is atheism religion?

dead one

hiya mark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Likewise, this is off topic, we can open a new thread for this (I would suggest in the A&A forum, as I'm sure they'd love to be told that atheism is a religion for the umpteenth time :rolleyes:)

Here is my argument, yesterday an atheist priest banned for committing blasphemy against their religion. My crime was simple, i was an infidel according to teaching of atheism. I was just joking in a thread and the priest got annoyed and he threw me out of his holly land. But it's strange, in A&A, majority of topics contain off topic posts and jokes, the priest has got no problem with those ..... The priest took my post so personal, he broke his own charter while banning me. The action of priest proved it the he is very religious in defence of his religion/ his faith. Let see guys what you've got. I know, Hobbes is also athiest and in defence of his religion, for committing blamphey, he will delete / close my topic. .. i know, mark hamil you will do your best to defend your priest but it won't prove "athiesm isn't religion. The action of priest has proved.

Coriolanus

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Can't remember who said it but it sums it up nicely.

Cavehill Red

Atheism is simply a conviction that there is no such thing as a deity or god. That's it.

A very small number of atheists, and I'd be one of them, would be religious. Specifically, we'd be atheist buddhists. Buddhism as a religion puts little store in the issue of whether there are divinities or not. Most forms of Buddhism accommodate theism (belief in god or gods), and many buddhists incorporate a sense of higher beings in their practice. But some of us don't. And that's perfectly fine and in keeping with buddhist tenets.

Other than that, it's a category error to refer to atheism as a religion. I know that many religious people seek to equate the two, but it's not possible. That there is any overlap in the two at all (and there is, and I'm part of it) is solely because buddhism uniquely as a religion leaves it up to the individual whether believing in gods matter to them or not.

dead one

Nevore wrote: »

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Can't remember who said it but it sums it up nicely.

what it has got to do with my point. I mean if atheism isn't religion then why a ban against a person like me, who rarely post on A&A foram.

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

what it has got to do with my point. I mean if atheism isn't religion then why a ban against a person like me, who rarely post on A&A foram.

Sometimes it hard to penetrate your manglish, but are you claiming that being banned by a moderator from the Atheism forum "proves" atheism is a religion? You can be banned from _any_ forum on boards.ie for various reasons. This does not mean the forum's subject is a religion.

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

Sometimes it hard to penetrate your manglish, but are you claiming that being banned by a moderator from the Atheism forum "proves" atheism is a religion? You can be banned from _any_ forum on boards.ie for various reasons. This does not mean the forum's subject is a religion.

P.

hiya oceanclub. Forams ban members for particular reasons, I mean breaching the charter etc , I haven't done anything like that but the priest has breached its own charter. I mean, charter doesn't give him permission to ban me. Almost all topic in A&A contain one or two off topic post / jokes. He banned me because he took my post so personal. It proves my point, Atheism is religion in which the priest was committed.

oceanclub wrote: »

Sometimes it hard to penetrate your manglish

are you admitting that you have no answer for my questions. The question which i asked you about Hijab.

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

hiya oceanclub. Forams ban members for particular reasons, I mean breaching the charter etc , I haven't done anything like that but the priest has breached its own charter. I mean, charter doesn't give him permission to ban me. Almost all topic in A&A contain one or two off topic post / jokes. He banned me because he took my post so personal. It proves my point, Atheism is religion in which the preset was committed.

I presume when you say "priest" you mean "moderator". This kind of nonsense means people are going to take you less seriously than they already do.

are you admitting that you have no answer for my questions.

No, what's I'm saying is that your grammar and syntax are poor and sometimes I haven't a clue what you mean.

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

I presume when you say "priest" you mean "moderator". This kind of nonsense means people are going to take you less seriously than they already do.

Off course it's priest. Priests always take action when someone violate their faith.

oceanclub wrote: »

No, what's I'm saying is that your grammar and syntax are poor and sometimes I haven't a clue what you mean.
P.

If this is cause of my ban, then priest should have told me, Majority of forams don't ban people with weak grammar. That's general rule!!! Are you justifying action of priest, he belongs to your faith. Isn't atheism religion???

Sam V Smith

dead one wrote: »

hiya oceanclub. Forams ban members for particular reasons, I mean breaching the charter etc , I haven't done anything like that but the priest has breached its own charter. I mean, charter doesn't give him permission to ban me. Almost all topic in A&A contain one or two off topic post / jokes. He banned me because he took my post so personal. It proves my point, Atheism is religion in which the priest was committed.

are you admitting that you have no answer for my questions. The question which i asked you about Hijab.

I think it's more likely that you were banned for being an idiot.

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

Off course it's priest. Priests always take action when someone violate their faith. Rant argh barble.

The reason for you being banned now makes perfect sense.

P.

dead one

Sam V Smith wrote: »

I think it's more likely that you were banned for being an idiot.

bring charter of your priests/religion and tell me where it is written """ if you are idiot you will be banned" .... be logical sam vs smith. Are you telling me priest was religious.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

The reason for you being banned now makes perfect sense.

P.

Don't create new reasons, You said, i was banned because of my weak grammer. You aren't man of words.

seamus

dead one wrote: »

You said, i was banned because of my weak grammer.

No he didn't.

hivizman

In my moderator's capacity, I feel it necessary to mention that I do not consider it appropriate for a discussion of the actions of moderators on another forum to be debated here. On the other hand, I would be prepared to tolerate a discussion of the general question of whether atheism is a religion, particularly if this is addressed from an Islamic perspective.

In a more personal capacity, it may help such a debate to refer to some definitions. These are taken from Chambers English Dictionary:

"Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god."

"God: a superhuman being, an object of worship (with cap.), the Supreme Being of monotheistic religions, the Creator."

"Religion: belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship."

My own take on this, given the definitions above, is that (unless "a higher unseen controlling power or powers" is equated with "a superhuman being"), it is possible for an atheist to deny the existence of a god but at the same time to be religious (see Cavehill Red earlier in the thread). However, many (most?) atheists would deny the presence of a higher unseen controlling power or powers (presumably things like gravity wouldn't count here?), so, in general terms, it is incorrect to assert that "atheism is a religion".

Of course, if one is using the term "religion" metaphorically, and the sentence is actually asserting something like: "many atheists behave with a degree of intolerance that is often associated (particularly by atheists themselves) with adherents of monotheistic religions such as Islam", then that's a different claim.

Mark Hamill

Dead one, I said to make this thread in the A&A forum because this is likely to be close in this forum (and rightfully so), as its got nothing to do with Islam.

EDIT: On the other hand, if the mods dont mind...

If you have a problem with being banned from A&A for arguing with a mod in thread, after being given a warning for posting gibberish, then maybe the feedback forum would be more appropriate then here?

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

In a more personal capacity, it may help such a debate to refer to some definitions. These are taken from Chambers English Dictionary:

"Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god."

"God: a superhuman being, an object of worship (with cap.), the Supreme Being of monotheistic religions, the Creator."

"Religion: belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship."

My own take on this, given the definitions above, is that (unless "a higher unseen controlling power or powers" is equated with "a superhuman being"), it is possible for an atheist to deny the existence of a god but at the same time to be religious (see Cavehill Red earlier in the thread). However, many (most?) atheists would deny the presence of a higher unseen controlling power or powers (presumably things like gravity wouldn't count here?), so, in general terms, it is incorrect to assert that "atheism is a religion".

Of course, if one is using the term "religion" metaphorically, and the sentence is actually asserting something like: "many atheists behave with a degree of intolerance that is often associated (particularly by atheists themselves) with adherents of monotheistic religions such as Islam", then that's a different claim.

Its a case of separating the atheist from atheism.
Can atheists be religious? Sure, you already the example from Cavehill Red who is an atheist Buddhist, and you can of course get atheists who are as intolerant as the most intolerant of religious adherents, nutcases can appear everywhere.
But atheism? Well you can have a "does not play football" person who is still very sporty, but that doesn't mean that "not playing football" is itself a sport.

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well you can have a "does not play football" person who is still very sporty, but that doesn't mean that "not playing football" is itself a sport.

"The sport of not playing football" sounds like the sort of thing that a columnist in one of the weekend newspapers might write about. My dictionary defines "sport" (as a noun) as "recreation: pastime: dalliance, amorous behaviour: play: a game, esp. one involving bodily exercise: mirth: jest" (and a few more). So an individual could say "my sport (i.e. my pastime) is not playing football", but only ironically, I suspect.

So I think we agree that one can only say "atheism is a religion" in some sort of ironical or metaphorical way - without the irony, the sentence just doesn't make any sense.

dead one

hivizman wrote: »

In my moderator's capacity, I feel it necessary to mention that I do not consider it appropriate for a discussion of the actions of moderators on another forum to be debated here. On the other hand, I would be prepared to tolerate a discussion of the general question of whether atheism is a religion, particularly if this is addressed from an Islamic perspective.

Hi hivizman, you're good a moderator, and i respect what you said above... so feel free to delete / amend any post of mine. I won't complaint about it. I didn't find any hypocrisy in your moderation as long as i stayed here. I always protest against dictators/hypocrites, If i smell hypocrisy in your line of work, you won't find me on your side......
for the time being, Here are my reason for ban which i conclude

According to Ocean club, I was banned because of my weak grammer (hell on earth)... Is it justice?

According to Sam vs Smith... I was banned because i was idiot again hell on earth
The good fella, Seamus, didn't give any reason... I know what he was thinking in his mind.
According the intellectual giant the Mark Hamil, i was banned because i started arguing with moderator... but the genius forget, it's moderator who started quoting me, I didn't quote any moderator....
Thanks, i highly appreciate this justice... So long

quietriot

dead one wrote: »

Hi hivizman, you're good a moderator, and i respect what you said above... so feel free to delete / amend any post of mine. I won't complaint about it. I didn't find any hypocrisy in your moderation as long as i stayed here. I always protest against dictators/hypocrites, If i smell hypocrisy in your line of work, you won't find me on your side......
for the time being, Here are my reason for ban which i conclude

According to Ocean club, I was banned because of my weak grammer (hell on earth)... Is it justice?

According to Sam vs Smith... I was banned because i was idiot again hell on earth
The good fella, Seamus, didn't give any reason... I know what he was thinking in his mind.
According the intellectual giant the Mark Hamil, i was banned because i started arguing with moderator... but the genius forget, it's moderator who started quoting me, I didn't quote any moderator....
Thanks, i highly appreciate this justice... So long

RichieC

Nevore wrote: »

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Can't remember who said it but it sums it up nicely.

Also, Bald is not a hair colour

dead one

quietriot wrote: »

dear quietriot, "I have begun my voyage in a paper boat without a bottom; I will fly to the moon in it. I have been folded along a crease in time, a weakness in the sheet of life."

Pacifist Pigeon

By definition:

Oxford English Dictionary:

Religion
Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion?q=religion

Atheism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism?q=Atheism+

Atheism = Non-Religious.

Religious = Religious.

Therefore,

Atheism =/= Religious.

Therefore,

Atheism =/= Religion

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

My crime was simple, i was an infidel according to teaching of atheism. The priest took my post so personal, he broke his own charter while banning me.

[EDIT]Self deleted as off topic[/EDIT]

As for atheism being a religion. It is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, nothing more nothing less.

bnt

Just as an atheist doesn't get to tell a Muslim what Islam is or isn't, a Muslim shouldn't try to tell atheists what atheism is or isn't. There's a good site where you can ask atheists what they think about all kinds of things, called (amazingly) Ask The Atheists. Some of the answers can be quite surprising. On the question of "is atheism a religion", you're not going to get a "yes" from any atheist, so that should be that.

JimiTime

I think to say it is, is just to get a rise out of atheists a lot of the time, but I believe it to be in the realm of religion. I think most people I know who actively declare themselves atheist, have a lot to say on matters of religion. Their atheism is part of the religious discussion. So while we can get into the definitions of atheism (Which are defined and redefined depending on who you ask), its not really important. The fact is, those who've taken the step to reject religion and call themselves atheist, usually have a lot to say about it. It has all the conviction of religiosity, without the structure I find. Its kind of pseudo religious. Of course, I expect many atheists simply hate the association, and my intention is not to p!ss them off. However, word semantics and definitions aside, the conviction and passion of many atheists/anti-religionists ironically resembles religiosity. Thats my view anyway. If I come across such an atheist, I don't try force the point. It would be like an atheist believing I am deluded for believing in God and trying to push that point. Better, if we wish to converse, to keep those views away from the conversation or the dialogue just becomes pantomime.

oceanclub

JimiTime wrote: »

I think to say it is, is just to get a rise out of atheists a lot of the time, but I believe it to be in the realm of religion. I think most people I know who actively declare themselves atheist, have a lot to say on matters of religion. Their atheism is part of the religious discussion. So while we can get into the definitions of atheism (Which are defined and redefined depending on who you ask), its not really important. The fact is, those who've taken the step to reject religion and call themselves atheist, usually have a lot to say about it. It has all the conviction of religiosity, without the structure I find. Its kind of pseudo religious. Of course, I expect many atheists simply hate the association, and my intention is not to p!ss them off. However, word semantics and definitions aside, the conviction and passion of many atheists/anti-religionists ironically resembles religiosity. Thats my view anyway. If I come across such an atheist, I don't try force the point. It would be like an atheist believing I am deluded for believing in God and trying to push that point. Better, if we wish to converse, to keep those views away from the conversation or the dialogue just becomes pantomime.

None of what you say is incorrect, but neither does it mean that atheism is a religion.

Another example: I am not a sports fan. I have no interest in watching televised sports at all, but obviously in society this is a big interest, especially if you're male. This leaves one at a disadvantage on social occasions, work outside, etc. I've had many discussions about this. But it just makes it a topic I'm interested in. Lack of interest in sports is not in itself a hobby.

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

None of what you say is incorrect, but neither does it mean that atheism is a religion.

Oceanclub, why are you eager to tell, "athiesm isn't religion"... Why you are taking it so religious? ... I mean majority of atheist when it comes to this debate become so religious. This proves atheism is religion as collecting stamp is hobby.

hivizman

dead one wrote: »

Oceanclub, why are you eager to tell, "athiesm isn't religion"... Why you are taking it so religious? ... I mean majority of atheist when it comes to this debate become so religious. This proves atheism is religion as collecting stamp is hobby.

But it's already been pointed out in the thread that using "religious" in the above sense is going beyond the literal meaning of the term.

It may be correct to describe the way in which some people defend atheism as "fervent" - defined in my dictionary as "passionate, ardent, zealous". "Zeal" itself is defined as "intense (sometimes fanatical) enthusiasm; activity arising from warm support or enthusiasm; strong feeling", so it is not surprising that some people who feel strongly about the non-existence of a supreme being behave in similar ways to those who feel strongly about the existence of a supreme being. But that does not make their behaviour "religious", except in a metaphorical sense.

Sonics2k

Atheism is about as close to religion as Abstinence is to sex.

Complete opposites.

JimiTime

oceanclub wrote: »

None of what you say is incorrect, but neither does it mean that atheism is a religion.

I didn't actually say it was a religion. I said it was part of the religious discussion and that it can be a kind of pseudo-religion. All the fervour and conviction of religiosity, but without the structure.

Another example: I am not a sports fan. I have no interest in watching televised sports at all, but obviously in society this is a big interest, especially if you're male. This leaves one at a disadvantage on social occasions, work outside, etc. I've had many discussions about this. But it just makes it a topic I'm interested in. Lack of interest in sports is not in itself a hobby.

P.

I often see this 'not collecting stamps....' argument. Its a total misnomer. In practical terms, people who declare themselves atheists, are very rearely just simply 'without belief in God' etc. They are serious enough about the topic to stand against it. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it. So you see, from a strictly difinitive, sematic side, atheism is just a word that means 'a belief that there is no God or gods'. In reality though, atheists are mostly made up of people who have an interest and conviction in what they are rejecting etc. Not playing chess is not a hobby, but if I label myself based on this not playing of chess, and in turn get involved in the conversation about chess, and have a conviction as to why I don't play it, then that can be a bit of a Pseudo hobby.

oceanclub

JimiTime wrote: »

They are serious enough about the topic to stand against itt stamps. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it.

Noone has said atheists don't have a serious interest in the topic of religion.

What has been said is that atheism is not a religion.

That's the last time I repeat myself on this.

P.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

Atheism is about as close to religion as Abstinence is to sex.

Complete opposites.

People seem to want to change "religious" to simply mean "has strong views on a subject". That, to my mind, is a bit ridiculous. If that is the case I'm religious about a whole host of things, but it also makes the term a bit meaningless.

JimiTime

oceanclub wrote: »

Noone has said atheists don't have a serious interest in the topic of religion.

What has been said is that atheism is not a religion.

That's the last time I repeat myself on this.

P.

Indeed, and I haven't said its a religion. I just said, that in reality, many atheists bare a very close resemblance to the religious. In many cases, they have all the hallmarks of religiosity, without the deity.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

People seem to want to change "religious" to simply mean "has strong views on a subject". That, to my mind, is a bit ridiculous. If that is the case I'm religious about a whole host of things, but it also makes the term a bit meaningless.

haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'? It is a word that does convey a certain kind of conviction. This use is not just a modern twist to p!ss off atheists tbf.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'? It is a word that does convey a certain kind of conviction. This use is not just a modern twist to p!ss off atheists tbf.

I think that the point that we can use the term "religious" metaphorically has already been made - why various posters in the thread are getting a bit annoyed is that it is particularly unhelpful to use the term metaphorically when we are comparing atheism (and how some atheists behave) with the conventional understanding of religion in its literal sense (and how some adherents of religion behave).

We are not identifying a distinctive "Islamic" take on the atheism v. religion debate in this thread. As I'm not a Muslim, I can't really offer this myself, but someone who gets involved a lot in such debates from the Muslim position is Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. His website (follow the link) contains various essays and videos where he discusses Islam and atheism. One example is a lecture he gave last year at Loughborough University:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzeTDDASSy8

This is rather long, and I suggest you start about 12 minutes in to skip the preliminaries, and stop after about 60 minutes, when the question and answer session begins. Tzortzis sets out standard arguments of Islam against views ascribed to atheists.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'?

Have you ever heard the phrase "He religiously doesn't follow football"? I haven't

dead one

hivizman wrote: »

It may be correct to describe the way in which some people defend atheism as "fervent" - defined in my dictionary as "passionate, ardent, zealous". "Zeal" itself is defined as "intense (sometimes fanatical) enthusiasm; activity arising from warm support or enthusiasm; strong feeling", so it is not surprising that some people who feel strongly about the non-existence of a supreme being behave in similar ways to those who feel strongly about the existence of a supreme being. But that does not make their behaviour "religious", except in a metaphorical sense.

Hi hivizman and thanks
See, Christians have strong feelings for Christianity, Muslims/Jews have for Islam/ Judaism. Atheists at one place say atheism isn't religion then strongly attach themselves to atheism. They defend atheism like christian/muslim/jew, which makes it a religion. See, In my definition, Atheist is a person who doesn't have strong feeling for anything even atheism... By "strong feeling" i mean in religious sense. What is atheism and its reality. If it isn't religion then Why would someone care whether atheism is religion or not... See atheists like ocean club care that "atheism isn't religion". For example, there is difference between mango and orange and I start a topic with Title "Orange is Mango". It makes that person foolish who will come in my thread to tell that Mango isn't orange. They defend atheist in religious sense. Atheists defend "evolution" which is creation theory for religion of atheism. As in reality no one really know how life started on earth, was it a bang or life started in form of creation. Orthodox atheists take Darwin as Messiah. Darwin as a Prophet /Messiah gave them best possible definition of Life. The same way religion tells us that Adam was first human on earth. Now tell how i am wrong?

Tomk1

Apt place for OP's post is The Tunderdome, but some good replies, so might get an interesting debate going (yet again)

JimiTime wrote: »

I often see this 'not collecting stamps....' argument. Its a total misnomer. In practical terms, people who declare themselves atheists, are very rearely just simply 'without belief in God' etc. They are serious enough about the topic to stand against it. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it. So you see, from a strictly difinitive, sematic side, atheism is just a word that means 'a belief that there is no God or gods'. In reality though, atheists are mostly made up of people who have an interest and conviction in what they are rejecting etc. Not playing chess is not a hobby, but if I label myself based on this not playing of chess, and in turn get involved in the conversation about chess, and have a conviction as to why I don't play it, then that can be a bit of a Pseudo hobby.

Good point, the problem of the 'stamp collecting' analogy is it's a hobbie/special interest, so puts a religious person on the defensive, like in their head 'did you just call my religion a hobbie'
Likewise I've never heard of non-stamp-collector-activists, the analogy fails to explain why people feel the need to speak out against religion. (note: not the same as being against religion).

The anti-chess-club analogy could work, if society deemed it necessary that everyone learns chess and plays online/school once everyday, chess being taught as a subject in school with exams, and even having to wear a dress-code with a chess symbol. Those that stand up for their right not to play chess, are not a club, more a common interest that's been cast upon them, they may form groups, have great writers, have renowned leaders, for their cause, the freedom not to play chess. Some people may have chess boards for show, but never play, even though they were taught the rules-comandments, they know all the names of famous players even IBM's deepblue. But when they say they want to leave the chess-club are refused on the grounds once a member always a member.... I could just keep going on.

The point is the nonstamp-collector analogy doesn't address any relavent parallel issues.

I don't know an analogy that works, maybe workers rights and unions, or even better; slavary and the anti-slavary movement, being a collection of all sorts to stand up for Human rights, the scale of involvement spaning from 'I don't agree with it' right up to activist who campaign against it. From an atheist-movement perspective the analogy does share many parallels. Of course comparing religion to slavary wouldn't go down well with religion-folk, and they have to have the right to practice their religion, therefore wouldn't win many arguments, but a close analogy, maybe even too close.

So if saying an analogy of religion = (believers who are slaves to their god the master) and atheist = (do not want to be slaves to a master) therefore atheism is not in the same boat.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Have you ever heard the phrase "He religiously doesn't follow football"? I haven't

Exactly. Which is why the not collecting stamps etc is such a poor analogy. Atheism is like the exception to the rule. People who are not into collecting stamps, playing chess, football etc, simply couldn't care less about them most of the time. Atheists on the other hand, in real life (i.e. outside of dictionaries) often know more and have more conviction about the topic of religion/gods etc than those who have labels such as Catholic etc.

bnt

I see lots of plays with words here, and don't see the point. Just because we have a word for the absence of (whatever), it doesn't make the word an example of (whatever). Silence is not a type of sound. Abstinence is not a sexual position. Atheism is not a religion. Nothing is not a weird kind of thing.

The word may only exist in relation to (whatever), but that's just a side-effect of how we use language. Besides - as I'm going to keep saying - theists do not get to tell atheists who we are or we think, any more than vice versa. You can try, but you will be ignored, because we get atheism - because we live it - and you don't. Getting confused about this because of how the words are defined is like confusing a map with the territory.

JimiTime

bnt wrote: »

because we get atheism - because we live it - and you don't. Getting confused about this because of how the words are defined is like confusing a map with the territory.

QED.

bnt

JimiTime wrote: »

QED.

Er ... what? I suspect you are reading something I did not write, so if you're going to take my words as a confirmation of your bias, you've missed my point entirely. Hard to tell, if you think a cryptic TLA adds anything to this discussion.

"Living as an atheist" is no more a religion than "living in sobriety" is a form of drinking. We may define the absence of something in terms of that something, in words, but it still doesn't make the absence a form of that something, even if the absence is a positive thing. Play on words all you like - it's just sophistry, and not reality.

JimiTime

bnt wrote: »

Er ... what? I suspect you are reading something I did not write, so if you're going to take my words as a confirmation of your bias, you've missed my point entirely. Hard to tell, if you think a cryptic TLA adds anything to this discussion.

"Living as an atheist" is no more a religion than "living in sobriety" is a form of drinking. We may define the absence of something in terms of that something, in words, but it still doesn't make the absence a form of that something, even if the absence is a positive thing. Play on words all you like - it's just sophistry, and not reality.

I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition. I suppose, the religiosity (or rather the pseudo religiosity) of atheism is in the people that label themselves with it. So while atheism is not a religion, those who jump under its banner bare a striking resemblance to the religious in terms of their behaviour, fervour and conviction.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition.

In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.
Now, as you said, atheists do generally care more about theism, than non stamp collectors care about stamp collecting. But thats because for most atheists the reasons they have for their atheism, and the environments they live, in makes them that way. Stamp collector groups generally dont try and claim full moral authority, wedge themselves into political or educational institutions and they dont denounce the evils of non-stamp collectors with misinformation and scare mongering, as certain religious groups have been known to do.
Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.

bnt

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition. I suppose, the religiosity (or rather the pseudo religiosity) of atheism is in the people that label themselves with it. So while atheism is not a religion, those who jump under its banner bare a striking resemblance to the religious in terms of their behaviour, fervour and conviction.

What conviction? What fervour? Again, you're projecting your learned biases on to people you don't know. I'm talking about it here because it's interesting, but this is just an internet forum, not my life. When not on the internet, I think I've mentioned my atheism about twice in the last decade.

Of course religion influences my life, just as meat influences the life of a vegetarian. I only ever need to mention religion in response to other people's religious beliefs - just as a vegetarian only needs to mention the fact that he doesn't eat meat when it's on the menu. This is Ireland, religion always "on the menu" - but that doesn't make it real. When the plate comes out of the kitchen, it might be hot, but there's no food on it. :cool:

Please stop trying to tell atheists who they are and what they believe, in contradiction to their own words. How do you know what you think you know? The media? Religious teachings? Other biased, subjective sources with their own agendas? You have some real live atheists here telling you that you are wrong about them. Persisting in trying to tell us who we are is just arrogant. Who are you, to try to tell other people who they are?

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.

As I've repeated, I don't doubt its definition. The words definition is not in question

Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.

I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.

JimiTime

bnt wrote: »

What conviction?

You're the one who said you 'Lived it'.

What fervour?

Just check the A&A forum.

Again, you're projecting your learned biases on to people you don't know.

No, I'm using my powers of deduction based on my real life experience to say that there are a lot of atheists out there who resemble the religious in their behaviour. Does this mean atheism = religion. No. As I've said all along, it means that there are a lot of atheists who's atheism takes on a form of pseudo religiosity.

I'm talking about it here because it's interesting, but this is just an internet forum, not my life. When not on the internet, I think I've mentioned my atheism about twice in the last decade.

Fine, maybe you are not the type of atheist I'm talking about. I don't even know why it matters tbh. Its just an observation.

Please stop trying to tell atheists who they are and what they believe, in contradiction to their own words.

ha ha. I'm not telling anyone what they believe. I'm telling people what I've observed. They can poo poo it if they wish. It doesn't matter to me that an atheist doesn't agree with my observation. We're just giving our opinions. I think I've articulated mine quite well, and its fine if you disagree.

You have some real live atheists here telling you that you are wrong about them.

No-one has said I'm wrong about them. I haven't been specific in who I'm talking to, so its up to anyone who reads what I've said to decide if it applies to them. If it doesn't apply to you, then fine. What I've said is not actually a criticism anyway, just a behaviour observation based on atheists I know/met/converse with. Its not like I've insulted anyone.

Persisting in trying to tell us who we are is just arrogant. Who are you, to try to tell other people who they are?

Oh dear. I haven't told you or anyone else what you are or aren't. You can be whatever you want to be, and I can form my own opinion based on what I observe. Simples!

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.

There is no jostling on our side. As I said in my second post in this thread, its a case of seperating atheism from atheists. Both the irreligious and the evangelical atheists have the simple lack of belief, but that doesn't mean that their reasons are simple.
In real life, atheism is simply a lack of belief. However, atheists have complex reasons for lacking that belief, and that can result in them being assertive or evangelical etc.

cursai

I don't think atheism is a religion categorically speaking but the way its feverishly defended, discussed and debated would make some of its subscribers religious in their approach of it. I haven't seen any other topic or belief that is basically 'not collecting stamps' so frequently discussed, emotionally charged and analysed.
Just saying like.

Mark Hamill

cursai wrote: »

I don't think atheism is a religion categorically speaking but the way its feverishly defended, discussed and debated would make some of its subscribers religious in their approach of it. I haven't seen any other topic or belief that is basically 'not collecting stamps' so frequently discussed, emotionally charged and analysed.
Just saying like.

But why do you think that is though? Atheism is simply the lack of belief, but a lot of atheists are more assertive than that simple lack of belief. Thats because of the pervasive presence of religion in politics and education and other parts of life that they shouldn't be in (unless individuals choose so for themselves). As I said here, stamp collector groups dont generally try to gain control of schools or claim absolute moral authority, so non-stamp collectors aren't constantly fighting for equality, rationality and fairness.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is no jostling on our side. As I said in my second post in this thread, its a case of seperating atheism from atheists.

I have, which is why I have said the definition is not in question.

Both the irreligious and the evangelical atheists have the simple lack of belief, but that doesn't mean that their reasons are simple. In real life, atheism is simply a lack of belief. However, atheists have complex reasons for lacking that belief, and that can result in them being assertive or evangelical etc.

Thats really what I'm saying. Many atheists wear their label like a religious person wears theirs, and tend to resemble the religious in their fervour. That doesn't change the meaning of atheist, but it does call in to question the reality of what it becomes to people who label themselves as one.

I hope you try see such separation in what what Christianity teaches, and what many Christians do too