-
To state you do not wish comments criticising religion is foolish and narrow-minded.
-
Well, I’d think that it means no “attacking” another person’s beliefs. I’d think discussions are fine.
Since “religion” is defined as “a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny” I would think that almost any view on the subject is welcome, as long as it isn’t written with the intent to offend.
Atheism is a valid belief.
-
-
Where’s the ‘intent to offend’ coming from? The person who misinterprets what the person wrote that they disagree with and thus feel insulted by or the person who’s giving an opinion to the religion/topic that they have an opinion on?
It seems that either one can be offended by the most miniscule of things, it becomes a moot point, I feel. And thus the website stating that becomes irrelevant as well—it’s going to happen whether someone likes it or not, and then who’s to decide what’s ‘acceptable’ or not?
The website? Then it turns into favortism, whether from the view of the religious person that felt it was an insult or the opposite end.
It’s a catch-22 situation.
-
-
By “intent to offend” I meant blanket statements about a religion based on blatantly innacurate stereoptypes (ie “all muslims are terrorists”, “Wiccans worship the devil” etc).
I assumed that the “no anti-religious categories” statement is there to discourage those.
-
-
You meant that, the question is: did the website mean that? They aren’t to detailed on that, are they?
I wouldn’t go as far as conversing here with Edna, she doesn’t seem to want to discuss anything ‘less you agree with her 100%.
I have a term for people like that, I am sure you know what I am referring to, and if not, well, wonder never ceases.
-
-
Yeah. I don’t really mind, though. I always interpret whatever concerns me, as suits me, taking issue only when I’m blocked or contradicted.
It’s just like you pointed out. It’s nearly impossible to have something mean the exact same thing for every person; each will have his or her own interpretation. Any miniscule thing can become an attack upon liberty, truth and life-as-we-know-it.
That’s the wonderful thing about language.
-
-
-
-
Atheism is NOT a “belief”. It is a denial of belief.
-
-
‘it’s a denial of belief’—which is a belief, is it not? Yes, I think it is, thus why people consider it to be a ‘religion’. They have a moral code, they have what they consider to be ‘truths’ etc., so does religion, does it not? Yes!
A belief in nothing is still a belief in something.
-
-
Actually, it would be more proper to say that atheism, in the broader sense, is an absence of belief…which is NOT a belief. A baby is an atheist – babies do not believe in god; they don't even have the conceptual capacity to do so. George Smith, in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" refers to those who have not encountered the concept of theistic belief, and thus do not believe in god, as implicit atheists, and this includes isolated tribes and people as well as children and people without the mental capacity to belief in god. These "atheists" are qualitatively different from the variety that we encounter the most in contemporary society – those who have encountered the concept of a god, but even many of those still, rather than rejecting it, simply do not offer positive assent. Their lack of belief does not itself constitute a belief. Would you consider it a belief of yours that there is NOT a giant alien spaceship orbitting the moon intent on your destruction right now? You simply lack the belief that there is – a lack of a belief doesn't constitute a belief, otherwise, all of us would hold an infinite number of negation-beliefs about an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities.
"A belief in nothing is still a belief in something."
Besides this statement being vague and quite probably contradictory, since nothing is, by definition, NOT something, it is also incorrect to apply a statement like this to atheism. Atheism is not a "belief in nothing", and to insist that it is is to commit a straw man fallacy rooted in unforgivable ignorance about the atheist position (or non-position, as the case may be). Atheism merely denotes, on the one hand, ones lack of belief in god, and in the more positive sense, on the other hand, for some atheists, the rejection of theism. It has nothing to do with a "belief in nothing", an atheist may believe in anything else to the exclusion of god, and still be an atheist. This includes angels, nature spirits, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, underpants gnomes, and, since I am an atheist, I'll tell you what I believe in: Everything. Everything that exists, exists; everything that is, is. I believe in the entire universe. That…is not nothing.
"Yes, I think it is, thus why people consider it to be a ‘religion’."
People who characterize atheism as a religion are insufferably ignorant. Atheism entails nothing other than a negation of belief in god – how can a lack of a belief be the foundation, much less the entirety of a religion? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Assuming the answer is no, does that constitute the religion of Asantaclausism? Of course not. The mere fact that you DON'T believe something doesn't tell us anything else about you. Atheists differ as much in their other beliefs as night and day, and there is more than enough disagreement over the nature and reasoning to their atheism itself.
"They have a moral code, they have what they consider to be ‘truths’ etc., so does religion, does it not? Yes!"
This is silly. Atheists can have ANY moral code. Any. There is no universal code followed by atheists, there is nothing you can say about an "atheist moral code". Their moral code is independent of their atheism, and may or may not have anything to do with it. While it will certainly be significant that an atheist does not rely on god for their moral code, other than that, the similarities between any given atheist code and another may very well come to an end. An atheist may be conservative or liberal, communist or democratic, follow the words of philosophers or be an ignorant brute. Other than the mere fact that they are an atheist, nothing else about that individually me be known. Simply because one is an atheist, you cannot attribute anything else to that person and be, by necessity, correct.
-
-
-
"Since “religion” is defined as “a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny”"
This is not "THE" definition of religion. Religion may be defined this way, that doesn't mean this IS the definition of religion. Some religions, for example, may reject that humans have any particular destiny, or the concept of destiny itself.
By the way, atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief, in the broadest sense. Only when it is more narrowly defined as the rejection of theistic belief does it become a belief, and even then, only as a belief that stands as the negation of another belief – it has no particular content in and of itself.
-
-
Very well, I'll take a more basic definition of religion. Religion is the attempt to explain the unexplainable or unknown. What happens when we die? Why are we different from animals? And so on. Atheism also answers these questions. (because of the nonexistence of a deity nothing happens after we die and we’re just like animals)
Moreover, since people who are atheists deny the validity of religions (or more specifically God/gods), they hold to that belief. To have an opinion in a matter is to believe in your opinion. It is impossible to have a lack of belief in something because the very fact that you disbelieve in something means that you believe in its inexistence.
By the way, were you disagreeing with me about the presentation of my argument or about what I was arguing?
-
-
-
I don’t know why you have chosen ‘Atheism’ as the topic name since many people (religious or not) consider Atheism to be a religion.
-
-
Atheism is NOT a religion. By definition. “a” (=without) + “theos” (=god). Atheism is thus denial of religion. In other words, common sense.
-
-
I hate to break it to you, it seems you’re so passionate on the subject at hand but ‘god’ thus a ‘deity’ is not ‘religion’. Religion is just a platform for a deity that those in said religion have made to place praise and worship for said deity.
Hence: God is not religion and religion is not God.
-
-
-
Religion is just a state of mind. If your happy with what faith you are fine, if you don’t believe in a god/deity, fine. That's you. Just don’t get in my face about what you are cuz I really don’t care.
Atheism is a non-profit organization. -
Religion is just a state of mind. If your happy with what faith you are fine, if you don’t believe in a god/deity, fine. That's you. Just don’t get in my face about what you are cuz I really don’t care.
Atheism is a non-profit organization. -
Glacian,
babies are not atheists. they are not born atheists. atheist is a term created or minipulated by religious people and bestowed upon non-believers. if babies are born they can't even be a non-believer 'cause they do not know what "belief" is. they don't even know they are alive.
the second part of your comment just seems to be a long repeat of what I said in little to no words.
-
nam,
have you looked up the definitions for any of the words you are trying to use? Some of the things you say seem to come from a very closed minded person. atheism is not a term created by religeous people. although i am not an atheist, I agree with everything glacian had to say about the subject. Research these things before you offer a rebutle. even a little research would make your point seem more valid. having two children of my own, I know that babies do in fact know that their alive. the just have alot to learn in a short amount of time. even though a baby can't speak, does'nt mean they don't feel. where do you get your info about babies? -
I think Edna makes a valid point
I am not an atheist, but it seems that those with beliefs in a God should not find offense in those who do not, just because they express it.
I think it would be fair to state on a forum such as this that oppinions, beliefs, or absense of belief can be expressed in a manner that does not have to directly attack anyone. We are perfectly capable of dissaggreeing or questioning any basic belief system without attacking the individual behind it.
Of course, if the world in general ever actually did that, there would be severe economic crisis at the level of gun, tank, and other various military manufacturers Our world doesn't necessarily promote open mindedness because there isn't enough money in it.
-
Atheism is the opposite of Theism, Theism is not a religion :P
Religion, presumably refers to worship, systematic, organised or otherwise.
Atheism on the other hand is non-belief in any good. It's opposite is Theism. Which, is not a religion
I also dn't think that you can say that Athists are without faith. Friedrich Nietzsche described Science as being an atheist's religion, which is fairly true I'd say. People use religion, primarily, for comfort and reassurance (I'll go somewhere nice when i die / I'm loved / there's someone who understands me, etc / I feel there is a higher power) and to answer unanswerable questions (is there a heaven, and, for early civilisations, why the sun comes up and so on).
It's the second point which I think that becomes important for atheists. Because science has replaced the need to ask most of the fundamental questions of life, we no longer need Hades and Persphone to tell us why the seasons come and go.
Humans in general need to place their "faith" in something, and for atheists that often is science. I think very few people are entirely "irreligious".
Don't worry, I know I'm on very very dodgy ground
-
-
I like your comments, you have a level headed approach to the mysteries. Also because you wrote this on my birthday. I'm a synchronisitist.
-
-
I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays. Henny Youngman LOL
-
Better term
Secular humanism.
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Edna Sweetlove
Oct 24 12:35 PM 2005
Reply