Does Atheism = No beliefs?

Hi CS, I understand that. It is used as an insult because the people who are being criticised are likely to view it as such. I get that. What I don't get is why you would use "religious" in such a way as to make it synonymous with all religion's worst qualities. Using "religion" in this sense gives the appearance that religion is primarily characterised by zealotry, dogmatism, intolerance, etc., as if these were its most vital distinguishing features. Now even I would not go quite that far in criticising religion and I am wholly opposed to it. It seems bizarre that you should be willing to turn the word "religion" into a negative label and yet still apply it to yourself, however tentatively. Acting like, yes. Actually a religion, no.I think that by arguing this way you are giving adolescent atheists an easy way to avoid legitimate criticism. If they are being childish, or over-zealous, say that. Don't hand them an easy out by using easily equivocated terms.Saying to someone "You are behaving in the same way as those religious people you criticise" may be a legitimate criticism. "You are religious" is not though, it's never going to be and you are just scoring an own-goal by talking that way.Also, if you will read Youtube comments, expect to see people of all stripes behaving like childish jack-asses. That's par for the course in Youtube comments, most of which seem to be written by semi-literate idiots. I suspect that most of them are young and when they mature they'll find better things to do. You're probably right, but fortunately there is an easy solution; make specific criticisms that can't be so easily brushed off. If people are making statements that go beyond what we might call pure atheism, then they should justify those statements independently, not just resort to falling back on pure atheism. That would be poor form. The thing is that by casting accusations about religion, you are making it easier for them to pull this trick and move the goalposts. I see where you and Bluejay are coming form here, but again, this implies that "religious" primarily describes negative qualities. You can see why I find this odd.Mutate and Survive

Wow. +1.You pack alot of punch in a small space.

Why does it seem like it makes those its primary characteristics instead of just the least desirable ones that the insultee would mostly not want to be associated with? I don't consider myself religious. I think you're right. Maybe its just the troll in me, although usually I just don't give them my time, but a simple one-liner in passing at least gets it off my chest and I just don't care enough to provide them with an adequate explanation that they'd prolly let roll off anyways. The qualities that are least appealing to me are the religious ones. All the rituals, and what seems to be somatic components of spells, sit down-stand up-put your left leg in-put your right leg out, the Pentecostals will even literally shake all about. All that stuff in addition to the zealotry, dogmatism, intolerance, etc.I guess the rituals of the religious atheists are parroting talking points on the internets and bashing theists on facebook and youtube I went back to see just how this atheism can be a religion thing came about... my original quote on it was:

quote:

---

The positive belief that gods do not, or can not, exists is also accurately described as atheism, which could be considered a religion in itself.

---

With "religion" stipped down to just a belief system, believing that gods do not and/or cannot exist is capable of being a religion.There's also this:

quote:

---

I hardly see how atheism could at all, anywhere, anyhow, be considered a religion.

I agree that a simple lack of belief in something could not be considered a religion.

​

I'm talking about the positive disbelief atheists, and also the anti-religious, or even militant, types as well.

---

Now, I get that being an "actual religion" is a little more than a simple belief system, but I still think that a simple belief system can be called a religion, and too that atheism is capable of being something more than just no belief in god.

That is exactly what theists are trying to do when they claim that atheism is a religion, is it not? Theists are trying to insult atheists by trivializing their own beliefs. It's the philosophical equivalent of a suicide bomber. When you claim that atheists are religious you are trying to insult them, are you not? You are trying to project your own perceived weaknesses onto atheists in an attempt to refute their views, are you not? "Atheism is a religion" really means "They are just as bad as us christians" does it not? So atheists are going to cathedrals and worshiping a god? Really? Are atheists sending out missionaries to convince others to believe in a supernatural deity? That's not religion, chief. That is holding an opinion which is different than being religious. According to your view, a non-religious person is someone who is completely apathetic towards any conceivable opinion that humans have ever had. IOW, the only way to be non-religious in your eyes is to be brain dead. As soon as you state a preference of one thing over another you are religious. That just doesn't make any sense. Is there a tenet of atheism that prevents atheists from being passionate in their views? If there is, please reference it.

Yes and no. First off, the neo-atheists think they're better than the religious, so it doesn't have to be saying they're as bad as us as it could be saying they're not as good as they think.But its not an attempt to trivialize religion, its an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of being religiously against religion.Its not so much as projecting my own perceived weaknesses as it it just getting them to acknowledge their own weaknesses. And its not to refute their views, its exposing their hypocrisy. Yes, atheist go to cathedrals and try to convince others to believe in a supernatural deities. Oh, and they eat babies too. Three lines down:

quote:

---

I do get that that doesn't make atheism a religion, and in general I don't think it is.

---

I'm not talking about atheism in general, but a subset of atheists.
Using atheism as a springboard for religious behavior, and then retreating to atheism being nothing more than a belief, doesn't require atheism to have a tenet.

Neo-atheists think that their position is based on evidence and reason. Using bad logic and equivocation to falsely accuse them of being religious only confirms their argument. You are conflating terms. Atheists do not believe in supernatural deities so how could they use a belief in supernatural deities against a belief in supernatural deities? I think you just proved my point. Arguing your point passionately is not religious activity.

If one person does not believe that there is God, the more He feel that there is God.the less Bible read, the more its translated....

Psalm 14:1 (King James Version)Psalm 141The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Quoting scripture won't get you anywhere on this forum.Do you have anything pertinent to add to the topic? Proselytizing is only going to get you abuse here.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Indeed God's Word is living and effective, sharper than any two edged sword. It penetrates and devides soul and spirit. joints and marrow; It judges the reflections and thought of the Heart.If you Believe what you Like in the Gospel and Rejects what you do not like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.

Many People against each other because of religion and belief, Atheism for those who are not agreed or don't like the doctrines of the church or they don't feel that there is God.People always Think different, always think against the scriptures, but they still under and become a part of the scriptures.Amos 8:11 (King James Version)Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Quoting scripture is only effective for those who already believe it has some value.For the rest of us...you may as well quote from Harry Potter for all the effect you'll have.

Just quoting a source or providing a bare link does not work here. You need to tell us what your point is.But why stop with just one quote? Why don't you tell us everything that the Bible says about atheists? I know that there's a lot more, so why hold back? Is that all you know?And could you please also tell us whether you're one of those who believe that if even one single thing the Bible says proves to be wrong, then the entire Bible is wrong and should be thrown in the trash. Over the decades, I've personally seen far too many creationists insist that emphatically and without any hope of compromise.

This is the situation,1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception(while maths and physics can), making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.3. Biologist such as Dawkins reject all theories on Intelligent Design from the 5 arguements in Summa theologica written by St Thomas Aquinas to Micro Bioligist Micheal Behe's arguement of irreducible complexity. At the same time Dawkins and his Athiest supporters make the claim "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer".If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.Let me give you an example in reverse:A Biologists discovers foot prints in an area which he belives belong to a feline animal, however the animal has never been seen.The biologist writes a paper in order to prove that a feline animal must be present in the area since the prints have been discovered.A mathematician reads the biologists paper and says this is wrong, these are not feline foot prints, and since no one has ever seen such an animal in this area, that there is no evidence that a feline animal exists here.When the Biologist asks the mathematician, OK then you reject my theory, you reject that the evidence of prints belong to a feline animal, you say that there is no evidence of feline animals in this area, then tell us, what should a feline foot print look like?The mathematician responds " I dont know, dont ask me", "you have to prove it Mr biologist".This is the Dawkins arguement which you have tried and failed to repeat with your Snarklepom, since you cannot provide the function of snarklepom your arguement is fundamentally flawed, tell me what part or function Snarklepom id reponsible for in our reality and I will prove it exists, though what it ends up being others may have a different name for what you call and label Snarklepom.For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer.Edited by Den, : CorrectionEdited by Den, : fix typoEdited by Den, : typo

But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time. Is the mathematician called Dembski?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.