CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A religion involves a group of people with the same religious beliefs- not a group of people with the same lack of religious beliefs. By this logic, we could claim that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and numerous others are all the same religion because none of them believe that Jesus is divine as Christians assert. Interestingly enough, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all worship the same God of Abraham, though each disagrees with the others regarding most of the specifics. We classify groups of people by shared beliefs and practices, not by beliefs and practices that both refrain from.
A religion is far more than whether one believes in a god or gods, there is also mythology and beliefs pertaining to the origin of human life, what happens to human life after death, and generally guidelines regarding conduct during life. If you talk to two random christians, you'll have both believing that god created man, that after death one can expect to go to hell or heaven (sometimes with purgatory as a third option), and that people should conduct themselves generally according to the moral standards adopted by the bible. They may disagree on some of the specific minutiae, but they believe all of these. If you talk to two random atheists, however, the only thing they're guaranteed to see eye to eye on is their opinion regarding whether or not god exists. One may believe that human life evolved here on earth due to natural processes, one may believe that human life was seeded here by aliens. One may believe that death is a literal end, another may believe in a reincarnation cycle. Their morals could be completely different as well.
A religion involves a group of people with the same religious beliefs- not a group of people with the same lack of religious beliefs.
Theists could be disingenuously described as "lacking a belief" that the universe is god free. But truly they have commonality of belief.
A religion is far more than whether one believes in a god or gods
I strongly agree with that. Unity based on a single belief, does not a religion make. But then how many beliefs must be shared before a class of people can rightly be considered a religion?
there is also mythology, beliefs pertaining to the origin of human life, what happens to human life after death, and generally guidelines regarding conduct during life.
These I will agree are generalities, but can there be a religion missing one or more of these?
If you talk to two random christians, you'll have both believing that god created man, that after death one can expect to go to hell or heaven (sometimes with purgatory as a third option), and that people should conduct themselves generally according to the moral standards adopted by the bible. They may disagree on some of the specific minutiae, but they believe all of these.
. If you talk to two random atheists, however, the only thing they're guaranteed to see eye to eye on is their opinion regarding whether or not god exists.
One may believe that human life evolved here on earth due to natural processes, one may believe that human life was seeded here by aliens. One may believe that death is a literal end, another may believe in a reincarnation cycle.
So if you just wonder about the origins of life, what happens after death, and haven't made up your mind then you can't be religious?
Theists could be disingenuously described as "lacking a belief" that the universe is god free. But truly they have commonality of belief.
You are familiar with the concept of a double negative, right? This one is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree? Lacking a positive belief does not necessarily imply holding a negative belief; but lacking the absence of a positive belief does imply holding a positive belief.
I strongly agree with that. Unity based on a single belief, does not a religion make. But then how many beliefs must be shared before a class of people can rightly be considered a religion?
These I will agree are generalities, but can there be a religion missing one or more of these?
CAN there be? Not according to my understanding of what a religion is, but I'm hardly the only one with perspective there. Are you aware of any organizations that are historically recognized as religions that are missing these? However we define a religion, it should be inclusive of all established religions (including Buddhism; reclassifying it as a philosophy is a copout IMO).
Now, regarding your first link- 'Christian atheism' appears on the surface to be a grey area, but it should be pointed out that 'Christian' here is an adjective. It rejects all of the religious aspects of christianity but maintains that Jesus as described from the bible has good messages that we can learn from, even if one is to throw out all the hocus-pocus. It is best described, IMO, as a 'flavor.' Christianity is the 'real vanilla' here, and Christian atheism has artificial vanilla flavoring but contains no actual vanilla. Literally every aspect of the christian faith is rejected by christian atheism.
Regarding your second link, 'Oh yeah?' - Yeah. When religion is concerned, only the concrete existence of God is considered. The existence of the concept we label 'god' is another animal entirely; I don't believe anyone can back the claim that the concept we label 'god' does not exist as a concept. Theists believe in a concrete existence of a god or gods. Atheists do not.
So if you just wonder about the origins of life and haven't made up your mind then you can't be religious?
You're using a bit of misdirection here, talking about religious individuals vs. religions as a whole. A religious person is a follower/practitioner of a religion. That person may dissent from most other followers/practitioners on some topics; a person doesn't cease being a christian just because they question, say, the timeframes noted in the portion of Genesis dealing with the creation myth.
I'll even go so far as to say that some atheists can certainly behave in a manner that many would describe (erroneously, but still) as religious, but atheism is still not a religion.
One could make an argument that 'Atheism' represents an umbrella that several 'religions' fall under, but it should be noted that numerous non-religious viewpoints and philosophies also fall underneath it. This makes it more comparable to 'Theism' which is not itself a religion, but is rather than umbrella that numerous religions fall under, as well as a number of viewpoints and philosophies that don't quite constitute a religion.
God or gods do not qualify a religion, a unified belief system does. Buddhism is a godless religion with a unified belief system.
Atheist is not and can not be a religion because it one, is not unified, and two is not a belief system.
Atheism is a default position, indicating a lack of belief. Can babies be born into a religion? No they can not, they can not be born united with a group of people who share similar beliefs because they are born with no beliefs, hell with no memory let alone thoughts of forming a group. Yet every baby is born an atheist, because they are born with that lack of belief.
The not cooking as a food analogy doesn't really work, I don't think so anyway, but props on that "not playing hockey" as a sport one, that also made me laugh.
But according to common vernacular the word "Atheism" is commonly placed under the category of religion. If you were to ask an Atheist "What is your religion?", the common answer would be "I'm an Atheist" as opposed to "I don't have a religion." Just like someone might say that black is their favorite color, while in actuality, black is the absence of color. Atheism is used as a filler for religion in colloquial terms, but technically speaking, Atheism is undoubtedly not a religion.
Regardless of whether or not atheists admit that atheism is a religion, dictionaries do define it as such. Denying this also makes one wonder what else they refuse to accept, like the truth and evidence contrary to their own beliefs.
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:
faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
•a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
The definition of religion that is being talked about in this debate is obviously the first one. Attempting to assign all of those definitions, or any other than the first, to the term "religion" is purely equivocal. The "religious atheist" that you speak of, which may appear to be an oxymoron, is simply an "avid" or "passionate" atheist. The validity of your argument lies only in your accidental, or maybe purposeful, confusion of terms.
Regardless of whether or not atheists admit that atheism is a religion, dictionaries do define it as such. Denying this also makes one wonder what else they refuse to accept, like the truth and evidence contrary to their own beliefs.
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
Again, you have only arrived at this conclusion by confusing terms. By claiming the "passionate atheist" is a "religious atheist" you are constructing a straw man and attacking an argument that no one is even talking about.
Again, you have only arrived at this conclusion by confusing terms. By claiming the "passionate atheist" is a "religious atheist" you are constructing a straw man and attacking an argument that no one is even talking about.
Passionate meaning devout, which is a synonym for religious. As in "I'm a religious supporter of John's music group." I just used "passionate" for lack of a better word. And the reason I lack a better word is because there are no synonyms for "religious", in the way you chose to define it, that be logically used to describe an atheist. But that whole section can be disregarded if it is causing you confusion. Its not actually the main part of my argument, I was just trying to show you arrived at your conclusion through flawed logic.
Are you now saying that atheists have hostility issues? That is so much better than being religious. (sarcasm)
No, you were the one that decided to use the definition of religion that obviously wasn't under subjection. I quote you "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." A definition that can be equally ascribed to "passion", don't you agree? "Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him." Examples of the alternate definition of religion, taken from the Merriam-webster dictionary. Replace the word with "passion" and the sentence will carry the same significance. But whether or not passion and religion can be synonyms is secondary. You only got here by using the incorrect definition of religion. By now we hopefully can agree that the definition of "religion" being talked about in this debate is the obvious one. If so, I will state again: Atheism is not a religion by definition. We don't need to go through a drawn out logical process to see this. By simply understanding the meanings of the words, you will see that not only is atheism not a religion, but it is the exact opposite.
You gave the definition of opposite, but not a definition of religion. Religion is a direction not left or right. Atheism is just another direction, not an opposite.
I would, in fact, say that the two are quite incompatible. Well not only I would say this obviously, seeing as these statements are true by definition.
D...really? lol no it's not a religion, it's is lack of any religion meaning nothing, follow no one or thing that has to do wit a God or Gods, am I religious about anti religion? "yes" in the sense that I feel its humanities downfall but is it a religion? hellzzz no chic.
Very true, but most Buddhist will say that they are not a religion but a way of life, meaning you can be Christian and Buddhist or what ever, its more of a way of life or looking at life
Well, the dictionary has a couple definitions for religion.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
This is pretty much the opposite idea of atheism which, according to the dictionary, is
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
These two definitions pretty much contradict eachother. To be believe in atheism is the exact opposite of believing in religion, or so says the dictionary.
No, Atheism is not a religion as the definition of religion is 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods'. Athiests do not believe in a God so they can not be a religion.
Atheism by definition in the dictionary is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." And religion by definition is the belief in a higher power or "god". The two are complete opposites and couldn't be any more different. Plus atheism doesn't have any codes or way's to live. It is not a religion. In fact it isn't even close.
I thought about this before, and it is definitely not a religion. A universal definition for religion is not agreed on, but considering that atheism is "the belief that there is no god", it is no religion. Another thing is that theism itself isn't a religion either. Atheism and theism are just philosophical views on the existence of god.
I would like to see a valid definition of religion.
This is a terrible definition. A religion is a set of practices and sacraments, not just simply a belief in something. Also, there can be a religion without belief in the supernatural(a naturalistic religion).
I am not convinced that co-opting religious terminology to describe a small portion of the atheist population that has organized into a community actually constitutes a religion. Boom?
Perhaps your rationale will be applied to deny us legal status of a religion! Depends on who makes the more convincing argument in court I suppose.
Boom! is like I just dropped a bomb (delivered knockdown argument) I was meaning to convey a joking approach because...Shh!... I don't think atheism is a religion, it's a single belief; if it's rational. However IMO the whole "lack of belief" rationale is blatantly disingenuous. I strongly believe that everything concerning knowledge that can be shared, depends on language and logic. More specifically shared symbology. I'm thinking about the beginning of language logic and.......wait for it......religion. The same people who got together and created alphabets had to have already had a faith rationale in place that this was all worth doing. I'm also thinking about the beginning of recorded history and the sciences. I forget who said that science was the record of dead religions (oh oscar wilde of course) but his opinions about religion were very influential to me, as were Einsteins and Carl Jungs. See religion is the convictions we currently have, science is the greatest tool for improving our religion. The only logically sound rationale for atheism that I know of (unless I'm wrong of course ALWAYS)is that one has never met anyone who they recognize as a god. That's mine. All this lack of belief in god shit irritates me because I used to say that shit before I ever seriously and maturely thought about what gods were. The epistemic role religion has played in arts sciences technologies agriculture architecture culture society government is unmistakable unless you've had sufficient indoctrination into secularism. We all do what we do based on what we value. Different religions can have different rationales for why what's valued is valued, but the justifications aren't what's greatly significant. The actually held values are. This religion business, is value narrative business, which makes it moral business too. And I think I can make an argument that essentially we are talking about government too. The rules and justification of rules business.
Wow I went off on a tangent..puts it out...hopefully in picking through this drivel you can think of a debate topic for us to try in the formal or moderated formats that we talked about
Perhaps your rationale will be applied to deny us legal status of a religion! Depends on who makes the more convincing argument in court I suppose.
This is in the courts right now? I suspect the rationale would be rather more prejudicial against atheism than that, but only the hearings and rulings would say for sure. Either way, the repercussions would be interesting.
Boom! is like I just dropped a bomb (delivered knockdown argument) I was meaning to convey a joking approach because...Shh!... I don't think atheism is a religion, it's a single belief; if it's rational.
Ah, yes, I rather missed that.
However IMO the whole "lack of belief" rationale is blatantly disingenuous. I strongly believe that everything concerning knowledge that can be shared, depends on language and logic. More specifically shared symbology. [...] Wow I went off on a tangent..puts it out...hopefully in picking through this drivel you can think of a debate topic for us to try in the formal or moderated formats that we talked about
From this and other exchanges we have had on this subject, I think our difference in opinion on this matter is predominantly semantic. If I understand you correctly, you define religion as any narrative system of belief and/or value assignation; I think religion has a more specific connotation than that (otherwise, why would virtually every language distinguish between belief in general and religion as a specific form of belief?). The only real dispute that strikes me here is semantic, and to be entirely honest I am not sure I am interested enough in that to have an entire formal debate on that matter. Do you see anything beyond the semantic disagreement that I am missing?
For the record: I ascribe to a preferential perspective, rather than a value based narrative. Effectively, I recognize that I have subjective preferences and desires but do not believe that these feelings identify any actual, innate, and objective value for the things to which my preferences reference. I have a very difficult time conceiving of this as "religious" in any (commonly held) definition of the term; I think most others would as well.
I suspect the rationale would be rather more prejudicial against atheism than that, but only the hearings and rulings would say for sure.
I am looking for the best (most convincing) arguments I can find that an atheist group (not atheism the belief) can't reasonably be regarded as a religion. So I can develop even more convincing arguments to the contrary.
Either way, the repercussions would be interesting.
Being given the exact same tax privileges as theistic groups would be great.
Do you see anything beyond the semantic disagreement that I am missing?
fooey!
For the record: I ascribe to a preferential perspective, rather than a value based narrative. Effectively, I recognize that I have subjective preferences and desires but do not believe that these feelings identify any actual, innate, and objective value for the things to which my preferences reference.
Isn't what we desire and prefer same as what we value? never-mind..solely semantic difference again!
I have a very difficult time conceiving of this as "religious" in any (commonly held) definition of the term; I think most others would as well.
Maybe this will help:
“when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.”
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 681-682 (7th Cir. 2005).
Too bad; would be interesting. Particularly from a tax law perspective.
I am looking for the best (most convincing) arguments I can find that an atheist group (not atheism the belief) can't reasonably be regarded as a religion. So I can develop even more convincing arguments to the contrary.
Out of intellectual curiosity, or for practical purposes?
Being given the exact same tax privileges as theistic groups would be great.
Ah, yes, wrote my bit above before reading this. I would appreciate equity, whether that means no tax breaks are across the board tax breaks.
fooey!
Indeed.
Isn't what we desire and prefer same as what we value? never-mind..solely semantic difference again!
Indeed, again. I make the distinction largely because it is useful for conveying a nuance most people take for granted (i.e. the conflation of subjective preference/value for objective value).
Kaufman v. McCaughtry
Not especially. You have taken the statement entirely out of context. That ruling neither parallels your rationale for defining atheism as a religion, nor does it actually state that atheism is a religion. Rather, the statement is saying that atheism should be treated equivalent to ("place parallel") religion for the practical purpose of extending First Amendment protection to atheists; it is an observation of legal function, not of actual content or substance. Besides which, circuit court definitions hardly constitute any form of common definition (hardly anyone knows them and they frequently contradict).
Out of intellectual curiosity, or for practical purposes?
Both. I want to assert certain intellectual rights as sacred and legally protected under freedom of religion.
Ah, yes, wrote my bit above before reading this. I would appreciate equity, whether that means no tax breaks are across the board tax breaks.
Rather than attacking rights others enjoy, I think we should claim them for ourselves.
I make the distinction largely because it is useful for conveying a nuance most people take for granted (i.e. the conflation of subjective preference/value for objective value).
What ever values that are held, are either wisely or unwisely held. Is this not an objectively verifiable fact? Are there not objectively harmful preferences?
Not especially.
So somewhat then..ok
You have taken the statement entirely out of context.
That may be "subjectively true" as far as you are concerned, but I see it as directly relative to our discussion here. Is there a way for us to determine who is more objectively correct?
That ruling neither parallels your rationale for defining atheism as a religion, nor does it actually state that atheism is a religion.
And here I thought I made my position clear to you: that 1) atheism is not a religion (a single belief cannot be a religion), and 2.) There ARE religions that are atheistic
"Being atheist" is not the opposite of "being religious"
the statement is saying that atheism should be treated equivalent to ("place parallel") religion for the practical purpose of extending First Amendment protection to atheists
The statement doesn't equate atheism with religion, it designates atheism (for legal purposes) as a belief that is religious in nature. Extending First Amendment protection to atheists is not the only practical purpose for treating atheism as a religious belief.
it is an observation of legal function, not of actual content or substance.
(I know this isn't what you were getting at but...) I think that observing the function of religion as opposed to it's content would help many people understand the nature of religion better
Besides which, circuit court definitions hardly constitute any form of common definition (hardly anyone knows them and they frequently contradict).
So what, you think it's some kind of radical way of looking at religion?
There's been relatively recent, and relevant court activity
Why on earth did they file this in Kentucky? That places them under the 6th Circuit, which is one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. They practically set themselves up to lose this one...
Both. I want to assert certain intellectual rights as sacred and legally protected under freedom of religion.
Fair enough. I would prefer that freedom of religion not be treated as an excuse to extend special rights to religious persons and organizations, and that freedom of thought and expression be more strenuously and equitably upheld. But I would not strenuously object to this tract either; it still constitutes an improvement.
Rather than attacking rights others enjoy, I think we should claim them for ourselves.
Tax exemptions are not just a right, they come at a cost. I am not convinced that the benefits of extending tax exemption as simply as is presently done for religious organizations outweighs those costs. I think that any group should be allowed to apply for 501(c)3 status, but that the process should be fairly rigorous to ensure it is not being abused (which I consider religious groups to be doing at present).
What ever values that are held, are either wisely or unwisely held. Is this not an objectively verifiable fact? Are there not objectively harmful preferences?
You misunderstand my premise. The difference between a preference and a value is less about the specific consequence of a specific preference or value, and more about how each system functions. A system of preferences acknowledges itself as subjective and asserts no claim to objective legitimacy. A system of values asserts itself as objective where it is actually subjective, while also claiming an objective legitimacy it lacks. My issue is that values are more resistant to being informed by objective reality; they are more intractable.
So somewhat then..ok
That was in reference to it being helpful to my understanding how one might construe my stance as "religious", not a concession that I thought it was even slightly correct.
That may be "subjectively true" as far as you are concerned, but I see it as directly relative to our discussion here. Is there a way for us to determine who is more objectively correct?
The pertinence of the excerpt to our discussion was not in question. My point was that the original context of the excerpt (i.e. the full opinion) lends a different meaning to the excerpt than what you represented it to mean. That is less a matter of a subjective opinion, and more of objective actuality as I provided an explicit rationale as to why this was the case.
And here I thought I made my position clear to you: that 1) atheism is not a religion (a single belief cannot be a religion), and 2.) There ARE religions that are atheistic. "Being atheist" is not the opposite of "being religious"
That was not my understanding of your stance, obviously. I think I got thrown off somewhat by the original post on this thread where you posted in affirmation of the debate framework. My bad.
I agree, clearly, that atheism is not a religion... though for more reasons than yours alone. I do not agree that there are any religions that are atheistic; I suspect this may devolve into semantics once more though if your rationale is that any narrative is a religion.
The statement doesn't equate atheism with religion, it designates atheism (for legal purposes) as a belief that is religious in nature. Extending First Amendment protection to atheists is not the only practical purpose for treating atheism as a religious belief.
That was pretty much my point? You presented the case excerpt as a foundation for someone identifying my perspective as religious; my point was that the excerpt does not actually identify atheism as a religion. Also, now that I think on it I have no idea why that case would even be relevant to describing my views as religious since I was not describing atheism but nihilism...
Also, I know there are broader legal ramifications than the First Amendment; the specificity of my reference to that particular law was something of a mis-reference given the case in question (which, notably, was pretty much an identical case to the one in Kentucky... also filed under one of the most conservative circuits in the country... why?!).
(I know this isn't what you were getting at but...) I think that observing the function of religion as opposed to it's content would help many people understand the nature of religion better
I do not disagree, at least superficially. I suspect we diverge in opinion from there, however.
So what, you think it's some kind of radical way of looking at religion?
No? I simply do not think it is mainstream, by virtue of the largely inaccessible nature of common law to the majority of persons. "Legalese" is not exactly the common tongue.
It certainly can be. There are atheists who seem determined to convert others top their view. They will claim it is not religious but will use all the same tactics.
First off, the "atheist churches" are a joke. We both know that. Just because some group gets together and claims they are a church does not mean they represent an entire religion, so let's not go down that path of absurdity, and instead stick to some semblance of a real debate. Second, merriam webster defines religion as one of these three things: ": the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"
Atheism means a-theism, so clearly it is not a belief in a god. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods and nothing else, so it is clearly not an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, or rules used to worship. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, which clearly is not itself an interest, a belief, or an activity.
You are making the mistake of thinking that atheism is a claim in a vacuum: that it is a positive assertion that there are no gods. Now that may be something certain atheists claim, but that is not itself atheism, which is purely "a-theism", or without theism (theism being a belief in one or more gods".
I am not pretending anything, I am just confused why people such as yourself are so adamant at claiming that a lack of a religion is, itself, a religion. Do you believe that agnosticism (of any form) is a religion?
Look up the definition of religion, ignore it, believe in Big Bang, by into macro evolution, believe that man evolved from apes, eat a banana and think about for while.
I just posted to you the definition of religion, of which atheism clearly does not full under. I am uncertain of my beliefs regarding any of the things you mentioned, so why are you attempting to deflect?
You posted your version of religion which is only one of definitions of religion. You just ignore that which doesn't fit into your little world. Address all facts and quite picking and choosing the ones you want to use.
As far as my motives, to expose atheists here for the liars they really are. They claim to use facts as the foundation of their religion and yet ignore any fact they don't like. This is what they accuse theists for doing. Sorry but you can't have a double standard and expect to be respected for doing so. Credibility is thrown out the window and only the lies remain. Face up. What other facts have you ignored to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
...I posted the definition of religion from meriam Webster. How is that "my" version of religion? Not only that, that was THREE definitions of religion. Can you provide a definition of religion from any reputable source which atheism falls into?
And I am not an atheist, so why are you personally attacking me now? Do you have some anger at atheists for something they have done to you? Because you made this a personal issue very, VERY quickly, towards someone who isn't a member of the group you seem to loathe.
You clearly know very little about agnosticism. I am what is called a Pragmatic Agnostic, though I think that title seems self serving so I refer to myself as a Hardline Agnostic. I believe that the concept of god (or gods) is so far outside the realm of understanding for humanity that any beliefs or claims regarding gods is inherently flawed, as it is based on an incredibly limited understanding of our existence.
Why are you so intent on being offensive to people of other beliefs?
I've been here for a while and the atheist gang up on any theist and so I may come off a bit strong. Secondly without knowing exactly where you stand as a agnostic, I probably should have given you a break.
I am confused by your question "Do you buy into pantheist any"? Not trying to be rude or anything, it just seems like there might be a missing word, unless it was supposed to be "into pantheism any" which now that I think about it would make sense. If that is indeed the question then my beliefs regarding pantheism are the exact same regarding monotheism: The human mind, as limited as it is in understand the greater mysteries of existence, does not work on a level which could truly, on any meaningful level, comprehend the concept of a god and or gods, and thus our attempts to understand said concepts are inherently flawed due to our own projected fallibility.
You posted your version of religion which is only one of definitions of religion. You just ignore that which doesn't fit into your little world. Address all facts and quite picking and choosing the ones you want to use.
As far as my motives, to expose atheists here for the liars they really are. They claim to use facts as the foundation of their religion and yet ignore any fact they don't like. This is what they accuse theists for doing. Sorry but you can't have a double standard and expect to be respected for doing so. Credibility is thrown out the window and only the lies remain. Face up. What other facts have you ignored to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:
faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
•a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Didn't see the listed definition in my last response. Care to explain how a lack of belief in god falls under the definition "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power"?
By that definition, me playing video games is a religion. By that definition, my love of food is a religion. By that definition, damn near everything is a religion. The only definition that you can find that backs up your claim that atheism is a religion (which still makes no sense, since atheism is not itself a pursuit or interest) implies that every single ideology, belief structure, political affiliation, or hobby is a religion. Is that really the definition you want to use to defend your claims?
There is a difference between playing video games and having an obsession with them to the point where you can do nothing else. The atheists here keeps attacking theism and so this is vocal point of at least these atheist, making it an addiction such as playing video games. Would or could you say that in my example of excess video game playing, that this has become this person's religion or they play it religiously.
You know full well that atheists, even on here, do plenty of other things other than attacking your religion. They have lives, which means that clearly they aren't devoting all of themselves to criticism theism. Not only that, but the definition you cited doesn't require that someone obsesses to the point of doing nothing else. That is a qualifier that you have just created, devoid of any relevancy to any actual definition of religion.
I play video games a LOT. Always have. Some people say I am obsessed. But to call it my religion is absurd and completely devalues the concept of religion entirely. I have religious beliefs, and I have hobbies. My hobbies, no matter how time consuming they are, do not become my religion.
Now playing something "religiously" is different entirely, as there is a context to that that can be used outside of the definition of religion. For example, I go to a chicken shack down the street every weekend religiously. That does not mean that their establishment, or their fried chicken, is my religion, or that my religious beliefs have anything to do with their chicken. Now I may think I see god every time I take that first bite, but that is an issue between me and the chicken :P
Think about this, most theist only go to church one day a week and it's called a religion (no more 3 hrs.). How many times a week do you play video games, come to createdebate, etc? How many hours do you spend?
Do you really think it is called a religion because of the amount of time they spend at church? You do realize that someone can belong to a religion without ever spending any time in any formal house of worship, right? That is why the definition that you choose is so absurd to me, because it includes almost everything. Almost every recognized definition of religion defines it more as an organized set of beliefs pertaining to the worship of one or more gods.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
Given this definition, and acknowledging that Atheism is literally the rejection of the above and nothing more, how do you claim Atheism to be a Religion? I submit that since Atheism makes no positive claims to knowledge, it cannot, definitionally, be a religion.
Wrong. Atheism is not a religion because there is no unification under a set of beliefs. Buddhism represents a religion that is not concerned with gods. Some argue that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion, but there is a significant amount of material concerned with codified morality, the afterlife, the source of life, and whatnot that should be considered; labelling Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion is a relatively new thing, and a consequence of an attempt to redefine religion as specifically involving a god or gods.
If a group of people united by religious belief is a religion, then atheism is a religion.
For this statement to hold true, you would need to demonstrate that atheists are united by atheism on a large scale. I don't believe this can be demonstrated, because I don't believe this to be the case.
The scientific community, even though it is predominately atheist, does not represent atheists united by atheism; it represents scientists united by the pursuit of science; the high incidence of atheism is a result of what is uniting them, not what is actually uniting them.
For this statement to hold true, you would need to demonstrate that atheists are united by atheism on a large scale. I don't believe this can be demonstrated, because I don't believe this to be the case.
That would be as hard as proving that dog owners own dogs.
The scientific community, even though it is predominately atheist, does not represent atheists united by atheism; it represents scientists united by the pursuit of science; the high incidence of atheism is a result of what is uniting them, not what is actually uniting them.
Did you think I was confusing atheists with scientists?
That would be as hard as proving that dog owners own dogs.
Not really; of course dog owners own dogs, that's why they're called dog owners. This is equivalent to saying that atheists don't believe in God. Demonstrating that they are united by atheism is another matter entirely. I am not familiar with any large-scale atheist movements, so I have to repeat my prior statement here.
Did you think I was confusing atheists with scientists?
Not at all; I was just pointing at a likely 'community' one might point to. I'm asserting that there isn't an 'atheist community' that is united under atheism, and that cases where atheists are united in any way are for specific goals (such as the pursuit of science). Not for atheism.
why would you waste your time in pursuing the topic, then maybe you're just trying to persuade that topic to satisfy yourself that you're right in your belief or like to show that what you believe which you preach is impeccably true. then it's brain-washing.
Were you aware that the usages of words in the dictionary are numbered by commonality? There is a reason you had to qualify your rebuttal with "One of the definitions..."
Religion means something, and the most common usage of the word refers to Theistic beliefs specifically. Seeing as how Atheism makes no positive claims to knowledge, it cannot definitionally, be a Religion.
"A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."
So stamp collecting, masturbating, bird-watching, teaching, eating/drinking, pretty much f#cking everything is a religion according to your definition.
religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
The definition you gave is the third one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. It is retarded to use that definition because it applies to almost anything.
The definition you gave is the third one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. It is retarded to use that definition because it applies to almost anything.
What facts does one use? Does one use just the facts they wish to apply or all facts?
Dictionaries have been under peer review since they have been first published. They consider all definitions relevant; Why don't you? I'm guessing that you consider yourself to be on some higher plain and therefore there isn't a need to use all information just bits and pieces. How far is Heaven from you?
Dictionaries have been under peer review since they have been first published. They consider all definitions relevant; Why don't you?
Because some definitions are completely retarded and are in need of revision/update. Some of the most intelligent users on this site have agreed that the definition (the one LeRocky posted) is completely generalized and can apply to anything; not to mention how it still isn't the most relevant one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. So again, it is retarded to use that definition when it is so logically flawed.
I'm guessing that you consider yourself to be on some higher plain
To be completely truthful, I do (to a degree) think that I am on a higher plain as I am not restricted or hindered by some stupid stone-age belief of the existence of a magical sky wizard.
and therefore there isn't a need to use all information just bits and pieces.
Oh you mean like Christians when it comes to quoting the Bible?
Because some definitions are completely retarded and are in need of revision/update. Some of the most intelligent users on this site have agreed that the definition (the one LeRocky posted) is completely generalized and can apply to anything; not to mention how it still isn't the most relevant one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. So again, it is retarded to use that definition when it is so logically flawed.
Some definitions are retarded and the definition of retard says Idiotobx. Now that we this clear..............
To be completely truthful, I do (to a degree) think that I am on a higher plain as I am not restricted or hindered by some stupid stone-age belief of the existence of a magical sky wizard.
Anybody that thinks of themselves as superior has only shown how inferior they are.
Oh you mean like Christians when it comes to quoting the Bible?
The ones that do this, this applies to them as well.
Is atheism a religion? All one has to do is look at the number of up-votes given to arguments from both atheists and theists and the answer is clear. The atheists have a larger number of followers than the theist do and so one can conclude that a unified set of beliefs has been met by the majority, the congregation has spoken. Atheism is a religion.
Are you claiming that anything that gets a lot of up-votes becomes a religion?
Can you explain how a lack of belief is a religion? Or do you think any organized set of beliefs is a religion, which would mean that every single ideology and political affiliation would be a religion?
How can one promote that in which they lack? There is no lack of belief, there is just a different belief. If one truly had a lack of belief, then there would be no desire to promote it. Atheists claim they have nothing, no feelings, opinions or beliefs and yet express feelings, opinions and beliefs. How logical is it to claim one thing and do another?
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe....a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.....sounds like a religion to me.
Religion is anything that links you to your source of existence. Thats actually the literal rendering of the greek root word. Atheists hold to scientism, which, for them, takes the place of traditional religion. So the mythology of Atheists goes like this: there was a big bang, and now an expanding universe of billions of stars, and we are revolving around one of these stars. They even have a conception of heaven: a dark quiet place with a lot of rest.
Yes it's a religion, more accurately it's a faith. Atheism says there's no God, if there's no God there's no such thing as morals, if there's no such thing as morals then there's no such thing as moral values, if there's no such thing as moral values then there's no evil in that case release every inmates out and leave ISIS alone. Now just your reaction to reading that comment suggest that you believe in morals so you're borrowing from thiesm in order to support your worldview. Not to mention you believe in naturalism/materialism/darwinian evolution,which have zero proof or even evidence for that matter yet you still believe it. All the evidence points toward intelligent design and the Bible, yet you claim the opposite with no evidence, that's faith. Yes atheism is an absolute religion/faith
