It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

Take, for instance, what atheism purports to say. Any meaningful form of atheism says either that God doesn't exist, or that one ought not to believe in God. They don't just mean this for themselves ("Oh, I personally don't believe, but it's perfectly okay if you believe"). Instead, they take it that not a single person has a rational basis for believing in God. 

These are very strong claims. There's no science to back it up. No empirical evidence for it. So on what basis are these claims made? 

There's one clear explanation: Blind faith. Atheists have blind faith in some claims, and hence they form part of an atheist's belief system.

We don't have to stop there. We can look at the definition of religion. Many scholars of world religions don't take religion to be defined as beliefs in God and the supernatural. This rules too many religions out. Instead, they look for one common ingredient in all religions, and that is the state of being ultimately concerned. Having a "most important thing" that you care about. And while, strictly speaking, atheism itself doesn't constitute all of one's religion, the broad pool of beliefs, of which atheism is a necessary and important feature. In that sense, atheism is a necessary part of one's religion. The transference of one's ultimate concern from God, to themselves. 

There's a third way in which atheism does the job that religion does. Atheism itself, or as part of a larger worldview, informs our answers to the ultimate questions in life. If you find yourself an atheist, you are NOT ALLOWED to believe some set of answers to questions like "What is the meaning of life?" "Where did all of reality come from?" "What happens after we die?" "Are we more than just our bodies?". As such, atheism not only plays the role of dogma, in defining what we are not allowed to believe. It defines the range of answers we can take to be true.

For these reasons, I think it's OKAY for people to believe atheism is a religion, and for atheism to be treated like a religion, even by atheists.

Holy strawman word salad nonsense, batman!

You need to do something to satiate this hard-on you have for misrepresenting atheists and atheism. Like, seek professional help or something.

Your obsession seems unhealthy. Try focusing on the utter failure of religious claims instead of trying to shit on atheists every chance you get. It makes you seems bitter, and it comes across as petty and desperate.

Sigh....apart from the ritualistic baby-devouring in the the unholy name of the Dark Prince, no, atheism is not a religion.

/thread

I'm a meaningless atheist, yay!

*Yawn*

As long their clergy as they aren't hoarding unnecessary wealth like Catholics or Buddhists.

If you don't believe in atheism, why are you arguing against it? You must be an atheist worshipper

(December 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

Before we begin, would you mind telling us why we should engage with you, since you never meaningfully engage back?

Quote:Take, for instance, what atheism purports to say. Any meaningful form of atheism says either that God doesn't exist, or that one ought not to believe in God. They don't just mean this for themselves ("Oh, I personally don't believe, but it's perfectly okay if you believe"). Instead, they take it that not a single person has a rational basis for believing in God. 

Yes, please do tell me more about what I believe. I do so love watching you lovingly paint bullseyes around your bullet holes.

Quote:These are very strong claims. There's no science to back it up. No empirical evidence for it. So on what basis are these claims made? 

The basis is the utter lack of evidence for gods, and the complete failure of the arguments made in favor of one. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, in that if such a thing did not exist, absence of evidence is precisely what you'd expect to find. Theists are the ones making an ontologically positive claim, they need to back it up and until they do, not accepting the claim and the idea that there's a rational basis for believing it is exactly what one should do.

Quote:There's one clear explanation: Blind faith. Atheists have blind faith in some claims, and hence they form part of an atheist's belief system.

Yawn. Given how the claims you list aren't actually held by atheists, but by the strawman you find it convenient to hold, I don't see how your accusation of faith carries much merit. However, I'll take this as you accepting that faith is a bad thing?

Quote:We don't have to stop there. We can look at the definition of religion. Many scholars of world religions don't take religion to be defined as beliefs in God and the supernatural. This rules too many religions out. Instead, they look for one common ingredient in all religions, and that is the state of being ultimately concerned. Having a "most important thing" that you care about. And while, strictly speaking, atheism itself doesn't constitute all of one's religion, the broad pool of beliefs, of which atheism is a necessary and important feature. In that sense, atheism is a necessary part of one's religion. The transference of one's ultimate concern from God, to themselves. 

And you know what the "ultimate concern" of a group of people you've never met is... how?

Besides, wouldn't that make everything a religion, under your logic? By definition everyone must have some "most important thing," because you can't have a list of finite objects without an upper bound, so if simply having that qualifies one as religious, then everyone is religious. If your sole objective here was to redefine religion in such a way as to contain atheism within the new definition, in the process stripping out much of what makes religion religion, then fine: atheism is a religion. However, we'd need to be talking exclusively within the context of your new, non-standard definition, wherein absolutely everyone is religious, to make that statement true. You certainly couldn't, for example, make the redefinition and then switch back to the standard definition for the conclusion so you can go "ha ha, atheists are just as bad as I am!" You'd need to hold to one definition or the other, and in the case of your redefinition, where it's just "has a most important thing they care about," the actual objectionable parts of real religion are no longer applicable, which makes your accusation of hypocrisy a tad inaccurate. I can make the claim "left handed people are just right handed people too!" if I were allowed to redefine "left" to mean "right," it's not exactly hard to fit groups into categories if you empower yourself to decide what the categories mean.

But if we keep in mind your linguistic trick, it all falls apart, doesn't it?

Quote:There's a third way in which atheism does the job that religion does. Atheism itself, or as part of a larger worldview, informs our answers to the ultimate questions in life. If you find yourself an atheist, you are NOT ALLOWED to believe some set of answers to questions like "What is the meaning of life?" "Where did all of reality come from?" "What happens after we die?" "Are we more than just our bodies?". As such, atheism not only plays the role of dogma, in defining what we are not allowed to believe. It defines the range of answers we can take to be true.

You're wrong. I'll believe in a god the moment sufficient evidence is presented for one. I'm not barred from believing in god, I just choose to only believe in things which are rationally justified. So, again, factually in error. But hey, why bother asking people what they believe, when you can just make shit up to validate your own prejudices, right?

Quote:For these reasons, I think it's OKAY for people to believe atheism is a religion, and for atheism to be treated like a religion, even by atheists.

I wonder how long you're gonna stick around before you hightail it out of here like a coward this time?

(December 14, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

Before we begin, would you mind telling us why we should engage with you, since you never meaningfully engage back?

Quote:Take, for instance, what atheism purports to say. Any meaningful form of atheism says either that God doesn't exist, or that one ought not to believe in God. They don't just mean this for themselves ("Oh, I personally don't believe, but it's perfectly okay if you believe"). Instead, they take it that not a single person has a rational basis for believing in God. 

Yes, please do tell me more about what I believe. I do so love watching you lovingly paint bullseyes around your bullet holes.

Quote:These are very strong claims. There's no science to back it up. No empirical evidence for it. So on what basis are these claims made? 

The basis is the utter lack of evidence for gods, and the complete failure of the arguments made in favor of one. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, in that if such a thing did not exist, absence of evidence is precisely what you'd expect to find. Theists are the ones making an ontologically positive claim, they need to back it up and until they do, not accepting the claim and the idea that there's a rational basis for believing it is exactly what one should do.

Quote:There's one clear explanation: Blind faith. Atheists have blind faith in some claims, and hence they form part of an atheist's belief system.

Yawn. Given how the claims you list aren't actually held by atheists, but by the strawman you find it convenient to hold, I don't see how your accusation of faith carries much merit. However, I'll take this as you accepting that faith is a bad thing?

Quote:We don't have to stop there. We can look at the definition of religion. Many scholars of world religions don't take religion to be defined as beliefs in God and the supernatural. This rules too many religions out. Instead, they look for one common ingredient in all religions, and that is the state of being ultimately concerned. Having a "most important thing" that you care about. And while, strictly speaking, atheism itself doesn't constitute all of one's religion, the broad pool of beliefs, of which atheism is a necessary and important feature. In that sense, atheism is a necessary part of one's religion. The transference of one's ultimate concern from God, to themselves. 

And you know what the "ultimate concern" of a group of people you've never met is... how?

Besides, wouldn't that make everything a religion, under your logic? By definition everyone must have some "most important thing," because you can't have a list of finite objects without an upper bound, so if simply having that qualifies one as religious, then everyone is religious. If your sole objective here was to redefine religion in such a way as to contain atheism within the new definition, in the process stripping out much of what makes religion religion, then fine: atheism is a religion. However, we'd need to be talking exclusively within the context of your new, non-standard definition, wherein absolutely everyone is religious, to make that statement true. You certainly couldn't, for example, make the redefinition and then switch back to the standard definition for the conclusion so you can go "ha ha, atheists are just as bad as I am!" You'd need to hold to one definition or the other, and in the case of your redefinition, where it's just "has a most important thing they care about," the actual objectionable parts of real religion are no longer applicable, which makes your accusation of hypocrisy a tad inaccurate. I can make the claim "left handed people are just right handed people too!" if I were allowed to redefine "left" to mean "right," it's not exactly hard to fit groups into categories if you empower yourself to decide what the categories mean.

But if we keep in mind your linguistic trick, it all falls apart, doesn't it?

Quote:There's a third way in which atheism does the job that religion does. Atheism itself, or as part of a larger worldview, informs our answers to the ultimate questions in life. If you find yourself an atheist, you are NOT ALLOWED to believe some set of answers to questions like "What is the meaning of life?" "Where did all of reality come from?" "What happens after we die?" "Are we more than just our bodies?". As such, atheism not only plays the role of dogma, in defining what we are not allowed to believe. It defines the range of answers we can take to be true.

You're wrong. I'll believe in a god the moment sufficient evidence is presented for one. I'm not barred from believing in god, I just choose to only believe in things which are rationally justified. So, again, factually in error. But hey, why bother asking people what they believe, when you can just make shit up to validate your own prejudices, right?  

Quote:For these reasons, I think it's OKAY for people to believe atheism is a religion, and for atheism to be treated like a religion, even by atheists.

I wonder how long you're gonna stick around before you hightail it out of here like a coward this time?

Since Esquilax just covered every response I thought up better than I ever could have, I'll just add:  

What . . . a . . . bunch . . . of . . . crap.   

Delicate needs to study up on logic and debate, memorize Equilax's responses, and then maybe rewrite the OP so that it makes some sense.