The ol' Is Atheism a Religion debate revisited

Great Debates
1

Maybe this is nothing, maybe it’s something. But I just had a slight epiphany about this subject i wanted to share.

In reading a recent theological thread, I got to see the two GD Moderators strutting their stuff.

Though my observations of David B and Gaudere are not limited to this thread, the contrast within this single thread tied it all together for me.

Both people are atheists - or at least are strong agnostics, but only because when pinned, they’ll admit they don’t know everything. Ultimately, neither of these people belive in a diety of any sort, and it is unlikely that anything will convince them.

Now, David B will argue with people of religions beliefs if he has a problem with the manner in which they express those beliefs, their desires to force those beliefs on others, and/or WHY they believe the way they believe.

Whereas Gaudere - while she certainly will jump on people for the above triumvirate of differences - also will jump in when none of those things are an issue, and her only beef seems to be with the poster’s views that do not coincide with her own.

Evidence of this is her post which is the first one on page two, a response to Polycarp. I read that and I see a post which David would not write because she is responding to things that would not motivate David to debate (even if he does not necessarily agree with them).

In a nutshell, if a poster came along and said, “I believe this” and they did NOT say anything that would be an afront to David’s intellect, he probably would ignore it. Whereas, Gaudere would question this poster and try to trip them up on some inconsistancy within their own beliefs and revel in any illogic she can dig up.

Now, I am not slamming Gaudere. Nor am I praising David B. In fact, I can probably be found to react both ways in my time here.

What I am doing is illustrating how for David, I don’t think atheism is a religion to him - and I believe that the idea is laughable to him. Whereas to Gaudere, I would have to say it IS a religion to her, as she acts just like a religious person would in upholding her (lack of?) beliefs.

Until now, I was of the mind that atheism was not a religion at all. However, looking at things the way I do now, I really think that - while it may not be a religion per se, some people can take hold of it with such a religious fervor which gives it every characteristic of a devout following of religion.

And if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, walks like a duck…

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 19 hours, 27 minutes and 26 seconds.
3192 cigarettes not smoked, saving $399.05.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 0 minutes.

2

No. It’s more of a worldview. You wouldn’t say being a Republicrat is a religion, for example, although they can be just as passionate. Or if you would, then it is.

3

I really hesitate to get involved in this sort of discussion, but to imply that Atheism is a religion is something of an oxymoron, isn’t it? Religion, after all, is defined as “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the univers.” (This from the American heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Ed.).
I think what is really at issue here is the nature of belief. One can believe in something without being religious. If Gaudere believes strongly that there is no God, then that is her right. While the methods (and I can’t speak from experience, since I haven’t really read any posts by Gaudere) may well be similar to those of a devoutly religious person, strict adherence to such a belief does not make one religious in and of itself.

I’m not sure if I made any sense there, but thats my $0.02 - spend it where you will :slight_smile:

4

Just to clarify , could some people’s religion be a certain sport ? I know several football fans who fit your definition.

5

Is the non-belief of an atheist equivalent to the belief of a religious person? If what we see here is any indication, than no. Religious people, at least those that tend towards the fundie side, their lives revolve around their faith. Does an atheist go around saying “I’m not going to acknowledge somebody who says bless you, when I sneeze?”

I don’t believe that atheism can be equated to religion. If it turns out that they are equivalent, then I want a national atheist holiday (sic).

6

I think atheism can be a religion, like the Hand Stabbers and the Ego Worshippers, though I have learned from David, Gaudere, and other atheists that it ain’t necessarily so for every atheist.

Gaudere holds man’s intellect in high regard, and stamps out intellectual heresy wherever she finds it. She is also a principled person with a beautiful heart, who yanks people off their moral tightropes, much like Jesus did during His incarnation.

Whatever it is that she is, that is what I yearn to be.

7

I don’t think a thing qualifies as a “religion” merely because it inspires passion or fervor. Gaudere, self-admittedly, likes to argue and debate. A campaign against specious logic, as well as misinformation, is well-placed on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.

8

From M-W.com:

I think that what Satan is saying here (correct me if I’m wrong) falls under number 4… Same as a die-hard Republican, Democrat, PETA member, or NRA member, or even, as said above, sports fan could fall under.

Of course, I’d say personally that while I am not religious in my atheism, I do believe what I believe religiously, in that I firmly believe what I believe.

-S

9

I would completely disagree with you Satan. If you were refering to math. When someone states that 1+1=3 david will not argue unless someone tries to convince others whereas Gaudere will go after them. IT wouldn’t make any sense. You couldn’t in any way claim realisticly that Gaudere was religous. It’s only because she is arguing against religon that you can make that comparison. It just doesn’t hold water. You can claim she has a passion for deabating. Or is fanatical about atheism. You could even make the comparison between religous and atheist fanatics. But, you can not call atheists religous. Mauve Dog already provided the definition.

10

I respectfully disagree here…

You get a GOP supporter and a die-hard Democrat in a thread (and we have) and they talk about the issues, they may disagree based upon certain principles.

They would debate facts and stats that support their position or hurt the others. They might cite other places that work out just fine. They might even get all heated.

However, let’s say that the Republican points out simply that their party is generally Pro-Life.

Now, I could see a Democrat ignoring this, because it’s obviously part of what the GOP believes, and the person is not saying anything about their personal belief structure. At worst, the Dem would say, “Our party believes differently.”

I don’t see a Democrat coming back with self-righteous indignation at such a statement.

Now, if the Republican happened to say, “Abortion is murder and should be outlawed all the time,” then they will no doubt spar verbally.

Now, in my examples in the OP, one person is getting all confrontational at afronts to their ideals which are not blanket statements that affect that person, not just sheer errors in facts, but simple statements of belief.

I would imagine that, knowing human nature, it is possible someone could get all defensive in my example above. But these people would be in the minority; a vast minority I would imagine.

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 19 hours, 53 minutes and 36 seconds.
3193 cigarettes not smoked, saving $399.14.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 5 minutes.

11

I want to find out the basis of the many religions, and often each person’s particular one. In order to do this properly, I need to know the absolute root of the belief: what is it you take on faith? One I know the faith-based premises, I can extrapolate out and know what that person would probably believe in any other situation (assuming the religion is logically derived from the premises, which all that I have found are; the premises may be conflicting or counter-intuitive, but once you find them all out and accept them, every belief of that religion falls into place like dominos). For example, I don’t have to ask Polycarp if a person will go to Hell for having premarital sex, even though I’ve never asked him about it, since I know the basics of what he considers sin. I want to figure out fully the metaphor Poly is using to explain Christ’s sacriifice. I don’t argue to be mean, or because I disagree with the sympathy and love of Poly’s theology–I just don’t understand how it fits together, and I want to.

I have said fairly often, “Ya wanna have faith, fine.” I don’t even really care if you have faith in logically contradictory things, as FoG does, althogh I do dispute that he can’t call it logical, and I wonder about believing in things that logically cannot co-exist. It makes the “God created the world 6,000 years ago, it only looks old” theory appear quite reasonable–at least it’s not logically impossible! I like to argue. I want to understand. I don’t care if you believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Dionysus, etc., but it is in my nature to try to take things apart to understand them, and if something doesn’t make sense to me, you bet your booty I’ll probably challenge it even if your God seems like the nicest guy around. Polycarp’s God seems like a great guy, but I have some questions about Poly’s explanantion of Jesus’ fufillment of the contract. No, it doesn’t affect me in the slightest if Poly believes in that explanation–I just want to understand it.

12

Let me put a twist on things here…

It seems that David B is content with his own ideas as long as science, common sense and his intellect remains unscathed.

Whereas Gaudere will comment on things even when those are not questionsed.

In a way, she is witnessing for her atheism. She is hearing something contradicting her belief system (as part of the very definition of religion as posted above) and making sure to point out how HER WAY is different and how THEIR WAY has error. Not errors in hard data, but just in her way of thinking (the belief structure again)!

I already pointed out by analogy why I am thinking this way.

I mean, as Rush (the band, not the fat asshole) said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice,” so why can’t the lack of a religion to some people become an all-encompassing belief system of its own?

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, 3 minutes and 11 seconds.
3193 cigarettes not smoked, saving $399.18.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 5 minutes.

13

Obviously Satan, you have never been to the Bay Area.

:slight_smile:

I suppose our experiences always affect our descisions and judgements. For me and in the BA

**
That example is not rare. I have gotten into arguments with vegans before, with religious freaks, with all sorts of people. I also know many other people who have. Some of them are fanatical in their beliefs. Are they religous? NO. Why? Because their beliefs are not based on faith. I think that’s the main difference. As long as something is not based on faith you can’t call it religous.
A fundamentalist is defined as a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
I’ve met all sorts of fundamentalist vegans or radical vegans or extreme vegans or fanatical vegans.
I’ve never met a religous vegan(barring those christian ones)

14

Well then, maybe people are guilty of having things become religions to them, eh?

Or maybe this is nothing to be guilty about and it’s just human nature?

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, 15 minutes and 2 seconds.
3193 cigarettes not smoked, saving $399.22.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 5 minutes.

15

I still can’t see people having things become religions to them. With a few possible exceptions. There is nothing faith based about being a vegan. There is nothing faith based abou being an atheist. Some communists could be accused of turning their beliefs into a religion based on the faith argument, (they had faith that contrary to all news that China is a workers paradise, etc. etc.) but it’s still a stretch.

16

Satan, what would an atheist point to as proof of their belief, or lack of belief?

17

From the handy and always trustworthy AOL dictionary.

Religion: 1.) The service or worship of a God or the Supernatural

2.) A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices

3.) A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

I skipped a couple that seemed similar to the above three. Although atheism by the standards of #1 would not be considered a religion, it arguably could be by the standards of #2 and DEFINATELY could be by #3. Personally, I do indeed atheism can be a religion when approached with zeal, ardor, perhaps closed-mindedness, rationalization, and even “witnessing.”

I made a reference to atheists witnessing in one post, and DavidB challenged me to provide an example, saying no one had ever seen such a thing. I think perhaps a few other posters here feel the same way as I (I did provide an example).

I think DavidB and Guadere might be singled out simply because they are moderators, and I would hope this thread does not make them feel attacked. In defense of Guadere, when I had a brief exchange with her about deism, she did not seem to attack it, but then again deism has so few “faith” based beliefs that there may be little to attack on scientific grounds.

18

But, although atheists may possess ardor, they still lack faith. They do not have faith in the religious sense. They do not believe in God, but they don’t have faith in a set of beliefs. If proof of God were provided and people continued being atheists. Then they could be called religous. Then they would be possesing faith that God did not exist in spite of the evidence.

19

Dang! Sorry 'bout that. I’ll have to try harder next time. :wink: Anyhow, while I argued against FoG on logical grounds, I never made an argument on scientific grounds, I believe. Certainly I did not try to convince FoG that he was wrong since the Flood never happened. Deism has precious few logical objections that one can make about it, particularly since you do not have faith in a good or all-powerful God.

20

Guadere:

quote:


:D  I haven't a doubt in the world!

OldScratch:
quote:

~~~But, although atheists may possess ardor, they still lack faith

I beg to differ. I have seen many atheists who profess a great deal of faith that there is no god. given that the question of "Is there a God" is not falsifyable or answerable by scientific means, if you profess to have a strong opinion in either direction, it must be an opinion based upon faith. I believe that it would be fair to say that an agnostic has no faith in their position, but not an atheist per se.