Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[The Goon]

I'm a Catholic Jays fan.

Wait, wrong board.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What do you mean by a "literal god described by mankind"?

Good question - I did not explain myself very well. I do not believe Thor, Isis, Napi, Yahweh etc exist (other than metaphorically). All our gods were invented by us.

I feel certain about this, which is why I would claim to be gnostic to this extent.

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by troutman

Good question - I did not explain myself very well. I do not believe Thor, Isis, Napi, Yahweh etc exist (other than metaphorically). All our gods were invented by us.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/member.php?u=4446

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Zee

Atheism is not a religion... however a large number (not all) of highly vocal atheists are more evangelical and push their beliefs down other people throats far more than other religions do, and believe themselves to be more enlightened than those that believe in any religion.

The behavior may be that of religious zealots, even though they are not members of a religion per-se.

How many times do you get approached by pamphlet waving atheists on your university campus, or downtown city streets? How many times do you hear atheists screaming at the tops of their lungs in the middle of crowded subways about the power of their non-God? Do you get many atheists coming to your door handing out booklets and asking to come inside and chat for a bit? Hear of many atheist missionaries travelling to 3rd-world countries to give out aid, so long as the starving population's children will sit and listen to their lectures on the non-existence of God? Are there any TV shows out there with atheists filling a warehouse and inducing people to walk again with the sole purpose of demonstrating the power of their no-God to the masses (and if there is, please let me know, because I'd like to watch it!)?

Until then, no, I don't think highly-vocal atheists evangelize at near the capacity of the evangelical religious. Not even close.

[Zee]

Atheism is not organized to do many of the things you mention yet, but it's getting there.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I know next to nothing about Buddhism (and it would be great if someone who did could step in and correct me), but as I understand it, Buddhists do generally believe in an unseeable, supernatural order to the world. In my view, although there may not be a personal God or Gods, that likely would be sufficient to characterize Buddhism or Taoism as a religion. Confucianism is more difficult to characterize (in my very unsophisticated opinion.)

Buddhism does not exclude the idea/possibility of the existence of gods, but believing in them is not necessary though depending on the various forms of Buddhism there may or may not be a greater degree of belief (also influenced by each individuals culture they grew up in) ie. Zen/Chan Buddhism vs Tibetan ###rayana.

In my opinion calling Confucianism a religion is like calling someone teaching you Manners a religion.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yes, the best you can do is say that I am certain which is second hand but if I could say, show you what I experience than you would also know and thus be a gnostic theist. I dislike these labels though as they are something made up by our minds and is not the way I understand this god, energy, etc. or as the Jews say about the name of YHWH, the unspeakable, and yes the debate is impossible which may make some uneasy but I don't want to do that. What I practise is very peaceful.

Fair enough, although I reject the idea that debate is impossible; people can choose not to accept the terms of debate. I think it's safe to say that the graph was made by agnostics, as it'll always make perfect sense to an agnostic who refuses to address questions of right or wrong in this regard. It tries to be impartial, but it asks others to leave behind questions of right or wrong when looking at the graph.
It wouldn't satisfy gnostics from either side who see the positions as knowledge, true belief, false belief, and false certainty. For such a person, impartiality would be pointless because they feel their position of knowledge is superior to all other positions. I'd expect that as an agnostic atheist, I'd be described as having a true belief by a gnostic atheist, and as having a false belief by a gnostic theist.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Zee

Atheism is not organized to do many of the things you mention yet, but it's getting there.

That's how you back up your last post? That's incredibly Weak.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Zee

Atheism is not organized to do many of the things you mention yet, but it's getting there.

You consider a sign on the side of a bus to be the same behaviour as that of a "religious zealot"? You consider it to be shoving atheism down your throat "far more" than what the religious do? You consider the small group responsible for those bus signs the equivalent of the legions of Jehova's Witnesses that go door-to-door 365 days a year, then? I don't know what to say about that other than, no, I don't agree with you at all.

I do find it all kind of humourous, though. The religious do this kind of evangelizing for over 1000 years. They travel to foreign countries, force others to convert to their religion, distribute aid in exchange for listening to lectures about God, create an entire belief system where those that don't follow their religion are looked down upon as unclean and unworthy of a decent life after death, create vast, richly-sponsored outreach programs, television shows, radio programs, a music genre, rallies and marches, yadda yadda yadda. Then, some atheists come along and put some signs on the sides of some buses and all of the sudden atheists are militant, arrogant, high-horse riding, critical individuals that are forcing their beliefs down the throats of others. Funny how that is.

Whether or not atheists are suddenly more evangelical than evangelicals (they aren't), I do believe they should begin to be, in some areas. If the religious want to claim absolute knowledge on subjects as important and wide-ranging as the meaning of life, morality, and the existence of the world as we know it, why shouldn't people call them out on it and demand some type of explanation? If they can't provide any sort of logical, empirical evidence for their beliefs that supposedly apply to everyone on Earth, then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be looked upon as the willfully ignorant creatures that they are. Just like we would for anyone else. Being called "religious" doesn't entitle one to some sort of protective barrier against criticism.

And, if they then want to point fingers at atheists and complain about how they are shoving their beliefs down their throats, well, really, cry me a freakin' river.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I do find it all kind of humourous, though. The religious do this kind of evangelizing for over 1000 years. They travel to foreign countries, force others to convert to their religion, distribute aid in exchange for listening to lectures about God, create an entire belief system where those that don't follow their religion are looked down upon as unclean and unworthy of a decent life after death, create vast, richly-sponsored outreach programs, television shows, radio programs, a music genre, rallies and marches, yadda yadda yadda. Then, some atheists come along and put some signs on the sides of some buses and all of the sudden atheists are militant, arrogant, high-horse riding, critical individuals that are forcing their beliefs down the throats of others. Funny how that is.

I would like to point out that nearly 100% of the above is due to Monotheists only.

[Muta]

As George Carlin once said, 'more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason'.

If I don't believe in God, my tendency to become violent and kill decreases. Sounds good to me!

[MarchHare]

vocal atheists are more evangelical and push their beliefs down other people throats far more than other religions do

I can't decide which response is more appropriate to this comment. I'm debating between:

1) [Citation Needed]
2) Ridiculous statement is ridiculous.

Your thoughts, fellow CP posters?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Mike F

That's not entirely fair, IMO, or at least, in my experience, not really an accurate representation of what many / most people who identify themselves as "Atheists" mean.

In my experience, when a person says "I'm an Atheist" they mean that they hold an active belief that there is no God / deity / supernatural being in the universe. To the extent that accurately describes a person's beliefs, they're holding an ultimately faith based belief system. Anyone who has read much on quantum physics and theoretical cosmology knows that the fundamental underlying reality of the universe remains outside our understanding at this time, and certainly outside our common logic and intuition.

Things like Brane theory, the holographic universe theory, and the possibility that we exist in a bubble universe have led me to conclude that, while I believe there is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of the Gods of the bible, I can't say there is sufficient evidence to conclusively determine that there isn't room in the extended universe for something that would justly be described as a deity. I don't believe in it, but I don't disbelieve it.

So you're saying we can't discount the possibility that in the extended universe somewhere there are dragons?

Or Santa!

So you don't believe in them, but also don't disbelieve in them!

That's awesome. And very convenient.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I believe what he's saying is that the notion of a 'god' as comprehended by ancient cultures is something he vehemently does not believe in...

Troutman's explanation basically means what I suspected him to mean: that he rejects the notion of a "personal" god. However, this post of your has brought to my attention another issue in this whole discussion: the precise definition of "god" is becoming more and more fluid to the point that it becomes unintelligible to speak of it/him in a fairly general context. I seriously doubt that there is a single person in the Western world who does believe in "'god' as comprehended in ancient cultures," and this is in the same sense that no one in the developed world comprehends the cosmos, climate, or the mind in even remotely similar terms as in the ancient world.

I think that this explanation renders the whole question practically meaningless, since among theists the idea of "god" has experienced substantial development.

[MarchHare]

In my experience, when a person says "I'm an Atheist" they mean that they hold an active belief that there is no God / deity / supernatural being in the universe. To the extent that accurately describes a person's beliefs, they're holding an ultimately faith based belief system.

Is that just your assumption, or have you actually probed the atheists you know to more accurately interpret what they really mean when they say, "I'm an atheist"?

In my experience, most atheists don't actively deny all possibility of a supernatural entity, they just passively disbelieve that one exists given the complete lack of any empirical evidence (what the chart in the OP described as an "agnostic atheist"). Even the results of this poll currently show that posters who identify as atheists hold this view by a 3-1 margin over the positive god-deniers.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Troutman's explanation basically means what I suspected him to mean: that he rejects the notion of a "personal" god. However, this post of your has brought to my attention another issue in this whole discussion: the precise definition of "god" is becoming more and more fluid to the point that it becomes unintelligible to speak of it/him in a fairly general context. I seriously doubt that there is a single person in the Western world who does believe in "'god' as comprehended in ancient cultures," and this is in the same sense that no one in the developed world comprehends the cosmos, climate, or the mind in even remotely similar terms as in the ancient world.

I think that this explanation renders the whole question practically meaningless, since among theists the idea of "god" has experienced substantial development.

And I think that this explanation renders classic religious texts to be practically meaningless as well.

If I'm not going to believe some of it, why any of it? It's all equally as preposterous.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

So you're saying we can't discount the possibility that in the extended universe somewhere there are dragons?

Or Santa!

So you don't believe in them, but also don't disbelieve in them!

That's awesome. And very convenient.

You can comprehend dragons and Santa. You have the tools and knowledge to deem them ridiculous. Don't be arrogant enough to believe that comprehension and knowledge can be applied universally.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You can comprehend dragons and Santa. You have the tools and knowledge to deem them ridiculous. Don't be arrogant enough to believe that comprehension and knowledge can be applied universally.

Do you disbelieve in Zeus?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Lobotroth

100% certain there is a God or Gods. How?

In precisely the same way I am 100% certain there is no tooth fairy.

It's an artificial construct of man, and doesn't withstand a momentary contemplation of any reasonable, rational mind.

Is anyone going to honestly argue for the existence of the tooth fairy under the guise of "you can't disprove her because you can't know everything!"

People get really hung up on the term "god". Substitute any other fantasy creature and the argument gets really simple in my opinion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lobotroth

100% certain there is a God or Gods. How?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Mental deficiency.

What a horribly facile response. This completely ignores or fails to consider the highly complex phenomena of religious experience, and the social and psychological mechanisms that people instinctively employ to explain numinous encounters.

How are gnostic theists certain about their belief? Quite simply, it is because their own experiences with God are positively too powerful to dismiss. It is not an exaggeration for me to state that most of the people in my life speak to and hear from God on a nearly daily basis. My mother-in-law perceives the presence of angels, and exorcises demons. You go ahead and try to convince one of them that their experiences are impossible, or that they are somehow delusional. This is not to say that they are right about what they believe, but the strength of their convictions is absolutely legitimate.