Jokes10 mins ago
The definition of an Athiest
72 Answers
Hi guys can you help please? Waldo if you still come on here would love your take on this.
Am on a site which claims that Athiesm is now a religion and whilst I know this to be not true, Someone such as yourself(anyone else plese post as well!) can put it far more eloguently than me!
Thank you
Am on a site which claims that Athiesm is now a religion and whilst I know this to be not true, Someone such as yourself(anyone else plese post as well!) can put it far more eloguently than me!
Thank you
Answers
To call atheism a religion is merely a sloppy use of the language, as in "Football is a religion to him" or "She embraces astrology with a religious fervour". LeMarchand is guilty of this when talking about Dawkins' rationality.
Religion
Religion
11:00 Thu 16th Jun 2011
You do not need a god for a religion. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Religions without gods are called atheistic religions.
But atheism itself is not a religion. Drawing on another Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion, you might define Religion most fundamentally as follows:
----------------
Religion is a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values. Religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect.
----------------
That definition doesn't describe atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Religions without gods are called atheistic religions.
But atheism itself is not a religion. Drawing on another Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion, you might define Religion most fundamentally as follows:
----------------
Religion is a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values. Religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect.
----------------
That definition doesn't describe atheism.
woofgang, would you like to explain that gibberish, please.
Garmard, if my opinion is 'biased' then my opinion is also 'biased' about the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, magic wands, invisibilty potions, Cinderella's glass slipper, unicorns and a hundred other weird and unproven beliefs. What a hopelessly biased person I am.
LoftyLottie, if religious belief is not irrational and absurd, please explain why. To do that you will have to show that it is rational and perfectly sensible.
l
Garmard, if my opinion is 'biased' then my opinion is also 'biased' about the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, magic wands, invisibilty potions, Cinderella's glass slipper, unicorns and a hundred other weird and unproven beliefs. What a hopelessly biased person I am.
LoftyLottie, if religious belief is not irrational and absurd, please explain why. To do that you will have to show that it is rational and perfectly sensible.
l
Clanad, I totally disagree with you. Noone on this earth can categorically say that there isn't a God, even you with all your wisdom. I don't believe there is a God. My intellectual abilities and powers of reasoning say there is not.
So if a person cannot prove that something is rational, then it is obviously must be irrational??
So if a person cannot prove that something is rational, then it is obviously must be irrational??
the definition in my dictionary, if i don't believe, why would anyone say atheism is a religion
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.
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.
How can it be labelled absurd ? There are things than can not be presently be explained, perhaps never will be, and it seems reasonable to assign a cause to those mysteries. One doesn't need an intelligence diety of some type as your cause in order to form a religion; but neither is it such a large step to hypothesise that. It's hardly absurd. Just a case of folk placing their faith in different explanations.
As I mentioned earlier em10, I suspect it is because one needs faith in there being no diety that some folk feel this qualifies it as a religion. I may be wrong but that would be my guess. But to be honest why should anyone care what it is labelled as ? It's the belief not the label one has that should be important to each.
Answerprancer - "Atheism is as much a 'religeon' as not collecting stamps is a hobby. (someone had to say it !) I can sort of understand their point, anything with the suffix "ism" represents some sort of concrete belief system by my understanding, perhaps not a religeon, but definitely a 'thing'."
You correctly surmise the suffix '-ism' as implicating some form of belief . . . but then you ignore the prefix;
'a-' without
'-theism' belief in the existence of a god or gods
Deconstruction of the terms is not to be done arbitrarily but with consideration to how the term is intentionally constructed to convey a particular meaning. Similarly, in this context, 'a-ism' would not refer to someone who worships 'a' (although I'm sure some people do) but would refer to being devoid of belief in anything of any kind.
Again, 'atheism' refers to a lack of belief in the existence of a 'god' or 'gods'. The question remains, "What in reality is one referring to by the term 'god' and perhaps more importantly; "Why adopt and hold beliefs in the arbitrary, a supposed entity which itself defies definition by virtue of its lack of any referent in reality and can not possibly exist by virtue of the fact that what the existence of such an entity presupposes is in direct contradiction to that which we do or can know about reality?" Such is nothing more or other than the glorification and worship of one's own ignorance.
You correctly surmise the suffix '-ism' as implicating some form of belief . . . but then you ignore the prefix;
'a-' without
'-theism' belief in the existence of a god or gods
Deconstruction of the terms is not to be done arbitrarily but with consideration to how the term is intentionally constructed to convey a particular meaning. Similarly, in this context, 'a-ism' would not refer to someone who worships 'a' (although I'm sure some people do) but would refer to being devoid of belief in anything of any kind.
Again, 'atheism' refers to a lack of belief in the existence of a 'god' or 'gods'. The question remains, "What in reality is one referring to by the term 'god' and perhaps more importantly; "Why adopt and hold beliefs in the arbitrary, a supposed entity which itself defies definition by virtue of its lack of any referent in reality and can not possibly exist by virtue of the fact that what the existence of such an entity presupposes is in direct contradiction to that which we do or can know about reality?" Such is nothing more or other than the glorification and worship of one's own ignorance.
LoftyLottie, the fact that I cannot prove that there is no God is of no importance or significance. When similarly challenged, Bertram Russell pointed out that he could not prove, either, that there is no china teapot in solitary orbit around the sun, but that is no indication that there is such a teapot.
Similarly, I cannot prove that there are not invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden, but until somebody gives me reason to suppose that there are I am entitled to assume that there are not. Why? Because the idea makes no sense.
The idea of God makes no sense. It is a supernatural concept. He, she, it is supposed to do magical things. So the onus is on believers to offer some evidence that this unnatural being exists. If they can't then I am entitled to assume that it doesn't.
Well, so far, no-one over the millennia since the Jews invented "God" has anyone ever produced the slightest smidgeon of such evidence. So I stand my ground.
Similarly, I cannot prove that there are not invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden, but until somebody gives me reason to suppose that there are I am entitled to assume that there are not. Why? Because the idea makes no sense.
The idea of God makes no sense. It is a supernatural concept. He, she, it is supposed to do magical things. So the onus is on believers to offer some evidence that this unnatural being exists. If they can't then I am entitled to assume that it doesn't.
Well, so far, no-one over the millennia since the Jews invented "God" has anyone ever produced the slightest smidgeon of such evidence. So I stand my ground.
My definition of Atheism is that it is not a belief, religion or a faith, it is a description of a world-view, or an attempt to understand reality based on evidence, or lack thereof.
An understanding of reality based on what is 'real' rather than imaginary.
An understanding of existence based on what exists rather than what does not exist.
An understanding of reality based on what is 'real' rather than imaginary.
An understanding of existence based on what exists rather than what does not exist.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.