Those Wacky Atheists (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

depends on your definition of religious. if you define a religious christian as necessarily a fundamentalist, then yeah lots of christians aren't religious.

whatever. this is essentually just a semantic debate anyway. my point was atheists do not (necessarily) "worship" their lack of belief in god, any more than non-bigfoot believers worship their lack of belief in bigfoot.

SOME militant atheists certainly treat their position as an evangelical cause, but MOST people who fall under the definition of atheist do not.

So true, and that applies on both ends of the spectrum. There are Christians that believe and love their God, but aren't telling everyone else they are wrong for what they believe in. They just answer this is just right for them. Then you have those that think "You're going to hell if you aren't a member of our church!". That same thing is on the atheist side. There are those that are "so against the belief of God", that they openly say how stupid you are for believing in one; like the article on the OP.

Personally, why I think it's a religion is how strongly atheism is defended; just like religion. You have muslims ready to die for their belief and atheist willing to have a public bashing for openly saying they are "atheists". Then you have those muslims that secretely worship and atheists that keep their lack of belief private.
 
If nobody had a concept of religion, atheism as defined would exist, just not in name.

There would be no point to atheism without an a priori notion of a deity.

By definition, a religious person worships "some deity," and an atheist worships "no deity."
 
By definition, a religious person worships "some deity," and an atheist worships "no deity."


this is doubly false. atheism is by definition a belief position, not a statement about worship. and a religious person by definition doesn't necessarily worship a deity (see buddhism etc).

you're using straw men semantics to tie atheism to religion.
 
this is doubly false. atheism is by definition a belief position, not a statement about worship. and a religious person by definition doesn't necessarily worship a deity (see buddhism etc).

you're using straw men semantics to tie atheism to religion.

Buddhism does worship dieties.
 
There would be no point to atheism without an a priori notion of a deity.

By definition, a religious person worships "some deity," and an atheist worships "no deity."

What is the definition of "worship"? How does that definition fit with an atheist's activity in regard to "no deity"?
 
There would be no point to atheism without an a priori notion of a deity.


you mean there would be no point to having a descriptive term for lack of belief in a deity if nobody did. like creating the word smurfeism. this is trivial.
 
you mean there would be no point to having a descriptive term for lack of belief in a deity if nobody did. like creating the word smurfeism. this is trivial.

Nobody cares to be a smurfist. That's the point.
 
false. hinduism is polytheistic. buddhism is essentially atheistic.

Funny I've seen many Buddhists while on business in Asian worship a nice gold statue of Buddha. So it's just a belief? I'd like to see a link where they do not believe or worship a deity.
 
Funny I've seen many Buddhists while on business in Asian worship a nice gold statue of Buddha. So it's just a belief? I'd like to see a link where they do not believe or worship a deity.



the buddha was a man. and while traditional buddhism does involve some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, it does not postulate an independent mind responsible for creating everything. there is no deity in the theistic sense.

i'm sure you can wiki buddhism faster than i can type a link.
 
the buddha was a man. and while traditional buddhism does involve some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, it does not postulate an independent mind responsible for creating everything. there is no deity in the theistic sense.

i'm sure you can wiki buddhism faster than i can type a link.

Okay cool so they worship a man? Cause I've been witness to many Buddhist temples and they pray to that "man" for hours.
 
And thinking about it, that would justify an argument that atheism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion yet they don't believe in a god. They put faith in man and themselves. They worship a man called Buddah just like many atheist put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists. Crazy how closely the Buddhist and atheist think alike. Maybe the two religions can merge.
 
And thinking about it, that would justify an argument that atheism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion yet they don't believe in a god. They put faith in man and themselves. They worship a man called Buddah just like many atheist put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists. Crazy how closely the Buddhist and atheist think alike. Maybe the two religions can merge.



i assume you consider your lack of belief in the existence of purple unicorns on pluto a religion.
 
And thinking about it, that would justify an argument that atheism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion yet they don't believe in a god. They put faith in man and themselves. They worship a man called Buddah just like many atheist put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists. Crazy how closely the Buddhist and atheist think alike. Maybe the two religions can merge.

I don't know a single other atheist amongst my friends who "put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists" to be honest. They just don't believe, and go on with their day/life.
 
I don't know a single other atheist amongst my friends who "put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists" to be honest. They just don't believe, and go on with their day/life.

Well you and your friends aren't the general. I've seen many on television, print and Internet do their share of worship and praise.
 
Well you and your friends aren't the general. I've seen many on television, print and Internet do their share of worship and praise.

Actors on a stage, nothing more.

But hey, without gullibilty religion would cease to exist.
 
Speaking of whacky atheists...

You have a logic fault, Maris. It would not exist, just as athe-unicornism doesn't.

It wouldn't have a name, but it would exist, since all atheism is in the bigger sense is the ability to separate obvious fact from absurd fiction.

Instead of atheists they might just be called sane people, or people playing with a full deck.
 
And thinking about it, that would justify an argument that atheism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion yet they don't believe in a god. They put faith in man and themselves. They worship a man called Buddah just like many atheist put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists. Crazy how closely the Buddhist and atheist think alike. Maybe the two religions can merge.

Wrong.

I, and probably 99.999999% of atheists have no idea who this Hopkins you speak of is, and don't give a rat's ass what he says. I liken him to someone out to convince the world that water is wet.

I know water is wet, and if others are too stupid to figure out the obvious, or too fearful of peer pressure to admit they know it's wet, there's little that can be done to change that.

Most of the people in the world aren't all that bright, and never will be. There's nothing to be gained by telling them that if they are unable to figure it out themselves.
 
Wrong.

I, and probably 99.999999% of atheists have no idea who this Hopkins you speak of is, and don't give a rat's ass what he says. I liken him to someone out to convince the world that water is wet.

I know water is wet, and if others are too stupid to figure out the obvious, or too fearful of peer pressure to admit they know it's wet, there's little that can be done to change that.

Most of the people in the world aren't all that bright, and never will be. There's nothing to be gained by telling them that if they are unable to figure it out themselves.



technically water isn't wet :innocent:
 
It wouldn't have a name, but it would exist, since all atheism is in the bigger sense is the ability to separate obvious fact from absurd fiction.

Instead of atheists they might just be called sane people, or people playing with a full deck.

Or fucking nut jobs...oh wait....
 
Wrong.

I, and probably 99.999999% of atheists have no idea who this Hopkins you speak of is, and don't give a rat's ass what he says. I liken him to someone out to convince the world that water is wet.

I know water is wet, and if others are too stupid to figure out the obvious, or too fearful of peer pressure to admit they know it's wet, there's little that can be done to change that.

Most of the people in the world aren't all that bright, and never will be. There's nothing to be gained by telling them that if they are unable to figure it out themselves.

What hole you come out of?! You don't know who Hannibal lectur is? No wonder you are so wound up! You have no outlet man!!! Watch a damn movie!
 
And thinking about it, that would justify an argument that atheism is a religion. Buddhism is a religion yet they don't believe in a god. They put faith in man and themselves. They worship a man called Buddah just like many atheist put faith in Hopkins or other atheist evangelists. Crazy how closely the Buddhist and atheist think alike. Maybe the two religions can merge.

When did Gautama Buddha teach at Johns Hopkins?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top