Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[TimG]

I hear cool water can now scald because it can mean the same as hot.

A strawman. The dictionary definition does not say cool means an object's temperature is hot. It says that cool is a slang term for trendy. The dictionary definition for hot says the same thing. The dictionary definition for religion does say that religion is any activity pursued with zeal. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What you are missing is the term 'religion' in this case is a judgment on the way the activity is pursued.

I know exactly what you're saying and it's meaningless.

[cybercoma]

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.

Even without lumping them together, it's still a false dilemma just as I described.

[cybercoma]

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.

You see, by religion he means the object of zeal. Isn't that what everyone means by religion?

[cybercoma]

A strawman. The dictionary definition does not say cool means an object's temperature is hot. It says that cool is a slang term for trendy. The dictionary definition for hot says the same thing. The dictionary definition for religion does say that religion is any activity pursued with zeal.

This is an utterly pointless exercise in pedantry and semantics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

Your word-for-word definition appears nowhere there.

What does appear is "something of overwhelming importance to a person", which is so general and vague as to be absolutely meaningless. That definition is only meant to describe the colloquial use of "religion" as a metaphor. It does not mean that all of a sudden a person's motorcycle is a religion because it is overwhelming important to that person. Dictionaries capture figures of speech as well, which is why you need to be aware of how language is used when looking up definitions.

So we're back to the fact that you've chosen a very narrow and specific definition of religion that is not what people generally mean by the word. You go and ask anyone to list religions they're not going to start listing random things that are "overwhelmingly important" to people. They're going to name organized religions.

That you would call atheism a religion, then turn around and say that you meant the vaguest definition of religion which is meant to capture metaphor is so painfully pedantic that I can't even imagine that you think anyone would take you seriously. If your definition of religion is so vague that there is nothing that can't be a religion, then it is pointless. It has no meaning.

More to the point, you're even incorrect in that definition, as how does one zealously disbelieve something? Are you a zealous disbeliever of the Gods of Olympus?

You're just plain wrong. I'm sorry.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Even without lumping them together, it's still a false dilemma just as I described.

There is no dilemma in the case of true atheists since they reject premise that a creator exists. Therefore the universe must have spontaneously come into being.

[cybercoma]

Sorry, but your therefore does not follow from that premise.

I'm really not sure how many different ways it can be said to you before you'll "get it." But not believing in a God has absolutely nothing to do with your ideas about the origins of the universe. You can not believe in God and think there something else created the universe. You could not believe in God and think it was spontaneous as you claim. You could not believe in God and not know or not care how the universe was created. You could not believe in God and not believe that the universe was created at all, but believe that it is infinite.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

So we're back to the fact that you've chosen a very narrow and specific definition of religion that is not what people generally mean by the word.

This thread started because someone was complaining about people using the term religion to describe atheism. I pointed out that it is not technically wrong according to the dictionary.

You can argue that people often assume that religion has something to with god but obviously anyone calling an atheism a religion is not using the word in that context so they must be using the word in the context of the "narrow and specific" definition that I pointed out.

This entire thread would have gone no where if people had simply conceded that religion has different meanings in different contexts. It dragged on for 100+ posts because many self described atheists object to having the label 'religion' applied to their belief system and sought repudiate what I thought was a simple question of understanding how the same word can have different meanings.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

You can not believe in God and think there something else created the universe.

god, by definition, is the creator of the universe. if you believe that the universe has a creator then you accept the premise of a god. I don't understand the definition of god that you are using. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

god, by definition, is the creator of the universe.

By what definition? Many religions feature god(s) that were not responsible for the creation of the universe.

[TimG]

By what definition? Many religions feature god(s) that were not responsible for the creation of the universe.

but all theist religions that I am aware of have at least one god who is the creator. Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[Pliny]

This entire thread would have gone no where if people had simply conceded that religion has different meanings in different contexts. It dragged on for 100+ posts because many self described atheists object to having the label 'religion' applied to their belief system and sought repudiate what I thought was a simple question of understanding how the same word can have different meanings.

Exactly.

The fourth definition from Merriam-Webster that you posted, which is here:

re·li·gion(r-ljn) n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

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

....and it does fit Atheism but not necessarily all atheists.

Simply said Atheism, to a growing number of individuals, is a principle pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. They are becoming devoted to creating a world where no one believes in God. They go on the internet to spread the word, form groups, and have leaders that are held in prophet status. The definition does not say there has to be an organization with rites and rituals. It can be one person or a group of people with the same zeal or devotion that is all that is required in this definition. It will never fit the first definition of the term.[/font]

Just like hockey is an activity pursued by some fans with zeal or conscientious devotion. In this sense it doesn't make hockey a religion but some of the fans may be zealous enough about the sport that their life revolves entirely around it. Hockey itself remains a sport. The fans can take it as seriously as some people take their religion.

The fourth definition is there because people use it in that context. It isn't there because Merriam-Webster put it there. (As an aside, I will say they sometimes manipulate definitions mostly for political reasons, so I am not a fan)

But Timg is correct in his assessment that atheists abhor being associated with the word religion in any sense and in his use of the term.

Frankly, his head should be spinning around but I guess he knows what he knows.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Pliny

[GostHacked]

There is no dilemma in the case of true atheists since they reject premise that a creator exists.

This is awesome. And you are wrong. It is the lack of belief in a creator. This no way rejects the creator through evidence, and you need more than one book aka the bible to show proof. Corroboration, is how things are done. Consensus is not valid, facts are.

Therefore the universe must have spontaneously come into being.

I proposed a 3rd option and you have a lack of belief in the third option. You are atheistic to the 3rd option. Welcome to the atheist club!

Here is a fourth, what if the universe was created, but it was not by god? What if the creator was mortal?

[GostHacked]

but all theist religions that I am aware of have at least one god who is the creator.

Budhism does not worship a god, Taoism does not worship a god. But then again these might not be considered theist religions.

[cybercoma]

This thread started because someone was complaining about people using the term religion to describe atheism. I pointed out that it is not technically wrong according to the dictionary.

You can argue that people often assume that religion has something to with god but obviously anyone calling an atheism a religion is not using the word in that context so they must be using the word in the context of the "narrow and specific" definition that I pointed out.

This entire thread would have gone no where if people had simply conceded that religion has different meanings in different contexts. It dragged on for 100+ posts because many self described atheists object to having the label 'religion' applied to their belief system and sought repudiate what I thought was a simple question of understanding how the same word can have different meanings.

I've been pointing out that you're dishonestly using different meanings.

The issue is not that "atheism is a religion" in the sense that "hockey is a religion." That's not even how people use "atheism is a religion." The full phrase is typically "atheism is a religion just like Christianity." You're intentionally conflating definition 1 with definition 4, but now trying to claim that you've meant 4 all along. The fact of the matter is that within the context of these discussion, when people say atheism is a religion, they mean atheism is a religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other organized religion.

It's not, for many, many reasons. The least of which being atheists don't believe in deities. More importantly, however, is the idea that one cannot zealously not believe in something. Atheism does not pursue or focus on anything. It's quite simply a word we use to describe someone that does not believe in God. What exactly are they zealously pursuing, following, or ritualizing? Thus, It's complete and utter nonsense to call atheism a religion by any definition of the word.

[cybercoma]

Simply said Atheism, to a growing number of individuals, is a principle pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. They are becoming devoted to creating a world where no one believes in God.

This is total BS. Most atheists couldn't give a crap about other people believing in God, as long as they don't demand that others observe their God. They do give a crap when people say that there is a God and they demand that others behave in a certain way or that creationism be taught alongside evolution or other such ways that religious people demand privilege for their beliefs. Your beliefs don't deserve respect simply because you have them. If you want to claim that there is a God and other people should act a particular way because that's what God wants, then it's incumbent upon you to prove first that a God actually exists and second that you have any idea what its wants or desires are. In no other sphere do we just allow people to make wild-ass claims about something and demand others' believe it simply upon faith. Imagine politicians campaigning on "just have faith in what we're saying. We don't need evidence." It's complete absurdity. People rightfully demand evidence and support for politicians' beliefs and claims. The same with science. Demanding that is not zealotry. It's reason. Without evidence a rational person has no reason to believe the claims you make. They're not trying to get you to stop believing your claims. If you want to go on believing things for which there's no evidence, go right ahead. No one's stopping you from looking like a complete stupid person. Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

This is total BS. Most atheists couldn't give a crap about other people believing in God, as long as they don't demand that others observe their God. They do give a crap when people say that there is a God and they demand that others behave in a certain way or that creationism be taught alongside evolution or other such ways that religious people demand privilege for their beliefs.

A lot of people demand special rules restricting religion though. Some people demand that they be taxed as for-profit businesses are. Others have expressed discomfort with "spreading the word", as though freedom of expression shouldn't apply to religious beliefs.

[cybercoma]

That's true, but it has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists do not form some cohesive group. It makes little sense to define someone by what they're not.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Canuckistani]

A lot of people demand special rules restricting religion though. Some people demand that they be taxed as for-profit businesses are. Others have expressed discomfort with "spreading the word", as though freedom of expression shouldn't apply to religious beliefs.

You can make a perfectly good argument for taxing them unless they fit the same guidelines as other registered charities.

Expressing discomfort is not restricting religion. Trying to ban it is. Like the religious trying to ban the "God may not exist" ads on buses The religious are far more guilty of this sort of thing than the atheists. And of course there's the issue of say giving away bibles in schools - that should not be allowed unless any and all religions and atheists are allowed to give away texts as well.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[The_Squid]

You can make a perfectly good argument for taxing them unless they fit the same guidelines as other registered charities.

Expressing discomfort is not restricting religion. Trying to ban it is. Like the religious trying to ban the "God may not exist" ads on buses The religious are far more guilty of this sort of thing than the atheists. And of course there's the issue of say giving away bibles in schools - that should not be allowed unless any and all religions and atheists are allowed to give away texts as well.

I do not think that the promotion of religion is appropriate in schools, regardless of whether one or all religions could disseminate publications, holy books, etc.

Interesting that you included atheists. This suggestion only lends credence to the silly and childish notion that atheism is some sort of pseudo-religion. Regardless of what sect of Christianity you come from, you still use a common holy book, the bible. However, there is NO common text, philosophy or moral code that atheists abide by. So, what texts would atheists disseminate to students?

[Canuckistani]

Some atheists seem to have an interest in countering religious messages. Such as the "there's probably no God" campaign. So what I'm saying is that if one book of a religion is allowed to be disseminated in schools, then all should be, as well as books that refute religion. But yes, if atheists were to take up this offer, it would provided fodder to the atheists are a religion people. Since there seems to be a church of atheism in England, that also provides fodder. You'll just have to shrug it off, I guess. I would say that most atheists are the farthest thing from religious. But when they get to proselytizing, like Dawkins seems to, they start looking awfully like they have a belief they want to convert everybody else too. Like many religious people want.

Ultimately this is all a storm in a teacup. I meant this post to point out the absurdity of it all. People who are clear on their beliefs don't try to convert others to them - I think this applies both to theists and atheists. Even non-theists, ie Buddhists, but you don't usually see them trying to convert anybody. It's only the two offshoots of Judaism that seem to be hellbent on this - guess they're insecure.

So, I don't think atheism is a religion, but some atheists promote their beliefs with a zeal that's very religious. in the broader meaning of the term.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

But when they get to proselytizing, like Dawkins seems to, they start looking awfully like they have a belief they want to convert everybody else too. Like many religious people want.

Exactly. Which is why the statement that atheism is a religion for some people is a correct statement.

It's only the two offshoots of Judaism that seem to be hellbent on this - guess they're insecure.

Call it Darwinian evolution.

Religions that evolve to embed proselytizing in their teachings spread and those that don't die out.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

So what I'm saying is that if one book of a religion is allowed to be disseminated in schools, then all should be, as well as books that refute religion.

I still don't know what atheist texts you are referring to.

But yes, if atheists were to take up this offer, it would provided fodder to the atheists are a religion people. Since there seems to be a church of atheism in England, that also provides fodder. You'll just have to shrug it off, I guess. I would say that most atheists are the farthest thing from religious.

I do shrug it off... because it is a silly notion.

But when they get to proselytizing, like Dawkins seems to, they start looking awfully like they have a belief they want to convert everybody else too. Like many religious people want.

Dawkins refutes the claims that the supernatural exists and defends evolution. How does Dawkins proselytize? You aren't one of these idiots that thinks evolution is a belief system, are you?

People who are clear on their beliefs don't try to convert others to them - I think this applies both to theists and atheists.

Some people make it abundantly clear that their belief system includes trying to convert people and one way that they are trying to do so is to interfere in government and to make government a religious institution, or at least one that promotes a particular religion. If groups of people take a stand against this, it doesn't mean they want to convert anyone. It means they don't want their government institutions being influenced by mythology.

Edited February 14, 2013 by The_Squid

[Peanutbutter]

If you want to go on believing things for which there's no evidence, go right ahead. No one's stopping you from looking like a complete stupid person.

I'm new here but are you always this inflammatory? I don't think there is any need to say people who believe in God, be it a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or what have you, is a "completely stupid person". I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent people who are religious and/or spiritual.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm new here but are you always this inflammatory? I don't think there is any need to say people who believe in God, be it a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or what have you, is a "completely stupid person". I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent people who are religious and/or spiritual.

Agreed....."Faithiests" are the new breed of athiests who recognize that an arrogant and condescending stance on religion and faith is hateful and counterproductive. Albert Einstein was not an athiest.

http://wheelercentre...-the-religious/

Edited February 14, 2013 by bush_cheney2004