Neither believing in god or disbelieving in one constitutes a religion … only something to believe in or not. From a theological standpoint there can only be two views; that of a theist or that of an atheist.  Well it seems that god is perceived as incapable (in the minds of many) of eliciting due respect or of being amply appreciated on his own merits and must need some organization or another (depends on who you ask) to explain the why’s and how to’s for the rest of the want-to-be believers, also perceived as incapable. So everything not particular to one’s specific theological beliefs is atheistic and that renders the term atheist meaningless … unless referring to a vast majority of humanity anyway. No matter one’s theological beliefs, a majority of humanity thinks otherwise.

@Boobztwo, GirlFriendTess, Neilo

Oh my, where to start?  Rather than individual quotes I'll try to lump them for saving time and space.  Uh, this is going to be long and my throbbing head is tapioca right now.  Sure what the hell why not?

 

 

It has been my experience that it is normally the theologians who try and blend the two together, not to prove their case … only to try and disprove the opposition case???

It has been my experience that it is normally the atheists who try and blend the two together, not to prove their case … only to try and disprove the opposition case???

 

Steven Hawking

Hawking guest starring for a chat with us on Joe User?  I'd love that!  Count me in. +1

So Hawking, when asked about why he believes in the nonpossibility of God despite factors like The Big Bang, humanity's continued existence versus xenolife and mathematical Chaos Theory calculating God does exist, he answered that he doesn't believe that such a God if existed could care about our small existence therefor must not exist.  His answer was very brief, short and simple though in that special S.Hawking genius sort of way.  Remarkable how he sums up so much into so little.

Maybe Hawking is a bitter old man who despite the physical failings that helped propel him to greatness is still bitter about it causing his views to reflect that.  Is that an ad-hominess attack?  Admittedly yes and I did so because here it was very relevant to this argument and I apologize in advance, nor was is it directed at anyone here.

Sadly I've lost respect for the man save his accomplishments because he has publicly endorsed a website that utilizes an illegitimate system removing discussion through downvoting, reducing all thinking to a human hivemind.  A mind that continuously censors itself to the point of self destructiveness and has no place in an open forum.  I fear having such a system in any decision making process for society's future.  That is not something you endorse unless you don't want any open discussion with any thoughts not in agreement to your own.  That has no place for an open forum.

 

Why is this subject not popularly discussed?

At this point what else is there to talk about?

Boobztwo, I can't speak for the others but IIRC I was the first one to bring it up and eventually we both mutually disagreed on the matter and agreed it was too much a boring subject that should stay on JoeUser. Lately you brought it back up and all I can do is reiterate points that have already been said.  Since you stepped up once again, called us out again, I'll dance with you.

The purpose of my last thread on the subject was to start discussion to teach Theists and Atheists alike about the scientific mind and its relation to Agnosticism.  Throughout my life, the message heard by Atheist preachers is how smart, scientific and intelligent they are above those who disagree and that makes them right, see below.  Atheism is a very proud viewpoint, resultingly it's also an obnoxiously loud one.  Agnosticism by comparison is a bit more humble by taking the scientific route of not completely ruling out the possibility.  That attitude is a big turn off.  "Oh noes, there they go again."

Nobody here really wants to be loud unless a nerve has been touched.  I'll be the first to admit it happens to me at times.

"Man upon inventing the megaphone found he had nothing to say." -G.K. Chesterton

 

Atheism is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby?

Way way too much time, resources and energy is spent here on not collecting stamps.  It's like saying to someone how in the world can you work so hard to be so lazy?  Maybe a more accurate statement would be collecting stamps versus collecting blank stamps.

When Christians get together they talk about us and God.  When Atheists get together they talk about us and God.  One side talks about someone known as God in a positive manner while the other talks about theists and God in a negative manner.  Atheists and Atheism isn't a discussed subject because it is not in the bible and theists feel they have much more important things to talk about (God) instead of Atheists which is central to the bible.  Me?  I'm a jokingly bad Christian.  Hope that clarifies.

 

The wisdom and knowledge of the Bronze Age actually controls the complete life structure of most Christians today

I'll leave that one for Lula but I'll say this.  Christianity has grown with more experience from many different time periods over a great length.  Judaism included.

 

This is about as real as someone from the first century going into a cave and proclaiming the cavemen had the right of things

Some Atheists believe in natural laws of the world, not by a divinity but through evolution sometimes referred to as a natural order.

Note: If you're saying anyone who is not progressive is a primitive caveman well...

 

Religion, Seperation of Church and State. I

-Let's live in a world where Boobztwo, GirlFriendTess, Neilo are right for a moment and see what happens?

Okay let's say for a moment you're right and I'm wrong and the world reoriented itself to meet your vision.  What are the consequences to me and the rest of humanity of you being right that Atheism is not a religion?

 

Here is a (legal) scenario under the law of separation of Church and State in a USA public institution.

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: That is nice that you believe that.

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: *yawn*  I heard you the first time.

Atheist: There is no God

Theist:  Will you just knock it off please?

Atheist: There is no God

Theist: Well I believe there is a God who created the universe.

Atheist: HELP! HE'S PREACHING TO ME!  VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!  SOMEONE ARREST THIS PERSON!  I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

Atheist: Ha, I gotcha you theist tard.  I knew if I kept attacking your religion with my non-religion Atheism you would get tired and be stupid enough to defend it, eventually.  Now you're going to jail and I'm gonna sue.

 

See the problem?  That is the way the law is currently written.

Atheism is a religion and there are consequences otherwise.  It's a silver bullet because if I'm wrong there are serious consequences.  This is why one reason among many why Theists are so adamant that Atheism is a religion.  Anyone who knows this and still supports Atheism is not a religion is suspect in my book.  Something is very wrong there.

 

 

Religion, Seperation of Church and State. II

Normally when you start an organization, it first starts with an idea.  Then it goes through a vetting process.  When it becomes an organization it starts generally small, people participate and it builds its way up.  Well that is how it's supposed to be.  Here we have a case where state run mandatory institutions have been hijacked for the purpose of spreading the Atheism.  Even going so far as imposing it on others using a law on the books to make it easier.  No oppositional viewpoints can be made.  The institution is paid for by mandatory taxes whether you use it or not.  You can choose to use an expensive private school but the public school taxes must still be paid.

 

Atheist States generally assert themselves as the higher power along with the leaders.  Making them both the highest authority and the highest moral authority so any action can be justified.  Part of the process to achieve this is some form of ethnic cleansing.  The Peoples Republic of China did it under Mao, the Soviet Union did it under Stalin and others.  Right now Hugo Chavez of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is executing a problem starting with little children to indoctrinate into these ideals.

Teacher: Okay class, we will play a game.  Every close your eyes.

Kids: *close eyes*

Teacher: Now pray to God for milk and candy.  Open your eyes.

Kids: no milk, no candy *sad faces*

Teacher: Close your eyes.  Now pray to Hugo Chavez.

Kids: there's candy! there's milk!  *happy faces*  Mmmm, it tastes so good!

 

Normally all these activities would be a violation of seperation of church and state but since No God Atheism is not a religion it is justified and very beneficial to the common welfare, the greater good of all.

RogueCaptain: Iran is an example of theology reigning supreme; I would have Hugo in charge rather than god if those were the only two options, but of course they aren't. I don’t have a particular world vision but obviously you do. I just don’t think our children should be subjugated to religious indoctrinations in public schools … nor should the ones in our government. Don’t much care where else you pander your wares or erect your propaganda, just not sure why your own churches and schools aren’t enough. Hawking says a lot of things same as everyone else. I for one will not question his scientific achievements, but his opinions are his own, I just found the one in the OP amusing. It is also the only view of the religion of atheism I could find without going through hours of religious doubletalk, just like you have done above. Atheism is not a religion and the reasons should be obvious to the most casual of observers. This is why you are compelled to do everything besides answer a simple question.

Christianity: the Christian religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ.

Islam: a monotheistic religion based on the word of God as revealed to Muhammad during the 7th century.

Judaism: the religion of the Jews from its basis in the Bible and the Talmud where God is the creator of everything and the source of all goodness derived.

Atheism: is just the disbelief in the existence of God or deities.

See how easy this is!!!

I still prefer the term apathist though, especially when it more accurately describes the feeling of the majority of us that live in Britain. Except for weddings, and discussing which religious loonies are trying to bomb us this year, Protestant, Catholic, or Muslim, religion gets pretty much ignored. So people do not brand themselves atheist mostly because they never really care, talk about it, or think about it.

An apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life. I could live with that but I don’t think any opinion I have of myself will bear any more weight than my simple example above will. When a person requires no evidence or proof to ‘faithfully’ believe in something, what proof or evidence could be offered that wouldn’t be scoffed at considering their lack of need in the first place? I intend to sway no one here on JU, just stand up for my opinions using the evidence that caused them to become mine.

I have always been opposed to labels because they usually come with too much confusing baggage. Sam Harris has some good arguments for shedding the ‘atheism’ label:

PS - Don't know what the woman had to say, I jumpped to minute 4.

 

See below.

Let's simply it even further into three categories:

Theism- Believing in the existence of a higher power.  Sometimes referred to as God.

Atheism- Belief in the nonexistance of a higher power.

Agnosticism- Currently unknown but attempting to prove either, preferably in a scientific manner.  Not a religion.

See how easy it is!!!

 

 

I would not like to be under a religious theocracy either.  Unfortunately, historically my nation seems to be inching closer and closer into an atheist theocracy all the time.  There is something especially sinister about a leader who demands worship from his citizens.

My world vision?  I thought that was explained in my last point under seperation of church and state and the hypocritical state it's currently in.

I agree.  You'll be stretched to find someone at home who does.  However, that is exactly what is happening now with Atheism in our government and schools.  Try the Agnostic approach instead because it is not a religion.

Hmm, so let me see if I understand this correctly.  You feel one party of (theist) citizens should pay the Atheist institutions for preaching Atheism to them in addition to shouldering the burden of cost for private institutions that get no public help.

This is why the subject has gone dry.  Why even bother trying to communicate with someone when you go to all this trouble and it gets labeled as doubletalk.  Such a statement only succeeds in validating my last post.

There doesn’t even seem to be a way for me to convey an opinion of myself without you misconstruing everything to fit into your theological niche. I do not think in any kind of theological way and I don’t analyze life or my part in it along theological lines and I don’t seek council from those who do. The simple fact that you are incapable of explaining what the ‘religion of atheism’ is and your continued rambling about it combined with your self -chats (as if you could be unbiased) is answer enough for me though.

RogueCaptain: If communication was of any real interest to you, you would have tried it yourself.  When I think of communication, I think of an exchange of ideas not a one way stuffing of ‘orifices’. You professed to know of this ‘religion of atheism’ but became tongue tied when asked. You could have saved pages of nonsense (the kind of doubletalk that has to be filtered) had you just imparted this insight of yours in the form of a simple answer. One would think some answer should have been presented and it could have been were there actually something to come forward with besides what you used, preconceived dogmatic misconceptions. I just don’t believe in any god, but you insist on bringing him into every discussion no matter how mundane the topic may be. And we never get past the god issue so we never get to discuss anything else, anything exciting or anything knowledgeable. Following is an example I posted somewhere else (?) but seems fitting here too.

Oh the simple life … “Mom, why is the sky blue” why indeed, humm “because god made it that way”. The progressive in the next room gives it a quick thought but decides that was too childish so he sets his kid down and says something like this: “Look for the particulates floating in the air. The Earth’s atmosphere is filled with trillions of tiny dust particles. Most of these particles or particulates are too small to be seen with the human eye. The smallest particulates are by coincidence the same length as the wavelength of blue light. As the light from our Sun shines into the atmosphere most of the colors are able to reach the Earth’s surface uninterrupted. However, because blue light has a wavelength that is the same size as the particulates in the air, this light is scattered in every direction. This blue light bounces from particulate to particulate until it eventually reaches your eyes. For this reason, no matter what direction you look in the sky, it appears to be blue. This blue light originated with the Sun, was bounced around in the sky many times, and then eventually reached your eyes.” or other such scientific nonsense, pat the kid on the head and send him merrily on his way to ponder why water is blue too??? While in the other room all you could hear was “I know mom, god made it that way, too.” Oh yea, the simple life when children (and adults) knew better than to ask such things, where they knew their places indeed.

Well I mystically foresee that this silly and pointless post is not going to be taken seriously (as well it shouldn’t hahaha), so I will add the following jewel just chalked full of jewels itself, on a subject more befitting … Religion vs. Atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrtVUJVhsWs

Whatever we cannot easily understand we lay at god’s feet; this saves much wear and tear on the brain to keep it nice and mushy.   [Edward Abbey]

Tess remember, religion does not necessarily require to be Theist in nature.  Buddhism for example does not have a deity per se.  Although I suppose some might conclude to see it that way.

 

Christianity teaches us we may understand the laws of the universe, the same laws since creation and prior, if we choose to pursue it.  I see no conflict here, please explain.  Some other religions may not but Christianity, with the exception of a few fringe offshoots, is not one of them.

 

I've made only two (long) posts here to answer multiple people so far with this one my third and already you're making statements like this?

 

 

Edit:  What more of an answer are you looking for from me that I have not already given before?  Atheism is an idea based on faith. It is an organized institution with both internal alongside external funding structures that seek to spread the ideology.  The intention of it's followers is to propagate that ideology and compete, even forcefully, with others opposed to it.  It seeks to offer explanation for the universal existence and is having trouble doing so.  The majority of other present day religions are Theist in nature and Atheism comes into conflict.

This explanation works for me and would have worked in the beginning too, it strikes me as just too easy though, too all inclusive of everything that strangely doesn’t capitulate to some biblical, christian or religious dogma. Under christian rules of engagement, there is only one absolute and that is unquestionable. When you remove even common sense from the discussion like this, well anything is possible or believable. If you want to believe that religion doesn’t require the theist as its means, who am I to argue, but you have to search far and wide to find otherwise … or you only review christian reference material, whatever. Whenever (not often) I look up religion, I always find some positive structure supportive of one or more deities and always administered by theists, soundly founded or not, not negative claims to the contrary. Don’t know that much about Buddhists other than they are not such a nuisance as others of faith, they don’t provide suicide bombers and they have not involved themselves with this kind of foolishness here on JU. Anyway, allowing practitioners to ‘understand the laws of the universe’ should not be confused with ’there is another way of looking at things’ or ‘there is a natural explanation for all things’. The only rule of thumb I know that applies to religious dogma is “their way or the highway, no exceptions”. It just seems natural that the lower the level of generic education, the easier it is to maintain an unfounded fabrication (IMO) as the only explanation for everything past, present and future. Christians can play with time dilation, time distortion or any other time screwification they want, but if they are christian and their faith is gleaned from one bible or another, then they have to be a believer of a short lived earth. And this brings me back to scientific inquiry and the freedom to partake that you spoke about, as an option of no actual practical use to the theist.

PS - Post 24 had nothing to do with you per say as I have other people to communicate with too. But we both know there is little if anything I can say or post on this silly topic that you will not find some way or another to be offended by it.

Our sciences are no more interested in any god view than any of the gods seem interested in our sciences. No reason why there couldn’t be some collaboration and only one side is responsible for the lack of it. What the sciences do indirectly prove though is that a literal interpretation of the bible(s) cannot be true and the only conclusion (???) one can draw from this is that any religious faith that is based solely on the bible(s) literal truth has to be in err too. This clip is my humorous way to demonstrate that monotheism is doomed by geography alone … and everyone who thinks they are the only ones being persecuted or only their faith being questioned are just fooling themselves. This battle should be between competing theologies if at all, not everyone else around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4mSDD4Wd8

 

RoFL, that was funny as all hell,  
ooops, I said "hell", the old indoctrinations just keep on popin' out. 

Try a little philosophy from a canadain, not near as funny though

 

The end reminded me of ...

"Just keep swimmin'..., just keep swimmin'..." 

Is Tess warming up to my side of the argument?  I did not see any genuine qualms written there about Buddhism, nontheist religion.

Ok guys understand this,  if you think I'm going to just sit through, watch and analyze all ridiculous long youtube vids, especially when they run in excess of 20 minutes, it's not gunna happen.  My posts have way too many walls of text already.  Do you honestly expect me to spend the time and energy to go over all those points for you?  Because it's not gunna happen, period.  Nor should anyone else. 

Cruel and unusual punishment!