Atheism is a religion!

[Frank_apisa]

Atheism definitely is NOT a religion…buts its adherents often talk, discuss, and argue as though it were. And its adherents, diverse though they may be, often are as hard-headed and unyielding in their protestations as theists—often to the point where it seems like a religion.

Ya know what I mean. Theists often point around to their surroundings and say, “Look at this. Everything points to a GOD!” And the atheists point around to their surroundings and say, “Look at this, obviously there are no gods.”

And both often point to us silly agnostics who point around to our surroundings and say, “Jeez…you really cannot tell from the evidence available whether there are gods involved in all this or not.”

[Eternal]

@Little_Nemo

Could you give us some examples of what these secular/materialist/humanist beliefs are? For example, I believe that gravity exists. I believe flu vaccinations are a good idea. I believe democracy is the best form of government overall. I believe the Buffalo Bills will make the playoffs again someday. I believe Bob Dylan is overrated. I believe my mother makes the best chicken parmigan in the world. Are these beliefs shared by all my fellow secular materialist humanists?

Or is it an exclusive thing? A Christian believes Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead. A non-Christian doesn’t believe that. What is the atheist equivalent of that belief? And don’t argue that an atheist believes Jesus wasn’t the son of God because then I’ll point out that non-atheist Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus share that belief.

You seem to think I’m saying all atheists believe in anything, which I thought it was clear I wasn’t. I am willing to bet that any particular atheist believes in the importance of secularism, materialism, rationalism, humanism, utilitarianism, other isms probably… And in a sufficiently high population atheists will form groups with those who share their beliefs and form a movement. Such a movement is not inherently undesirable, but like all movements the groups associated with and driving it will come under the control of ambitious and ruthless people who use them for their personal glorification and enrichment. I wouldn’t call it a religion, but I wouldn’t say it’s any different than a religion.

[Fantome]

@Frank_apisa

Atheism definitely is NOT a religion…buts its adherents often talk, discuss, and argue as though it were.

You’re wrong. We (some of us) talk about religions as if they are because they are. Even strictly talking about atheism doesn’t make it seem like a religion any more than talking about why there’s no Loch Ness Monster makes that seem like one.

And its adherents

You just said atheism isn’t a religion. What are we adherents to?

diverse though they may be, often are as hard-headed and unyielding in their protestations as theists

What should we yield to? What does this have to do with anything? You’re obviously trying to make a parallel between atheism and religion and there isn’t any.

often to the point where it seems like a religion.

Not even a little. An atheist being “hard-headed” and “unyielding” does not make one of many things he doesn’t believe in a religion, or even “seem” like one.

And both often point to us silly agnostics who point around to our surroundings and say, “Jeez…you really cannot tell from the evidence available whether there are gods involved in all this or not.”

So do plenty of atheists. You realize that, right? you’re defining “agnostic” in a way none of us that discusses these matters do. Sounds like you’re an atheist but don’t realize it or don’t like the term.

[Fantome]

@Eternal

I wouldn’t call it a religion, but I wouldn’t say it’s any different than a religion.

If it’s not any different, than it’s the same. It’s plenty different. What you’ve done is suppose atheists would have “other” things in common and form groups. It’s irrelevant. Especially since there will be atheists that aren’t interested or totally opposed to those causes. Dawkins, Nietzsche, Marx and the Dalai Lama all have different philosophies and wouldn’t be likely to be a part of the same movement. They’ll still have atheism in common though. That one belief among many they don’t believe in is not a religion.

[Vorpal_Blade]

One of the reasons for (some) believers trying to typecast atheism as a religion is because they recognize (subconsciously, perhaps?) how silly religion is when viewed rationally and thus if atheism is seen as a religion it, too, is silly.

Or something like that…

[Frank_apisa]

@Fantome

You’re wrong. We (some of us) talk about religions as if they are because they are. Even strictly talking about atheism doesn’t make it seem like a religion any more than talking about why there’s no Loch Ness Monster makes that seem like one.

Don’t be silly…of course, I am not wrong.

Many atheists talk, argue, and discuss as though it were a religion…ya know, the fervor thing.

And they do.

You just said atheism isn’t a religion. What are we adherents to?

Many atheists “adhere” to a set of ideas…and to a cause. They are widely diverse, but most adherents to “a set of ideas” and “to a cause” have widely divergent notions of the ideas and causes.

What should we yield to? What does this have to do with anything? You’re obviously trying to make a parallel between atheism and religion and there isn’t any.

I am not trying to do anything…I AM making a parallel between the hard-headedness and inflexibility of atheists with theists. And that connection does exist…IN SPADES.

Not even a little. 

Right…not a little. A LOT!

An atheist being “hard-headed” and “unyielding” does not make one of many things he doesn’t believe in a religion, or even “seem” like one.

Could you try that one again in English?
Fantome…you quoted me saying: “And both often point to us silly agnostics who point around to our surroundings and say, “Jeez…you really cannot tell from the evidence available whether there are gods involved in all this or not.”

And you responded:

“So do plenty of atheists. You realize that, right? you’re defining “agnostic” in a way none of us that discusses these matters do. Sounds like you’re an atheist but don’t realize it or don’t like the term.

I am not an atheist…and you don’t sound like much of one either. Nothing wrong with the term “atheist”…and nothing wrong with the term “theist”…and nothing wrong with the term “agnostic.”

Agnostics tend to highlight the fact that they do not know the answers to questions about the Reality of existence such as: “Are there gods involved?” “Are there no gods involved?”

When the questions come down to: “Does the evidence favor the notion that there are no gods?” or “Does the evidence favor the notion that there are gods?”…most agnostics (not all, by any means) say: NO. Also, most agnostics (not all, by any means) also suggest that the evidence is so ambiguous…no meaningful guess can be made as to whether or not there is a component that could be identified as gods.

As for your suggestion that “…you’re defining “agnostic” in a way none of us that discusses these matters do”…well, Fantome, I a someone here “discussing these matters”…and I do.

Not sure why any of the other agnostic don’t, but that is up to them. Nothing I’ve said goes contrary to what most agnostics accept as agnosticism. If you have a particular item in mind, bring it up…and we’ll discuss it.

[Little_Nemo]

Especially since there will be atheists that aren’t interested or totally opposed to those causes. Dawkins, Nietzsche, Marx and the Dalai Lama all have different philosophies and wouldn’t be likely to be a part of the same movement. They’ll still have atheism in common though.

The Dalai Lama is an atheist?

[Little_Nemo]

And in a sufficiently high population atheists will form groups with those who share their beliefs and form a movement.

Many atheists talk, argue, and discuss as though it were a religion…ya know, the fervor thing.

And they do.

No, they don’t. Atheists don’t hold weekly services where they don’t worship God. They don’t have temples or priests or sermons or scriptures. They don’t form groups or movements.

The only time atheists tend to talk about their atheism is right after some religious person talks about his religion.

[Little_Nemo]

Ya know what I mean. Theists often point around to their surroundings and say, “Look at this. Everything points to a GOD!” And the atheists point around to their surroundings and say, “Look at this, obviously there are no gods.”

A theist might point at a tree and say “That’s proof of God’s creation.” While an atheist would point at a tree and say “That’s a tree.”

The arguments are not equivalent.

[Frank_apisa]

@Little_Nemo

No, they don’t. Atheists don’t hold weekly services where they don’t worship God. They don’t have temples or priests or sermons or scriptures. They don’t form groups or movements.

I said quite clearly that I do not think atheism is a religion.

I also said: “Many atheists talk, argue, and discuss as though it were a religion…ya know, the fervor thing.”

AND THEY DO.

The only time atheists tend to talk about their atheism is right after some religious person talks about his religion.

Nonsense. They often talk about it when agnostics mention that there doesn’t seem to be enough unabmiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about whether or not there are gods involved in the Reality of existence.

And they do tend to treat their subject with a fervor that reminds me of the fervor religious people bring to their defenses of religion.

If it doesn’t seem that way to you…so be it.

It does to me…and obviously to a lot of other people.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Frank_apisa

Don’t be silly…of course, I am not wrong.

Many atheists talk, argue, and discuss as though it were a religion…ya know, the fervor thing.

No, I don’t know actually. What is “the fervor thing,” and what makes it religious.

Many atheists “adhere” to a set of ideas…and to a cause. They are widely diverse, but most adherents to “a set of ideas” and “to a cause” have widely divergent notions of the ideas and causes.

What exactly is this “set of ideas,” and what is this “cause?”

I can assure you, neither exists. Atheism involves no beliefs or “causes.”

[quote]
I am not trying to do anything…I AM making a parallel between the hard-headedness and inflexibility of atheists with theists. And that connection does exist…IN SPADES.[.quote]
you’re trying to use a phony definition of atheism in order to adopt a supercillious posture as some sort above-it-all, neutral observer. I’m sorry to break it to you, but most atheists are not hard atheists, so you’re tilting at strawmen. This atheist “inflexibility” you speak of doesn’t exist.

Right…not a little. A LOT!

Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Could you try that one again in English?

Let me help – not believing in sky gods is no more a “religion,” than not believing in unicorns. Even being "inflexible’ about the possibility that unocorns exist is not religious.

When the questions come down to: “Does the evidence favor the notion that there are no gods?” or “Does the evidence favor the notion that there are gods?”…most agnostics (not all, by any means) say: NO.

That is not a question that any intelligent person needs to ask at all, any more than they have to ask whether the evidence favors or does not favor the existence of elves. The correct question for an agnostic, or anybody else is “what is the explanation for this?” This is followed by hypothesiszing and testing explanations for what is observed. “Are there gods” is not a question even wortth asking unless and untill there is a reason to hypothesize them.

Also, most agnostics (not all, by any means) also suggest that the evidence is so ambiguous…no meaningful guess can be made as to whether or not there is a component that could be identified as gods.

The evidence is “ambiguous” as to the existence of sky gods? In what way? Give me an example of this ambiguous evidence. Is the evidence for unicorns “ambiguous” as well?

As for your suggestion that “…you’re defining “agnostic” in a way none of us that discusses these matters do”…well, Fantome, I a someone here “discussing these matters”…and I do.

Not sure why any of the other agnostic don’t, but that is up to them. Nothing I’ve said goes contrary to what most agnostics accept as agnosticism. If you have a particular item in mind, bring it up…and we’ll discuss it.

Continuing to insist on self-serving and inaccurate definitions is not the way to win a discussion here.

[figure9]

Obviously you’re counting the big four: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Probably Confucianism and Taoism, although they’re tricky because of the overlap.

But what are the other six? Shamanism? There’s a lot of shamanists in the world but it’s not really a single religion. A similar point can be made about Neopaganism.

Judaism probably gets in, even though it’s a relatively small religion. Most people are surprised to find there are more Sikhs than Jews in the world. Let’s count both.

Juche? It’s kind of a cult but it’s a big one.

Baha’i? Jainism? Shinto? Cao Dai? Cheondoism? Zoroastrianism? Tenrikyo? Yarsan? Shinshukyo? Rastafarianism? Yazidi? Vudon?

Actually I came up with 12 because I saw a poster on the wall, outside the hospital cafeteria, that was titled, “The Twelve Major Religions.” I’d have to go back to the hospital to find out what they all were.

[Frank_apisa]

@Little_Nemo

A theist might point at a tree and say “That’s proof of God’s creation.” While an atheist would point at a tree and say “That’s a tree.”

The arguments are not equivalent.

I did not say they were equivalent.

My point was that many (not all) theists often offer the world as evidence that gods exist. Many atheists (not all) offer the world as evidence that there are no gods.

Speaking for myself…I don’t think the world offers evidence in either direction.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Little_Nemo

The Dalai Lama is an atheist?

By western standards, yes. Tibetan Buddhism does have some deities, but they are not creator gods, or objects of worship. They are basically seen as guides, or sometimes tormentors – essentially the equivalent of angels and demons.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Frank_apisa

Nonsense. They often talk about it when agnostics mention that there doesn’t seem to be enough unabmiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about whether or not there are gods involved in the Reality of existence.

What does “involved in the reality of existence” mean, and what the hell is this “ambiguous evidence” you keep referring to?

Atheists would not disagree with the completely uninteresting and useless observation that sky gods, like unicorn, elves and lprechauns, cannot technically be disproven. That does not mean that any of those things are entitled to any default presumption of possibility that has to be disproven, or that they deserve any serious consideration at all.

And they do tend to treat their subject with a fervor that reminds me of the fervor religious people bring to their defenses of religion.

If it doesn’t seem that way to you…so be it.

It does to me…and obviously to a lot of other people.

Only to religious people, in my experience.

[Frank_apisa]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

…you’re trying to use a phony definition of atheism in order to adopt a supercillious posture ideas," and what is this “cause?”

I’m sure you meant “supercilious” not “supersillious”, Diogenes.

And I want you to know I am taking your lecture on this seriously, because if anyone should know about adopting a supercilious attitude, you certainly seem to be that person.

I cannot help, however, feel that a lecture from you on being supercilious is like listening to a lecture from Rush Limbaugh on being a fat, big mouth.

[Marley23]

In spite of itself, this thread has turned into a carbon copy or a continuation of the one that inspired it, so I am going to send it back to Great Debates.

@Frank_apisa

And I want you to know I am taking your lecture on this seriously, because if anyone should know about adopting a supercilious attitude, you certainly seem to be that person.

I cannot help, however, feel that a lecture from you on being supercilious is like listening to a lecture from Rush Limbaugh on being a fat, big mouth.

Please leave the personal remarks out of it, Frank apisa. The rule here is ‘Attack the post, not the poster.’

[Frank_apisa]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What does “involved in the reality of existence” mean, and what the hell is this “ambiguous evidence” you keep referring to?

I’ve already answered the “involved in the Reality of existence” question.

Are there any of the words you do not understand?

As for “ambiguous evidence”…look up the word “ambiguous” and look up the word “evidence.”

Why do you ask these questions when you have the resources at hand?

[MyFootsZZZ]

Oh, I see. All of a sudden sh*t just got serious.

[Frank_apisa]

@Marley23

In spite of itself, this thread has turned into a carbon copy or a continuation of the one that inspired it, so I am going to send it back to Great Debates.
Please leave the personal remarks out of it, Frank apisa. The rule here is ‘Attack the post, not the poster.’

I apologize.