Is Atheism a religion?

[Swordslinger]

Let me see if I get this right. Atheists beleive that there is no God. So if people believe in something isn't that a belief system, and isn't a beleif system in and of itself a regilion? :unsure:

So in America Atheists are trying to impose their regilion as a state religion on the rest of us? And if this is so isn't this again a case of the minority trying to control the majority? And aren't atheists breaking the law they say that we break all the time? Maybe my logic is a bit off here, but that is the way I see it. :)

Ps. 33:12

[Dorkface]

hmm... thats an interesting idea. never thought of it that way lol.

[TPW]

Swordslinger.....see if this helps. If you want, there are plenty of links to read.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/at...smreligion.html (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by TPW@Jan 23 2005, 01:44 AM
Swordslinger.....see if this helps. If you want, there are plenty of links to read.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/at...smreligion.html (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)
One paragraph was plenty. :)

Thank you, for posting it though, its was very insightfull. :)

[TPW]

My pleasure.. B)

[tri70]

Is this the old Russia government POV on religion?

-tri :usa:

[Tunug]

Originally posted by TPW@Jan 22 2005, 08:44 PM
Swordslinger.....see if this helps. If you want, there are plenty of links to read.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/at...smreligion.html (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html)
This article states that:

"Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist."

This seems logical to me... except that dictionaries define atheists as those who believe there is no God and define agnostics as those who do not know if there is a God (I read this two days ago from a dictionary that is older than the New Webster's, and I can get the name of it tomorrow). This article's definition of an atheist is more along the lines of dictionary definitions of agnostics. So now the argument is reduced to semantics.

But, just to be clear, lets consult New Webster's dictionary of the english language:

agnostic - n. a person who thinks that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God.

atheist - n. one who denies the existence of God.

Can anyone prove there is no God? Must one believe there is no God to deny His existence? If one can not prove that God does not exist, does it require an act of faith to believe He does not exist?

If an agnostic does not believe there is a God because he does not know, then he is an unbeliever. If one believes there is no God but can not prove there is no God, then he is an atheist and must act on faith to believe there is no God.

agnostic = unbeliever, simply does not know.
atheist = one who by, an act of faith, believes there is no God and denies His existence.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe there is an atheist who can prove there is no God, and therefore does not require an act of faith to believe there is no God, therefore denying Him. And, if so, could he please speak up! :o

[darjeeling]

Originally posted by Tunug@Jan 22 2005, 07:10 PM
Maybe I am wrong, maybe there is an atheist who can prove there is no God, and therefore does not require an act of faith to believe there is no God, therefore denying Him. And, if so, could he please speak up! :o
It requires just as much faith to beleive God cannot exist as it does to say that he does exist. There is no evidence that God does or doesn't exist. With that said, Agnosticism is the only logical choice. The other two choices require a leap of faith that I don't have in me (at least not yet).

:Edit:

Because of the faith requred to be a true athiest, it would be a religion to me. There is an established dogma, and a faith requirement, so there is a religion to it.

[Tunug]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 22 2005, 10:29 PM
It requires just as much faith to beleive God cannot exist as it does to say that he does exist. There is no evidence that God does or doesn't exist. With that said, Agnosticism is the only logical choice. The other two choices require a leap of faith that I don't have in me (at least not yet).

Actually, there is evidence!! Most of it surrounds us every day, but life can make it difficult to see.

There is more proof as well as logical answers to a few other big questions. It is here in a topic I just posted regarding THE PROOF!

http://www.perfectunion.com/forums/index.p...showtopic=13620 (http://www.perfectunion.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13620)

Because of the faith requred to be a true athiest, it would be a religion to me. There is an established dogma, and a faith requirement, so there is a religion to it.

I agree!

[kravman4]

I heard this on Dennis Prager's (spelling?) radio show the other day. Let me know what you think!

(Speaking in reference to the defense of Christianity)

Christians have to explain why there is suffering in this world. Atheists have to explain everything else.



p.s. I wrote this going off memory, so a few words may be off, but that's the general idea.

[darjeeling]

The evidence that is seen of god would not even convince a biologist or a philosopher (The two most lax of proof seeking scientists). All I can say is each piece of evidence can be used either way.

[Tunug]

Originally posted by kravman4@Jan 22 2005, 11:34 PM
I heard this on Dennis Prager's (spelling?) radio show the other day. Let me know what you think!

(Speaking in reference to the defense of Christianity)

Christians have to explain why there is suffering in this world. Atheists have to explain everything else.

I like it! That is the reality of it summed up I think. Atheists will say "there must be no God because the world suffers so" all the while ignoring the empirical proof that surrounds us all -- His creation. To explain away God, one must really explain away all creation!

Great post, Tri! I'm gonna use that quote.

[swill269]

:o
as all of you can see; opinions are like, you know what and everybody has one. :eek:

i am NOT against or denouncing anyone's "belief"; i just dislike the conditions of the ones hell bent on "converting/saving" the "nonbelievers". :ph34r:

with that said over and over; i am over and out on this issue. ;) preach to each other all you wish, i have turned my attentions to more useful and rewarding subjects. :beer:

rave on! (without me) :D
steve

[darjeeling]

Amen Swill!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Tunug]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 22 2005, 11:37 PM
The evidence that is seen of god would not even convince a biologist or a philosopher (The two most lax of proof seeking scientists).
Well.... an atheist biologist or philosopher, that is.

All I can say is each piece of evidence can be used either way.

Kinda like... is the glass half full or half empty?

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by swill269@Jan 23 2005, 07:41 PM
i just dislike the conditions of the ones hell bent on "converting/saving" the "nonbelievers".


I dont believe in that at all. If you recall, I offered to talk to you once. Then, when you refused, I took my proverbial shoes off and tapped them together. Knowing my "devious" and smartas$ fleshly nature, I probably spelled out , "clip clop" on the keyboard and moved on. :lol: I do hope you dont think that all my ramblings are directed at converting you or others like you. I dont believe in that at all, and I can see where that would get anoying. The Bible dosnt teach us to do that, any more than it teaches the converting of one at the point of the sword, as has been done by Christians, jews, and islamist.

Now I will stand firm in the faith, being, "ready in season and out of season" to defend the faith( and I am not a Christian apologist ) against attacks, that quite frankly are designed discourage those that are on the fence, as well as those within our ranks. In fact, Christ taught that when that is done, "they become two folds more a son of hell,..." than those that converted them.


Your right, everbody has one, and most of them stink. :lol:

[darjeeling]

Originally posted by Tunug+Jan 23 2005, 11:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tunug @ Jan 23 2005, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-darjeeling@Jan 22 2005, 11:37 PM
The evidence that is seen of god would not even convince a biologist or a philosopher (The two most lax of proof seeking scientists).
Well.... an atheist biologist or philosopher, that is.

All I can say is each piece of evidence can be used either way.

Kinda like... is the glass half full or half empty? [/b][/quote]
All I'm saying here is the merit of the evidence will not convince any scientest (or for that matter, will not spark true beleif). That doesn't mean that they wouldn't beleive. The evidence is pretty much ambigious. It comes down to what direction you can make your leap of faith. The most impressive thing about religious faith is that one can beleive whole-heartedly in something without having any or much evidence to support it. This is why faith is hard thing to have and must be tested frequently to remain strong. If there was good evidence that suggested that our Christian God existed, they wouldn't call it faith but accepting facts. Food for thought.

That may be a good analogy on half empty/full. In many ways, I think it would be much harder to beleive in athiesm because of the depressing nature of the faith. Thats just my opinion.

[tinman]

Im going way out on a limb here. This is an opinion only. Atheism is not a relegion as described by Websters dictionary" A belief in a supernatural power which governs the universe". However this does not mean that atheists do not serve some sort of god. I believe that everyone has some sort of god that they serve and this is a relegion to themselves. It needs to be made clear that the phrase "I believe in God" is used loosely and is meaningless unless there is servatude involved. The devil believes in God, he knows him better than we do. A more exact question to ask would be "whom do you serve?" A true christian serves the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the great I AM. Atheists,agnostics and wanna-be christians are of service to something else and are a relegion unto themselves. Their god or idol could be anything from themselves, their job, knowledge, material items to great things of a charitable nature. All of this being good but should not prioritize over God.

[darjeeling]

Websters is famous for its not quite right definitions. If you define religion as that, it is the same as theism, witch it should not be.

[papaone]

Sounds like the non-believers are not very smart. Even a light study of "information theory" blows their pseudo-intellectual ideas out of the water. No proof of a creator? Wow! Intelligent design came from the random assembly of time + chance? I do not have the faith to be an atheist. People do not believe in God because they do not want to believe in God. Theism has never been an intellectual issue.

[darjeeling]

Originally posted by papaone@Feb 4 2005, 05:38 PM
Sounds like the non-believers are not very smart. Even a light study of "information theory" blows their pseudo-intellectual ideas out of the water. No proof of a creator? Wow! Intelligent design came from the random assembly of time + chance? I do not have the faith to be an atheist. People do not believe in God because they do not want to believe in God. Theism has never been an intellectual issue.

One thing everyone must realize about God and religion is if it could be proved or even demonstrated to exist through empirical evidence (and concequently, disprooved) it is no longer religion, and faith no longer matters! This is the most important charecteristic to define religion--they can neither be proved or disproved, or even have evidence either way found on the issue. If intellegent design was anything more than...

1.) a group of either skeptical Christians trying to buttress wavering faith with 'proof', or
2.) Christians so convinced of the truth of Gods existence that they try to
assemble a proof for all those who cannot see his glory

Christianity, or at least beleif in god, would be requisite to be even capable of following logic. Once your faith in God is no longer rooted soley in your beleif in that which is unsupportable by terrestrial evidence, you have lost all faith in God.

Faith is a non trivial issue. How much strength does it take get true faith? This strength is far beyond the means of the ordinary man. Christianity was never meant to be easy even to beleive in whole heartedly, let alone practice. A religion based on the strength of charecter, morals and spirit of a man so exelplary as Jesus Christ could not be easy to practice. Go ahead, re-read the Bible, and nothing will tell you otherwise. Faith may not be the most important issue to being a Christian, but it is one of the most important and absolutely required as well. When faith in Christianity is based upon anything other than strength of will and moral certitude (more specificly, if it is based on any 'evidence'), faith is nonexistant.

Don't get me wrong. Faith is one of the hardest things for men to strive for. But when you insult the intellegence of atheists for not seeing the 'clearcut' evidence prooving or at least supporting the existance of the Christian God, you are unwittingly throwing away a vital part of Christianity, and in many ways, the whole religion. Without faith, there can be no religion and concequently no Christianity or Atheism. It is absurd and rediculous to throw away the grace you were granted through faith to reproach those you disagree with. Not only is the reproach unprincipled and unchristian, but its fully unproductive and detrimental to your own salvation. Be a better Christian. Think deeply on faith, its difficulty, and how the Atheist requres just as much as the Christian, and you will be greatly humbled. I know I was.

Remember that Christianity is agnostic in the original sence, in its abhorrence of gnosticism. One mans revelation can not create faith or support faith for anyone but the lucky recipiant of said revelation. Said otherwise, the 'evidence' given by revelation is just one of the many paths to faith and not truly evidence, and not requred for faith.

(sorry for the stern reproach, but that is the DUTY of a christian-- to reproach those as they stray from faith. I'd like to think of myself as a christian, but unfortunately, I don't come close to measuring up)

[YourLocalNerd]

Well said darjeeling ;)

[swill269]

:o
darjeeling,

please take the time to brew yourself a well earned pot of tea. savor the delightful, refreshing, stimulating, eloquent character of your favorite tea as i have your statements. :beer:

i have been defending my beliefs since 1961 against the rath of the ever vigilant christian sales people. you make me proud of our plight to deny and defy this zealous christian mission of conversion. the holier than thou attitude/behavior of the closed minded zealot is personally offensive. :ph34r:

however, we must recognize the fact there is a HUGE christian push/revival in the US at this time. our republican party has endorsed/embraced christianity and we are in for hell fire and brimstone. :beer: the christian majority is going to dominate for awhile, be prepared. it will also be more prevalent in our government. :eek: save some energy for the long haul. :blink:

IF i was christian i would have to close with "god bless you". ;) :lol: :beer:
:cool:

[darjeeling]

Originally posted by swill269@Feb 5 2005, 08:41 AM
:o
darjeeling,

please take the time to brew yourself a well earned pot of tea. savor the delightful, refreshing, stimulating, eloquent character of your favorite tea as i have your statements. :beer:

i have been defending my beliefs since 1961 against the rath of the ever vigilant christian sales people. you make me proud of our plight to deny and defy this zealous christian mission of conversion. the holier than thou attitude/behavior of the closed minded zealot is personally offensive. :ph34r:
The saddest part of this isn't that the evangelists will bug those who don't fit with their proscribed religion. Its that these evangelists, who consider faith their greatest weapon and asset, are unwittingly throwing this away and quite shockingly, probably the largest and most important part of their lives just to convince (read: bludgeon with rhetoric and dogma) the unbeleivers. And they go on, the unwitting apostates of their all important Religion, slowly changing the community to their perceptions of how a 'Great Christian State' should be. And the insegators of this change have fallen into what those more religious than me would call one of satans insidious traps-- they have given up three of the most important aspects of christianity(If you haven't guessed yet, they are Faith, Tolerance, and Respect) in order to advance Christian Dogma, easily the least important part of the Religion. Put bluntly, they are sinning egregiously in their attempts to glorify and sell god. They insult Gim by demeaning His magniminity and the respect that he gave mortals to come to either path of their own judgement only to sell a watered down version to nonbeleivers. Even though I can't come to terms with the existence of God, their casual and egregious sins in their selling of God offends me. Its like trying to sell cars by deficating on them.

And these progenitiors of their faith through their exuberance of and fervor have commited one of the easiest (and gravest) errors any religious man can commit. They have confused the sparkle for the light, the wine and crackers for Christ. Put more bluntly, they have neglected to follow one of the greatest pieces of Christian advice, to examine and contemplate on your faith and conduct of christianity with a removed and sober reflection. The reason Christianity in its true form is a great religion and Islam is not is this integral duty of sober self reflection REQUIRED of all Christians. Christians were blessed with the latitude to try and judge their own rigteousness with as much foresight and cognitive power as can be mustered by mere mortals. Unfortunately, those who cling to Christs banner forget this, and forget that Christians were given the freedom to come to God on their own terms, and the duty to be respectful of each others path to reaonable limits. And they only hurt their salvation, and put up more false roadsigns to the correct path to God. Once you loose this, there is magnitudes less for Christianity to offer you.

Oh yeah, I will have that tea. ;) I still have a tin of First Flush Darjeeling From the excellent Namring Estate out of Darjeeling, India. Such beautiful taste, complex undertones, and clean aftertaste. Its a worthy tribute to the God I can't accept or deny! :lol:

[swill269]

:o
darjeeling,

i am stuck with a blend of orange pekoe and pekoe cut black tea for the moment. it is the local favorite (lipton) but i have a good imagination. ;)

Its like trying to sell cars by deficating on them. i use the analogy of "like having sex for the sake of virginity". :beer:
one of the greatest pieces of Christian advice, to examine and contemplate on your faith and conduct of christianity with a removed and sober reflection. i refered to this as "knowing who you are" and "to thine ownself be true" and was accused of self worship, may be. i do have more faith in myself than most of the people i know. :(

may your personally favored team be victorious in tomorrow's gala bowl event. :beer:
steve
:cool:

[darjeeling]

Steve: If you ever get a chance to get some 1st flush darjeeling, pounce on it! There is no such thing as a bad first flush. Unfortunately, its around 100 bucks a pound in bulk (normal darjeeling is around 25, ceylon, earl grey and other mass market teas are around 10-25), and about 20$ per quarter pound in store-bought tins. Its worth every penny though. Check out Peets.com if you are really interested in other excellent teas--they sell some very good loose tea if it is expensive. Peets is one of the things that makes the bay area thouroughly liveable, and even enjoyable.

(PS, first flush tea of any type, even more so for darjeeling, is only available for a month every year at most locations, and is hard to find even on the internet. Good luck, and happy sipping :beer: )

[swill269]

:o
darjeeling,
thanks for the tip. i have a large family owned health store around the corner which might be able to help.

i have no problem spending $45 per lbs on blue mountain jamacian coffee. i will be searching for the darjeeling 1st flush. :eek: we also have a few international farmer's markets too. :usa:
:cool:

P.S. my doctor is K. N. Krishnamoorthy, his family goes home each year to visit. he is more friend than doctor; so i have a good inside chance. :rolleyes:

[darjeeling]

Well, tell me what you get. Tea is one of the few things in life I can enjoy vicariously :D . If you'll excuse me, I've got a date with a pot of Golden Monkey.

Cheers.

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Feb 6 2005, 03:29 AM
Well, tell me what you get. Tea is one of the few things in life I can enjoy vicariously :D . If you'll excuse me, I've got a date with a pot of Golden Monkey.

Cheers.
My wife loves that stuff. Earl Grey is one of her favorites. She always gets strange looks at resteraunts when she ask for cream with her tea. She spent much of her childhood in England, where she learned thier way of drinkin tea.

[darjeeling]

Looks like your wife's got some good taste! What really bothers me is when people put cream in teas which won't 'take' it. Tea with cream is good in cold winters and rainy springs. I prefer teas which are meant to be drunk 'straight up', but thats just me.

[DocWagon]

From dictionary.com:
re·li·gion P Pronunciation Key (r -l j n)
n.
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.
From Webster.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
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

By very definition, atheism is not a religion. Actually, monotheism and polytheism aren’t religions either, as I’ll explain in a second they are characteristics of certain religions. First let’s answer the original question as to if atheism is a religion.

There is obviously no belief in, reverence of, devotion to, or worship of a supernatural entity. No associated religious order. No particular mandates of behavior or practices. There is no principal or cause created or observed just because of atheism (or monotheism, for that matter, as again that is an aspect of various religions, not a religion in and of itself.)

So, just being an atheist does not make you a part of a religion. It does not exclude you from having a religion either.

I would cite UFO cultists as an interesting example of a modern atheistic religion. These fascinating individuals believe more-or-less that we humans are something of a lab experiment by a much more advanced race. As such, they deny involvement of a deity, substituting the advanced-but-not-supernatural aliens. It is a religion however, as there is an institutionalized set of beliefs and practices. You have to do such-and-such to be taken to the home planet kind of stuff, etc.

The prime error in the logic of assuming atheism, monotheism, or polytheism to be a religion is to assume that mere belief in something constitutes a religion. A belief is just that, a belief, regardless if based on faith or fact. I’ve never seen Finland. I’ve never seen proof that Finland exists, just it’s picture on maps. Does my belief in Finland constitute a religion? If so, the definition of religion is so broad as to make it useless. After all, you probably don’t believe your toaster disappears when no one is in the kitchen, but your disbelief in disappearing toasters is unlikely to be considered a religion, is it?

[darjeeling]

Thanks for that post DocWagon, That's very true. I was so busy arguing that a religion could be atheistic that I missed the question here.

[Santafeur]

i know this is going to grate a few nerves, but i'm going to say it anyway since i have nothing to lose in saying it.

1) there is no need for a 'god' for us to exist. it simply doesn't work that way. we exist because of the big bang or a similar event: we exist because certain particles of stardust matter came together in certain ways and became what we know as 'living' matter: it refined itself through competition with itself, grew, and evolved, and we're just a spec on that evolution trying to give praise to something thats not there instead of looking forward to the next evolution. and the argument that god's creation is more glamorous isn't true, because the alternative to what we've observed through science- being created from random particles of stardust- is an invisible man breathing on mud.

2) athiesm isn't a religion in any sense: religions have gods, observe holidays, have saints and patrons, and require worship from their masses. athiesm barely does one of those, and even then, thats in a perverse sense: they have 'saints', in the form of great thinkers and researchers who further their cause: knowledge.

3) if you'd like to speak objectively, many of you are christian for the same reason many middle-easterners are muslim: because a bunch of holy assholes came to your ancestors lands and killed off the people they couldn't convert (witch burnings, anyone?). then they used religion as a control mechanism to bind the people together and achieve what humanity calls its great works: the european cathedrals are a perfect example of this, as are the egyptian pyramids, the aztec and middle american temples, the giant buddhas in the himalyas, the incredible temples in india, even the cave pantings of lasco (sp?) France and australia were probably religiously motivated. thats the one benefit of religion: it binds the people together to follow the will of their spiritual leaders AS WELL AS their political ones: and even the bible says that no servant can have two masters (in romans, i believe), so at least SOME of the time the church gets the mass devotion it wants.

i admit christianity has a certain appeal to it: i'd love to be able to honestly believe there was a special place *just for me* next to some really happy powerful guy that it would be good to share a brew and a tale with (even though he'd probably be doing most of the talking). but i can't bring myself to believe that its true, and i'd rather have the truth than some fantasy story that won't happen, no matter how much ass i kiss. call it the family flaw (despite most of my family being christian).

[Tunug]

well, since you are here to tell us how stupid we are.... good luck to you in the end!

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by Santafeur@Feb 28 2005, 10:48 AM
but i can't bring myself to believe that its true, and i'd rather have the truth than some fantasy story that won't happen, no matter how much ass i kiss. call it the family flaw (despite most of my family being christian).
Oh no....you got me all wrong! I agree with you!! Im pretty sure it wont happen for you either. In fact, with that line of thinking, I know it wont. You were talking about "ancestors", is it possible that you might come from a line that are bent on being enemies of Christ? You know, there are such a people. ;) The same folks that He said that He didnt want to hear, lest they repent and be forgiven. Kinda sounds like He didnt want any part of them either, just like you dont want any part of Him. Thats fine, I do agree with you on that!!! Carry on, give us some more of your "infinite" wisdom, we can hardly wait.


Mark 4:12 "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

[IVM]

The prime error in the logic of assuming atheism, monotheism, or polytheism to be a religion is to assume that mere belief in something constitutes a religion. A belief is just that, a belief, regardless if based on faith or fact. I’ve never seen Finland. I’ve never seen proof that Finland exists, just it’s picture on maps. Does my belief in Finland constitute a religion? If so, the definition of religion is so broad as to make it useless. After all, you probably don’t believe your toaster disappears when no one is in the kitchen, but your disbelief in disappearing toasters is unlikely to be considered a religion, is it?


Comedy gold!

I, too, am from the Toaster-Be-There religion. ;)

In case there is any kind of misconception on what he posted-

Christianity is a religion. More succinctly, Christianity is a type of Monotheism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, and thus Monotheism is the belief in one god.

Atheism describes the state of not believing in a God, or the opposite/negative of Theism. The prefix "A" is tantamount to saying "Without", thus "Atheism" means "Without belief in a God or Gods", just as Asexual means "Without characteristics relating to or defining sex" and Asymmetry means "Without symmetry". It is not a belief- it is a lack of belief or a disbelief.

[swill269]

:o
hell, i'm not atheist after all, i am satanic. i do not have a toaster in my kitchen but i believe there is one there when nobody is around. :eek: do-do-dooo-do.

i have been atheist for 44 yrs and i have never seen it more defined than in this thread. :beer:
:cool:

[Santafeur]

5 entries found for religion.
re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. 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.


Idiom:
get religion Informal

1. To become religious or devout.
2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.


I think that speaks for itself.

[Swordslinger]

Dang!!! I hate it when Im right!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Whole story here.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

[IVM]

Attorney: 'Height of Idiocy' for Court to Declare Atheism a Religion

From the GOP USA Website, no less.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/082..._religion.shtml (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/0824_atheism_religion.shtml)

The true and literal definition of atheism is that it is not a religion. The 7th circuit court of appeals are apparently filled with dunderheads who haven't bothered to look it up in a dictionary.

[Swordslinger]

Originally posted by IVM@Sep 3 2005, 11:10 PM
Attorney: 'Height of Idiocy' for Court to Declare Atheism a Religion

From the GOP USA Website, no less.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/082..._religion.shtml (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/0824_atheism_religion.shtml)

The true and literal definition of atheism is that it is not a religion. The 7th circuit court of appeals are apparently filled with dunderheads who haven't bothered to look it up in a dictionary.
Lets see if the guy who instigated the ruleing will ask that it be struck down. You know, since atheist do not like to be equated to those who are "religious". Quite frankly, I thought atheists were above that kind of nonsense. :blink:

I agree about the 7th circus, the 9th circus, and would go futher to say they are ALL unjust!!

[Tunug]

In light of all the recent observations in science today such as the cause of the big bang, the cause of the "spooky action" of quantum mechanics, the cause of the process which brought about complex life.... it takes more FAITH to be an atheist than it does to realize that there is an intelligent engineering entity (God) behind nature.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind." - Max Planck

"However concrete reality is sectioned, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself." Dallas Willard -- professor of philosophy, USC.

So, ya.... atheism is it's own religion because it's beliefs are not formed out of logical or scientific observations, but out of philosophical theory which goes AGAINST logical and scientific observations.

The atheist has a whole lot more to prove than anyone else.


Welcome back, Sword!!