How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

[Natural Citizen]

It's been very productive.

Yeah, if yer the SPLC.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Atheism is religious.

Misstatement. Atheism is a theological position. But, it is distinctly not religious.

[h=1]religious[/h]  

[h=2][/h] adjective, noun, plural re·li·gious.

adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.

2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.

3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.

4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.

5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.

One could reasonably claim that atheism is a statement of theistic belief, to either its disbelief, or negation, conditionally(ie weak and strong atheism, respectively).

But, one cannot reasonably assert atheism as a religious statement, nor as dogmatism, nor as an appeal to authority, nor a fallacious appeal to authority, nor even an appeal to emotion. However, all of those claims can be reasonably made of theism.

Also, note there is a distinction between theism and religion. While all theism is based in religion, not all religions are theistic.

Thus, one can be reasonably be said to be religious/spiritual and atheistic(provided they truly are religious, but their religion precludes a god/God). But, it cannot be reasonably said that all atheists are religious, or that atheism is a religion.

Atheism is specifically about beliefs in god(s), and the supernatural.

One could, even, reasonably claim that some, if not all atheists are religiously devoted to their atheism, however, one would have to demonstrate how that is true of those atheists(ie demonstrate that the evidence suggests there is in fact a god/God, by sound reasoning).

So far, not a single argument for a god/God has ever been found to be sound, even if valid.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Misstatement. Atheism is a theological position. But, it is distinctly not religious.



One could reasonably claim that atheism is a statement of theistic belief, to either its disbelief, or negation, conditionally(ie weak and strong atheism, respectively).

But, one cannot reasonably assert atheism as a religious statement, nor as dogmatism, nor as an appeal to authority, nor a fallacious appeal to authority, nor even an appeal to emotion. However, all of those claims can be reasonably made of theism.

Also, note there is a distinction between theism and religion. While all theism is based in religion, not all religions are theistic.

Thus, one can be reasonably be said to be religious/spiritual and atheistic(provided they truly are religious, but their religion precludes a god/God). But, it cannot be reasonably said that all atheists are religious, or that atheism is a religion.

Atheism is specifically about beliefs in god(s), and the supernatural.

One could, even, reasonably claim that some, if not all atheists are religiously devoted to their atheism, however, one would have to demonstrate how that is true of those atheists(ie demonstrate that the evidence suggests there is in fact a god/God, by sound reasoning).

So far, not a single argument for a god/God has ever been found to be sound, even if valid.

What do you think of Kant's Proof?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Good Lord, is this thread still going?

All pissing matches must go for at least 20 pages.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Do you have "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"? If so, then according to the definition you provided, you have a religion.

Would a lack of belief be considered a belief in your lexicon of virtue? If so, then... Yes.

But then, of course, your definition would be internally inconsistent, and therefore, unreasonable.
For instance, I don't know the cause of the universe, though I have some suspicions, among which some are, as yet, unsupported by science, and many of which are, but do not necessitate a deity or supernatural beings of any sort. As far as I know, unless there is some universal creator, the question of purpose is unreasonable and senseless. So, until it has been adequately, and soundly demonstrated that there must be a personal(intelligent and self aware) creator of the universe, it is both pointless and insensible to ask as to the "purpose" of the universe.

Especially if these include beliefs concerning a superhuman creator. And atheists, by definition, have beliefs concerning that.

Atheists, by definition, DO NOT have a belief concerning superhuman creator. That is precisely what is meant by the term, "lack of belief." You may want to spend a little time consulting a dictionary.

Do you have "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a[ny] number of persons"? If so, then by the second definition, you, once again, have a religion.

No, atheists do not have fundamental rituals and practices, or observances. In fact, many atheists do not even rely upon the scientific method to arrive at their lackl of belief, though many may fall back on it for further confirmation of their justifications for that lack of belief.

Those are the definitions you gave.

Which part of what I claim to be in those definitions is not actually in them?

Most of them do not apply to atheists. So, while the definition may be accurate to some degree, your conclusion, obviously, is not.

Something that is not in these definitions is any stipulation that a religion must include belief in any gods.

True. Because, religions don't, as I pointed out before, as a rule, refer to gods, though pretty much all religions do include some reference to the supernatural, such as: chi, chakras, spirits, ghosts, demons, etc. And, pretty much all religions hold in common some reference to metaphysics, and particularly to non-physical entities. And, pretty much all religions do tend to include some prescript as to how to behave(moral code).

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

What do you think of Kant's Proof?

I'm not at all familiar with "Kant's Proof." But then, of course, I'm not at all convinced that many who have read Kant actually understood what was stated by him, since there seems to be so much disagreement and since it has been well established(It seems to be the one thing about Kant, on which all agree) that his writing style is a bit opaque(difficult to grasp). I have not, in my own defense, found any works by Kant, and based on the reports I've seen, I haven't seen reason to bother.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Oh, really? Then what are these?

• Humanist Manifesto I
• Humanist Manifesto II
• Humanist Manifesto III

Humanism. Humanism is a group which includes atheists, but is not representative of all, or even most atheists. Atheism is extremely narrow. There is strong atheism and weak atheism, and that's pretty much it. There is not a widely shared epistemology, ontology, or metaphysic of atheism. And, there is certainly no manifesto, or creedo.

Atheism is not a system of belief, or even a system of disbelief. Most atheists come by atheism from different directions and methodologies.

 

[fr33]

But you're the one who provided those definitions. When I say that everyone has a religion, I'm using the definition of religion that you wanted to use. The only way you've managed to get out of it so far has been by bringing in a different definition of religion to show that, at least with that other definition, atheists don't have religions, even if by the more normal definitions they do.

So what if he's the only one responding to you. It's not like we are obligated to answer you. Many times I just get tired of the conversations.

You should author a new dictionary since your definitions do not coincide with the existing ones.

Many, if not most, atheists are willing to admit our scientific discoveries are subject to change when more info becomes available. We are those that are willing to admit we know very little about the world while the religious people claim to know everything about it.

It is not a religion to say there is no credible proof of a God; therefor I do not believe there is one.

 

[fr33]

In this very topic you can find multiple christians arguing over doctrine that is set in stone, in their opinion. But no atheists are having such arguments in this topic. We are willing to admit that we are wrong if proof of such can be submitted.

If you understand what a religion is, you cannot accuse atheism of being a religion.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Yes they do. They say that it is not the creation of a superhuman personal being and is thus purposeless.

Actually, you are speaking of strong atheism.

If you're an atheist, then your belief that there is no god is merely one belief within a much larger set of beliefs that you have.

Again, you are speaking only of strong atheism. But, weak atheism is the majority position among atheists.

Atheism isn't itself a whole religion. But its a tenet that belongs to whatever the religion is of anyone who has that belief.

Atheism is not a tenet.

[h=1]tenet[/h]  


[ten-it; British also tee-nit]

noun any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.

Since weak atheism is a lack of belief in any particular doctrine, dogma, or principle, and since a lack of belief is, by definition, not an opinion, atheism is not a tenet.

Right. It's dependent on the idea that there is not one.

Still talking about strong rather than weak atheism, and weak atheism is still the majority position among atheists. So, your statements are simply too broad, general, and sweeping to hold any relevance.

Do all atheists have one huge set of generally agreed upon practices? No. Neither do all theists. But subgroups of atheists have their own sets of practices.

You mean like humanists(ref Humanist Manifesto)? Except those are tenets, not practices. And, as we both apparently agreed, that is a small sub-set, and therefore, not relevant.

But, all theists do hold as a general rule, worship and prayer to a supernatural being, as well as group gathering to discuss "the word."

The Buddhists have theirs.

Buddhists are non-theists, which as a term, tends to differentiate that distinction of the "religious atheist" I had talked about previously. Meditation is a practice adhered to by Buddhists, generally speaking. And, Buddhism is a globally recognized religion. Atheism is not.

The Humanists have theirs.

The manifesto linked to earlier in this thread does not lay out guidelines for behavior or practices. It is simply a set of established tenets(opinions).

The Objectivists have theirs.

I cannot speak to the practices of Objectivists, due to unfamiliarity. But, given your erroneous depictions of atheists, I have reason to doubt your veracity in that area as well.

The Dawkinsists have theirs.

By Darwinists, do you mean evolutionary biologists? If so, then yes... Of course they do. It is the scientific method as applied to biology.

So, I suppose next you will claim that science is a religion because it has "ritualistic" practices.

Even if your religion is so small that you're the only one in the world who belongs to it, there's still some set of beliefs and practices that you, as the entirety of adherents to your religion, have.

Now you're going to conflate daily activities with no special purpose with ritual practice?

There is simply no reasoning with you, is there?

 

[VIDEODROME]

Whatever, I'm sleeping in on Sunday.

 

[Theocrat]

Does Variance of Views Make One Non-Religious?

Humanism. Humanism is a group which includes atheists, but is not representative of all, or even most atheists. Atheism is extremely narrow. There is strong atheism and weak atheism, and that's pretty much it. There is not a widely shared epistemology, ontology, or metaphysic of atheism. And, there is certainly no manifesto, or creedo.

Atheism is not a system of belief, or even a system of disbelief. Most atheists come by atheism from different directions and methodologies.

I think you're grasping at straws there when you try to distinguish humanists from atheists. I see nothing in those manifestos that a typical atheist would disagree with, and it doesn't matter if he is a "strong" or a "weak" atheist. The principles of those manifestos are defining beliefs of any atheist, in comparison to a belief in God. Sure, atheists may not make those manifestos their official creeds of "non-belief," but the fact remains that all humanists are atheistic about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

The funny thing I notice about most atheists is that they say that Atheism is not a religion because there is no consensus of beliefs amongst all atheists. But then, I find that those same atheists will turn around and criticize Christians for their lack of consensus about what Christianity is (due to its many denominations), all the while emphasizing that Christians are religious. I see that is what you're doing above, Frank. You want to argue that since atheists don't agree on all of the tenets of their atheism, then that shows that Atheism is not a religion. (Just in passing, I would disagree with that because atheists do have one central and common belief that they share--the Bible is not God's word).

But if I were to use your reasoning by substituting "Christianity/Christians" for "Atheism/Atheists," then I could make the following statement: "Christianity is not a system of belief, or even a system of disbelief. Most Christians come by Christianity from different directions and methodologies." Since there are so many differences amongst Christians in areas of theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, liturgy, political theory, natural science, and even ethics (sadly), then does it stand to reason that, therefore, Christianity is not a religion? Yet, it seems that you apply the decentralization or differences of "disbelief" amongst atheists as a standard for why Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Petar]

Last night when I was super high, I was looking at the sky and I *knew* that the Universe is actually a metaphysical neural network.

 

[1stAmendguy]

You misinterpret smugness for having the ability to defend the Christian worldview and show atheism for the philosophical failure that it is.

Atheism is NOT a philosophy. You are stubbornly resistant to acknowledging the actual definition of atheism since you can only attack it effectively with a straw man. You're NOT defending your Christian worldview (which is an "actual" worldview by the way) by deploying this ddishonest method.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

I think you're grasping at straws there when you try to distinguish humanists from atheists. I see nothing in those manifestos that a typical atheist would disagree with, and it doesn't matter if he is a "strong" or a "weak" atheist. The principles of those manifestos are defining beliefs of any atheist, in comparison to a belief in God. Sure, atheists may not make those manifestos their official creeds of "non-belief," but the fact remains that all humanists are atheistic about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

The lens is dark dude. In other words, you obviously have not spent much time at all considering the atheist position, and or how it may be valid, sound, or reasonable. As such, your personal image of atheism is distorted.

But, what does it mean, in your estimation, to be atheistic about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics?

Do you presume that atheists have no ethical grounding? Do you presume that they have no epistemology(ies)?

My own ethical grounding is based on sociability and social proclivities of humans. Thus, any action or behavior which serves the community at large, or which causes no harm to others is ethical. Any activity which serves the "greater good of the whole" while potentially causing harm to the few, or the one, tends to skirt the edge and must be given all due consideration for over all effect.

My personal metaphysics is monistic physicalism.

The funny thing I notice about most atheists is that they say that Atheism is not a religion because there is no consensus of beliefs amongst all atheists. But then, I find that those same atheists will turn around and criticize Christians for their lack of consensus about what Christianity is (due to its many denominations), all the while emphasizing that Christians are religious. I see that is what you're doing above, Frank. You want to argue that since atheists don't agree on all of the tenets of their atheism, then that shows that Atheism is not a religion. (Just in passing, I would disagree with that because atheists do have one central and common belief that they share--the Bible is not God's word).

You don't read much do you? Or do you simply ignore the points that would invalidate your beliefs?

I said, atheists are not religious because we do not have ritual activities, devotion, supernatural beliefs, etc. Things which are common to religions.

One may suggest that the application of logic and reason are ritual activities. However, they are not, though they are structured activities.

But if I were to use your reasoning by substituting "Christianity/Christians" for "Atheism/Atheists," then I could make the following statement: "Christianity is not a system of belief, or even a system of disbelief. Most Christians come by Christianity from different directions and methodologies." Since there are so many differences amongst Christians in areas of theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, liturgy, political theory, natural science, and even ethics (sadly), then does it stand to reason that, therefore, Christianity is not a religion?

No it does not stand to reason since those "activities" are not what makes them religious. All religions rely on faith, fallacious appeals to authority, supernaturalism, ritual practice, and moral prescript. And, all Christians come by their religious beliefs by the same method... Blind devotion and naive faith in authority.

Yet, it seems that you apply the decentralization or differences of "disbelief" amongst atheists as a standard for why Atheism is not a religion.

If all religions are, or entail beliefs and all atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism is not a religion. It is an utter lack of religion.

But, here's a question for you, that is of no import to me, but should prove imperative to you to understand...

Why is it so important to you that atheism be defined as a religion? And, what would that mean to your religion?

If, the implication boils down to "they are both matters of opinion", and you should be free to have your own opinion, then by that same token, so too should atheists.

And, if your religion is simply a matter of opinion, then there is nothing you can claim to know about your religion.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Important Considerations

The lens is dark dude. In other words, you obviously have not spent much time at all considering the atheist position, and or how it may be valid, sound, or reasonable. As such, your personal image of atheism is distorted.

But, what does it mean, in your estimation, to be atheistic about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics?

Do you presume that atheists have no ethical grounding? Do you presume that they have no epistemology(ies)?

My own ethical grounding is based on sociability and social proclivities of humans. Thus, any action or behavior which serves the community at large, or which causes no harm to others is ethical. Any activity which serves the "greater good of the whole" while potentially causing harm to the few, or the one, tends to skirt the edge and must be given all due consideration for over all effect.

My personal metaphysics is monistic physicalism.

I can assure you that I have spent much time considering, reading about, and arguing/discussing with atheists their position about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and, quite frankly, words like "valid," "sound," and "reasonable" are not attributes that I would use to describe their position.

In my view, to be atheistic about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics is to attempt to understand reality/truth, knowledge, and ethical standards from the starting the point that God (or the concept of a God) is false, and therefore, should not be taken for granted. It also means that human reasoning and moral behavior are not intrinsically sinful, so that man is somehow autonomously capable of coming to an understanding about those three things, based on human experience.

So, that leads me to believe that atheists do, in fact, have philosophical notions about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics because all human beings do. From a Christian standpoint, humans are created in His image, and that is what allows us to have a curiosity about reality/truth, knowledge, and ethical standards so that we may, ultimately, come to understand Who God is as well as the "hows," "whats," and "whys" of this universe.

The interesting thing about your ethical grounding is that is sounds awfully similar to the statement on "Ethics" in the Humanist Manifesto II. That's why I stated before that I could see no reason why any average atheist would disagree with the tenets outlined in those Humanist manifestos.

You don't read much do you? Or do you simply ignore the points that would invalidate your beliefs?

I said, atheists are not religious because we do not have ritual activities, devotion, supernatural beliefs, etc. Things which are common to religions.

One may suggest that the application of logic and reason are ritual activities. However, they are not, though they are structured activities.

Well, I definitely disagree with your assertion that atheists do not have ritual activities, devotions, supernatural beliefs, etc. because they, in fact, do. Maybe you've taken those things for granted because you've never stopped to consider it, but rituals are part of life, and they are inescapable. They can be formal, or they can be informal, but they exist, nonetheless. The fact that atheists wake up in the morning and eat breakfast and/or take a shower and/or brush their teeth and/or go to work and/or eat lunch, etc., etc. is an testimony that atheists participate in rituals. Going to a mall, or watching a sporting event, or even listening to music all have ritualistic elements in them, howbeit, informal, in nature.

Atheists are also full of devotion, and that, of course, can come in a variety of ways. Atheists can be devoted to understanding the universe through the natural sciences. Atheists can have devotion towards their spouse or friends/family. Atheists can be devoted towards arguing with Christian theists about the nonexistence of God. And on and on I could go. So, I think it is very mistaken of you to suggest that atheists don't have devotion, even if it is not towards God. I would argue that whatever thing the atheist puts first and foremost in his life is his god, and, therefore, he is devoted to that thing.

Atheists also have supernatural beliefs, in two ways. First, atheists have a belief about the nature of the supernatural. For instance, they believe that supernatural entities cannot or do not make sense of reality, knowledge, and ethical standards/behaviors, and therefore, they should be discarded or counted irrelevant (especially in the natural sciences).

Second, atheists actually have a belief in supernatural entities. By that I mean that atheists constantly appeal to things which are "supernatural" or "above nature (in that technical sense of the term)," when they believe in and utilize entities like laws of logic. The laws of logic are not made of physical elements; they are immaterial because they are standards of reasoning. Yet, if the whole universe is nothing but physical elements, then laws of logic cannot exist. As laws, the laws of logic are universal, invariant, and abstract (not confined to mass or space). They apply in every realm of human reasoning, which makes them absolute and eternal. But the only way that laws of logic can be justified as standards of reasoning (and not physical properties) is that they must derive from an absolute and eternal source. And, of course, that absolute and eternal Source is God. So, the laws of logic have a supernatural element about them that transcends mere matter in motion. That means that metaphysics based on such things as "monistic physicalism" have no ultimate basis for whether laws of logic exist and how they can be utilized as standards of reasoning.

No it does not stand to reason since those "activities" are not what makes them religious. All religions rely on faith, fallacious appeals to authority, supernaturalism, ritual practice, and moral prescript. And, all Christians come by their religious beliefs by the same method... Blind devotion and naive faith in authority.

There are two problems with your statements above:

1. Atheists rely on faith, appeals to authority, supernaturalism (I've explained that above), ritual practice (I've explained that above, too), and moral prescript, too. Atheists believe in many things which neither their senses nor empirical methods can actually verify in their experience. Just think about the many things that we all have learned about in history. None of us were there when those events happened, and there is no scientific way to verify those events in the present without faith that the past is as it is in the present. Atheists appeal to authority when they present scientific "evidences" for evolution to creationists. They will say things like, "Scientists have shown x," or some evolutionists will just tell creationists to read "this book" or "that book" on a given subject. Those are appeals to authority. Atheists will make moral prescriptions by telling Christians that they ought not "force" their religion upon other people, or they will criticize God for allowing evil and concluding that God is unjust for doing so. So, it seems to me that you have ignored those religious behaviors of atheists
2. It seems that you have not read or understood the position of Christians when you say things like they have "a fallacious, blind devotion and naive faith in authority." The Bible does not teach Christians to have "blind devotion" or "naive faith" in God. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures teach that without faith, it is impossible to know anything. People believe in order to understand, after all. It seems that you have a false misconception that faith and devotion are somehow fallacious, in and of themselves. However, as I've explained above, all people have faith and devotion in something or someone. That's just a part of life.

If all religions are, or entail beliefs and all atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism is not a religion. It is an utter lack of religion.

But, here's a question for you, that is of no import to me, but should prove imperative to you to understand...

Why is it so important to you that atheism be defined as a religion? And, what would that mean to your religion?

If, the implication boils down to "they are both matters of opinion", and you should be free to have your own opinion, then by that same token, so too should atheists.

And, if your religion is simply a matter of opinion, then there is nothing you can claim to know about your religion.

If you want to use "lack of belief" as the criterion for whether someone is religious or not, then I say that can apply even to Christians. Christians have a lack of belief that God does not exist, after all. So, once again, when we apply your reasoning to the situation, then we can conclude that no one is religious. So, then you can't even make the distinction between Christians and atheists based on religious faith because both groups have a "lack of belief" in something.

To answer your question about why it's important that atheism be defined as a religion, first let me say that that is a good question. I have two answers for that. One, based on the Christian worldview, I believe that we are all created in the image of God. That means that we can feel emotions, make moral judgments, use logic and reason, establish societies, and create things, just as God does on a grand scale. Most importantly, those attributes and abilities of humans are to be used for worship of God. But since human beings are inherently sinful, we naturally worship something other than God (like money, sex, drugs, sports, etc.). So, it can be seen from that that all human beings worship something, and whatever you worship is your god, and that makes you inherently religious (even if it is an idol that one worships). Thus, religion is inescapable.

Two, it is important that atheism is defined as a religion because of the myth of neutrality. Atheists constantly believe that they are operating from a position of "religious neutrality" when they make claims about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. But nothing could be further from the truth, and much to the credit of my Christian brothers here, it has been shown repeatedly how atheists are instituting their religious beliefs at the replacement of a Christian theistic one. Also, the ramifications of "religious neutrality" actually have the effect of removing Christian ideas from public view at the imposition of atheistic ideas. That can be seen in removal of school prayers, taking down the Ten Commandments from certain public venues, stifling of any Christian ethic in politics and public policy, and the ignoring and debasement of Christian worldview from public educational curriculum, the enforcement of "hate crimes" legislation upon Christian businesses and churches, etc. The false assumption is that society needs to be "religiously neutral," when in fact the removal of the Christian religion from public institutions is just the imposition of atheistic religious views that seek to trump Christian foundations of society, government, family, and a host of other things.

I do not believe that this issue boils down to being "two matters of opinion." Both Christianity and atheism make statements of truth, and they both venture to present facts and evidences to back up what they consider to be truth. Of course, all worldviews do that, as well. So, I don't think I look at the situation as a mere comparison of two opinions.

 

[VIDEODROME]

In this thread, if you hold any kind of belief you apparently are religious.

I now wonder if Agnosticism would be argued to be a religion now?

 

[Sola_Fide]

In this thread, if you hold any kind of belief you apparently are religious.

I now wonder if Agnosticism would be argued to be a religion now?

It is impossible not to positively assert something, even when you say "I don't know".

 

[erowe1]

In this thread, if you hold any kind of belief you apparently are religious.

I now wonder if Agnosticism would be argued to be a religion now?

Agnosticism would be the same as monotheism and atheism. It's a doctrine, not a religion. If you're agnostic, then your religion includes agnosticism, but it also probably includes lots of other things.

 

[erowe1]

Why are you redefining what has already been defined?
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Why are you being obtuse? "Beliefs concerning the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency". How does this include beliefs NOT concerning the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency?

But atheism isn't one of those. Atheism is explicitly, by definition, a belief concerning the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency. The claim "the universe is not the creation of a superhuman agency" is essential to atheism. You can't be an atheist without having such a belief.