Atheism is the punk rock of religion

[Reforged]

If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

Get with the plan Raphael. Atheism = lack of belief in God. That's it. It's not confusing.

---

There are atheists that disagree with this, but we chase them off with big sticks whenever they show their faces on AF. Hence the knee jerk reaction above to any suggestion that atheists might touch philosophy with a barge pole. You'd have to be thick skinned to carry off that as an atheist around here. Which I would respect.

---

Your personal philosophy I would categorise as materialism. You disregard anything you can't sense/ anything you can establish by thought alone. That is a possible subset of atheism, just as Christianity is a subset of theism.

(Just so's you know Raphael: I have you on ignore. I don't usually get to see what you post. Nor do I usually have the option to unhide your posts unless it's a rare occasion that I'm on my laptop or not viewing the mobile site/s.)

"(Just so's you know Raphael: I have you on ignore. I don't usually get to see what you post. Nor do I usually have the option to unhide your posts unless it's a rare occasion that I'm on my laptop or not viewing the mobile site/s.)"
Ah, the grandest retreat of all. Does everyone see the level of intellectual cowardice displayed here? Still, I have a duty to respond. What can I say? Some people have integrity, might wanna look up that definition someday Fr0d0.

I would not disagree with this definition of Atheism. Someone who has no Gods and no belief system is someone we cannot class as being part of any religion. So we call them Atheists, period. A religious person can display atheist views toward another religion but not of their own so they would not be called an Atheist. They would be classed by the beliefs they do hold, not the beliefs they do not.

And now the grandest victory of all! I knew you couldn't resist but respond to this fr0d0 and I have been waiting for this inevitable response with great anticipation. I will now quote you directly:
"Atheism = lack of belief in God."
In your own words thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else.
Ergo; *NOT* a religious position.
Thank you and goodnight... at least until you decide you can see my post despite having blocked me, again. :-)

[fr0d0]

So let me point out your continued error Raphael, as you now seem to have understood your last one...

Buddhists can lack a belief in a deity, yet also be members of a major religion.

Not that this has anything to do with your position on deity, which is the point in discussion here. You have a position on deity, which I credit you with having thought about. And Indeed, you make noises about a position of materialism, a philosophical stance. So you are easily included in my categorization here.

[CliveStaples]

In your own words thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else.
Ergo; *NOT* a religious position.
Thank you and goodnight... at least until you decide you can see my post despite having blocked me, again. :-)

Doesn't this turn on what 'a religious position' amounts to? Someone who says, "I'm undecided about this political issue" might be said to have a political position on the issue--'undecided'. Whether you decide to call it a 'position' or a 'lack of a position' seems pretty arbitrary; a pollster seeking information on the positions people have on the issue would probably not ignore the 'undecideds'.

It's like asking, "Is there an empty set?" Well, some people think that a set has to contain something in order to be a set--that is, a set is defined by its elements. Whether you choose to include the empty set as a set is entirely arbitrary.

[Reforged]

In your own words thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else.
Ergo; *NOT* a religious position.
Thank you and goodnight... at least until you decide you can see my post despite having blocked me, again. :-)

Doesn't this turn on what 'a religious position' amounts to? Someone who says, "I'm undecided about this political issue" might be said to have a political position on the issue--'undecided'. Whether you decide to call it a 'position' or a 'lack of a position' seems pretty arbitrary; a pollster seeking information on the positions people have on the issue would probably not ignore the 'undecideds'.

It's like asking, "Is there an empty set?" Well, some people think that a set has to contain something in order to be a set--that is, a set is defined by its elements. Whether you choose to include the empty set as a set is entirely arbitrary.

Without meaning to come across as insulting;
If I conclude Aliens have psychic powers thats a position on Aliens. If I conclude Aliens don't have psychic powers then thats still a position on Aliens. If I conclude Aliens don't exist then the most you could squeeze out of it is thats a position on reality in that I don't think Aliens are actually part of it.
I conclude through lack of any evidence God exists that he does not exist. This is a position on evidence, it is a position on reality, on fiction. It may even be a position on life. How can it be a position on religion? I don't acknowledge it as a reasoned or backed thing to have a position on. I can no more have a position on that than on the belief of someone elses imaginary friend who I have concluded I have no reason to believe exists. The point of whether his cardigan is red or yellow would be moot, I don't think theres a cardigan there or even a persons body for it to rest upon.

My position cannot be religious, I fundamentally reject the premises on which religions operate.

---

So let me point out your continued error Raphael, as you now seem to have understood your last one...

Buddhists can lack a belief in a deity, yet also be members of a major religion.

Not that this has anything to do with your position on deity, which is the point in discussion here. You have a position on deity, which I credit you with having thought about. And Indeed, you make noises about a position of materialism, a philosophical stance. So you are easily included in my categorization here.

Firstly, let me point out one of your more embarrassing recent mistakes that is ironically compounded by my prediction at the end of my last post and by your retort afterward:
"(Just so's you know Raphael: I have you on ignore. I don't usually get to see what you post. Nor do I usually have the option to unhide your posts unless it's a rare occasion that I'm on my laptop or not viewing the mobile site/s.)"
"Thank you and goodnight... at least until you decide you can see my post despite having blocked me, again. :-)"
I will not mention it further, suffice to say it warranted at least one bemused mention however.

If you looked into Buddhism you'd discover they have in their scriptures omnipotent figures who fill the role of deities. These have been slowly phased out and placed firmly into the interpretation of being metaphorical. Never the less there is still the omnipotent being known as the Buddha and the Buddhist aspiration to become one with this being by perfecting ones self over many lifetimes through reincarnation. Out of all religions I would say Buddhism is the only one I could honestly say I see undeniably admirable traits in. I respect its moral outlook despite feeling that its position on reality is in many ways fundamentally flawed.
However, this is not the point of our discussion. The point is Buddha, an omnipotent being one with the universe itself, fills the role in Buddhism you suggest remains unfilled.

The fact is you admitted Atheism is nothing more but the lack of a belief in a deity as opposed to your claim it was a religious position. This alone has been the objective driving me in this debate. This was the point I was aiming for you to concede... and you have.
"Atheism = lack of belief in God."
Your words, not mine.
I think we're done here, thank you for your time.

[fr0d0]

The question of God's existence has nothing to do with my faith. Just to clear that one up for you

Fact remains, there are Buddhists who lack belief in any deity.

So... you have a philosophical position that gives you reason not to believe in a deity. And at the same time you claim not to have a stance on religion??

Oh yeah... I reject religion too. But you don't see me getting butt hurt about the categorization. By your philosophical stance, you have a position on religion. You have considered meaning and purpose just like every other human, and so get to be fully included in the sweep of my OP.

[Reforged]

The question of God's existence has nothing to do with my faith. Just to clear that one up for you

Fact remains, there are Buddhists who lack belief in any deity.

So... you have a philosophical position that gives you reason not to believe in a deity. And at the same time you claim not to have a stance on religion??

Oh yeah... I reject religion too. But you don't see me getting butt hurt about the categorization. By your philosophical stance, you have a position on religion. You have considered meaning and purpose just like every other human, and so get to be fully included in the sweep of my OP.

"The question of God's existence has nothing to do with my faith. Just to clear that one up for you"
Yes it does. Your Gods name is Yahweh, not Allah. You put more faith into Yahweh than you do Allah despite both being equal in terms of plausibility.

"Fact remains, there are Buddhists who lack belief in any deity."
For lack of wanting to repeat the same carefully written paragraph that you obviously didn't want to read; Buddha.

"So... you have a philosophical position that gives you reason not to believe in a deity. And at the same time you claim not to have a stance on religion??"
Nope, just a complete lack of evidence for anything of that nature.


"Oh yeah... I reject religion too. But you don't see me getting butt hurt about the categorization. By your philosophical stance, you have a position on religion. You have considered meaning and purpose just like every other human, and so get to be fully included in the sweep of my OP."
You assume I have a philosophical stance and I have shared none. All I have is a position on reality and thats about it. Meaning and purpose are not the property of religion despite how much those who are part of it would like to think they are.

"Atheism = lack of belief in God."
Incase you missed it. Your admission thats the definition of Atheism. Thats it, thats the complete definition you give. An admission that was the entire focus of this debate and you gave it.
This would usually dictate we have nothing more to say to each other as the purpose of this debate has been significantly diminished by you contradicting your own original statement that Atheism is a religious position.
I think you'll find that any further discussion will only serve to clarify what you already admitted.

[fr0d0]

Question for you then Raph: is theism a religion?

BTW thanks for affirming what you seemingly had a problem affirming earlier

"i haven't shared none" - double negative. You have shared your philosophical view on why there cannot be a deity: because there is a lack of evidence. (i'll leave that hanging itself with It's contradiction of physical evidence of a non physical being. One train wreck in a conversation is enough).

Yes there are Buddhists that do not consider Buddha a deity. But please disregard this fact with so many others.

[Reforged]

Question for you then Raph: is theism a religion?

BTW thanks for affirming what you seemingly had a problem affirming earlier

I feel I have been rather patient with you considering how unhelpful and rude you have been but I will indulge you. I will provide definitions of both to back my retort.

"the·ism
noun /ˈTHēˌizəm/ 

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures"

"re·li·gion
noun /riˈlijən/ 
religions, plural

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
- ideas about the relationship between science and religion

Details of belief as taught or discussed
- when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics

A particular system of faith and worship
- the world's great religions

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion"

Theism is not a religion, it is a consequence of it.
Considering you yourself have stated "Atheism = lack of belief in God." I think we can safely assume this rules out Atheism being a position on either as Atheism, by your own admission, denies the existence of a basis for either.

Are we done yet? No offence but this is getting alittle stale.

[fr0d0]

From your reply there Raph, atheism falls under the umbrella of religion too!

"A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance - consumerism is the new religion"

"atheism is the new religion"

lol

Theism and religion CAN be linked, but, as in the example of Buddhism, theism is not necessary.

[Reforged]

From your reply there Raph, atheism falls under the umbrella of religion too!

I assume you mean the definition:
"A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion"

Of course such a retort to such a definition would have to be made under the presumption that consumerism is actually a religion as opposed to having notable similarities to one.

You'd also have to completely forget that Atheism is the lack of a particular interest which certain groups ascribe supreme importance to.

Plus no-one here actually typed "atheism is the new religion" aside from you just now so I'm not entirely sure why you've put it in quotation marks. Did I miss something?

So no, not really. Nice try though.

Also: "Atheism = lack of belief in God." Fr0d0, 2012.

Done?