NationStates Jolt Archive

Being an atheist myself, I can confidently tell you that it is not, but since there are bound to be people who think they know better than I whether or not I am religious, here are some dictionary entries:


Religion:

"the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/


" 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."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/

"A system of beliefs, superstitions, and lifestyle choices practiced to please one or more deities."

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org

Atheism:
"someone who believes that God or gods do not exist"

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

" 1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/

" 1. the lack of belief in any deity.
2. The claim that no deity exists.
3. the antonym of theism (belief in a god or gods)."

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org

Atheism is not a religion, but, like a religion, it is a belief system.

The arguement for atheism being a religion tends to rely on definition four:

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

Which of course encompasses political and philosophical beliefs as well as my belief that Charlie Chaplin was one of the greatest actor-directors to have ever lived.

The arguement for atheism being a religion tends to rely on definition four:

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

Which of course encompasses political and philosophical beliefs as well as my belief that Charlie Chaplin was one of the greatest actor-directors to have ever lived.

Zeal:
great enthusiasm or eagerness

Conscientious:
putting a lot of effort into your work

Devotion:
loyalty and love or care for someone or something:

None of these are necessary for atheism, only a lack of belief in the existence of God.

I would say that it's the rough form of a religion, as it makes a statement concerning the supernatural. To me, the complete absence of religion would mean making absolutely no statement or belief about the supernatural, which would in essence be agnosticism. However, atheism outright denies the supernatural--which is a leap of faith. Any sort of belief concerning the supernatural that requires faith--I would define as religion.

Of course, this is all playing around with semantics. :cool:

offcourse it's not a religion. Religious belief denies reason, atheism is the product of reason ;)

but really, i don't believe there's no god. i know that its at least very unlikely that such a being exists. If i tell you the sun wont come up tomorrow, would you only be able to believe that i'm wrong?

Strictly going by the definitions listed, atheism is a religion. I think it's quite clear, actually. If we want to use different definitions, or debate opinions, that's fine. But before we do that, we actually have to have the different definitions--because it's useless to debate semantics without semantics.

Atheism is not a religion, but, like a religion, it is a belief system.Hardly a "system". I believe there are no supernatural beings. That's it. It doesn't come with any baggage as far as I'm concerned.

offcourse it's not a religion. Religious belief denies reason, atheism is the product of reason ;)


Quite true.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Main Entry: re·li·gious
Function: adjective
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
By these definitions, I would say heck yeah. Atheists consider physical reality to be ultimate reality, and they certainly seem devoted to it. So they're "religious" (defn. 1), and atheism is a "religion" (defn. 2).

Strictly going by the definitions listed, atheism is a religion. I think it's quite clear, actually. If we want to use different definitions, or debate opinions, that's fine. But before we do that, we actually have to have the different definitions--because it's useless to debate semantics without semantics.

Can you point out where the definitions of religion and atheism are in agreement, because I can't see it.

Besides, if you are being religious just for believing that there is no God, then surely you are being religious if you don't believe someone who tells you that the sky is yellow with pink dots today.

Atheism in and of itself is not, unless it is encompassed within the scope of a "world-view" like it is in secular humanism... Atheism is a theological view; Secular Humanism is a religion.

By these definitions, I would say heck yeah. Atheists consider physical reality to be ultimate reality, and they certainly seem devoted to it. So they're "religious" (defn. 1), and atheism is a "religion" (defn. 2).

Generalizations about atheists are irrelevant. Many christians are church-goers but that wouldn't make christianity involve going to church by definition.

Strictly going by the definitions listed, atheism is a religion. I think it's quite clear, actually. If we want to use different definitions, or debate opinions, that's fine. But before we do that, we actually have to have the different definitions--because it's useless to debate semantics without semantics.



You didnt actually read any of the definitions, did you?

Atheism in and of itself is not, unless it is encompassed within the scope of a "world-view" like it is in secular humanism... Atheism is a theological view; Secular Humanism is a religion.
True dat. But I think when people hear the word "atheism," they associate it with the Suckular Humanists (mee hee hee). I know I do. So, um... which one we talking about here? Atheism in its most general sense, or SH?

Generalizations about atheists are irrelevant. Many christians are church-goers but that wouldn't make christianity involve going to church by definition.
So wait... if you don't believe in the supernatural... and you don't care about the natural... why do you get up in the morning?

Dictionary definitions are without nuance--remember that.

True dat. But I think when people hear the word "atheism," they associate it with the Suckular Humanists (mee hee hee). I know I do. So, um... which one we talking about here? Atheism in its most general sense, or SH?

That would by up to the point of the orginal author...

However, I have not met anyone adopting the theology of atheism, who does not also adopt the religion of secular humanism, or naturalism. So, IMHO all atheists are in fact "religious"... otherwise they would not spend meaningless hours in debate on theology.

So wait... if you don't believe in the supernatural... and you don't care about the natural... why do you get up in the morning?

I'm sure that if I had said that I don't care about "the natural", that would be a very good argument, but as it happens, I'm not even sure what you mean.

I'm sure that if I had said that I don't care about "the natural", that would be a very good argument, but as it happens, I'm not even sure what you mean.
Well, the assumption you disagreed with was that atheists are devoted to physical reality. Now I don't mean "devoted" in the sense of worship. That's for pagans and hippies. I mean devoted as in being the most important thing for you. I assume you care about this life, since it's the only one you've got, right?

That would by up to the point of the orginal author...

However, I have not met anyone adopting the theology of atheism, who does not also adopt the religion of secular humanism, or naturalism. So, IMHO all atheists are in fact "religious"... otherwise they would not spend meaningless hours in debate on theology.

I am just talking about atheism in general. I don't know much about secular humanism or naturalism, though I can tell you that secular means "not having any connection with religion".

As for debate, merely explaining why we hold our views, and defending them against opposing arguments doesn't sound much like a religion either.

Being an atheist myself i would not call atheism a religion just a mindset that there is not supernatural being. There is no collective entity in charge of athesists and just because we believe that there is no god doesn't mean we follow that belief with zealousy and ardor as definition 4 state and many people have been trying to use to define it. I don't believe there is a god but i don't care if you do or not, thats all there is too it. And to the comment of why do you get up in the morning, why do you keep on living if there is something better after you die. I live because i enjoy life as it is and want to make a productive impact on the world.

Can you point out where the definitions of religion and atheism are in agreement, because I can't see it.

Besides, if you are being religious just for believing that there is no God, then surely you are being religious if you don't believe someone who tells you that the sky is yellow with pink dots today.

From your definitions:

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

Atheism:
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods."
Atheists are people who hold the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Obviously, they do so conscientiously, and with some amount of devotion. Devotion does not have to mean great zeal for something--just some form of commitment to it.

Moreover, many atheists do have a great zeal in their beliefs, as is evidenced in this thread. I would say that a great majority of atheists believe those who do not hold their own beliefs are 'unenlightened' and have abandoned 'reason' and 'truth'. This is in some essence, a reversed side of that which they so despise-- religion. Ironically, they have stumbled into the realm of belonging to a loosely-banded religion.

It is provable that being an atheist requires some form of a leap of faith I.e. there is no proof that a supernatural being does not exist. Therefore to deny such a being exists, without any sort of evidence backing you up, constitutes faith. I believe that most here would say that having a leap of faith about supernatural concerns would automatically put a person into the realm of having religious beliefs.

Well, the assumption you disagreed with was that atheists are devoted to physical reality. Now I don't mean "devoted" in the sense of worship. That's for pagans and hippies. I mean devoted as in being the most important thing for you. I assume you care about this life, since it's the only one you've got, right?

Yes, but I think the definition " A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." isn't really talking about religion as I mean it - it's more like this entry in http://dictionary.cambridge.org :


"2 [C] INFORMAL an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly:
Football is a religion for these people."

I am just talking about atheism in general. I don't know much about secular humanism or naturalism, though I can tell you that secular means "not having any connection with religion".

As for debate, merely explaining why we hold our views, and defending them against opposing arguments doesn't sound much like a religion either.

No, secular means worldly as opposed to spiritual....

Yes, but I think the definition " A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." isn't really talking about religion as I mean it...
I didn't use that thing at all. Go back to my original post. I brought in another, more precise definition, straight from Merriam ****in' Websta.

I do not believe that Atheism is a religion. The definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com is Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, or The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

I do not believe that Atheism is a religion. The definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com is Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, or The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

If you support it is a doctrine, and a theology (discourse about god [in this case disbelief]), that makes it the potential of being part of a world-view, and therefore a religion; since all a religion is is a set of doctrines.

I do not believe that Atheism is a religion. The definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com is Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, or The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
Not all religions require belief in gods.

Shintoism, japans spirits religion, no gods just spirits.

Buddism doesn't neceesary say anything about gods.

Scientology involves aliens not gods.

And there are a few more but mainly I am saying not all religions require gods. So you could by that fact be a athiests even if you disbelief a god exists.

Atheists are people who hold the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Obviously, they do so conscientiously, and with some amount of devotion. Devotion does not have to mean great zeal for something--just some form of commitment to it.

Moreover, many atheists do have a great zeal in their beliefs, as is evidenced in this thread. I would say that a great majority of atheists believe those who do not hold their own beliefs are 'unenlightened' and have abandoned 'reason' and 'truth'. This is in some essence, a reversed side of that which they so despise-- religion. Ironically, they have stumbled into the realm of belonging to a loosely-banded religion.

It is provable that being an atheist requires some form of a leap of faith I.e. there is no proof that a supernatural being does not exist. Therefore to deny such a being exists, without any sort of evidence backing you up, constitutes faith. I believe that most here would say that having a leap of faith about supernatural concerns would automatically put a person into the realm of having religious beliefs.

I base my atheism purely on logic and scientific method, personally. If I wanted to have a faith, I would certainly not choose atheism. As a "belief system" it's way too boring - you can only believe stuff that's the most likely to be true.
(Though in reality, it's not a belief system, just a single belief)

I simply have never observed the phenomena that is "God". Believing that said phenomena does not exist is sensible up until the point when theists can back up their claims with adequate evidence.

However, the concept of "supernatural" seems paradoxical to me. If something is not part of nature, it cannot exist:

Tthe word "nature", when used general can be taken to mean the nature of the universe*. Since the universe is the union of all that exists, anything that is not part of it does not exist. Since the supernatural is not part of the universes nature, it is not part of the universe.

I may have worded this badly, but I hope my intented point gets across.

*or stuff that isn't man-made, but that's irrelevant, unless you believe God was made in a factory

No, secular means worldly as opposed to spiritual....

Damn, I hate when dictionaries lie to me. I'm glad to have random people on the NationStates General forum to bring me the truth.

There are plenty of religions lacking gods, or even anything spiritual....

Buddhism lacks a god... it can be considered spitual humanism

Wiccan is spiritual naturalism... and many sects of it lack any gods

Taoism and Confucianism both lack anything spiritual what-so-ever; and are both secular humanistic in nature.

Damn, I hate when dictionaries lie to me. I'm glad to have random people on the NationStates General forum to bring me the truth.

Secular: Worldly rather than spiritual.

From Old French seculer, from Latin saecularis; "of an age or world"

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

Or similar definitions, could apply to almost anything. I am very enthusiastic and devoted to not tripping over and smashing my face into concrete floors. And it's not proven that I would suffer an disadvantage by doing so, so it must be a religion! I guess I should list my religion as non-into-concrete-face-smashist.

/sigh This is one of those pointless inarguable debates. You can quote dictionaries till blue in the face, but dictionaries do not define words, people do. Don't believe me? Step into the time machine back to 1704 and try to drum up support for "gay" rights.

Just looking at some current definitions of religion:

1)Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief
2)a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power
3)A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
4)A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices, generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Atheism does seem to have a system of ethics, values and beliefs. The ethics are questionable. (not that athiests are unethical, only that they do not seem specific to atheism)

Atheism does involve a set of attitudes, beliefs and practices pertaining to a supernatural power.

Some atheists pursue their cause and principles with zeal.

And generally atheists agree on what it means to BE an atheist.

To me atheism is a religion, if for no other reason than it requires faith. An agnostic can merely ignore the entire issue and believe nothing. An atheist must believe with certainty, something that is unproveable either way.

I simply have never observed the phenomena that is "God". Believing that said phenomena does not exist is sensible up until the point when theists can back up their claims with adequate evidence.
If I flipped a coin, and told you that I believed 100% that it was heads, and denied that it could ever be tails, and you took the opposite position-- we would both be making a leap of faith. To deny something exists you need proof.

The mere absence of proof that something exists is not proof that it does not exist. Any rigorous math class (God help me: I hate my teacher) or experimental science class will tell you that. To prove your answer in math, you have to prove that everything else is wrong. And to prove that something is wrong, you have to prove that it is not possible--not that there is no evidence that it is right. That would be nonsensical, and there would be absolutely no basis for it.

Unless you are currently in possession of all knowledge not only about our universe, but beyond, then you can not deny the existence of a deity without faith. That is pure and simple science.

A true scientist with no evidence of God would be agnostic, or close to it.

However, the concept of "supernatural" seems paradoxical to me. If something is not part of nature, it cannot exist:

Tthe word "nature", when used general can be taken to mean the nature of the universe*. Since the universe is the union of all that exists, anything that is not part of it does not exist. Since the supernatural is not part of the universes nature, it is not part of the universe.
If you define the universe as all that is, then you are correct--but you're playing a semantics game here. Many define our universe to be the reality we as humans exist in. Our universe was created at the Big Bang, and has ever-expanding boundaries. 'Super-natural' is meant to imply a power or force that exists 'outside' of this universe. However, if you define universe simply as everything that is, then this is, as you correctly state, somewhat nonsensical.

However, if you are going to define the universe as that, you had ought to come up with an alternate word describing properly the product of the Big Bang--because the relationship of forces in and outside of the product where we find ourselves today is at the focal point of this whole discussion, so any nonclarity in definitions will only cause confusion.

Secular: Worldly rather than spiritual.

Ah, yes, another dictionary informs me that this definition and the one I gave are both true. I'm afraid that since I'm not an adherent of secular humanism I cannot tell you which they mean.

There are plenty of religions lacking gods, or even anything spiritual....

Buddhism lacks a god... it can be considered spitual humanism

Wiccan is spiritual naturalism... and many sects of it lack any gods

Taoism and Confucianism both lack anything spiritual what-so-ever; and are both secular humanistic in nature.
Toaism mentions the Great Mother, a godlike force, in it. So you may want to double check that part.

But you are right about the others. Spiritual means having to do with meaning of life. Some science like Big bang is spiritual in that context.

Ah, yes, another dictionary informs me that this definition and the one I gave are both true. I'm afraid that since I'm not an adherent of secular humanism I cannot tell you which they mean.

If your definition came from a dictionary, it is wrong. secular has never meant to be completely opposite of religion, merely opposed to spirituality...

The correct term would by "not connected directly to religion"...which is not the same thing you said.

Of course, it is (provided we are talking about atheism specifically and not just agnosticism). By definition, atheists BELIEVE that God does not exist. Obviously, it can not be proven purely rationally that God either exists or does not exist (otherwise it would have been done long ago). So believing either proposition can not be purely rational and certainly requires an act of faith. Furthermore, atheists often display a lot of religious zeal and react to public displays of other religions (especially Christianity) in such ways that it certainly looks like their religious feelings are offended (it is really hard to explain their tantrums in any other ways). To come think of it, atheists are most likely to be religious fundamentalists among all the faithful in the US. At least I've never seen so much bigotry and intolerance among Christians as among atheists (which is no wonder, considering that atheist religion does not teach to love your enemies, turn the other cheek etc. :-)

Probably not of much interest to you but an anecdote (from Quentin Crisp) I came across:
"When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you con't believe?'"

Tthe word "nature", when used general can be taken to mean the nature of the universe*. Since the universe is the union of all that exists, anything that is not part of it does not exist. Since the supernatural is not part of the universes nature, it is not part of the universe.

Just a quick note, Clony old boy. Even if the supernatural is not part of the universe, it could still have dramatic effects on the universe and even interact with our universe.

Let's say there's this tree (universe) in my yard. I'm not part of the tree. I can hug the tree, hit it, bend it, or get an axe and chop that sucker down. I could use it for firewood, thereby changing its form rather significantly. I could do all this without being a part of the tree (universe).

*or stuff that isn't man-made, but that's irrelevant, unless you believe God was made in a factory

Don't give people ideas for new religions! We have enough trouble with them already! :D

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

Or similar definitions, could apply to almost anything. I am very enthusiastic and devoted to not tripping over and smashing my face into concrete floors. And it's not proven that I would suffer an disadvantage by doing so, so it must be a religion! I guess I should list my religion as non-into-concrete-face-smashist.

Can I join?

Fine, this debate is pointless. It would be undemocratic of me to deny the majority the right to decide whether or not I should be classified as religious. I'm sure that eventuallly, the term "religion" will be expanded to include any belief one could possibly have. However, I should point out before I give up on this topic, that the beliefs of the average atheist are rather different to all "other" religions.
Evidentally, the terms "religion" and "atheism" are inadequate for the expression of my views and how they differ from those of other religious catagories.

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

Or similar definitions, could apply to almost anything. I am very enthusiastic and devoted to not tripping over and smashing my face into concrete floors. And it's not proven that I would suffer an disadvantage by doing so, so it must be a religion! I guess I should list my religion as non-into-concrete-face-smashist.


You're taking the "cause, prinicple or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" out of context and misusing the word.

WHat is referred to by that usage of "religion" can best be exemplified by sentances like "he played the latest online game religiously" or "his obsession with scoring well on tests bordered on religion."

When used to mean "zeal or conscientious devotion" there is no connotation of theology. The usage is based in an allusion to the charactaristics of people who *do* believe in a theology (ie, religion as belief in/reverence for being regarded as creator/governor of universe).

Fine, this debate is pointless. It would be undemocratic of me to deny the majority the right to decide whether or not I should be classified as religious. I'm sure that eventuallly, the term "religion" will be expanded to include any belief one could possibly have. However, I should point out before I give up on this topic, that the beliefs of the average atheist are rather different to all "other" religions.
Evidentally, the terms "religion" and "atheism" are inadequate for the expression of my views and how they differ from those of other religious catagories.

Actually, they are not... You would make a great Taoist.

Let's say there's this tree (universe) in my yard. I'm not part of the tree. I can hug the tree, hit it, bend it, or get an axe and chop that sucker down. I could use it for firewood, thereby changing its form rather significantly. I could do all this without being a part of the tree (universe).

Um...I should point out that trees are small parts of the universe, not universes unto themselves.

Regardless, I have given up on trying to convince people that atheism is not a religion.

Fine, this debate is pointless. It would be undemocratic of me to deny the majority the right to decide whether or not I should be classified as religious. I'm sure that eventuallly, the term "religion" will be expanded to include any belief one could possibly have. However, I should point out before I give up on this topic, that the beliefs of the average atheist are rather different to all "other" religions.
Evidentally, the terms "religion" and "atheism" are inadequate for the expression of my views and how they differ from those of other religious catagories.



Then a new word would have to be coined to describe what "religion" does now: belief in an revernce for a being or beings regarded as creator or governor of the universe.

That is the meaning of "religion." It is a word that denotes belief in theology. Not belief "about" theology, but belief IN theology.

Fine, this debate is pointless. It would be undemocratic of me to deny the majority the right to decide whether or not I should be classified as religious. I'm sure that eventuallly, the term "religion" will be expanded to include any belief one could possibly have. However, I should point out before I give up on this topic, that the beliefs of the average atheist are rather different to all "other" religions.
Evidentally, the terms "religion" and "atheism" are inadequate for the expression of my views and how they differ from those of other religious catagories.

:( Don't give up hope yet. Your post about smashing faces into concrete illustrated your point quite nicely.

Then a new word would have to be coined to describe what "religion" does now: belief in an revernce for a being or beings regarded as creator or governor of the universe.

That is the meaning of "religion." It is a word that denotes belief in theology. Not belief "about" theology, but belief IN theology.

I agree. I think it's likely that a new word would be created.

Toaism mentions the Great Mother, a godlike force, in it. So you may want to double check that part.

But you are right about the others. Spiritual means having to do with meaning of life. Some science like Big bang is spiritual in that context.



taoism in general is based upon the premise of universal singular unity.

A certain sect of taoist philosophy may hold religious beliefs about a "great mother," but not all do, and taoism itself is by no means a religion.

Actually, they are not... You would make a great Taoist.

Yeah, shame I don't really believe that one can achieve immortality through meditation, special exercises, etc. If I did believe that, I would consider becoming a taoist.

Then a new word would have to be coined to describe what "religion" does now: belief in an revernce for a being or beings regarded as creator or governor of the universe.

That is the meaning of "religion." It is a word that denotes belief in theology. Not belief "about" theology, but belief IN theology.

Theology is a subset inter-related with philosophy... So belief ABOUT or IN is irregardless, since everyone has some sort of belief in connection with theology.

However, in the context here, I'm reffering to Theology Proper; sic. Actual discourse ABOUT God, and therefore in this context it is right to classify it as such.

Theology is an all-encompassing subject; no one person can have belief "IN" theology... maybe belief "IN A" theology.

Yeah, shame I don't really believe that one can achieve immortality through meditation, special exercises, etc. If I did believe that, I would consider becoming a taoist.

Then try confucianism ;)

Um...I should point out that trees are small parts of the universe, not universes unto themselves.

*sigh* It's an analogy.

If I made the o so common analogy where the Holy Trinity of Christianity is explained through the image of an apple, you wouldn't hear people saying, "but apples aren't spirits." Because that deserves a "No shit, Sherlock." sort of response.

Regardless, I have given up on trying to convince people that atheism is not a religion.

Too bad. I would say that atheists often do have religions, but I certainly don't agree that atheism is intrinsically a religion unto itself.

Then try confucianism ;)

I don't really know anything about confucianism. Isn't it more of a philosophy than a religion?

Theology Proper's Categories are:
Monotheism
Polytheism
Atheism

If you adopt one of those three, you have a belief IN A theology.

However, no one can adopt all three simutaneously.

I'd suggest reading dao de jing before you try to make statements about taoism, but first:
I'm the god of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion, it's what people call you when you don't believe in any religion - but, more accurately, that would be called agnosticism.

Atheism is not a religion, it's what people call you when you don't believe in any religion - but, more accurately, that would be called agnosticism.

Agnosticism and Atheism are no inter-related.

Theology is a subset inter-related with philosophy... So belief ABOUT or IN is irregardless, since everyone has some sort of belief in connection with theology.

However, in the context here, I'm reffering to Theology Proper; sic. Actual discourse ABOUT God, and therefore in this context it is right to classify it as such.

Theology is an all-encompassing subject; no one person can have belief "IN" theology... maybe belief "IN A" theology.


"having a belief about" something and "believing in" something are completely different.

I believe that astrology is claptrap. Therefore, I do not believe in astrology.

In english, the words that modify "believe" determine what is meant by it.

Here is merriam webster's definition of "theology:"
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

If somone holds theology to be true ('believes in'[in this usage, not "i believe in you johnny!"]) then it is implied that they believe in a god or gods.

Athesim is not a religion more a lack of religion and faith of a particular individual

*sigh* It's an analogy.

If I made the o so common analogy where the Holy Trinity of Christianity is explained through the image of an apple, you wouldn't hear people saying, "but apples aren't spirits." Because that deserves a "No shit, Sherlock." sort of response.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was aware that it was analogy. What I should have said is that trees are small components of a larger entity, whereas the universe is the largest entity - the one that is the union of all other entities. This seems to make the analogy inappropriate.


Too bad. I would say that atheists often do have religions, but I certainly don't agree that atheism is intrinsically a religion unto itself.

I agree. I just can't be bothered to try explaining it to anyone any more.

"having a belief about" something and "believing in" something are completely different.

I believe that astrology is claptrap. Therefore, I do not believe in astrology.

In english, the words that modify "believe" determine what is meant by it.

Here is merriam webster's definition of "theology:"
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

If somone holds theology to be true ('believes in'[in this usage, not "i believe in you johnny!"]) then it is implied that they believe in a god or gods.

"Theology" is a category study, not a belief in and of itself... all 'OLOGIES are studies...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was aware that it was analogy. What I should have said is that trees are small components of a larger entity, whereas the universe is the largest entity - the one that is the union of all other entities. This seems to make the analogy inappropriate.

Here we go again....this could be fun. ;)

So what basis do you have for asserting that the universe is the largest entity?

Ok. Now I'll set up a better analogy.

I exist, though in a somewhat different form because of not having gravity, air, etc.
The tree exists, though in a somewhat different form et cetera..
I hit the tree.

Still works.

I agree. I just can't be bothered to try explaining it to anyone any more.

Understood. This forum gets frustrating sometimes. Especially when people refuse to listen to "the voice of reason." ;)

Here we go again....this could be fun. ;)

So what basis do you have for asserting that the universe is the largest entity?

No assertion is necessary. I was taking the universe to be everything that exists by definition.



I exist, though in a somewhat different form because of not having gravity, air, etc.
The tree exists, though in a somewhat different form et cetera..
I hit the tree.

Still works.

Not sure what you mean here.



Understood. This forum gets frustrating sometimes. Especially when people refuse to listen to "the voice of reason." ;)
I rarely venture into posting in NS General now. When I do, I tend to start my own threads so that I have some control over the subject matter (and because most other threads have been posted a million times).

Agnosticism and Atheism are no inter-related.

My point entirely. They are completely seperate things, but people still confuse one for the other.

No assertion is necessary. I was taking the universe to be everything that exists by definition.

Damn, Clony. That's certainly a good way to get around considering things outside of the box, so to speak. You just say your box contains everything. I should have thought of that.

So that's why you think that in order for God to exist God would have to be inside the universe. I understand now.

Not sure what you mean here.

Nevermind. It would probably overload your (and most people's) conceptual matrix anyway. Most people are so accustomed to thinking in terms of the properties of this existence that they can't imagine anything too radically different. I should have considered that before posting. My apologies.

I rarely venture into posting in NS General now. When I do, I tend to start my own threads so that I have some control over the subject matter (and because most other threads have been posted a million times).

This one has actually been posted a million times also, but I'm not sure if you were around during those times.

atheism is certainly a philosophy, don't know if it's a religion. Kinda like Buddhism, it's definitely a philosophy, but not sure if it's a religion.

Damn, Clony. That's certainly a good way to get around considering things outside of the box, so to speak. You just say your box contains everything. I should have thought of that.

So that's why you think that in order for God to exist God would have to be inside the universe. I understand now.

The box, presumably refers to my mind. The universe, I hope, consists of much more.


Nevermind. It would probably overload your (and most people's) conceptual matrix anyway. Most people are so accustomed to thinking in terms of the properties of this existence that they can't imagine anything too radically different. I should have considered that before posting. My apologies.

Or it could be that you were vague, using both "somewhat" and "etcetera" twice. Radically different things interest me, but if I have to fill in the gaps, the radical difference is up to me.


This one has actually been posted a million times also, but I'm not sure if you were around during those times.
Nah, I'm sure this one is only in the hundred-thousands.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!

The box, presumably refers to my mind. The universe, I hope, consists of much more.

In this case, the box and the universe are the same.

Or it could be that you were vague, using both "somewhat" and "etcetera" twice. Radically different things interest me, but if I have to fill in the gaps, the radical difference is up to me.

Fine. I'll make it better.

I exist.
The tree exists.
I hit the tree.

Nah, I'm sure this one is only in the hundred-thousands.

Actually, I doubt it's even that high, but that's how hyperbole works, isn't it?

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!

No movie quotes in this thread, buster. :)

Zeal:
great enthusiasm or eagerness

Conscientious:
putting a lot of effort into your work

Devotion:
loyalty and love or care for someone or something:

None of these are necessary for atheism, only a lack of belief in the existence of God.
Not true, athiesm requires an active belief that there is no god/gods. If such is not present then you are an agnostic. You may be an agnostic who is extremely skeptical about the existence of such, but you are not an athiest.

In this case, the box and the universe are the same.

Does that mean that the universe is nothing more than my mind? :D In that case, I'll have God exist on Tuesdays and Saturdays.


I exist.
The tree exists.
I hit the tree.

You are basically saying that God exists as part of our reality (in order to be real) but outside of space-time, mass-energy yet somehow can affect all of the aforementioned?
At first I thought you were trying to say something more complicated.


Actually, I doubt it's even that high, but that's how hyperbole works, isn't it?
Yes, I was using hyperbole too.

I suppose in a way I cannot call myself an atheist, since no-one has ever agreed upon a definition of God for me to disbelieve.

Does that mean that the universe is nothing more than my mind? :D In that case, I'll have God exist on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

In that case, you two should meet for tea or something. ;)

You are basically saying that God exists as part of our reality (in order to be real) but outside of space-time, mass-energy yet somehow can affect all of the aforementioned? At first I thought you were trying to say something more complicated.

No, I wasn't saying that, but that could work too.

Actually, I was trying to point out that God could exist outside of the universe and still interact with it. I don't necessarily believe that such is the case...it's just a possibility to me. Of course, with your exclusive definition of "universe", that's not something you could consider possible.

I suppose in a way I cannot call myself an atheist, since no-one has ever agreed upon a definition of God for me to disbelieve.

So if I deify our planet that we call Earth you will no longer be able to consider yourself an atheist since there is ample evidence of the existence of Earth?

Damn, Clony. That's certainly a good way to get around considering things outside of the box, so to speak. You just say your box contains everything. I should have thought of that.

So that's why you think that in order for God to exist God would have to be inside the universe. I understand now.


Hmmmm. I wonder if the guy, inside the nutshell, inside the box, believes there is a box outside of his nutshell.

Here's a question.

Are any of those arguing that atheism is a religion atheists themselves?

So if I deify our planet that we call Earth you will no longer be able to consider yourself an atheist since there is ample evidence of the existence of Earth?

As long as everyone agrees with you, sure.

taoism in general is based upon the premise of universal singular unity.

A certain sect of taoist philosophy may hold religious beliefs about a "great mother," but not all do, and taoism itself is by no means a religion.
kinda makes one wonder why they have taoist monks and temples doesnt it?

Hmmmm. I wonder if the guy, inside the nutshell, inside the box, believes there is a box outside of his nutshell.

:p

I do, basically. And that there are multiples boxes and nutshells and they are contained in a vase, of which there are many. And that the vases are inside of a pot, of which there are many. And so on until we reach the last of the containers.

YES it is, it is a faith of not following a set faith except the you own set of morals that work for you and you dont have to listen to any priest or reverned person, so it the best relgion of all
-Fuerher and Local Bartender of Rolling Rocks, Yatis Goudstuff

:p

I do, basically. And that there are multiples boxes and nutshells and they are contained in a vase, of which there are many. And that the vases are inside of a pot, of which there are many. And so on until we reach the last of the containers.

Ahhh... grasshopper, that assumes there is a last container ;)

Personally i do belive in a god... im just not quite sure what it is. When i say god i dont mean something that is all powerful, or even something that can think, make decisions, or have any affect on anything in our plane of existance. The god i speak of is just something that has no contingence. everything around us is contingent on one thing or another but there has to be an endpoint, a "god", because without this endpoint nothing could exist. just something to think about :D
Any way athieism technically according to definition is not a religion.

Does that mean that the universe is nothing more than my mind? :D In that case, I'll have God exist on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

See,I'm a writer. I have several universes, each with their own subtly different laws of physics/theology/etc. floating about inside my head. Each with their own characters, although I do let them intermingle. Some people would say I'm schizophrenic for having personalities that are not entirely under my control inside my own mind. Personally, I'm about as sane as they get, just a little sadistic. :D So, to be honest, how do we know this universe isn't one of a multi-verse inside the head of someone equally as insignificant as me in another, external universe? In which case, that would mean that I am technically a god, as is the unknown entity who created this universe to write a story in.

Blimey, I thought that up on the spot. :O

It is not a religion. It is not believing in a higher power.

Since atheists do not believe in God or gods, then no it is not a religion. Atheism is about not belonging to a religion or believing in one.

You poor lost souls. Try reading the Gospel of John sometime. Maybe it'll change your mind, like it did mine.

This is rather like debating whether black is considered a color or an absence of color.

Atheism might not be a religion, but some atheists can be as annoying as bible bashers.

The average agnostic can't tell the difference between an atheist and a theist.... they "act" the same.

Atheism might not be a religion, but some atheists can be as annoying as bible bashers.
AMEN

Atheism is not a religion but is considered one when beiwing actions of atheists when questioning the Sperartion of Chruch and State and the Establishment Clause.

In short, Atheism is not a religion but Congress and the Supreme Court considereds it as one.

Atheism, like any (other) religion, claims to know the absolute truth of the universe. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me.

Then a new word would have to be coined to describe what "religion" does now: belief in an revernce for a being or beings regarded as creator or governor of the universe.

That is the meaning of "religion." It is a word that denotes belief in theology. Not belief "about" theology, but belief IN theology.

Actually, I think you just need a bigger dictionary. The fact that atheists are so upset about people refering to atheism as a religion pretty much makes atheism a religion. :) Fun reading, though.

1. religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

Ahhh... grasshopper, that assumes there is a last container ;)

I know. I have considered both finite and infinite multiverses, and considering my belief system, chose finite.

There's nothing quite like a consistent belief system. It's very psychologically healthy, even if you're wrong.

It is a religion. The religion of China. They just don't believe in a kind of 'god'.