Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[cybercoma]

If atheism is not commonly understood as a religion then why is it in this "The Big Religion Chart":

http://www.religionf...igion_chart.htm

If Harry Potter isn't real, then why does it talk about London in the books?

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I was not arguing for a shared creation story - just that atheists have them which means atheism is a belief. It becomes a religion when someone feels the need to go out and convince other people to share their beliefs.

What's the point in saying atheists believe in different kinds of creation? You have absolutely no point here.

What exactly is not a religion by your definition? If someone trying to persuade others to their point of view is religion to you, then you've created a definition of religion that is useless and absurd.

You've basically said believing in anything is religious, regardless of whether those beliefs are shared or not. Atheists have no set of shared beliefs, so how can they be a religious group?

What you are arguing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And just to really throw a wrench in your argument. I'm an atheist. And I have no idea how life began on earth. I have no belief whatsoever about it. My answer to that question is, "I have no idea." Other atheists on the forum may have different beliefs about it. So if we all have different beliefs about creation, what exactly does atheism have to do with those beliefs? Nothing.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

What exactly is not a religion by your definition? If someone trying to persuade others to their point of view is religion to you, then you've created a definition of religion that is useless and absurd.

The definition from the dictionary is:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I am saying trying to convince other people to share your views is evidence that one is pursing "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal".

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

That definition from the dictionary is useless and absurd. Anything that one pursues with zeal is religion? If you pursue a job promotion with zeal, are you suddenly an adherent to the religion of "job promotion"? Nobody in their right mind would define religion as pursuing anything with zeal.

Keep trying, but there is absolutely no rational way to call atheism a religion. It's not and you look ridiculous twisting and contorting the definition of religion to try and pin it on atheism.

Mighty AC has said numerous times already that theism, isn't even a religion, but you keep ignoring that important point.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

More to the point, that definition of religion is a colloquialism as well. It's like saying someone who is a huge hockey fanatic is "religious" about hockey. They follow hockey religiously. That's not the kind of religion that we're talking about here and it's pretty disingenuous of you to use that definition of religion here when quite obviously it is out of context.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

And I have no idea how life began on earth. I have no belief whatsoever about it.

You may claim that you do not know the exact mechanism but by claiming to be atheist you are asserting that life was random occurrence triggered by unknown factors.

You are the one arguing semantics about atheism not being a "belief". I was simply pointing out that it is impossible. You have to create a construct that explains how the universe could exist. This construct is a belief.

[cybercoma]

Atheists don't have to create a construct about the existence of the universe at all. I'm not sure why you think this is the case. Just because I don't believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean I need to have some alternate theory about why presents show up under people's Christmas trees on Dec. 25. I could simply reject the suggestion that it was some supernatural being travelling across the globe on the grounds that there's insufficient evidence to believe in such a thing.

The only thing that atheists hold in common is not believing in god(s).

[TimG]

If you pursue a job promotion with zeal, are you suddenly an adherent to the religion of "job promotion"? Nobody in their right mind would define religion as pursuing anything with zeal.

Yes. That is the meaning of the word. Religious zealots do not have to believe in god to be zealots. They just have to have a cause or principle which they advocate.

[TimG]

Atheists don't have to create a construct about the existence of the universe at all.

Anyone who calls themselves an atheist is creating a construct. They could not rationally call themselves one if they did not.

The only thing that atheists hold in common is not believing in god(s).

And that is the the principle that when pursued with enough zealotry becomes a religion. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

According to the dictionary the terms 'cool' and 'hot' can be both synonyms and antonyms. Cool water did not start scalding people once it shared a definition with hot in the dictionary.

A dictionary is a record of how words are used. The term religion is sometimes used to describe fanatical support for something, like 'hockey is a religion in Canada'. Using religion in this manner does mean hockey is now a religion....but, at this point, I suspect you are just arguing for the fun of it.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mighty AC

[cybercoma]

Yes. That is the meaning of the word. Religious zealots do not have to believe in god to be zealots. They just have to have a cause or principle which they advocate.

If you're talking about zealotry, then say zealotry. Atheism is not a religion.

And I'm going to assume you're just being pedantic about constructs. No shit, atheism is a construct. That doesn't mean atheists "create a construct about the beginnings of the universe."

It's pretty clear now that you're conflating definitions to obfuscate arguments that have no legs. So I'm done going around in circles with you. When you're ready to have a serious discussion let me know.

[GostHacked]

The entire problem with this debate is different people have different ideas on what god is.

Or what god isn't.

Some atheists choose to believe that god is a supernatural entity that is hypothetically able to affect the physical world. Using this strawman they claim that god does not exist.

How can atheists claim that god is supernatural when by definition, atheism is a non-belief in any god?

[GostHacked]

The point is I am not choosing the definition. I am working the definition from the dictionary and explaining why atheism when 'pursued with zeal' fits that definition. You are the one who seeks to ignore the meaning of words because they result in conclusions that make you feel uncomfortable.

The reason why there is some zeal in the push back is that religion has tried to define atheism as a religion. Atheists keep having to correct the religious (more specifically believers in god). And atheists keep having to do this over and over again. It's clearly explained.

[GostHacked]

You may claim that you do not know the exact mechanism but by claiming to be atheist you are asserting that life was random occurrence triggered by unknown factors.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It has nothing to do with the origins of life, as believing in a deity also has nothing to do with the origins of life. The problem here is that theists like you, lump the two together in order to come up with a counter argument when there is no argument in the first place.

You are the one arguing semantics about atheism not being a "belief". I was simply pointing out that it is impossible. You have to create a construct that explains how the universe could exist. This construct is a belief.

Some thick skulls here for sure.

Atheism and the origins of the universe are exclusive to each other. They are not dependent on each other in any way shape or form. We have theists who believe in the big bang creationism story and we have theists who believe god did it. Atheists have a wide range of views as do many of the theists.

You don't need a construct to have faith or believe in a deity.

[TimG]

The reason why there is some zeal in the push back is that religion has tried to define atheism as a religion.

My question is: why is it so damn important to some atheists that atheism is excluded from the definition of a religion? This obsession about this point is evidence of zealotry which makes atheism, as practiced by the people who complain, a religion.

Ironic isn't it?

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

My question is: why is it so damn important to some atheists that atheism is excluded from the definition of a religion? This obsession about this point is evidence of zealotry which makes atheism, as practiced by the people who complain, a religion.

Because you and others are putting us into a box in which we do not belong, because it does not describe or define what lack of beliefs atheists hold.

Telling you that you are wrong about the definition of atheism is not tantamount to atheism being a religion.

Edited February 13, 2013 by GostHacked

[TimG]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It has nothing to do with the origins of life, as believing in a deity also has nothing to do with the origins of life.

You cannot separate one from the other. By declaring oneself as an atheist you are automatically asserting that life originated spontaneously.

The problem here is that theists like you, lump the two together in order to come up with a counter argument when there is no argument in the first place.

Gee. I was called an atheist a while back. Now I am a theist? My arguments have nothing to do with where I sit on the spectrum.

[TimG]

Because you and others are putting us into a box in which we do not belong,

It is putting you in a box which you do not want to be associated with. The question if whether you belong is different.

because it does not describe or define what lack of beliefs atheists hold.

Why? We have been over this before. A religion is does not require a god. Religion is a word to describe people who are zealous in their pursuit of a cause or a principle. This applies to atheists. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

You cannot separate one from the other. By declaring oneself as an atheist you are automatically asserting that life originated spontaneously.

How is it automatic? Can you explain further?

Gee. I was called an atheist a while back. Now I am a theist? My arguments have nothing to do with where I sit on the spectrum.

Actually they do have a lot to do with where you sit on that spectrum, unless you want to claim you are being the 'devil's advocate' here.

[GostHacked]

It is putting you in a box which you do not want to be associated with. The question if whether you belong is different.

You are coming up to Betsy-troll territory now.

Why? We have been over this before. A religion is does not require a god. Religion is a word to describe people who are zealous in their pursuit of a cause or a principle. This applies to atheists.

Atheism is not a religion. There might be some atheists who are zealous in their agenda, as there are some theists who are zealous in their agenda. It does not conclude that all atheists are zealous or that it even defines a religion.

[TimG]

How is it automatic? Can you explain further?

The origin of the universe is a fundamental question that everyone asks at some point (especially those that debate on Internet forums). If someone is agnostic and does not exclude the possibility of a deity then that person can argue that they have no belief when it comes to the origin of the universe. If one is an atheist then one is excluding all supernatural explanations and implicitly asserting that only way the universe could have come into being is if it emerged spontaneously. The exact details will vary but, in principal, spontaneous origin is the only belief that is compatible with atheism.

[TimG]

It does not conclude that all atheists are zealous or that it even defines a religion.

Is hockey a religion? To some people yes. To all people no. Is atheism a religion? So some people yes. I have never argued that atheism is a religion for all atheists.

[Sleipnir]

Can you answer?

Buddhism is Buddhism.

My question is: why is it so damn important to some atheists that atheism is excluded from the definition of a religion?

Are you familiar with etymology?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sleipnir

[GostHacked]

The origin of the universe is a fundamental question that everyone asks at some point (especially those that debate on Internet forums). If someone is agnostic and does not exclude the possibility of a deity then that person can argue that they have no belief when it comes to the origin of the universe. If one is an atheist then one is excluding all supernatural explanations and implicitly asserting that only way the universe could have come into being is if it emerged spontaneously. The exact details will vary but, in principal, spontaneous origin is the only belief that is compatible with atheism.

Holy crap, we all wonder about the beginnings of the universe and the beginning of life. That is part of our human nature to try and understand the world and the universe we live in. It may not have happened spontaneously and it could be that something other than 'god' created it.

You are trying to mash two things together which are exclusive of each other, like origins of life on Earth and evolution.Evolution does not explain the origins of life. it explains things AFTER the origins of life. The origins are still very much up in the air. It could have been, god, spontaneous, or ... if your brain is willing to entertain a third option of 'other'. Step outside of your box to know that you yourself have been shoved in and the lid kept closed.