Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[TimG]

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed TimG. I did not take you for a pro-religious propagandist, and at its root that is all that the whole "atheism is a religion!" bandwagon is.

I don't think you understand where I am coming from. God is a question of metaphysics and the question of whether god exists or not is a personal question that each person must answer for themselves. Trying to apply the norms of science to this question is like trying measure energy flux with a ruler.

I refer to atheists as a religion largely because I get annoyed at the dogmatic absolutism that some atheists preach. I see no difference between a dogmatic insistence that god cannot exist unless there is scientifically verifiable proof and a dogmatic insistence that only people who give themselves to jesus will be saved.

[Bonam]

I don't think you understand where I am coming from. God is a question of metaphysics and the question of whether god exists or not is a personal question that each person must answer for themselves.

No, whether something exists or not is a factual question. Whether someone's belief in something exists or not is a different matter, but that is not what is being discussed. No atheist denies that some people believe in god.

I refer to atheists as a religion largely because I get annoyed at the dogmatic absolutism that some atheists preach. I see no difference between a dogmatic insistence that god cannot exist unless there is scientifically verifiable proof

Few if any atheists "dogmatically insist" that, or believe that at all. The overwhelming mainstream view is that just like any other proposition, the existence of a supernatural being is not worth considering or believing in unless there is evidence to support it. I have no reason to believe there is an invisible unicorn standing beside me, and so I don't believe that, but neither do I have a strong stake in it not being there, and if there was some reason to believe that it was, I'd have no problem changing my belief. Same with whether or not god(s) exist(s).

The definition of atheism has been gone over ad nauseam on this board, and actual atheists have spoken up as to what they take the definition to be, and that is the definition that matters, not the one that people like betsy try to define atheists as. Therefore, you aren't arguing with a group called "atheists" but with some other group, a group that is a construct of pro-religious propaganda.

[TimG]

No, whether something exists or not is a factual question. Whether someone's belief in something exists or not is a different matter, but that is not what is being discussed. No atheist denies that some people believe in god.

Now you are getting into the question of 'what is real'? People with schizophrenia experience auditory and visual hallucinations. They are 'real' from the perspective of the schizophrenic and medical science generally accepts that the schizophrenic sees and hears the things that they claim. When it comes to god the experience could be due to a similar effect and it would be real from the perspective of the people experiencing it. We know that many people 'find god' and turn a life that is falling a part into something worth having. These effects are real and that makes god real for those people. What business do you have questioning it? If you had a family member lost in an addiction would you sneer at them because they developed a belief in god to cope with the stress of a drug free recovery? Or would you encourage them to believe whatever they needed to believe to get better? A god that is the random firing of neurotransmitters is still real.

Few if any atheists "dogmatically insist" that, or believe that at all. The overwhelming mainstream view is that just like any other proposition, the existence of a supernatural being is not worth considering or believing in unless there is evidence to support it.

Again - you are presuming that 'god' is a physical quantity that can be measured. God is worth believing in if that belief is a force for positive change in your life - hence my point that god is purely personal choice. If you choose to believe that god does not exist then that is your choice. Edited February 12, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

If your definition of god is "something that people believe in", then clearly god exists, and I'm sure most any atheist would agree. The fact that some people believe in god, and that said belief has an impact on their lives, is undeniable fact well supported by evidence. Again, there is no group called "atheists" that would dispute that statement, so it remains unclear who you are arguing with or about what.

[TimG]

Again, there is no group called "atheists" that would dispute that statement, so it remains unclear who you are arguing with or about what.

The original op was about whether atheism is a religion. I posted a definition from an online dictionary that included one definition that would apply to atheism. I also posted definition for the word 'dogmatism' and suggested the real problem is not religion but dogmatism - whether it comes from theists or atheists.

I then got in a discussion with some dogmatic atheists about whether 'not believing' constitutes a belief.

Then you jumped in.

The entire problem with this debate is different people have different ideas on what god is. 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. Some theists do the same and they are believing in something for which is not consistent with known physics. I define god in ways that are consistent with known physics yet is still real. I don't expect anyone to agree with my definition - I am just stating what it is.

Edited February 12, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

The original op was about whether atheism is a religion. I posted a definition from an online dictionary that included one definition that would apply to atheism. I also posted definition for the word 'dogmatism' and suggested the real problem is not religion but dogmatism - whether it comes from theists or atheists.

I then got in a discussion with some dogmatic atheists about whether 'not believing' constitutes a belief.

Then you jumped in.

The entire problem with this debate is different people have different ideas on what god is. 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. Some theists do the same and they are believing in something for which is not consistent with known physics. I define god in ways that are consistent with known physics yet is still real. I don't expect anyone to agree with my definition - I am just stating what it is.

That's totally fine, and I would agree that your definition is a useful one. It also makes you an atheist. So welcome to the club I guess.

[TimG]

It also makes you an atheist.

Why should I accept your definition of theism?

[Sleipnir]

The original op was about whether atheism is a religion.

How can the concept of atheism be the very thing it opposes?

Saying that atheism is a religion is an oxymoron at best.

[TimG]

How can the concept of atheism be the very thing it opposes?

Religion is not theism. They are different concepts.

[eyeball]

I refer to atheists as a religion largely because I get annoyed at the dogmatic absolutism that some atheists preach.

Preaching dogmatic annoyance seems little if any different.

[Mighty AC]

The vast majority of atheists are of the agnostic or negative variety; however, religious groups have successfully redefined the word and attached a knowledge or 'faith' claim to it. These groups would like people to think atheists are a large organized group of angry evil people attacking all that is good in society. This is why so few people will identify themselves as atheist and instead say agnostic, no religion or nonspiritual.

Keep in mind that combating ignorance and the power of traditional religion does not make one a dogmatic atheist.

[betsy]

The vast majority of atheists are of the agnostic or negative variety; however, religious groups have successfully redefined the word and attached a knowledge or 'faith' claim to it. These groups would like people to think atheists are a large organized group of angry evil people attacking all that is good in society. This is why so few people will identify themselves as atheist and instead say agnostic, no religion or nonspiritual.

Keep in mind that combating ignorance and the power of traditional religion does not make one a dogmatic atheist.

No. FYI, there is such a breed of atheists called the New Atheists. Just read this very long investigative article that interviewed and picked the minds of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

The Church of the Non-Believers

http://www.wired.com...11/atheism.html

Statements like this:

This autumn, Harris has a new book out, Letter to a Christian Nation. In it, he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. "Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you," he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, "dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God."

"At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God."

To say that he is simply angry is an understatement. He is insanely angry. So, yes. Those atheists that adopted the rude and in-your-face-offensive stance of Dawkins and Harris, are indeed angry people.

Edited February 12, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Religion is not theism. They are different concepts.

But all theism is based on religion.

[TimG]

But all theism is based on religion.

No. Religions are sometimes created based on theism. Theism can exist without a religion. Edited February 12, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

Theism can exist without a religion.

Theism is a belief in god, how can god exist if you have nothing to based it on?

To put it in perspective, think of god as a plant and soil as being religion.

[TimG]

Theism is a belief in god, how can god exist if you have nothing to based it on?

Theism a possible philosophical basis for a religion. i.e. theism is the soil - religion is the plant. Edited February 12, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

Theism a possible philosophical basis for a religion.

Theism is a philosophical basis for all religion because all religions have god(s) or goddess, otherwise it would not be a religion but rather a philosophical thing. Hence the term religion, which is Latin for religio, means 'reverence for god or the gods'. Atheism cannot be religious because there are no 'reverence for god or the gods.' Thus, atheism is a philosophical concept not a religious concept.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Atheism cannot be religious because there are no 'reverence for god or the gods.' Thus, atheism is a philosophical concept not a religious concept.

A religion does not require a god. There is no god in Buddhism. If Buddhism is a religion then so is atheism.

http://en.wikipedia....God_in_Buddhism

Gautama Buddha did not endorse belief in a creator deity,[1][2] refused to express any views on creation[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[4][5] The non-adherence[6] to the notion of an omnipotentcreator deity or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions.

Rather, Buddhism emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe (pratitya samutpada) which constitute the natural order (dharma). No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha a human being must study Nature (dhamma vicaya) in order to attain personal wisdom (prajna) regarding the nature of things (dharma). In Buddhismthe sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[7][8] called nirvana.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

A religion does not require a god.

Yes it does, try looking up the meaning of the word

There is no god in Buddhism.

Try the Divine Brahma.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Yes it does, try looking up the meaning of the word

I did. A god is not required.

There are dozens of gods in Buddhism such as Indra, Aapo, Vayo, Tejo, Surya, Pajapati, Soma, Yasa, Venhu, Mahadeva, Viija, Usha, Pathavi, Sri, Kuvera, Yakkhas, Gandhabbas, Garula, sons of Bali, Veroca, etc.

I suggest you educate yourself on what Buddism is. The fact that some sects of Buddism adopted Hindu gods does not mean that Buddism has gods. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

I suggest you educate yourself on what Buddism is.

I suggest you look at my last edit

[TimG]

I suggest you look at my last edit

I don't know what you are calling the 'Divine Brahma'. I am guessing that it is another name for the 'Supreme Buddha' who is seen as a human teacher - not a god in Buddism

[Sleipnir]

I don't know what you are calling the 'Divine Brahma'. I am guessing that it is another name for the 'Supreme Buddha' who is seen as a human teacher - not a god in Buddism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81_(Buddhism)

[TimG]

http://en.wikipedia....ahmÄ_(Buddhism)

You are referencing a sect of Buddhism that merges Hindu mythology. There is nothing in Buddhism itself that refers to a diety. Look at Zen Buddhism to understand the point I am making. What is the god of a Zen Buddhist? Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

There is nothing in Buddhism itself that refers to a diety.

Try looking at the link I gave you.

Brahma in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity, of which there are several in Buddhist cosmology. Especially the mahayana Lotus sutra, chapter 7 makes mention of several "Brahma gods".

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sleipnir