I don't know if I'm surrounded by incredibly stupid people, or if... wait... that's exactly what it is.

Why do people always insist that atheism is a fucking religion? Atheism is NOT a fucking religion.

How can you have the religion of... not being religious? Or not believing in any kind of god?

Fuck stupid people.

 

I'd much rather fuck smart people :excited:

Okay, here's the problem. It lies in the definition you use of religion. Here's a standard one: "any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God." By this definition, atheism would be a religion. It is a belief system that while not necessarily prescribing certain responses certainly elicits certain responses to the non-existence of G/god.

 

I would have to disagree. Buddhists have a structured belief system while not having a god. That makes them a religion. Atheist are the most disorganization lot in the world, we fight just as much with each other as we do with religios types, we just don't do it much in front of religious types.

 

Are you saying that the people that surround you outside of here are incredibly stupid.. :excited:

I doubt if anyone here would even consider that atheism is a religion

 

Yes I meant the people outside of here.

Forgot to mention that

 

No, it is "anti-religion", as the term "a"theism suggests. That does link it directly with religion as its opposite, the other side of the coin - yet it is the same coin, meaning: it requires anti-faith.

To be free of religious attributes is to move beyond theist-atheist dichotomy...

 

It's not a religion.

 

That's true, but just saying that doesn't contribute to understanding why that confusion happens.

I tried to hint to the broader picture and the problem of inevitable linkage as parts of a dichotomy.

 

The confusion happens because the dumb religious people (not all) think that because they have a religion that you must have one too.

 

That's also true for many cases, but in general I think the real core of the problem could be found in what was previously hinted at.


Edit- the best way I could say it would be (to repeat myself): "To be really free of religious attributes is to move beyond "theist-atheist" dichotomy."

I would really take more time to ponder on what that statement means in all its underlying complexity.

 

I'm not sure where this crazy shit comes from..But as an atheist...i certainly believe that it is NOT a religion.

 

Bingo!

I have a problem with the word "belief", particularly where no clear evidence exists. It's not that I "believe" there's no god....it's that I see no evidence in support of such a belief.

 

You can't.

Religion is a belief system irrationally empowered by faith. A 3-O deity may or may not be a component of the belief system. (3-O is short for omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent.) There are few (if any) religions that do not include an archdeity in practice. Below, someone cites Buddhism. True, Buddhism is not monotheistic. In practice it is pantheistic; hence the plethora of prayer flags in homage to trees, rocks, ice, cliffs, wind, lightning, and so forth, that are hung on tents in the Himalaya by expeditions to appeal for safe passage. I digress.

Atheism is the absence of belief, and by definition obviates faith. Atheists do not "believe that there is no God." Belief is not necessary.

Do atheists at least admit the possibility of God? Well, not a 3-O God, certainly. That would be impossible, logically. Intellectually honest atheists might admit the possibility of a 2-O god (for example, a god that is all-knowing but essentially powerless, or a god that is all-powerful but as malicious as the devil himself, both of which would explain both the miseries of the world and the infamies commonly attributed to God). But even a logically plausible 2-O god is not something that an atheist could simply "believe" in. Such a god would have to be demonstrated empirically, because atheists do not have belief systems grounded on faith.

In my experience even most purported atheists have trouble with this argument. Most atheists really aren't. They are not atheists. They are recalcitrant children who have always hated going to church and hate not getting their way even more. Most purported atheists are simply confused. Real atheists are few and far between.

colleen turner

 

Just as believers define religion their way, you appear to be defining atheism YOUR way. I'm distressed to find that I might not be a "real" atheist, but simply a confused child.

 

You haven't seen the picture of Jesus yet??

 

You mean the one in the grilled cheese sandwich?

 

Atheism is IMO might be better described as a philosophy rather than a religion. Altho there are athists who take thier belief system to the point of being religious in desperately trying to stomp out any reference to God in various places like on the money, in court houses and schools, especialy when refering to Christmas, etc.

The funny thing about the word "belief" is that even if you are an atheist you believe...you just happen to believe there is no God. But that hardly makes it a religion...I believe chocolate chip cookies are best when fresh out of the oven but that doesnt mean its a religion....well...it might be...

 

You don't "believe" chocolate chip cookies are best when fresh out of the oven...you KNOW that to be the case, based on your having tasted them both ways. I have a problem with the word "believe", because it implies acceptance without evidence, on faith. Atheists do NOT accept the existence of god on faith...they await evidence.

And tim...the reason atheists take those positions is that they are reacting to Christians who seek to impose a state-sponsored religion. They're not promoting their point of view, they're preventing someone else from imposing theirs.

 

I will accept that I know chocolate chip cookies are best because of the eveidence...however, you may have another oppinion on that subject or not like chocolate chip cookies in any case. And while religion demands "faith" as so many like to point out, there are many, if not all of those with faith that will claim that they have all the eveidence they need not provided by faith but by experience. Many of us will write those people off as mentaly disturbed or in some way lacking in intelect. But...is what they believe something that they have based on some kind of personal experience that the rest of us are ignorant of? They will claim that they believe because they have "seen" something or had some kind of personal experience that compelled them to believe. Much the way I know chocolate chip cookies are best when they are fresh out of the oven.

As for the imposition of religion on others that so many atheists fight so valiantly against...most atheists that I know(I live in Seattle and Christianity isnt a real big thing here) even remark that these are little more than very bitter people who are all too happy to shit in peoples corn flakes for the entertainment value of it more than anything else.Sorta like lawyers.

 

They may indeed have had some experience that they take to be a manifestation of god...but they can't provide any evidence regarding that experience that would make sense to a non-believer. Pat Robertson says he talks to god all the time, and that god talks back, but he'd have great difficulty persuading me that the conversation actually occurred.