Itās not only the fundamental beliefs of religions that matter, itās all that follows from the fundamental belief(s) that matters, and matters greatly. In this way, atheism itself is fundamentally not a religion, as weāve both said.
How is atheism undefinable? ādefinable as the tensile strength of nothingā
I donāt understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?
To recap: Atheism = a belief that there is no God (as opposed to being benignly without a belief in God) = a positive lack of religion = an extant void
Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not āsomethingā which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here?
The tensile strength of nothing is indefinable, thus atheism is indefinable, lacks dogma or fundamental truths and as said there is a serious challenge as to whether its a religion or ever could be.
As an example of a religion founded on few beliefs, secular humanism, before the church failed the first hit on Google was for the church of secular humanism. I was sad to see it go, but it did make no sense. Secular humanism really just is a moral philosophy.
Nope just the certainty.
If its any consolation on first reading you broke my logic bone, but in a good way. I agree, there arenāt enough logical positives to enforce a logical negative into being a logical positive by consequence.
Atheism does not imply worship of any kind, certainly not worship of ānothing.ā Is belief that unicorns donāt exist an āextant lackā? How can we differentiate āAunicornismā from Buddhism? These are rhetorical questions.
Again Buddhism is a religion because it is a belief system/worldview. Atheism is not.
Halelujah abrother, respect the lack of a lord and join with me in a prayer to no one never.
Ramen, and noodle be his indistinct name you fool. Gotta love pirates even if you never believed they existed or were related to global warming. Ninjas are better, hallowed be there lack of being seen, observed, or even heard of.
good FSM when anything is possible anything that is impossible is sidelined without a care for consistency.
We agree it was only a semantic issue anyway I think weāre all on the same train now? If thatās not too much of a suggestion of fact before the evidence is in.
No I think the term āreligionā is to be reserved for belief systems that include a fundamental belief in higher power (God). Secular humanism isā¦āsecular.ā
Secular humanism is a worldview/belief system. But this thread is concerned with religion and whether atheism is one. We already agree that atheism cannot be a religion. Done.
The certainty of whatā¦?
EDIT: And atheism is not a religion on at least two counts: (1) no belief in higher power (2) no belief system
Either of these by itself is enough to disqualify atheism from being a religion.
Yes indeed, but we are presently in the act of creating within the negative space, as per my previous thought:
[/quote]
All we need worship is presence. This will radically transform Xmas!!
Is Evolutionary Psychology a religion? (ā¦not that I necessarily want to go thereā¦)
The perniciously spurious speculation of this thread, Iād suggest, is to undergo (for the purposes of intellectual treadmilling) the process of making atheism into a religionā¦ plenty of misguided disbelievers already do. Perhaps thereās call for guidance in that respect (on the assumption that itās unavoidable), doused with a jerry can of sarcasm naturallyā¦ [-o<
[
We agree. We have to anyway I have to go and don my ninja robes soon and speak to an imaginary crowd of imaginary adherents about a religion that does not and could not ever exist.
Short story short, thereās no way atheism is going to become a religion unless oughtist sorts out his cult and dies at a Wako like place.
Atheism is just an idea not a religion, but religion is just an idea. What distinguishes it, is that they make articles of faith into truth, an atheist cannot and will not do that, because obviously their only article of faith is up to revision if God smites them. In that sense of course it canāt become a faith unless all atheist are strong atheists, and they most certainly arenāt, some atheists couldnāt give a damn if God exists or not until thereās something to talk about, nor even want to talk about it.
Are you saying thereās hope for me yet!!! Actually, I wouldnāt want to assume actual ownership of the cultā¦ I think Pav has copyright privileges on this thread.
Right, as I already said to Sidhe, āreligionā is to be reserved for belief systems that include a fundamental belief in higher power (God).
Atheism is not a religion on at least two counts: (1) no belief in higher power (2) no belief system
Either of these by itself is enough to disqualify atheism from being a religion. A religion must have both.
Just kidding, weāve established that Atheism isnāt truly a Religion at this point, though.
In this case, you do. OK, an Atheist basically accuses a Christian of not being able to prove that God put us here, while at the same time, the Atheist himself is unable to prove (or in some cases speculate) as to how we did get here. Because the Atheist does not know how we got here, saying it has nothing to do with God is a matter of belief and faith.
Belief and faith are words that describe a specific type of thought.
Why not? I think everyone should be sales-tax exempt. Sales tax is bullshit. Iāve already been income taxed and I have no choice but to buy certain thingsā¦
Money.
There is plenty to preach. To be a very successful Atheist, you donāt just have to be able to defend against Christianity, but every Theistic Religion there is.
Of course it is a matter of belief. And letās be clear, faith (how you are using it) just is belief. E.g.
Oxford English Dictionary
faith, n.
I. Belief, trust, confidence.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. (secondary)
The secondary meaning here is the kind of faith that is used to overcome a lack of evidence. It is a blindness overlooked. You take someone elseās word because you trust that person, not because there is any real evidence. You donāt have that with atheism.
Whatever, I do not believe in extra political benefits for religions.
Sorry. Find another way to make moneyā¦if thatās what you really want.
A successful atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist may need to give reasons, but does need to defend herself against religion. You have no positive claims. āBut if youāre an atheist you are saying that God did not create man/the world/etc.ā Fine, then be agnostic. This is small potatoes. Religion has to defend itself from atheism.
Do you really think āpreachingā to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?
No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isnāt the way to go.
Preaching is, in the end, just stand-up. People pay good money to listen to Stand-ups. The Atheist preacher is blatantly a Stand-up. Ex-sistence is a Stand-up. People LOVE for their existence to be put into question, so long as itās done with a light heart and no serious agenda intended. Minds have been changed by laughter. Good can be done through humour!! Ideas, even, can be originated through the cognitive break that is comedy. Religion proper, on the otherhand, is famously tragic, despite its attempts at levity and use of libations. So, no downers allowed!