Much like your definition of religion has fuck-all to do with reality.
If I don’t believe that the universe and I were created by an omnipotent, timeless Unicorn, or that after I die I’m going to frolic in the clouds with unicorns for eternity, is that a religion?
Somebody stating their opinion that Tebow’s actions are dividing his fans is being militant? You know that is what was I talking about, and is the subject of this thread, right?
Yeah, I don’t really get why it’s so offensive to atheists to call it a religion. When asked what my religion is, I say “I’m an atheist.” If I were bald, guess what would go on my driver’s license under “hair color”?
So you’re calling it a religion. BFD. What’s that got to do with anything?
ETA: Similarly, I wish people would quit acting like “Is there a God?” and “Do you believe there is a God?” are different questions.
I’ll jump in, because I understand where Chimera is coming from with his irritation (though the atheism is a religion stuff I have a harder time getting behind). Note that I am an increasingly apathetic agnostic despite the username.
I wouldn’t say it’s particularly common on these boards, but there is a certain brand of atheist that delights in calling any theist–and particularly Christian theists, though that may simply be due to the fact that, in this country, it’s the most common kind of theist–stupid.
Now, when it’s being said to someone who’s all, “you’re going to hell!” that’s one thing. It’s responding in kind, and it’s completely understandable, if a bit uncivil for my liking. When it’s to someone who’s merely expressed that they are religious without being a jackass about it, that’s a different sort of rude. It’s usually given one of two justifications.
The first is that it’s only an opinion, and thus it isn’t intolerant to state it. I’ll call bullshit on that. I may think that someone is wearing a horribly hideous coat, or that their face looks like it was smashed in with the world’s biggest ugly stick. These are valid opinions that, nevertheless, I shouldn’t mention to anyone outside of my closest friends and family. It may not be intolerant, exactly, but it’s sure as hell rude. That’s sort of how I feel about commenting on someone’s religious belief, or lack thereof. Unless one is invited to comment on it, one should refrain from doing so. And, no, mentioning it in passing isn’t inviting it.
The second argument is that religion is inherently dangerous and a bad thing. I take issue with that as well. People are dangerous and inherently pretty awful when taken as a collective whole. We’re a bunch of animals that have somehow managed to spend a large part of our innovative effort figuring out new and more efficient ways to kill each other. And if we weren’t killing each other over religion, we’d be killing each other over something else. Hell, we’re usually killing each other over something else; religion’s just one of the many ways that we justify wanting someone else’s shit for our own. We’d still be killing each other all to bits regardless. And it’s not all religion that’s anti-science, either; it’s a very specific brand of religion, and those who are using that brand of religion aren’t necessarily representative of all religion. Or even the majority of religious individuals. So, for me, that argument doesn’t hold water; it feels little different than proselytizing. (Albeit that there’s proof, but then we get into whether being happy with a lie is better or worse than being miserable with the truth, and, frankly, that’s another thread).
Of course, the same arguments apply to the religious as well. So, basically, people need to shut the hell up about it on both sides.
Those atheists sure do have a stranglehold on our culture, don’t they? They’re everywhere! Just the other day a bunch of them – really militant ones – ran into my daughter’s classroom and slapped her hands out of position while she was praying silently to herself.
I wish a devout Christian would run for President and decry this atheist nonsense, but too bad that will never happen.
dictionary.reference.com;
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
-
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
-
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
-
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Wikipedia;
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
atheism.about.com tries hard to make it all be about belief in sacred objects and beings.
allaboutreligion.org says;
"In dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.”
So I think my definition of religion is not all that far off.
Factually, it isn’t, and I think a lot of the offense comes from the fact that some atheists have had really negative experiences with religion. And some of the offense is caused by the way the claim is made: often it comes from a religious person who is saying that atheists believe in science the way religious people believe in God, which is wrong and pretty stupid.
Selective bolding, it’s fun for everyone!
“especially” isn’t exactly an all or nothing delimiter.
This discussion has been done a million times on this board, and I’d rather answer a reasonble question from Chessic Sense than deal with the goofiness you’re posting. Very short version: atheism isn’t “a set of beliefs,” it’s the lack of one belief.
yeah, I notice that too. That’s what happens when you get into the habit of taking selected Biblical quotes out of context to make them say what you already believe. It’s a common problem among some religionists.
Which specific items in that definition support your repeated assertions that atheism is a religion? I’m not seeing it.
From your later posts in this thread, you don’t so much lean toward science as you slump over and fall asleep on science’s shoulder during a long crowded bus ride and science is too polite to tell you to get lost, even when you start to drool.
Just that. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the Universe.
I believe the same things most Atheists do regarding those three things, I’m just a little sketchy and agnostic on the whole “God” thing and have entirely different ideas about what such a creator would be like given the state of the Universe than most established religions.
And yes, Marley, I know it’s been done to death. But I’m home from work due to illness and it is a bit of light entertainment to poke the militants and have them froth at the mouth and scream insults because they couldn’t possibly be exactly like the people they hate.
Apparently it’s a not uncommon fantasy among both secular and religious right-wing nutjobs to find themselves as the sole conservative or Christian (or both) at a dinner party or other gathering with a bunch of libruls, and demolish their arguments with a series of brilliant zingers - at least, zingers that sound brilliant as they float around the sheltered, protected world of right-wing blogs and message boards.
This sounds like one of those supposed zingers. If so, it’s a good thing you’ve given it a road test, so to speak.
Pah ha ha ha
(nice!)
Of course, they’re also talking about the “militant ones” who do over-the-top displays of gayness in their pride parades and such and insist on getting all up in the straights’ faces with it. And I think that does annoy a whole lot of people whom you would not call “homophobes” for any other reason,.
But, to the real homophobes, there is no important difference between the two anyway.
That’s an airtight defense you’ve constructed: “My argument only stinks because I’m being lazy, and so I’m trying to irritate people instead of making sense.” Yes, there’s nothing I can say to that.