined by the things that ARE being believed.

There's literally a potentially INFINITE amount of things that aren't included in any particular worldview. And INFINITE amount.

Atheism therefor, is not a worldview as it is a word used to ONLY note what is NOT being believed.

By itself, it's actually a rather ridiculous and empty label.
The only reason the word exists, is because the majority are theists and they want to be able to identify those who don't follow a religion.

If theists were a clear minority, say like Trekkies, then the word wouldn't exist.
This is why we don't have a word for people who aren't Trekkies.

Atheism is not a belief, it's not a religion, it's not a doctrine, it's not a worldview.

It's just a label slapped on the foreheads of people to note that they don't hold religious beliefs.
That is all. It doesn't tell you anything about what IS being believed.

And once more: worldviews are defined by what IS being believed, by the stuff that IS included in said worldview. The opposite is meaningless. To define a worldview by what is NOT included, is a complete waste of time and a pointless / meaningless exercise.