Atheism as a religion

amortalman · Post by **amortalman** » Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:29 pm

The following excerpt is from the National Catholic Register, www.ncregister.com :

But the truth is, atheism is the farthest thing in the world from simple absence of belief. Indeed, atheism is a whole system of beliefsâ€”a system that has its own philosophy (materialism), morality (relativism), politics (social Darwinism), and culture (secularism). It even has its own sacraments (abortion and euthanasia). And this system of beliefs has been responsible for more death, carnage, persecution and misery than any system of beliefs the world has ever known.

Topic of debate: Do you agree or disagree with the statement above and why.

Edit Note: The web address for the National Catholic Register is incomplete. The article I referenced can be read at http://www.ncregister.com/blog/guest-bl ... is-atheism

amortalman · Post by **amortalman** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:35 pm

2timothy316 wrote:
amortalman wrote:
Actually a religion doesn't have to have a deity. Just a belief system or dogma. A dogmatic belief there is no God is a belief system.
You're calling unbelief a belief which makes no sense. Unbelief is lack of belief. Websters defines it this way: Unbelief: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith

Synonyms:
disbelief, incredulity
Antonyms:
belief, credence, credit

The systematic way to reach the conclusion of unbelief is a religion. It's a dogma.
That first sentence is incomplete and makes no sense. What you're saying is that a religion is the systematic way to reach the conclusion of unbelief. (??) (come to think about it that's true! I wasn't an agnostic until after I became religious)

But I'm happy that you've given up on trying to prove that unbelief is a belief. Now you're trying to prove your point by defining dogma. Sorry, that won't work either.

MW calls dogma "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"
Will you please tell me who the authority is that has laid down the principles of atheism? I've never met him, them, or it. Atheists have no creed to follow, no dogmatic principles to live up to. They don't have a governing body, hold elections, construct a hierarchy, or build churches. Atheists have only one thing in common: An unbelief in gods. It's that simple. Why do believers try to complicate it? Christians have enough to try to uncomplicate concerning their own affairs to try to make unbelief in their particular god a complicated matter.

Do you not see the principles you believe that there is no God as having 'authority as incontrovertibly true'? Of course you do. That's the foundation for religion. Look at that, atheist fundamentalism.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what I believe. It so happens I am an agnostic. There is a difference.

I don't believe that the Earth is going to be destroyed. That is faith, so you can not believe something and it be faith. On the other hand, most atheist I know believe the Earth will be consumed by the Sun. So disbelief can indeed be a 'article of faith'. A dogma. Some think they are so different...it just more of the same.
Faith is always stated in the positive sense. In other words, one has faith in something, be it a god or a car. It is a misuse of the word to state it in the negative as in I have faith there is no god, or I have faith that my car won't run. You're obviously turning the word on end to make it fit your argument. Enough said.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:38 pm

[Replying to post 51 by amortalman]

I haven't given up. I am sorry you're not able to grasp the concept. I mean in your post you said your agnostic. That one word, agnostic, explains your basic belief system, just like the one word Christian explains another person's basic belief system. I'm truly sorry this is so this is not easier to understand.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:43 pm

amortalman wrote:

Faith is always stated in the positive sense. In other words, one has faith in something, be it a god or a car.

No it doesn't.

amortalman · Post by **amortalman** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:00 pm

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

and I am sorry you fail to understand.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:08 pm

[Replying to post 50 by 2timothy316]

I see, your part of a non-religion, religion.

The reason I disagree with this statement, is that I in no way act like those of other "actual" religions, like Christians with Christianity, or Muslims with Islam, or Buddhists with Buddhism.
If we look at those people, those groups, we can say about a Christian person what it is about them that makes it such that they have a religion.
About me though...what is it about me that makes you think I have a religion? Like amortalman says in on page 6

"Will you please tell me who the authority is that has laid down the principles of atheism? I've never met him, them, or it. Atheists have no creed to follow, no dogmatic principles to live up to. They don't have a governing body, hold elections, construct a hierarchy, or build churches."
I don't see where what I am, or what I do, in any way resembles that of religionists such as Christians, Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus.
If I'm missing something, please tell me.

Dogma means: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

For me, who or what is this authority? If you say "You are that authority", then you are wrong, because I don't say things are "incontrovertibly true" when it comes to my being an atheist. Christian churches say to their adherents that Jesus Christ is incontrovertibly the resurrected Son of God, for example.
What do I say is incontrovertibly true when I'm wearing my atheist hat?

isn't there anything that you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true?

When it comes to being an atheist? Nope. Not a single thing.

Every principle you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true, is your dogma.

Unluckily for you, there isn't such a thing that I do tell myself is incontrovertibly true (other than the fact that I exist), and even if I did, if I then later on changed my mind on that thing (whatever it is), does that mean I have violated a dogma? Would it be similar to or identical to a Roman Catholic doctor performing an abortion?

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:12 pm

rikuoamero wrote:

isn't there anything that you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true?
When it comes to being an atheist? Nope. Not a single thing.

So your principle 'nothing is incontrovertibly true' you are saying is incontrovertibly true. You just stated one of your dogmas. So there is actually a 'single thing'. Does your statement above apply to only you or is it required for anyone wanting to call themselves an atheist?

From where I stand, only the dead and brain-dead do not have a dogma. Because they can't think.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:26 pm

[Replying to post 56 by 2timothy316]

So your principle 'nothing is incontrovertibly true' you are saying is incontrovertibly true.

You are just twisting my words. You asked me "isn't there anything that you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true?"
to which I answered no.
Now you're saying I have a principle that "nothing is incontrovertibly true", which is something else completely different.
I would appreciate it if you would stop doing this. Respond to what I am actually saying, instead of twisting it into a strawman.

Does your statement above apply to only you or is it required for anyone wanting to call themselves an atheist?

Even if I held the above, just for the sake of this argument, how would it be a dogma? Do I demand it of other atheists? Do I kick them out if they disagree, a la Roman Catholic excommunication?

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:28 pm

[Replying to post 54 by amortalman]

I do understand your view but it lacks backing of the words defined in the English language to be correct. Apparently, you've tossed the dictionary out the window and without your agreement of the definitions of the English language there will never be an agreement. You conceded the argument when you denied the definitions set by the English language and only accept your own definitions of words.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:30 pm

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 56 by 2timothy316]

So your principle 'nothing is incontrovertibly true' you are saying is incontrovertibly true.
You are just twisting my words. You asked me "isn't there anything that you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true?"
to which I answered no.
Now you're saying I have a principle that "nothing is incontrovertibly true", which is something else completely different.
I would appreciate it if you would stop doing this. Respond to what I am actually saying, instead of twisting it into a strawman.

Does your statement above apply to only you or is it required for anyone wanting to call themselves an atheist?
Even if I held the above, just for the sake of this argument, how would it be a dogma? Do I demand it of other atheists? Do I kick them out if they disagree, a la Roman Catholic excommunication?

Then lets get to the bottom of this so as to explain it better.

Is there anything you believe to be "incontrovertibly true". Your answer is no. Is your answer true or not true?

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:42 pm

rikuoamero wrote:
Does your statement above apply to only you or is it required for anyone wanting to call themselves an atheist?
Even if I held the above, just for the sake of this argument, how would it be a dogma? Do I demand it of other atheists? Do I kick them out if they disagree, a la Roman Catholic excommunication?

"isn't there anything that you tell yourself is incontrovertibly true?"
to which I answered no.

Do you hold the above to be a requirement to be an atheist? The definition of dogma doesn't include what is done if a person agrees with you or not. Keeping to the dictionary will help this go a lot smoother. Going off on tangents of what others do others that don't believe the same way is irrelevant in the definition of dogma.

Read this carefully, "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Then it would be helpful to answer with only this definition in mind. In this case the authority is you.

Have you ever Googled 'godless religion'?

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow ... znt6Oh5DNQ