Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
We don't use words, usually, with all their definitions in mind. Especially when there are several or many.
And I am saying the above as the reason the issue will keep coming up and not unfairly I think. I do agree that an atheist is not necessarily religious in the sense I am putting forward. But I do think many are.
But we are saying that. They have beliefs some of which have not been supported by scientific research. They believe these are correct and have an organization devoted to not only spreading these ideas but passionately expressing them.
I don't think it does.
I am not arguing that all atheists are religious. I am broadening the topic to some degree and I do not think your definition of religion reflects the word' use. I think this leads to furthering the gap in discussions like this one, where different meanings of the word make it seem like there is more disagreement than there is. Or, another way of looking at it is, that the fact that atheist organizations and atheists who are active in discussions critical of theists are ideological in precisely the same ways religious people are criticized by atheists is slipped off the table, when it need not be.
Etymology does not prove what a word means.
I disagree.
And again, whether they do or not, they end up in non-fiction works as practitioners of a religion.
I already pointed out that the definition of the word, as shown by dictionary definitions, is broader than belief in a diety. I have also pointed out that even atheist buddhism is referred to as a religion.
The atheist organizations do have a set of beliefs. They are organized. They get together around these beliefs. They have specific practices. And you can add in that some of these beliefs are not based on empirical research.
Last edited:
Sure, but look at....
Ethics and values cannot be evidence based. This is a delusion. You can use evidence to figure out how to apply your values and ethics. To try to work out consequences, for example. But you can base values on evidence. This is a delusion.
And to be very clear: I am NOT saying that atheists cannot be ethical. I know they can be. I am simply saying that number 4 is delusional thinking. It's not the only one.
Doreen,
Do we call Intl Care organizations religions. Do we call habitat for humanity a religion. These are overlapping ideals but to use this word as a dscription is not accurate when we look at the broader definition.
The problem isn't so much that an organization may not fit your parts of the definition but that the broader definition of religion doesn't fit the organization.
Evil atheist organization, fits for part of the definition of religion.
Full definition of religion does not fit evil atheist organization.
I just don't see how you can make that leap.
There are better words to describe them. Ones in which the full definition is not compromised.
Do we call Intl Care organizations religions. Do we call habitat for humanity a religion. These are overlapping ideals but to use this word as a dscription is not accurate when we look at the broader definition.
The problem isn't so much that an organization may not fit your parts of the definition but that the broader definition of religion doesn't fit the organization.
Evil atheist organization, fits for part of the definition of religion.
Full definition of religion does not fit evil atheist organization.
I just don't see how you can make that leap.
There are better words to describe them. Ones in which the full definition is not compromised.
I would guess that some are referred to that way. It depends, however, how much an organization is organized around philosophical positions. You do see how your example is really rather far off. Of course an international care organization will have ideals and positions, but, hopefully, there primary intention is helping people and most likely in very concrete ways. An atheist organization is primarily interesting in supporting how people see things. They are in the business of spreading and supporting specific ideas and opposing specific ideas. That is much more the business of religions.
Not sure why you are adding 'evil.'
Ideological should not even raise an eyebrow, or? Note: this clearly means they are not simply people who lack a belief. A proselytizing ideological organization.
I could rest with that as a compromise.
And in the case of the first 2 google comes up with: organizatiions with irrational beliefs: iow one's not supported by empirical research.
So proselytizing ideological organizations with irrational beliefs.
I can live without these being referred to as religious organizations, but I am sure you can see why the term comes up.
Technically being an Atheist is a religion right? I mean religion is loosely translated as a belief no? So if we (Atheists) believe there is no religion that is a belief yes? Which means that we do have a religion. Being an Atheist actually goes directly against our belief. Ironic no? Well, tell me what you think and if you think being and Atheist is really a religion.
- Isoke
Neither atheism or theism are religions.
But both thought processes form various religions.
jan.
Atheism isn't a religion. It contains no unsupported assertions that have to be taken on faith.
For legal purposes, it can be considered so in the name of religious freedom, but it is not in any way a religion.
The belief that God doesn't exist?
The belief there is no need to believe in God??
The belief that nature is all there is?
The belief that science is adequate to explain our existence?
jan.
Correct. Belief on it's own isn't faith. Faith is belief in the absense of evidence, and even in light on contrary evidence. Atheist belief is tentative and supported by evidence or lack of evidence where evidence should be evident.
Doreen,
Sure. That works, proselytizing seems to accept it in the definition.
Since you seem to want to label the atheist organizations who are pushing an agenda one in which you seem to feel is a negative, correct me if I am wrong here. But to you, what is wrong with the word religion.
IOW why be intent on labeling secular organizations with the word religion ?
Do you feel the word has a negative connotation ?
Which is why I used the word evil. You seem to think that these organizations are out to do no good.
How about: Evil Proselytizing Ideological Organization with Irrational Beliefs
If they drop number 4 from the list are they no longer irrational ?
Sure. That works, proselytizing seems to accept it in the definition.
Since you seem to want to label the atheist organizations who are pushing an agenda one in which you seem to feel is a negative, correct me if I am wrong here. But to you, what is wrong with the word religion.
IOW why be intent on labeling secular organizations with the word religion ?
Do you feel the word has a negative connotation ?
Which is why I used the word evil. You seem to think that these organizations are out to do no good.
How about: Evil Proselytizing Ideological Organization with Irrational Beliefs
If they drop number 4 from the list are they no longer irrational ?
You mean " a failure to believe in something for which there is no evidence".
You mean "a failure to subscribe to something for which there is no evidence".
You mean " A failure to see to something which hasn't actually been shown to be there".
Wrong.
A hope, maybe. But the decision to trust science is one that goes for something with a proven track record, as opposed to religion's explanation which have time and time again been shown to be erroneous.
spidergoat,
What evidences do you have for my list?
jan.
What evidences do you have for my list?
jan.
Yes. But you were incorrect.
What do you mean "such as"?
Are you telling me you you're unaware of the fallacies promoted by religion? Or are you merely pretending ignorance?
Either way it's not very smart.
That the common conceptions of God are false?
1. Prayer doesn't work in rigorously designed studies.
2. Bad things happen to good people.
3. Creationism is false.
4. Religious people aren't any more good than non-religious people.
5. Religious texts are self-contradictory.
6. Religious texts show evidence of being written and rewritten by many authors, in contrast to their mythological origins.
7. No evidence for miracles.
8. No evidence that religious texts contain knowledge that could not have been known at the time they were written.
9. Religious texts promote immoral behavior.
10. The universe is not fine-tuned for life.
Just ten I could think of at the moment.
Dywyddyr,
So you don't believe any of the list?
So, spill the beans.
jan.
So you don't believe any of the list?
What do you mean "such as"?
Are you telling me you you're unaware of the fallacies promoted by religion? Or are you merely pretending ignorance?
Either way it's not very smart.
So, spill the beans.
jan.