[Locked] Atheism is not a religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Atheism does not believe in anything.





So the logical conclusion from
(a AND b) OR ('a AND 'b) is (a AND 'b)?

(a and b representing the validity of the statements "Atheism is a religion", "Black is a color")

You either didn't think before you posted, or you are just plain stupid. I am fed up with this topic, i was expecting at least some half-way educated and intelligent people to argue with.

Oh pluh~ease.

Black is not technically a colour, since it's the absence of colour. But is generally spoken of like one, if someone ask you what colour a black car is you answer "it's black" not, "Uhm, specifically the car has no colour, but the light is reflected in such a way... blah blah." If you did then it would be just a matter of time before someone punched you in the face for being so obnoxious.

Atheism is not a religion, it does not share the principles that specify a religion. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no Gods/higher beings.

I'll have agree with that...I think this is enough of this discussion ,right people

^This. Though I do feel a strong urge to make jokes about tints/tones, I will refrain for the sake of the serious discussion forum.

Bah, although it is pointless for me to argue that atheism isn't a belief, I do prefer what wikipedia has:


because it says "inclusively," letting atheism fall under anyone who lacks belief in deities, rather than just those who believe that there are no deities.

Looking back at the beginning of this thread, the very first poster with his definition of religion proved that atheism doesn't fall under it despite what the faggot wanted to show.

Atheism as a SET OF BELIEFS. LOL.

*sighs* That is from a scientific view. And that's cool and all that you talked to an academic artist about it, though that just sounds like you went to your friend Joe who dabbles in water colors on his days off and asked him about it.

The reason for black being all color from an artistic standpoint is due to color mixing, one of the basics of art. Black results from the mixture of all colors together. White is the absence because you need to remove all other colors from it.

So yeah, you are talking out of your butt kid. And you just completely miss the point of why this was suggested in the first place. So until you understand WHY it was mentioned maybe you should just leave?


Now for the actual topic on the thread.

I will state again. Atheism is in no way an organized religion like Christianity and Islam and such.

But it is true that all Atheists have religion. It is also true that Atheism, is a religious denotation like I said before. It is something defining BASED on a religious aspect, deities.

And it is wrong to say there is an absence of belief.

If there was such a thing, it means you wouldn't have a freaken opinion over it. If you didn't have an opinion on it, you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself AS an atheist.

So yeah, there is a belief there. It exists. Now the belief is that there is an absence of deities. But, belief in there is nothing, is still a belief.

Which is why I don't think it's wrong to refer to it as such. It isn't an organized religion. But you can't start defining yourself based on a religious aspect and not have it be religious, it just doesn't work that way.

This isn't even an argument about the definition of atheism because the people here can't even seem to agree on the definition of religion.

Religion isn't one solid belief. What dictionary are you reading?

And 0 isn't a measurement or a number. It's a placeholder.

Materialism is a theoretical philosophy. I did not write a theoretical philosophy. Yes, there may be one or two views included in there that happen to be the same as one or two Materialistic views. But what I wrote does not in any way describe actual Materialism.

"Atheism does not believe in anything.". I'm sure we all realize that terms, being inanimate and without a will, cannot believe in anything.

Take a look at that paragraph you quoted one more time and read through it looking for the actual meaning. I imagine that most people would not be able to understand the simple explanation of Atheism I was giving as viewed by the people who deem or have been deemed themselves "Atheists", both in ancient history and the times we live in today. So in laymans terms, you should re-read that paragraph looking at as what I believe Athiesm is and what Atheism is not.

Indeed, Atheism is a simple term, Atheists however generally follow the same view on the world and thus, Atheism has become connected to that view. Yes, a large percentage of Atheistic views are connected to Materialism, but it is not, and I stress this, a theoretical philosophy. As I stated previously, the conclusions people come to are often misinformed and, wrong. However, if we did not eventually accept what the general masses believed the term should mean, we would have an incredibly outdated language.

I do not believe Atheism is a religion, I do however believe that Atheism is and has become more or less, a way of life and those who follow it generally have the same views on the world. Regardless of the definition one might find in a dictionary and, before you note that I was not only a minute ago arguing that it is a term and nothing more (where in fact I was just giving an example of how one would go about arguing shortly that Atheism is not a religion.), the terms that we use in society today continue evolve just as our species does.

I’m going to state my viewpoint. Atheism is a lack of Religion and a lack of belief. I refer to it as “0” or “neutral”. It is the mere starting point, that we are all born as. We eventually start coming up with our own individual set of beliefs based on our life experiences called Philosophy. Philosophy encompasses Religion, which is the belief that there is a higher deity that controls the destiny of humankind. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and the like, are not Religions, they are Philosophies. By my own definition, it seems I'm not an Atheist, and I am a Philosopher.

There is so much ignorance in this statement, I don't even know how to respond to it.

Really, is that all you can do? Make unrealistic claims with no basis and then, decide that because it is your belief, your thoughts and your opinion that it is always right? Not only that, but you seem to completely reject the other side's opinion, claiming that yours is the only one feasible explanation for any given event. If NeoStriker is ignorant, then you must be it's embodiment.

If you are going to try and continue to claim such logical fallacies I suggest you at least try to claim them intelligently. Not one of your previous posts in this thread is backed by hard evidence or even a simple citation.

Simply because you think so does not make it so. If you continue to have the belief that you are right until proven wrong so adamantly, you will end up lonely and in solitude, with only your ego to keep you company.

I believe it is one. To devote once faith in human ability, logic and science instead of some deity. So I think it is.

Kalistean is “super special”. He has his own “super special” definitions of the English language. Recently, I was engaged in a debate with Kal, and was taken aback by his idiocy. I was so taken aback, I could not reply, for I thought it hopeless. That was erroneous of me, as I see now. So allow me to finish what I started right here.



I changed “retarded” to “not bright”, so that makes it not a flame anymore, and none of my “fuck”s are directed at you. I don’t see how I ever “made it personal”, as I don’t really give a shit about you personally. I’m merely pointing out your errors and trying to correct them. Stalk you? How is it “stalking” when all I’m doing is going to my mailbox and clicking “Reply”?

Also, I would like to retract my earlier statement about Atheism being a lack of beliefs as well. It’s…neither a belief system nor a lack of beliefs. It simply just doesn’t deal with beliefs in it’s definition. I’m still not entirely sure about this, as I know for sure Atheism is not a belief system, yet by saying it’s a lack of belief, that means a lot of the “Atheists” today aren’t really Atheists, as they have beliefs.

Hahahaha, you people sure are funny.

You can't have a lack of belief and then have an opinion on something kid.

The fact that you are defining yourself by something, mean you have an opinion on something and are making a stand on the situation.

That means you have a belief in something. So no, it's impossible to have a lack of beliefs. So yeah, Atheism isn't, and never will be a lack of beliefs.

The second point. And I've said this before. Religion does not necessarily include a deity. This is a VERY common misconception people have. Yes, a lot of religions do in fact have a deity in them, but that isn't one of the defining features of religion.

Atheism is not about not believing in anything. Atheism is the belief there is no deities. That's what it is. There's no not believing in anything crap in it.

Oh, and Materialism isn't the lack of belief either. Materialism is the belief that everything is matter, physical whatever you want to refer to the last part. That means they don't believe in spiritual stuff.

If you don't have beliefs in anything, it literally means you do not care about anything. As in you don't have opinions or ideals about anything.

And Droomy. Would you like more hypocrisy in your statement? Considering all you've ever linked for your argument is just the definition of Atheism. Though, I don't need much more than what is already linked anyways. I suppose I could link you the definition of religion for you but I figured you could, you know, look that up pretty easily..

And Neostriker, did you really just bring that back over here? Seriously man, you need to learn from your mistakes.

And yes, Atheism does deal with beliefs. It's not something you're separating from it. Seriously, you need to learn what beliefs and such actually mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief here you go. Now read and learn about a word before you start making accusations about it.

Atheism is not a "belief" as in religious beliefs; it's a belief as in "I don't believe superhuman beings exists" or "I believe that you're stupid."

The word "Belief" can be used as a noun for "religious convictions" but also as a synonym for "trust, faith or having confidence in". These are not the same.

Source:Oxford Dictionary Go learn the different uses of the word before you start claiming that there is only one use for it.

Atheism is not a religion thus the term "religious beliefs" is irrelevant to the essence of atheism. Atheism is merely a philosophical standpoint dealing with a religious concept from a non-religious point of view.



Again, belief as in religious beliefs, key-word being religious. Atheism can without a doubt involve "not believing(religiously) in anything." But also believing(as in "having confidence in) that higher beings doesn't exists.

It is a religious belief actually. Because it is of or relating to a religious aspect. Sooo yeah. I'm not misunderstanding anything here.

The belief that there is none is still a belief.

edit: And to further stipulate the point.

One religion may believe there is a hell. And another one will believe there isn't a hell. Both of those are still beliefs and they are both still religious beliefs because of what they are relating to.

It's not a religious belief, since atheism is not a religion in any aspect. It's a non-religious standpoint on a religious matter. It deals with religion yes, but the standpoint itself is not religious. Do you see the difference?

Two religious views may have a different religious views on hell but atheism still has a non-religious view on the religious concept of hell.

We can spin on on the concept of hell, now I don't remember the exact passage on the top of my head, but if remember correctly god "opens up a hole of fire and ash into the abyss, in which heretics shall burn" or something like that.

The religious view may either take this literary and believe in hell as a physical place on earth, or as a metaphorical place contrasting heaven, in either way, they can believe that such a place exits in some way.
An atheistic way can argue that "I find this idea so preposterous that I can't bring myself to believe in it."
And moving forth, a scientific view may say: "We don't have any proof that such a place exists, and in the universe as we know it today the existence of such a place is impossible outside of human disillusions."

Are you going to argue that the scientific view on the matter is a religious view as well? No, of course not, it's a scientific way of regarding a religious matter. Thus, the standpoint itself is not religious, but scientific, but it handles a religious concept nonetheless.

Now I realise that the scientific way may not be exact, or even any good, but you get the principle of it; there are other ways than religious beliefs to handle a religious concept.

I made a simple citation, therefore I am not a hypocrite. Try paying attention the discussion next time and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself like you just did and have been doing for almost the entire length of this thread.