Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[GostHacked]

Is hockey a religion? To some people yes. To all people no. Is atheism a religion? So some people yes.

Well according to Siri, Alfredson is GOD.

I have never argued that atheism is a religion for all atheists.

Atheism is not a religion for any atheist, this is the part that people simply cannot wrap their brains around.

[TimG]

Atheism is not a religion for any atheist, this is the part that people simply cannot wrap their brains around.

The description is not applied by the atheist - it is applied by others looking at what the atheist says and does. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

It may not have happened spontaneously and it could be that something other than 'god' created it.

If it did not happen spontaneously then you are suggesting a supernatural first mover which goes against your professed atheist creed. There is no 'third option'. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

If it did not happen spontaneously then you are suggesting a supernatural first mover which goes against your professed atheist creed. There is no 'third option'.

Why would there be no third option? Do you have a lack of belief in a third option perhaps?

[TimG]

Why would there be no third option? Do you have a lack of belief in a third option perhaps?

It is more like a logical impossibility. If there is no creator the universe must have appeared spontaneously. If the universe did not appear spontaneously then, by definition, something must have created it. You can play around with different creators and argue whether they are 'divine' but you can't get away from the fundamental duality of the problem. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

If there is no creator the universe must have appeared spontaneously. If the universe did not appear spontaneously then, by definition, something must have created it.

What do you mean by 'universe appearing spontaneously' versus 'non-spontaneous'? Before, during or after the big bang? Try elaborating your views.

Edit: by what definition are you talking about?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

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?

Telling you that you're wrong because you are wrong, completely and totally wrong here, is not zealotry.

[cybercoma]

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

No you're not. Where do you get that crazy idea? Nobody knows how life originated. There's some ideas, but nothing has been confirmed. Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

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.

Do you know how absurd you look taking a narrow and colloquial definition of religion and trying to apply it to this conversation?

This is how you sound....

"Is Christianity a religion? To some people yes. To all people no."

Do you not see the absurdity in that?

This is the Relativist Fallacy for the record. Christianity is a religion. Not everyone believes in Christianity. Not everyone is a Christian. But Christianity itself is a religion regardless of who you are.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

This is the Relativist Fallacy for the record. Christianity is a religion. Not everyone believes in Christianity. Not everyone is a Christian. But Christianity itself is a religion regardless of who you are.

Love this example they give of that particular fallacy:

Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't accept it."

Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are bad. Therefore my position is just fine."

As for TimG... he decided to defend to the bitter end a totally untenable position...

[cybercoma]

You should check out some of the other entries (I posted a thread with links to this site). There's some hilarious stuff in there. That one was definitely my favourite though.

[TimG]

Do you know how absurd you look taking a narrow and colloquial definition of religion and trying to apply it to this conversation?

But that is the definition I have been talking about from the beginning. This thread started with me posting a dictionary definition of the word religion and pointing out that _one_ of the definitions applied to atheism. I never claimed that all of the definitions applied. This thread has dragged on for so long because some self described atheists seems get really worked up about having the word 'religion' applied to them even though it is not wrong when used with the correct context.

It is not my fallacy because you have taken so long to understand my point because my point is correct: atheism can be a religion if taken to extreme. just like hockey or any other cause, principle or activity. That is what the dictionary says and what I have been arguing. I also suspect that is also what theists mean when they describe atheism as a religion.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

As for TimG... he decided to defend to the bitter end a totally untenable position...

It strikes me as a surprise that anyone would seriously consider atheism a religion.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

No you're not. Where do you get that crazy idea? Nobody knows how life originated. There's some ideas, but nothing has been confirmed.

Your trouble is you want to get into specifics when I am talking generalities. There are many mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the origin of the universe but all of the mechanisms fall into two categories: they are either spontaneous (implying random chance with no guiding intelligence) or directed (implying a guiding intelligence). Atheists reject the latter. Agnostics accept the possibility of either.

[Sleipnir]

they are either spontaneous (implying random chance with no guiding intelligence) or directed (implying a guiding intelligence).

How does an inanimate object/entity implies something?

[cybercoma]

But that is the definition I have been talking about from the beginning. This thread started with me posting a dictionary definition of the word religion and pointing out that _one_ of the definitions applied to atheism. I never claimed that all of the definitions applied. This thread has dragged on for so long because some self described atheists seems get really worked up about having the word 'religion' applied to them even though it is not wrong when used with the correct context.

It is not my fallacy because you have taken so long to understand my point because my point is correct: atheism can be a religion if taken to extreme. just like hockey or any other cause, principle or activity. That is what the dictionary says and what I have been arguing. That is also what theists mean when they describe atheism as a religion.

Then your point is not only pedantic, but also completely banal because under that definition anything can be a religion. This makes your argument not particularly insightful nor informative.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Atheists reject the latter. Agnostics accept the possibility of either.

Agnostics are atheists. The former is the lack of a knowledge claim, the latter is a lack of belief. Neither is a religion and neither is tied to a creation story. Hockey is not a religion nor is climate change denial. If you would like to learn about the subject quickly, Cyber posted an excellent video here: http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=21938

[cybercoma]

Your trouble is you want to get into specifics when I am talking generalities. There are many mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the origin of the universe but all of the mechanisms fall into two categories: they are either spontaneous (implying random chance with no guiding intelligence) or directed (implying a guiding intelligence). Atheists reject the latter. Agnostics accept the possibility of either.

I don't why you refuse to see this as anything but a binary. Just because you reject the idea of creationism as being very highly improbable, that doesn't mean you automatically accept some concept of the origins of life that is spontaneous or due to random chance. You're saying that's the only alternative. You're setting up a false dilemma. The fact of the matter is people can say they don't believe creationists' proposal, due to a lack of evidence, while also saying they don't know how life began. Rejecting something on the basis that it's not persuasive due to lack of evidence, does not mean you automatically accept the alternative that you've setup.

[TimG]

Then your point is not only pedantic, but also completely banal because under that definition anything can be a religion. This makes your argument not particularly insightful nor informative.

What you are missing is the term 'religion' in this case is a judgment on the way the activity is pursued. i.e. zealotry is not generally a good thing. So its use is not banal or trivial - it communicates something. i.e. saying 'hockey is a religion' communicates a different meaning that 'hockey is a passion'. Communicating subtle differences in meaning with word choices is what language does. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Just because you reject the idea of creationism as being very highly improbable, that doesn't mean you automatically accept some concept of the origins of life that is spontaneous or due to random chance.

Again - when I use the word atheist I used it to describe a specific sub-group of people: those that assert that god cannot exist. People who accept the possibility of a creator (no matter how implausible) are agnostic.

It makes no sense to lump the two groups of people together because they represent very different outlooks and communication is hindered if you insist on lumping both groups of people under the 'atheist' label.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

What you are missing is the term 'religion' in this case is a judgment on the way the activity is pursued. i.e. zealotry is not generally a good thing. So its use is not banal or trivial - it communicates something. i.e. saying 'hockey is religion' communicates a different meaning that 'hockey is a passion'. Communicating subtle differences in meaning with words is what language does.

A metaphor comparing the zeal of hockey fans to that of the religious does not transform hockey into a religion. The world is not actually a stage, no matter what Shakespeare wrote.

[TimG]

A metaphor comparing the zeal of hockey fans to that of the religious does not transform hockey into a religion.

But it means hockey can be a religion to some people.

[Mighty AC]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means some people are fanatical about it. You see a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means some people are fanatical about it. You see a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Language changes. Metaphors today become a definition of the word if used frequently. The dictionary definition I quoted suggests that this conversion from metaphor to meaning has already occurred for the word religion.

[Mighty AC]

I hear cool water can now scald because it can mean the same as hot. In an attempt to find an escape you're back to your meaningless point that almost everything is a religion based on your definition.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Mighty AC