Atheism as a religion

[amortalman]

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 beliefs—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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

Do you hold the above to be a requirement to be an atheist?

In order to match the description of an atheist, an atheist must lack a belief in a god or gods.
It is not proscriptive though. In order to match the description of the term "non-sports-player" (if such a thing were not just now immediately coined by me), one would have to play no sports.
However, it is not proscriptive. What would be proscriptive would be being a member of An Garda Síochána (our police), but denying the authority of the government and its codified body of laws. One cannot work as a member of the Garda while rejecting the authority of the nation's laws.
If I move from lacking a belief in a god to having such a belief, the word used to describe me changes. You would describe me as a theist then.

The definition of dogma doesn't include what is done if a person agrees with you or not.

What do you think happens if one disagrees with a set of dogmas put forth by a group? What happens if one disagrees with the dogmas of a church? Will the RCC permit me to take part in Holy Communion and eat the wafer while I make it known that I lack a belief in their god? Would the Garda permit me to act as a law enforcement officer while I make it known that I reject the authority of the nation's laws (not something I actually hold to)?

Going off on tangents of what others do others that don't believe the same way is irrelevant in the definition of dogma.

Dictionaries aren't everything. If I were debating a feminist, I wouldn't rely solely on the dictionary, I would point out the problems with the movement and the various ideologies it has spawned.

Read this carefully, "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Since I have said to you now multiple times that I do not tell myself anything is incontrovertibly true (beyond the fact I exist), then the above does not apply to me. Since the above does not apply to me, I do not have a dogma. Since I do not have a dogma, I do not have a religion.

In this case the authority is you.

And if hypothetical atheist Tommy performs an abortion after having previously said that it's incontrovertibly true that abortions are wrong? Was that a dogma with him? Please describe how it lines up with other things that you and I can agree on are dogmas.

[rikuoamero]

[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?

I exist. Cogito ergo sum. However, this does not mean that I take this reality to be the absolute realist real reality there is or can be. For all I know, I could be a brain in a jar, hooked up to the Matrix, or not even a brain, just a simulated brain run in the Matrix. Whatever I ultimately am, I am a thinking agent of some type, whether a biological brain or a simulation of some sort.

But beyond that, beyond the fact that I exist in something that I call reality (whatever that ultimately is)...no.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 61 by rikuoamero]

From what I can see from this post. You live in your own world. "Dictionaries aren't everything."? Are they not everything for the English language? IF they are not, then what in the world is? My words don't come from the rikuoamero dictionary. I prefer to talk with those that have a firm grasp on the reference information provided for those that use the English language. This is why you lose the argument. No one lives in rikuoamero-land, where only rikuoamero makes all the definition rules. It seems clear you are your own god. it proves my point even further, yet you can't see it. Only humility will allow you to see it.

Do you know what humility means for the rest of us? "freedom from pride or arrogance".

Do you know what pride can means to the rest of the English speaking world? "proud or disdainful behavior or treatment"

Do you know what arrogance means to the rest of the English speaking world? "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions".

Accept the rikuoamero understanding of the English language or accept the given dictionaries. Either way, it's a dogma for you.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

Do you hold the above to be a requirement to be an atheist?

In order to match the description of an atheist, an atheist must lack a belief in a god or gods.

Is the statement above incontrovertibly true? Yes or no.

You bolded description. Why? Here is the definition of description. "a statement or account giving the characteristics of someone or something" To me it seems like I can put atheist into a certain group, like a kind of godless-religion.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow ... qRst13l_3w

[2timothy316]

But beyond that, beyond the fact that I exist in something that I call reality (whatever that ultimately is)...no.

René Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Did you that René Descartes believed in God yet was hated by the Catholic Church?

Even your idea of "I exist in something that I call reality" is not your own idea.

[rikuoamero]

But beyond that, beyond the fact that I exist in something that I call reality (whatever that ultimately is)...no.

René Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Did you that René Descartes believed in God yet was hated by the Catholic Church?

Even your idea of "I exist in something that I call reality" is not your own idea.

Your point being...? Is it verboten for me to take ideas or phrases from people who are not atheists? You do realize that it would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, for me to craft a philosophical outlook on life using nothing but my own ideas.

Why are you taking this angle, as if it's a failing of mine? Have you taken any ideas from people who are not theists? Have you borrowed phrases or philosophical ideas from other people?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by 2timothy316]

From what I can see from this post. You live in your own world.

I live in a world. I don't know what you mean by "your own world", as if it's my world, something under my control?

"Dictionaries aren't everything."? Are they not everything for the English language?

If I take English in college, is the only book that I need the dictionary?
I think not.

IF they are not, then what in the world is?

Other books. When I was in school, I studied Shakespeare, to give one example.

My words don't come from the rikuoamero dictionary.

Good, because I don't have one either.

I prefer to talk with those that have a firm grasp on the reference information provided for those that use the English language.

Which is why I talked about dogmas and religions, and asked you how what I am or do matches those whom both you and I would agree have dogmas and religions.

No one lives in rikuoamero-land, where only rikuoamero makes all the definition rules.

Note that to date, on this thread, I have not argued definitions. I have not said dictionary definitions are wrong.

It seems clear you are your own god.

Are you comparing me to the being you worship? The character from the Bible?

it proves my point even further, yet you can't see it. Only humility will allow you to see it.

Which one of us believes that the creator god of the universe loves him, and died to save him?

Do you know what humility means for the rest of us? "freedom from pride or arrogance".

Which of the two of us believes that he has an inside track on the secrets of the cosmos, direct from the creator of said cosmos?

Do you know what pride can means to the rest of the English speaking world? "proud or disdainful behavior or treatment"

Which of the two of us thinks that his all powerful creator god will reject the other for not believing his creator god exists?

Do you know what arrogance means to the rest of the English speaking world? "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions".

Which of the two of us made assumptions and strawmen, insists that the other person is doing something even while that other person is patiently explaining that he is not?

Accept the rikuoamero understanding of the English language or accept the given dictionaries. Either way, it's a dogma for you.

Funny, this is something I could accuse the Christians of doing. I ask them is their God loving, they say yes, only for me to throw my hands up in the air and point to Noah's Flood and other things.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 64 by 2timothy316]

You bolded description. Why? Here is the definition of description. "a statement or account giving the characteristics of someone or something" To me it seems like I can put atheist into a certain group, like a kind of godless-religion.

I don't play tennis, or any sport at all. What sport are you going to describe me as playing? What type of sports-man am I, what word are you going to use? What sport rules do I need to follow in the sports that I do not play? What tournament rules, what leagues, what cups or championships am I eligible for? Would it make sense to describe me using words/language that typically describe someone who DOES play a sport?

In short, why call me a person who has a religion, when all throughout this I have carefully explained I do not?

[2timothy316]

In short, why call me a person who has a religion, when all throughout this I have carefully explained I do not?

Because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Heck, I even found an article where there are some Atheist that do recruitment festivals. https://www.oregonlive.com/faith/2016/0 ... tival.html

All you have explained is that you have your own dictionary and the dictionary the world uses doesn't apply to you. So you do whatever you wish, the rest of us are going to call your belief system what it is, a godless religion. Even in search engine results the number one result for 'godless religion' is atheism. If want to deny that, go ahead.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 66 by rikuoamero]

I see you have avoided my question in post 64. Why is that?

viewtopic.php?p=941779#941779