Atheism is a Religion

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

Translation: I cannot formulate or find a definition of religion that excludes my kind of atheist, so I claim that the argument has always been debunked, when I know it hasn't

Is that an idiot translator you are using, blood drinker? Your invalid arguments are invalid as soon as you make them. You are simply too stupid to understand the reality of it.

What is Santa going to bring you for Christmas this year, Francis?

[Francis]

Davin wrote

I don't have to come up with a definition of religion that excludes atheists like me... the definition already exists and is out there in the zeitgeist. The term... get this... is called "religion." Wow, imagine that, all you needed was to look it up in a dictionary.

wikipedia: Religion
oxforddictionaries: religion
oed: religion
...
And so on ans so forth. The common theme being belief... which the lack of, is the only thing atheists have in common.

Your personal definition that is only use by you? Wow!

Nope, I guess I won't... because I'm suh, suh, suh, scared! Hahaha!

How sweet, well you tried to say something smart. I guess this is the best you can do.

Note that two out of the three definitions provided, do not exclude atheists who meet etc. Considering that certain Buddhists and certain Jews do not believe in God, the Oxford definition is just in error.

Clearly, by two thirds of the definitions you provide, and the demonstrated inaccuracy of the third, the atheism that displays the characteristics I observe, is a religion.

Embrace the horror. Might as well give your church a name and start building edifices. I would suggest certain standard chants, but you already have them

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

Note that two out of the three definitions provided, do not exclude atheists who meet etc. Considering that certain Buddhists and certain Jews do not believe in God, the Oxford definition is just in error.

Clearly, by two thirds of the definitions you provide, and the demonstrated inaccuracy of the third, the atheism that displays the characteristics I observe, is a religion.

Embrace the horror. Might as well give your church a name and start building edifices. I would suggest certain standard chants, but you already have them

True Believer Fallacy!

[Francis]

ghoulslime wrote

True Believer Fallacy!

There's a start on a standard chant. Or should we call it the title to the next atheist prayer?

"True believer fallacy. We shall not succumb. Deliver us from evil believers. Protect us in our (imaginary) superiority..."

[Michael]

Okay, so based on what has transpired so far, I fully expect that trying to discuss this with Francis will be like discussing this with a brick wall with "nuh-uh!" spray painted in giant gaudy green.

However, the idea of examining atheism as a religion needs to be addressed, if only for other people who may stumble upon this accusation.

So I will try to aim this post less as a response towards Francis and more generally as a discussion of the ideas so far put forward, towards everyone.

"atheism is a religion"

Before we go anywhere we need to define both atheism and religion, else this entire exercise is worthless. How can we say one undefined things falls into another undefined category? We can't.

Once we know what a religion is defined as, we can contrast atheism (whatever that gets defined as) and see if it actually matches up. In order to be a religion, however atheism is defined will need to line up with however religion is defined.

(You may already be spotting the first problem, and the one that I suspect will ultimately nullify Francis' entire argument: definitions so wildly pulled out of nothing that they don't remotely represent religion or atheism)

Anyway, I'm not sure what Francis defines as either atheism or religion at this point, So let's look at what he has stated so far:

1) Atheists, like religious churchgoers, regularly meet.
2) Atheists, like priests and reverends do, hustle contributions.
3) Atheists, like many religious, are certain of the truth of their views.
4) Atheists, like religious fundamentalists, attribute dishonesty to those who disagree with them.
5) Atheists, like many religious, enjoy cackling in imagined superiority over people who disagree with them.

Additionally -

Atheists (certainly on this forum) believe and disbelieve primarily for emotional reasons.

Religion, then -
1) regularly meets
2) hustles contributions
3) is certain of the truth of its views
4) attributes dishonesty to those who disagree with them
5) enjoys cackling in imagined superiority over people who disagree with them.
6) believe and disbelieve primarily for emotional reasons.

It stands to reason, then, that anything that fails to meet this criteria is not a religion, and anything that does meet it can be called a religion.
Alternatively, you could reason that you need not meet all criteria, only a majority (4 out of 6).

The problem is that using this definition, there are many things that can be attributed as a religion - everything from sports teams to city councils - to the level of making it virtually useless as a category.
I suspect, additionally, that several legitimate religions would fail to qualify under this definition.

Since Francis claims that atheism is equal to religion, it stands to reason then that in order for something to be atheism, it must fulfill either all the above, or a majority. If it does not, then it is not atheism as described by Francis.

And that's the rub. Francis has created something out of a poor definition, but It is not actually a religion, and it is definitely not atheism, nor does it aptly apply to anyone on these forums, theistic or not.


Next up, should I decide to continue this, I will look at finding better definitions for both religion and atheism, and properly comparing and contrasting the two.

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

There's a start on a standard chant. Or should we call it the title to the next atheist prayer?

"True believer fallacy. We shall not succumb. Deliver us from evil believers. Protect us in our (imaginary) superiority..."

Why not just call it a factual statement, conman?

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

Okay, so based on what has transpired so far, I fully expect that trying to discuss this with Francis will be like discussing this with a brick wall with "nuh-uh!" spray painted in giant gaudy green.

However, the idea of examining atheism as a religion needs to be addressed, if only for other people who may stumble upon this accusation.

So I will try to aim this post less as a response towards Francis and more generally as a discussion of the ideas so far put forward, towards everyone.

"atheism is a religion"

Before we go anywhere we need to define both atheism and religion, else this entire exercise is worthless. How can we say one undefined things falls into another undefined category? We can't.

Once we know what a religion is defined as, we can contrast atheism (whatever that gets defined as) and see if it actually matches up. In order to be a religion, however atheism is defined will need to line up with however religion is defined.

(You may already be spotting the first problem, and the one that I suspect will ultimately nullify Francis' entire argument: definitions so wildly pulled out of nothing that they don't remotely represent religion or atheism)

Anyway, I'm not sure what Francis defines as either atheism or religion at this point, So let's look at what he has stated so far:


Additionally -



Religion, then -
1) regularly meets
2) hustles contributions
3) is certain of the truth of its views
4) attributes dishonesty to those who disagree with them
5) enjoys cackling in imagined superiority over people who disagree with them.
6) believe and disbelieve primarily for emotional reasons.

It stands to reason, then, that anything that fails to meet this criteria is not a religion, and anything that does meet it can be called a religion.
Alternatively, you could reason that you need not meet all criteria, only a majority (4 out of 6).

The problem is that using this definition, there are many things that can be attributed as a religion - everything from sports teams to city councils - to the level of making it virtually useless as a category.
I suspect, additionally, that several legitimate religions would fail to qualify under this definition.

Since Francis claims that atheism is equal to religion, it stands to reason then that in order for something to be atheism, it must fulfill either all the above, or a majority. If it does not, then it is not atheism as described by Francis.

And that's the rub. Francis has created something out of a poor definition, but It is not actually a religion, and it is definitely not atheism, nor does it aptly apply to anyone on these forums, theistic or not.


Next up, should I decide to continue this, I will look at finding better definitions for both religion and atheism, and properly comparing and contrasting the two.

You are actually attempting to reason with Francis? He is a Shitlord. He comes to spread his shit. That's about it.

[Michael]

ghoulslime wrote

You are actually attempting to reason with Francis? He is a Shitlord. He comes to spread his shit. That's about it.

I specifically addressed that at the top. I fully expect Francis to give me the texual equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and yelling"lalalalala i'm right you're wrong". I posted that as a countermeasure to the crap that was being spewed. It is addressed more generally to whoever may be reading.

Having said that, I am perfectly willing to have Francis surprise me with a thoughtful, reasonable response. I'm just not expecting one.

[Davin]

Francis wrote

Note that two out of the three definitions provided, do not exclude atheists who meet etc.

They all exclude atheists.

Francis wrote

Considering that certain Buddhists and certain Jews do not believe in God, the Oxford definition is just in error.

They have common beliefs, they believe in Judaism or Buddhism. Atheism is the lack of a belief, thereby it can never be a religion.

Francis wrote

Clearly, by two thirds of the definitions you provide, and the demonstrated inaccuracy of the third, the atheism that displays the characteristics I observe, is a religion.

What are the common beliefs of atheism?

Hint: atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. So by definition, atheism cannot be a collection of beliefs.

Francis wrote

Embrace the horror. Might as well give your church a name and start building edifices. I would suggest certain standard chants, but you already have them

No horror to embrace, your point is insanely invalid. Unless you can explain how the lack of belief is itself a belief. Be careful though how do that though, because I may come 'round to steal your money... after all, the lack of money is really the same thing as having money right?

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

I specifically addressed that at the top. I fully expect Francis to give me the texual equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and yelling"lalalalala i'm right you're wrong". I posted that as a countermeasure to the crap that was being spewed. It is addressed more generally to whoever may be reading.

Having said that, I am perfectly willing to have Francis surprise me with a thoughtful, reasonable response. I'm just not expecting one.

Francis has no honesty in him. He is an unrepentant liar.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

There's a start on a standard chant. Or should we call it the title to the next atheist prayer?

"True believer fallacy. We shall not succumb. Deliver us from evil believers. Protect us in our (imaginary) superiority..."

http://www.religionfacts.com/a-z-religion-index/

A-Z Religion Index

ReligionFacts is very inclusive with what is regarded as a "religion" for purposes of this index and this website. Some of these belief systems may not be "religions" according to traditional definitions (they might better be called "philosophies" or "movements"), and some are even anti-religion.

Gee, I don't see Atheism in the list - wonder why?

[Eternal]

I see the quality of the discussion put forward by the over enthusiastic fuckwits hasn't improved any. Is Francis the new resident Jerry?

[dogpet]

For Brits only.

[Smellyoldgit]

Eternal wrote

I see the quality of the discussion put forward by the over enthusiastic fuckwits hasn't improved any. Is Francis the new resident Jerry?

Welcome back you heathen scrote!
For clarity - Francis is the original Shitlord - demoted for behaviour unbecoming of even the most unwelcome floating turd.
Jerry 50/50 continues to be the shit-stirring, trolling, sheep-shagging fool that he always was - and will soon be re-confined to his own idiot pen once I can be bothered to sort the wanker out.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

Okay, so based on what has transpired so far, I fully expect that trying to discuss this with Francis will be like discussing this with a brick wall with "nuh-uh!" spray painted in giant gaudy green.

However, the idea of examining atheism as a religion needs to be addressed, if only for other people who may stumble upon this accusation.

So I will try to aim this post less as a response towards Francis and more generally as a discussion of the ideas so far put forward, towards everyone.

"atheism is a religion"

Before we go anywhere we need to define both atheism and religion, else this entire exercise is worthless. How can we say one undefined things falls into another undefined category? We can't.

Once we know what a religion is defined as, we can contrast atheism (whatever that gets defined as) and see if it actually matches up. In order to be a religion, however atheism is defined will need to line up with however religion is defined.

(You may already be spotting the first problem, and the one that I suspect will ultimately nullify Francis' entire argument: definitions so wildly pulled out of nothing that they don't remotely represent religion or atheism)

Anyway, I'm not sure what Francis defines as either atheism or religion at this point, So let's look at what he has stated so far:


Additionally -



Religion, then -
1) regularly meets
2) hustles contributions
3) is certain of the truth of its views
4) attributes dishonesty to those who disagree with them
5) enjoys cackling in imagined superiority over people who disagree with them.
6) believe and disbelieve primarily for emotional reasons.

It stands to reason, then, that anything that fails to meet this criteria is not a religion, and anything that does meet it can be called a religion.
Alternatively, you could reason that you need not meet all criteria, only a majority (4 out of 6).

The problem is that using this definition, there are many things that can be attributed as a religion - everything from sports teams to city councils - to the level of making it virtually useless as a category.
I suspect, additionally, that several legitimate religions would fail to qualify under this definition.

Since Francis claims that atheism is equal to religion, it stands to reason then that in order for something to be atheism, it must fulfill either all the above, or a majority. If it does not, then it is not atheism as described by Francis.

And that's the rub. Francis has created something out of a poor definition, but It is not actually a religion, and it is definitely not atheism, nor does it aptly apply to anyone on these forums, theistic or not.


Next up, should I decide to continue this, I will look at finding better definitions for both religion and atheism, and properly comparing and contrasting the two.

Well first of all I note your inability to even pretend to be objective. Revealing is the constant attempt to falsely attribute statements or conclusions to your opponents. I reject that rude and transparent tactic and demand to be attributed only those things which I state.

And what have I stated? Simply that I am, for this issue, taking a behaviorist approach to the issue. What actions are observed in religion? I listed them. None of them refer to God or Supreme Beings precisely because of the Buddhist and Reform Judaism examples.

So thank you for your absent analysis and your conclusion stuffed diatribe. That is preferable for your kind to avoid asking "Do atheists regularly meet"? or "Do atheists hustle contributions"? My way is how a sociologist would approach the question. Your conclusions and inserted insults are tactics of the religious.