• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism is just another religion

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
retrorich said:
You have perfected the art of making simple things complicated. Atheism, by definition, means without theism (i.e., without belief in God, gods and goddesses) Therefore, atheism is not a religion. :)
Rich & I are simple kind of guys, I guess.:p Atheism is a religion to some people, and it is not a religion to others. Is it really that big a deal??? I think not.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
One thing all or almost all religions have are rituals. Rituals are so ubiquitous to religions that they can be considered one of the defining characteristics of religion. So, taking that into account, where are the rituals practiced by atheists? Are there any? And if not, can atheism possibly be considered a religion?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Sunstone said:
One thing all or almost all religions have are rituals. Rituals are so ubiquitous to religions that they can be considered one of the defining characteristics of religion. So, taking that into account, where are the rituals practiced by atheists? Are there any? And if not, can atheism possibly be considered a religion?
Would consistantly attempting to debunk theist be considered a "ritual"? :D

~Victor
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
CaptainXeroid said:
Is it really that big a deal??? I think not.
For some theists, apparently yes, much as some theists feel compelled to insist that evolution is a religion - as if to say: "You're no better than we are!" When you think about it, it's a rather sad retort.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Jayhawker Soule said:
For some theists, apparently yes, much as some theists feel compelled to insist that evolution is a religion - as if to say: "You're no better than we are!" When you think about it, it's a rather sad retort.
At least you said "some". Thanks.

~Victor
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Victor said:
How lovely. I suppose regular sports aren't your style.

~Victor
True - I turn 60 tomorrow and pretty much limit myself to wrestling with grandkids and superstition. If truth be known, I did attempt some soccer with my 2.5 year old a while back but, alas, I lost miserably - and no one seemed to care that he cheated. :(
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Merlin said:
You are on a religious forum, discussing religions. Why bother if non exist?

Leave us to our (in your eyes) delusions!

M
My personal problem with this statement, is that deluded religious people will not be left alone. They are constantly pushing their beliefs on others, to the point that for the most fervent among them, they will kill you if you don't beleive in their god.

Or in the case of some (Sunni's v. Shi'a, Catholic v. Protestant in N. Ireland) they will kill you even in you agree on the god, but not on the way to worship him.

I can't speak for all non-beleivers (a term I prefer to athiesm, as it is more accurate), but I personally look at all the murders, mutilations and atrocities done over the centuries done in the name of religion, and have long ago come to the conclusion that religion is the most evil, vile thing to ever be a blight on humankind.

The fact that people use religion for evil purpose, and few can argue this does not/has not happened, is reason enough for a non-beleiver to speak out for their lack of a beleif in a particular god.

I personally am not an athiest. I can't say with absolute certainty that no god exists. I can't say that hundreds of them don't exist. That being said, I can't say that bigfoot and the lock ness monster don't exist, either, but I can say I am skeptical about all of it.

B.
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Okay, party time is over.

The argument upon which the OP is based depends entirely upon a tactical redefinition of the word "religion." Though it is generally my opinion that dictionary definitions function purely as a handy standard and that differing word usage should be allowed if all participants in a discussion agree upon it, the fact that this redefinition has been used as an attempt to put theistic belief on equal footing with atheism, a clear effort to redestribute the burden of proof, as a tactical position from which to reassert Pascal's Wager, this is apparently an effort to portray atheism as a less logical conclusion to reach in regard to the question as to whether God exists. This sort of dishonesty is not uncommon, but it should, under no circumstances, be condoned.

Firstly, we're not going to play the redefinition game anymore. We're going to return to the standard definition because the redefinition present in the OP clearly has the mendacious intention of shifting the goalposts.

re·li·gion
n.
    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.
  1. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
  2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Claiming that atheism is any of these is an outright lie. Atheists may have a wide variety of beliefs in regard to the origin and nature of the universe, and an absence of theistic belief is not inherently based upon the teachings of any sort of religious leader or writings. Atheists are not necessarily associated with any institution whatsoever, and one is not required to be zealously devoted to atheism in order to be called an atheist.





That nonsense aside, let's move on to tear apart the later claim that atheism requires as great a leap of faith as theistic belief. This is easily the most blatant effort to shift the burden of proof that I have ever seen. Unless atheists inherently insist upon some alternative, they have license to deny the existence of God or gods unless and until uncontrovertible proof of such things has been presented and given rational backing. The burden of proof, believer, is entirely on you.

Pascal's Wager is a classical and classically faulty argument in favor of choosing theistic belief, nevermind that no theist with any moral fiber whatsoever really bases hir beliefs upon it. I'm absolutely not going to rehash this old piece of nonsense here, but there is a very thorough discussion of it at the following links: http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html

Also, my favorite answer to Pascal's Wager is that there may actually be a god that only punishes those who believe in false gods and shows mercy toward those who choose not to believe in any gods at all rather than choosing to believe in some heresy, thus making the atheist and, especially, general agnostics more likely than anyone else to recieve eternal rewards. This hypothetical god(ess) behaves as a counterweight to Pascal's Wager.

I do not condone the distortion of logic that is present in this thread. It does not promote in me a sense that those who have participated in it can be trusted to conduct themselves honestly in debate situations, and I consider such behavior quite unethical. Learn to participate in a real debate. The distortion olympics are over.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Flappycat said:
Claiming that atheism is any of these is an outright lie.
Good grief! :banghead3 Personally, I choose to ignore any argument so pretentious as to include a "Pronunciation Key".
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
By the way, I generally treat with contempt objections to an argument that are based entirely upon the manner in which it is presented.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Calling Atheism a religion is the fallacy of Equivocation.
Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Consider the following example:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
 

Faust

Active Member
I'm not as elegant in my presentation as most here, I can only provide simple statements. I would simply say that the "so? you do it too" argument is a weak argument. It doesn't come from a strong position and degrades the position of the person making it. This is not an attack, just an observation. When a religionist equates atheism to religion or argues a faith in no faith position they may be genuine in their position but should also be careful not to open themselves to attack of a weak argument.

Faust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

Pah

Uber all member
Faust said:
I'm not as elegant in my presentation as most here, I can only provide simple statements. I would simply say that the "so? you do it too" argument is a weak argument. It doesn't come from a strong position and degrades the position of the person making it. This is not an attack, just an observation. When a religionist equates atheism to religion or argues a faith in no faith position they may be genuine in their position but should also be careful not to open themselves to attack of a weak argument.

Faust.
The "so? you do it too" statement is known as the "Tu Quoque" fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html where it is explained
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
I think that this has all been a mistake. The question seems to arise from the motivation of some Atheist for even being in this forum in the first place. I think it is reasonable to ask that if you think it is all hogwash then why bother? It appears there may be some deep rooted need to justify one's own "beliefs" by going into a forum that has the title "religious" when they are not "religious". This is why atheists have been viewed as "religious" because of their furvor and vehemence. Some come in, and swoop in and take a pot shot and swoop back out again. Some come in and claw their way through a thread making false statements and being disrespectfully rude and even calling names. Others try to make our eyes glaze over with their lllooooooonnnnnngggggg threads on logic and science. What is the point?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Bennettresearch said:
I think that this has all been a mistake. The question seems to arise from the motivation of some Atheist for even being in this forum in the first place. I think it is reasonable to ask that if you think it is all hogwash then why bother? It appears there may be some deep rooted need to justify one's own "beliefs" by going into a forum that has the title "religious" when they are not "religious". This is why atheists have been viewed as "religious" because of their furvor and vehemence. Some come in, and swoop in and take a pot shot and swoop back out again. Some come in and claw their way through a thread making false statements and being disrespectfully rude and even calling names. Others try to make our eyes glaze over with their lllooooooonnnnnngggggg threads on logic and science. What is the point?
Why bother? If we don't speak, there are some Christians who will try to "carry the day" in forcing their minority brand of Christianity on the nation. We challange here the basis of a desired form of theocracy, joining with many Christians and Christian organizations who oppose the untoward influence on America.

I have no need to justify a belief protected by the Constitution.
 
Top