So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Seth]

Active rejection of a religion or a god is not a religion or a god.

It's certainly not a god, but whether it is a religion depends entirely on how one goes about "actively rejecting a religion or god."

This "atheist religion" nonsense is just the manufacturing of a term in which to lump all atheists, whether they like it or not, into the same camp.

Now why would anybody want to lump a widely disparate number of people of radically different beliefs and practices into the same camp? Hm...

In other words, you may be an atheist, but accept none of the principles of this "atheist religion" you're clamoring about, but you still label the atheist part of that atheist religion.

It depends on the evidence that exists about the degree to which they practice their beliefs. Clearly, Richard Dawkins argues very passionately and devotedly about his anti-theism, and equally clearly it's a matter of ethics and conscience to him. Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a religious Atheist, and a zealot to boot.

You extend the disbelief in god to these other "beliefs regarding atheism's place in society, law and culture..."

When the genesis of the belief/practice system is atheism, it's hardly improper to connect activities surrounding that atheistic belief that are in support of an anti-theistic agenda and call the complete system of belief and practice a religion.

I know some atheists who think that Christianity is good and that most people need to believe in religions because those people are stupid and need a crutch. Is that part of the atheist religion?

Depends on whether they observe these beliefs religiously.

If your argument is that some individuals have sets of beliefs which they follow as unthinkingly as religion, then sure, that's true. But that doesn't make atheism a religion. That makes whatever those people believe religions.

And if the core principle and belief of that system is atheism, as it is in Richard Dawkins' case, it's perfectly appropriate to label that belief/practice system as "Atheism, the religion."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[charlou]

Actually, it is in the interest of organized religion to falsely and artificially classify atheists as members of an atheist religion, just so they can lump them together and think of them as just a rival religion, which obviates the need to think about their actual views, or to rethink their own world view in the face of this "abnormal" attitude.

Yes, and there's an "I know you are, but what am I" nyer nyer nyer ness about these kinds of "arguments".

[charlou]

Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a religious Atheist, and a zealot to boot.

hmmm ...

Zealot (from Greek ζηλωτής - zelotes, "emulator, zealous admirer or follower")

Zealotry

Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The zealots have been described as one of the first examples of the use of terrorism.[1]

The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".

[Seth]

Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a religious Atheist, and a zealot to boot.

hmmm ...

Zealot (from Greek ζηλωτής - zelotes, "emulator, zealous admirer or follower")

Zealotry

Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The zealots have been described as one of the first examples of the use of terrorism.[1]

The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".

Thanks for the etymology of the word "zealot." What's your point?

[Feck]

Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a religious Atheist, and a zealot to boot.

hmmm ...

Zealot (from Greek ζηλωτής - zelotes, "emulator, zealous admirer or follower")

Zealotry

Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The zealots have been described as one of the first examples of the use of terrorism.[1]

The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".

Thanks for the etymology of the word "zealot." What's your point?

Read it again Slowly

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For the first time.

[Woodbutcher]

No, it's not. It's a philosophy. Religions have rituals, dieties, leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights.

Really? How strange, because a definition of "religion" says nothing about such things. Religion is, or can be, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; something of overwhelming importance to a person; a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."

Nowhere in those several definitions from several authoritative dictionary sources is there a requirement for "rituals, dieties (sic), leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights."

You are applying but one narrow definition of theistic religion, but there are non-theistic religions as well...like Atheism...or Secular Humanism.

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

The key to arriving at an acceptable definition of religion lies in recognizing that religion is a concept which is at once teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of life. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality, or right and wrong, and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.

We would define religion, then, in this way: religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose. Source: http://www.progressiveliving.org/defini ... efined.htm

Theism is a specific set of beliefs in a supernatural deity or power. It's WHAT you believe.

Religion is HOW you go about practicing what you believe, and that need not include any of the attributes you mention, although it often does include one or more such aspects.

I claim that "Atheism" (in the big "A" sense) is a religion because the practitioners meet all the requirements of the definition of religion I've presented.

This definition is not traditional. It is so vague that if you are a self-admitted republican, democrat, or, god forbid, libertarian,that would be your religion. NRA is a religious organisation. So is the tea party. You can have your own set of beliefs, and have a religion of exactly one adherent. Any sport is a religion. So is fishing, hunting and being a criminal. That definition excludes nothing.

[Seth]

No, it's not. It's a philosophy. Religions have rituals, dieties, leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights.

Really? How strange, because a definition of "religion" says nothing about such things. Religion is, or can be, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; something of overwhelming importance to a person; a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."

Nowhere in those several definitions from several authoritative dictionary sources is there a requirement for "rituals, dieties (sic), leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights."

You are applying but one narrow definition of theistic religion, but there are non-theistic religions as well...like Atheism...or Secular Humanism.

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

The key to arriving at an acceptable definition of religion lies in recognizing that religion is a concept which is at once teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of life. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality, or right and wrong, and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.

We would define religion, then, in this way: religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose. Source: http://www.progressiveliving.org/defini ... efined.htm

Theism is a specific set of beliefs in a supernatural deity or power. It's WHAT you believe.

Religion is HOW you go about practicing what you believe, and that need not include any of the attributes you mention, although it often does include one or more such aspects.

I claim that "Atheism" (in the big "A" sense) is a religion because the practitioners meet all the requirements of the definition of religion I've presented.

This definition is not traditional.

So what? Nothing requires that religion be "traditional" to be protected. Indeed, it was the existence of many "non-traditional" religious sects during Colonial times, many of whom were being oppressed and suppressed by Britain-controlled authorities, along with brutal suppression of Catholics by the Church of England dominated British establishment that caused the Founders to protect ALL forms of religion.

It is so vague that if you are a self-admitted republican, democrat, or, god forbid, libertarian,that would be your religion.

If your belief/practice system holds a "parallel" place in your life and you follow it devotedly, as a matter of ethics or conscience, why shouldn't it be your religion?

NRA is a religious organisation. So is the tea party.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Neither are, as organizations, explicitly religious, but certainly particular members could follow the ethical dictates devotedly enough to be classified as religious practice.

You can have your own set of beliefs, and have a religion of exactly one adherent.

Yes, I know, I have exactly that (so far) in Tolerism™. So what?

Any sport is a religion. So is fishing, hunting and being a criminal. That definition excludes nothing.

Right. It includes anything that is followed devotedly as a matter of ethics or conscience. Not sure if "devotion" to a football team would qualify, but that's up to the individual. Certainly hunting and fishing could easily be followed as a religion for someone who strongly believes in the spiritual ethic of hunting. Native Americans made a religious practice out of hunting, as do other cultures.

Again, so what? What's your point? You seem to be objecting to the broad scope of the definition, but why? What's it to you if someone makes a religion out of hunting, or politics, or anything else?

[Seth]

Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a religious Atheist, and a zealot to boot.

hmmm ...

Zealot (from Greek ζηλωτής - zelotes, "emulator, zealous admirer or follower")

Zealotry

Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The zealots have been described as one of the first examples of the use of terrorism.[1]

The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".

Thanks for the etymology of the word "zealot." What's your point?

Read it again Slowly

What's your point? Dawkins is a "zealous admirer or follower" of radical Atheism.

[AshtonBlack]

Atheism... I don't believe god or god(s)
Radical Atheism..... I REALLY don't believe in god or god(s)


Seth's definition of atheist = anti-theist.

[Feck]

Atheism... I don't believe god or god(s)
Radical Atheism..... I REALLY don't believe in god or god(s)


Seth's definition of atheist = anti-theist.

Iz funny trying to upset atheists by implying they are anti-theists but I AM an anti-theist I'm more upset by being called a humanist

[Woodbutcher]

Seth, I have no objection to Atheism as a religion under these premises. As a matter of fact in the next census I'm going to report my religion as "Carpenter". Since I'm a union member and all, and we have a code of conduct, a Building Code, Union Stewards and Business Agents. And we meet once a month. Although I'm not that devout.

[Seth]

Seth, I have no objection to Atheism as a religion under these premises. As a matter of fact in the next census I'm going to report my religion as "Carpenter". Since I'm a union member and all, and we have a code of conduct, a Building Code, Union Stewards and Business Agents. And we meet once a month. Although I'm not that devout.

Works for me, but do you follow carpentry devotedly, as a matter of ethics or conscience? Now, a carpenter has a close connection to Jesus, for example, and you could easily create your own sect of Carpentry that uses the working of wood as a religious observance connected to Jesus (or merely as a spiritual connection with wood and nature for that matter). That would probably qualify you under IRS rules. And then all your tools would be tax-deductible, just as chalices and vestments are deductible for Catholic priests.

See how it works?

[tsig]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

Indeed. A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief, particularly when the beliefs rejected are not subject to critically robust proofs.

And what's wrong with having the discussion?

So non belief = belief?