Atheism is a religion.

[Dystopia]

Regarding the URSS, of course persecuting and banning religion is not the way to go, I'm not biased to say religion is the only cause of harm in the world or that it has only negative effects, it certainly has positive benefits, they are just far surpassed by the cons.

[Mister Agenda]

Can you name two different things for which all atheists stand? We can't even all agree on the proper definition of atheist.

I can name one, lack of belief in gods or belief that no gods exist. This is enough for us to consider it a position or a worldview, not a wide view but a small one.

It would be if the former belief didn't contain the latter, and was some sort of stance rather than merely a description of a mental state. The second fits the bill better, but that's only one, and most atheists don't share it.

I didn't mean to say all atheists share common views, and either way the word use in portuguese is 'mundividência' that means more or less 'worldview' but the meaning is not exactly the same, it equals more or less a way of being in society, a position, the position of lack of belief in gods. This is what the guy meant, but he never intended to make atheism a religion, quite the opposite.

People who share the same worldview share at least some common views. Sharing one doesn't seem to quite add up to a commonality in worldviews.

That said, I think I get the qualification you're trying to make.

---

I think if anyone asks me if I am an atheist I will probably just tell them I just think for myself. I am beginning to dislike the label. Conversations about religion will in any case be very short. I just can't be bothered wasting energy on discussing or even listening to what someone else thinks about skydaddy.

I've always wondered why does a word exist to describe people who don't believe in something... Is there a word for people who don't believe in aliens? Or dragons? Unicorns? No... So why is there the word atheist?

Same reason we need a word for people who are apolitical. Most people are political, so it's a distinction when someone isn't, so we need a term for it. We don't need a term for someone who doesn't believe something almost no one else in the world believes either.

[Zidneya]

Zid, your outrage over the fact that even atheists like to congregate with like-minded people,

Nooo! really? I mean I would never have figured that out, considering that I registered in a "ATHEIST FORUM." I mean seriously my mayor concern is the name "church" in the title as for the rest I am okay. Is it too much to ask you to realize that?

along with your assumption that everyone is an atheist for the same reasons are arrogant at best.

So is arrogance to think that ever atheist became one because they don't believe in God? Seems me that you don't know what you are talking about.

Tell you what: if you don't like the idea of an atheist "church" don't go to one. Problem solved.

Oh so we are gonna play the: You don't like it don't be a part of it. Okay
You don't like my replays don come address me in the first place. Problem solved.
You don't like my emoticons don't read my threads. Problem solved.
You don't like me then ignore me. Problem solved.
See I can play it as well.
Normally I would ask : "Who the hell are you to say what I should or shouldn't do?!!" but that is just my personal opinion . Although in a more deep level I think that saying that kind of stuff is silly and dumb in the first place for three reasons:
One: I am entitled to say my opinion like everyone else.
Second: asking someone to step aside if he doesn't agree is silly. Mindless conservative have said that since ever. "You don't like this country then don't be a part of it and leave."(Not saying that you are a conservative, I'm just giving an example)
Three: Just because I don't want to be a part of it doesn't mean I have to shut up? There are a lot of events and stuff that I disagree and I don't like to be a part of nor yet I won't stop disagreeing in the future like: bullfighting, underpaid third world jobs, cotillion balls, peregrinations, samskara, sukyo mahikari, islamic weddings between under aged, etc.
Although….

I have mixed feelings with rumspringa. I mean I disagree with the Amish yet encourage Rumspringa. I dunno it's grey area for me.

Oh, and please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I didn't like you.

Aha.

Zid, you're unreasonable and manic, and I refuse to engage with you further.

---

Though, those emoticons are truly annoying.

I don't mind, I seriously encourage that everyone finds or chooses the image media expressions that fits him/her. And since I don't use my emotions to like you(I don't like my emoticons yeah right what should I care what you think about them) but also I don't use them to upset you. Therefore I didn't used them in this reply to you.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sorry ManMachine I wrote your reply aside from this one is just that I dunno why sometimes two posts they either bond or appear as one. Thats why I putted all this lines here to separate it.

As with any human social construct, there is a lot of philosophical pushing and shoving and eventually a consensus of ideology will emerge, some people will adhere to this consensus, others will reject it.

Okay I can understand this however isn’t the nature of that’s ideology defines it’s course? Atheist church do you see the implicit contradiction?

Atheism itself does not preclude meeting places or 'churches', but one would want to question why these places exist.

I question the choosing of the term ”atheist church” Although I won’t question the meeting of atheists, even I been in atheistic meetings here in my country.

It is almost certainly that some of the social functions performed by the religious church are being fulfilled by these atheist churches.

Wouldn’t you wanna rephrase that to: “interactive or didactic functions?” Because I would like to think that at least if a group of atheists gather in one place it would be more to enriched their life instead of enriching atheism.

Which only goes to show that these social constructs forming around atheism are no different to the social constructs that formed the early churches, they all meet the same fundamental human needs

Witch needs are that. I mean I get your point I just want to see from which perspective you made it.

and humans are subconsciously smart

I disagree with that one. I mean the human the individual is smart however history, media and empirical experience has shown us that our masses are stupid and naive.

EDWARDS
Why the big secret? People are smart, they
can handle it.

KAY
A person is smart. People are dumb.

Men in Black 1997

, why reject a social strategy that works for so many people?

Do you mind if I quote an already statement that I said before. It’s not that I am evading giving you an individual answer is just that somebody already asked me that before in this thread:

People(theist, naïve, ignorant and non familiar to atheism) promote the idea(silly idea) that atheism is a religion. That is wrong. However if this atheists churches continue to grow without a name change. That only will be counter productive to atheism. That is my concerns.

I've been an advocate of human social invariance for years,

How? Why?, sorry is just that I dunno anything about you. You mean on your personal life or in your area of work?

for me it is very easy to spot the repeating patterns in society and human endeavour. Atheism might not have a deity, but there is certainly a coalescence of thinking around some of the general themes that seem to be associated with atheism, the raising of the prophets Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris is alarming.

Okay first could you define or tell me why is this alarming. Second prophets? Is a philosophical current is in part encouraged or backed up by the statements of a person why is so weird? Is the nihilism makes Nietzsche a prophet? Because it wouldn’t certainly make him a prophet it would make him a speaker of nihilism don’t you agree?
And also first we have atheist churches and now you are mentioning prophets? Whats next? A messiah? I mean do you see how is this turning out? That is what upsets me. Because I think this prophet talk only reassure my previous concern doesn't it? Beside the term “Prophet” I mean a prophet is someone who predicts future events of a culture or a society isn’t it? And I’ve never hear that Dawkins nor Hitchens claimed to know what is gonna happen in the future of society?

Don't get me wrong, I like their works in the respective fields of science and journalism but the way authority that has been ascribed to their ideologies is too similar to way authority was ascribed to Moses, John the Baptist and Jeebus for my taste.

Well don’t you mean media instead of authority? Because one thing that I love about atheism is that(well at least in which my own perspective refers) is that there isn’t any particular representative nor authority in atheism. One can be an atheist and don’t need to know neither Hicthens nor the rest. I mean were is it written that this people are the ones that should or shouldn’t exemplify all our community?

I often wonder how much of a coincidence it is that the three modern prophets of atheism get spoken and written about together so much, why three? A trinity - perhaps. I find it fascinating. Try countering their ideologies in the forum and see how many will step forward with proverbial stones in hand...
MM

I never thought of that. I assume you’re heard of the tripod metaphor. That mostly a well constructed element in order to stand it requires three bases. The only trinity that I could mention(although is irrelevant in this topic) is a selection of three particular tastes in entertainment that define the rest of my current taste however since I am still looking for the third element(hahah yeah I already thought that they were gonna be three elements before selecting them talking about ironies heheh) I can’t say my tastes are fully defined.

[Zidneya]

You mean Sunday Assemblies? It's the media calling them 'atheist churches', not the people doing them.

It's just the media calling them atheist church? Yeah right I just say their liturgy. I just checked that out to see if he was right. In the meantime I'm still waiting for him to give me his citation about that statement.

[CapnAwesome]

This isn't anything new Universalist Unitarians anyone?

[Zidneya]

This isn't anything new Universalist Unitarians anyone?

No…well at least not me. Although even if it were an Universalist Unitarians I would understand. Since atheist can be involved in that kind of movement. However since this is a focused Atheist movement(which I assume forbids the theology in it's churches unlike Universalists who embrace everyone as long as don't preach conflict) I don't see why they have to congregate in a "church."

By the way did I left to tell you something or an unfinished talk about something? Because seeing your Avatar reminds me of something.

[rexbeccarox]

You've misrepresented my positions so much, I'm tempted to report you... but I don't care enough; so fuck it. Have a nice thread.

---

... and actually, you've even misrepresented yourself and what you've said in this thread. It's not a relatively long one. You should have no problem figuring out where. I won't wait, though. You're not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

[Zidneya]

... and actually, you've even misrepresented yourself and what you've said in this thread. It's not a relatively long one. You should have no problem figuring out where. I won't wait, though. You're not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Hmmm I suppose there is no point in asking her what she meant since she already left the thread. Is just that I don't know what she was talking about. Em… okay since there is no nice way to say it since according to her I am arrogant, I'll just say it: it's not that I am arrogant to no realize were I misrepresented myself is just that genuinely I don't see where I contradict myself.
And that's the truth although I would understand why no one would believe me. Is just hard to make a personal statement after someone else said that what you are gonna say it's personal lie.

[Cato]

... and actually, you've even misrepresented yourself and what you've said in this thread. It's not a relatively long one. You should have no problem figuring out where. I won't wait, though. You're not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Hmmm I suppose there is no point in asking her what she meant since she already left the thread. Is just that I don't know what she was talking about. Em… okay since there is no nice way to say it since according to her I am arrogant, I'll just say it: it's not that I am arrogant to no realize were I misrepresented myself is just that genuinely I don't see where I contradict myself.
And that's the truth although I would understand why no one would believe me. Is just hard to make a personal statement after someone else said that what you are gonna say it's personal lie.

Zidneya,you're not arrogant...just fucking stupid.

[Zidneya]

Zidneya,you're not arrogant...just fucking stupid.

.