Why an Atheist in the R&S Forum? (Buddhist, myth, reincarnation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another notion that needs fixing is how any facts or truths can be simply dismissed as opinion, but yes of course I am expressing my opinion here. Just like everyone else, but also of course there are opinions well justified by facts and truth and then there are opinions that can't be justified in any similar manner. Yes, it is my opinion that atheism is not a religion. Anyone can argue otherwise or simply insist this is just my opinion, but is it? The fact and truth of the matter is that atheism is not a religion if/when we all agree to use the common dictionary definitions and/or understanding most reasonable people are able to distinguish in a mature, intelligent and unbiased manner.
The point of arguing otherwise is as also explained before by other people in this thread as well. The effort is to suggest that atheism is similar if not equal to religion in all the ways that religion is flawed or criticized. The agenda is to defend religion no matter how legitimate the criticism(s) may be.
Something like the old strategy of defending an opinion that can't be defended; "Admit nothing. Deny everything and make counter-allegations."
It can be argued that atheism is religion if you want to use an extremely fast and loose definition of the word 'religion', because you can find anything you want on the internet if you look hard enough.
I collect vintage glass. So that's a religion now.
What's the point of having definitions if you can say anything is anything?
These days I feel like white is black, up is down, east is west and we can say anything to fit our own agenda. Where does it get us? Everything and nothing becomes an argument.
If we are going to say anything is a religion, then let's just combine politics, football, cricket, antiquing, glass collecting and gardening and such like all in one forum.
Perhaps we ought to change the sticky at the beginning of the forum?
It can be argued that atheism is religion if you want to use an extremely fast and loose definition of the word 'religion', because you can find anything you want on the internet if you look hard enough.
So you know, these days I feel like white is black, up is down, east is west and we can say anything to fit our own agenda. Where does it get us? Everything and nothing becomes an argument.
If they had credible evidence for their beliefs, they would not need to play silly word games with definitions (and definitions taken out of context).
It can be argued that atheism is religion if you want to use an extremely fast and loose definition of the word 'religion', because you can find anything you want on the internet if you look hard enough.
So you know, these days I feel like white is black, up is down, east is west and we can say anything to fit our own agenda. Where does it get us? Everything and nothing becomes an argument.
Well yes...
Even I have used the term to describe really being into something. "I'm religious about watching the PBS Newshour every night" for example, but isn't that the heart of the issue? In what way are we to understand these definitions or intelligently apply them?
Cambridge doesn't say that football is a religion BTW. It says "for these people." Just as atheism is a religion for Gldn, but really? What could we similarly call a religion if we go that route? Birding is a "religion" for lots of people. Surfing, painting, singing, etc.
So this means all these things are religions? We all know better. Don't we? Well most of us anyway. Sometimes it takes a little effort to see what is white vs black, up vs down, facts and truths vs twisted logic and nonsense. Still, I think these distinctions are important. Can be anyway, and ultimately the effort is worthwhile, or twisted logic and nonsense rules the day.
Even I have used the term to describe really being into something. "I'm religious about watching the PBS Newshour every night" for example, but isn't that the heart of the issue? In what way are we to understand these definitions or intelligently apply them?
Cambridge doesn't say that football is a religion BTW. It says "for these people." Just as atheism is a religion for Gldn, but really? What could we similarly call a religion if we go that route? Birding is a "religion" for lots of people. Surfing, painting, singing, etc.
So this means all these things are religions? We all know better. Don't we? Well most of us anyway. Sometimes it takes a little effort to see what is white vs black, up vs down, facts and truths vs twisted logic and nonsense. Still, I think these distinctions are important. Can be anyway, and ultimately the effort is worthwhile, or twisted logic and nonsense rules the day.
None of us wants that...
See my post above.. I was editing mine as you were writing yours.
Of course cb2008 agrees with you. That's not evidence. It's opinion as well. As well you know.
I could easily argue 6 out of 7 of those statements as false.
As for statement #7 I don't know who has claimed that stating something is a religion is persecution. If someone has then I disagree.
Your linked dictionary definition doesn't say anything about atheism being a religion.
I don't know what the point is of arguing that atheism is a religion.
I wasn't attempting to "argue" it.
As per the OP: I noted my view that it is a Religion...my basis for that view...and how that view translates to my feelings about Atheists posting to the board.
Of course...it couldn't just be, "That's your view? Okay, cool...here's my view"...ya all had to bust on me about it.
What's up with that?
You all have to make it that I cannot be counted among the "reasonably intelligent"...that I "can't recognize right from wrong"...that I am "making ridiculous claims"...that I am "dumb, obstinate and unreasonable"...that I am not among "Most intelligent people", but like those that "wanna claim the earth is flat"...and in summation, what I posted is "nonsense".
If they had credible evidence for their beliefs, they would not need to play silly word games with definitions (and definitions taken out of context).
I was responding to a post that used a definition as evidence to support their view. https://www.city-data.com/forum/64543108-post66.html
I did not consider it "silly games"...only miserable people would take issue with using a formal definition as a citation.
I only meant argument in the sense of an exchange of opposing views or defense of a viewpoint.
Quote:
As per the OP: I noted my view that it is a Religion...my basis for that view...and how that view translates to my feelings about Atheists posting to the board.
Of course...it couldn't just be, "That's your view? Okay, cool...here's my view"...ya all had to bust on me about it.
What's up with that?
You all have to make it that I cannot be counted among the "reasonably intelligent"...that I "can't recognize right from wrong"...that I am "making ridiculous claims"...that I am "dumb, obstinate and unreasonable"...that I am not among "Most intelligent people", but like those that "wanna claim the earth is flat"...and in summation, what I posted is "nonsense".
Well I don't know who 'ya all' are but please don't paste me in with them. I never resort to ad hominem unless it is thrown at me first (even then I have to be pushed very, very hard) and to my knowledge have never directed it at you since you have never directed it at me. We have a mutual personal policy on that type of thing I think.
I'm not going to defend LM - I know you are both perfectly capable of fighting your own battles.
And by the way I have been talked to like that plenty by someone on this forum that you hold in apparent high regard. I've had people gang up on me and follow me around. People who kid themselves they are 'spiritual'. Just saying.
But to reiterate what I said earlier, definitions for things came about as a result of a need to express something:
'Theism' - the definition is clear - 'belief in the existence of a god or gods'.
Atheism - 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods'.
Religion - most people would agree it is defined as something like:
'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'
We can make statements that atheism is a belief and a religion, but then words lose all meaning.
If atheism is not disbelief, then what is?
If atheism is a religion then pretty much anything becomes a religion.
I have found myself reflecting on my interest in participating in this forum, and how some people can't understand what an atheist is doing here in the first place. Why do I exchange thoughts, opinions, facts, reason and logic with so many people who are obviously here because they are religious? Unlike me. Why all the poking and prodding with questions? Why do I bother considering the thoughts, opinions and beliefs of religious people?
Giving this some thought, I have to admit that at least part of my interest is born from an age-old challenge of overcoming what I was taught as a very young person. There is an element of danger that was always instilled in me about even suggesting there is no god. Religious people will often reinforce that fear in one way or another. Imagine; concern about eternal damnation, hell, or worse. Missing out on heaven...
Having grown up with a real sense about all that, who among you can really know what it takes to consider and actually disconnect from those sorts of thoughts and beliefs? Not to be weighed by fear or intimidation or what one is supposed to think and believe according to so many others. Of course, now I am an atheist, so I have come to terms with the reasons why I am an atheist. Still, at the same time given the gravity of being wrong about this sort of thing, why would any atheist not be interested in making sure they didn't miss something? Are not missing something?
It's always an interesting experience to consider all the thinking, experiences and beliefs of others in any case, and who knows? Maybe some day someone will be able to come up with something that will make believers of all atheists. I certainly don't want to miss out on that occasion if it ever comes to be.
So is it fair, do you understand, why an atheist like me likes to visit this forum on a regular basis? Aside from all the other reasons I take some pleasure from this forum, is not the above explanation plenty good enough all considered?
Perhaps it's just a gamble where we do our research, use our logic and pick our side.
I think almost every religion indicates about consciousness after death.
And the truthful answer is, we empirically do not know, "what's after death?", a common question by the entire humanity.
So being an Atheist, you put your faith that there is nothing after death, which puts you just at 50% probability as of a believer who is also at 50% probability when he believes that there is consciousness after death. Both parties are using faith - none has evidence, none empirically knows the answer.
This is one part of believe and non-believe. Both parties have faith and gambling at 50% probability.
And if you throw in the reincarceration theory in the mix then all three parties are at 33.33%, and you keep on going to find out that everyone is playing the game at equal odds.
Part two is, choosing and deciding to live a life under a religious code of morality. And again, there is a 50% odds here. You either decide to do so, or not do so. It's a choice.
So, I think you are not missing much by coming to this forum and finding something that will turn all Atheists into believers. We have already made our calls, we shall now wait, and we will probably see.
Perhaps it's just a gamble where we do our research, use our logic and pick our side.
I think almost every religion indicates about consciousness after death.
And the truthful answer is, we empirically do not know, "what's after death?", a common question by the entire humanity.
So being an Atheist, you put your faith that there is nothing after death, which puts you just at 50% probability as of a believer who is also at 50% probability when he believes that there is consciousness after death. Both parties are using faith - none has evidence, none empirically knows the answer.
This is one part of believe and non-believe. Both parties have faith and gambling at 50% probability.
And if you throw in the reincarceration theory in the mix then all three parties are at 33.33%, and you keep on going to find out that everyone is playing the game at equal odds.
Part two is, choosing and deciding to live a life under a religious code of morality. And again, there is a 50% odds here. You either decide to do so, or not do so. It's a choice.
So, I think you are not missing much by coming to this forum and finding something that will turn all Atheists into believers. We have already made our calls, we shall now wait, and we will probably see.
No, we don't necessarily say there is nothing after death.
No, we don't necessarily say there is nothing after death.
whatever you say awaits after death, it doesn't go against the fact that , we empirically don't know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
