Atheism a religion?

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

This is a problem I have seen a good number of atheists have, although I cannot speak for all of them. Not all atheists start out religion though. I know I was never religious myself.

What exactly do you mean here?

Quote:

I thought Xenu was their deity.

Xenu was just a normal alien who gainedpower and gathered the excess population of this ancient galactic empire on earth, gathered them around a volcano and nuked it. The souls, or 'thetans' were then brain washed, and... yeah, that is pretty much it. Right now, Xenu is s'posed to be in stasis on some other planet after suffering a coup by the people he over-threw...

So, as far as that goes, he is not a god, but just a normal alien guy in an eternal coma...

Quote:

Calling something a religion is to give them sort of a protection that they don't deserve.

According to what I have posted above, it is a religion. Whether you think it 'deserves' that name or not really depends on whether you declare Christianity 'deserving' of being called a religion, or of 'respect'...
It is therefore rather subjective the way you say that they don't 'deserve' to be called a religion...

Quote:

Scientology is nothing more than a cult created to show how easy it is to manipulate people in order to get money.

I think it was more to just get money... I doubt Hubbard wanted to show people 'how easy' it was...

Quote:

It is not a true religion.

Again, according to the criteria I have posted above, it is an organised atheistic religion. If you think this is [objectively] wrong, please say why, apart from some subjective disaproval.
If you are just saying you 'don't agree with it trying to get respect' I must ask you what 'respect' you think christianity, islam, judeism, budhism and the various garden varriety 'new age' trends like wicca deserve?  

[Sanguvixen]

You stated that most Atheists become that way through a faith crisis. What I should have said, is don't say most or all unless you have stats to back it up. The first sentance doesn't make sense because it is riddled with typos.

In a way Xenu is a god. Or at least very godlike. If Scientology is a religion than what is thier deity? It seems to me you state that for something to be a religion it must have a diety, or am I misunderstanding your posts?

Your Critera are not absolute. Remember that.

Religion is more than about fitting into certain criteria. It is a institution, created for the sake of prepetuating supernatural and supersitious views, regarding not just god or gods, but life, and death, and existance as we know it.

Some people will say they are Christian. How many of them are actually christian?

Take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They claim to be a Baptist Church, except that they are not affiliated with any Baptist organization.

Their main agenda is to oppose Homosexuality, and Homosexual-enablers.

They use snippets of the Bible to back up thier homophobic views. They ignore anything in the bible that goes against thier little crusade. Their tactics make great sinners, if you were to take the Bible seriously.

Anyway, when you really stop to think about it, the Westboro Baptist Church is not really Baptist. They are not really a church. They are a small group of people who have a problem with homosexuality, and with people who are tolerent of homosexuality.

By forming thier own fake church, and by using a few snippets of a old book, they manage to get away with doing what they do, and if anyone really tries to do anything to stop them for good, they can cry "religious persecution".

When a group bands together, and only adds religious aspects in order to get away with zealous hatred, that is when humanity should call into question wether or not they should be given the label of religion, or if they should be branded as the fakes they are.

When you look at Scientology, you are looking at a recently created group which consists of people who share a common hatred against homosexuals. You are also looking at a group who loves money, and will kill thier own followers to protect thier financial interests. Techincally this form of murder is legal.

A while back, a huge issue was raised in part of the United States with parents who refused to take thier kids to the doctor when deathly ill because thier pastors said that the children could be healed through prayer. Most of those kids died...and the term was phrased "Praying children to death."

Scientology uses a vareint of this. It is a re-occuring event, in which a member gives a lot of money to scientology, and then the member gets badly sick, is taken to a "Scientology doctor", and then dies mysterously afterwards. Meanwhile it is found that the dead person's bank account is very very dry.

Scientology has also created a great big story for it's believers to satisfy the criterea to make it seem like a relgion.

However the reality remains that Scientology is only a group of people who piggy back off of some of Hubbards ideas, which allows people to get rich, commit murder, and ruin the lives of anyone who dares to expose them for what they really are.

The way I look at it, there are so many fakes out there, when it comes to religion, and too few people who are the real deal. Too many people don't know how to tell the difference.

You know only the first 3 crusades were about religion, and opposing religious views. Afterwards it was about money and wealth, and the guise of religion was used to justify what was going on. Just because the other crusades were called "Holy wars" does not mean they were really about religion.

Just because a group seems to fit the criteria of religion, does not mean they are in fact a religion. It goes beyond words. That is why Atheism is so commonly misunderstood now. The way people play with the words, on the other side, it seems like a religion to them.

You can't stick to definations as per the dictionary...and maybe that is why you have a slight problem with my way of thinking. I look beyond the definations, and so I tend to have views that contrast sharply with other people.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

You stated that most Atheists become that way through a faith crisis. What I should have said, is don't say most or all unless you have stats to back it up.

Quote:

I do not know what problems 'many people' have with religion. As far as I know, most atheists are created through a crisis of faith. This is not how I became one, and not how you may have come to your current conclusion, but it is certainly the trend that I see.

This post's emphasis on the afaik, that is, subjective, open to changing on that one.

Quote:

The first sentance doesn't make sense because it is riddled with typos.

s**t, sorry, here goes:
In short, the story of the scientologists as I know it goes like this:
Nice peaceful galactic empire. Then comes a coup by one of the generals, Xenu. He gets all the surplus population (the empire was apparently over-populated) and dumps them around the bottom of some volcano. Then nukes the volcano, all those people dead. But, according to the story people have souls, and like most fantasy and sci-fi, a new vocabulary is created, in this, the souls are called Thetans. So Xenu, evil galactic overlord that he is, gets all these souls in a soul-catching net thingy and brain-washes them. These brain-washed souls went into the various animals and are now in everyone... They must be gotten rid of because the nightmares these souls have make us go crazy.

But back to Xenu: soon after all the souls were brain-washed he suffered a counter-coup and is now in a coma under a mountain on another planet somewhere. So, he is not a deity, just a really evil mortal who is in a really long coma...

Until he escapes, rebuilds the Death Star and blows us all up! [/jk]

Quote:

It seems to me you state that for something to be a religion it must have a diety, or am I misunderstanding your posts?

Yes, you are.
Here is what I said initially:
)Atheism is nothing more than the statement that one recognises no gods.
)A religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real.
)Organised religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real and has a set method for dealing with that.

Therefore, religions can be theist (polytheist, monotheist or pantheist), atheist, organised or not, but they all believe in the immaterial.

Quote:

Your Critera are not absolute. Remember that.

They are internally consistent, such that I cannot find a religion that does not fit with thse criteria. If you feel that they are not absolute, please feel free to say in what circumstances they would not apply.

Quote:

Religion is more than about fitting into certain criteria. It is a institution, created for the sake of prepetuating supernatural and supersitious views, regarding not just god or gods, but life, and death, and existance as we know it.

What you have described, under my criteria, would be an organised religion. The basic superstitious beliefs of primitive stone-age hunter-gatherers are religious, are they not? and yet there is no institution of any kind to be found among them.
In addition to that, various forms of Idealist philosophy fall under my definition of religion as well, though others would declare them to just be philosophy.

Quote:

Some people will say they are Christian. How many of them are actually christian?

It depends. Do you want to declare all who take faith in Jesus Christ to be christians, or do you wish to declare all who follow the teachings of Jesus?
If you take te latter route, you have to decide which church has the correct interpretation, you have to look,not only at the books that have come down to us, approved or not, but also the tracable controversy within the early church, the conflict between revolutionary-messianic judaeic Christianity and the passive-gentile Christianity.* Only then can you decide that question.

The subsequent bit against a particular Baptist sect can be answered by this: Do they fall into the criteria I have set out. If you disagree with the criterial because they do not set things out in a scientific manner, please criticise them, but if you oppose the results because you dislike the respect they get through being called a religious group, shouldn't you instead oppose the respect accorded to religious groups as a whole?

Quote:

When you look at Scientology, you are looking at a recently created group which consists of people who share a common hatred against homosexuals. You are also looking at a group who loves money, and will kill thier own followers to protect thier financial interests. Techincally this form of murder is legal.

When you look at early Christianity, you are looking at a recently created group which consists of people who share a common hatred against Romans. You are also looking at a group which loves a dead-man-onna-stick and will die to gain power and protect their vision.
The appeal to emotion following that is just that, an appeal to emotion.
I prefer the 'infinite universe hypothesis' but that is currently a dead fish, and it is certainly not feasable with the current understanding of the universe. Are you saying I should agree with it even though the evidence goes against it? If not, then why do you say that your dislike of the respect accorded to certain religious groups should bar them from the title of religion?

Also, why is the murder legal?[I am unfamiliar with US law, and in particular, why a religious group is allowed to kill and not secular groups...]  

[Sanguvixen]

Oh...I meant that my first post in a previous post wouldn't make sense because it was riddled with types. I hope you didn't take it as anything else.

Hmmm...and where do they get this? Or did they just randomly pull it out of a hat?

I'm not going to go into a certain area of things, because I know my views really sharply contrast with many atheists that I meet, and as I'd like to agree to disagree in my head and move on.

The beliefs of the primitive stone-age hunger-gatherers was more ritualistic spiritualism, than religion, and very animistic at that.

Why do you keep using the word respect? It is not respect that I have an issue with, but protection. If you go about nilly willy labeling things as religion based on a text book definition, you end up opening the world up to all sorts of legalized nastiness that otherwise would be illegal and punishable.

Early Christianity started out with the Hebrews, and it had little to do with Rome, and more to do with opposing the entire idea of polytheism to begin with.

Why is it legal? I didn't include that part?

There was once an issue somewhere in the US, in the Bible Belt, where children were dying and the government wanted to charge their parents with child abuse/manslaughter/murder. These parents, rather than take their children to a bona fide doctor when deathly sick, took them to a preacher to be healed. The term was coined "Praying children to death" because prayer did not save a single one. All those children died...

Anyway...Scientology members who put in money, have come down with what would normally be a mild illness, and suddenly were whisked off to "Scientology" approved doctors, only for the member to die, and for the bank accounts to be found empty.

Scientology will jump at the earliest chance to stop one of their members from getting real treatment that would save their life, and instead see to it that the member ends up dead. They are murdering their members for the sake of their money. However, since Scientology is recognized as a religion, they can hide behind the same curtain of "Freedom of religion" that the parents from the Bible belt did when brought up on charges for allowing their children to die when they needed medical treatment.

I call it legalized murder, because they don't intend for the member to get better. The intend, or so it really seems, for their member to die, so take what last bit of money they have, or to stop them from pulling out of the group.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

Oh...I meant that my first post in a previous post wouldn't make sense because it was riddled with types. I hope you didn't take it as anything else.

Ah! All that retyping for nothing!

Quote:

Hmmm...and where do they get this? Or did they just randomly pull it out of a hat?

Well, Hubbard was a (sub-par) science fiction writer.

Quote:

I'm not going to go into a certain area of things, because I know my views really sharply contrast with many atheists that I meet, and as I'd like to agree to disagree in my head and move on.

oh, what a shame! My views sharply separate me from many non-ideological atheists. Though I would not be averse to discussing it with you if you wish, either through the forum or PMs.

Quote:

The beliefs of the primitive stone-age hunger-gatherers was more ritualistic spiritualism, than religion, and very animistic at that.

Well, I class spiritualism as religious, so...

Quote:

Why do you keep using the word respect?

Have you edited your posts? I see the post begining:
You stated that most Atheists become that way through a faith crisis.
Is considerably longer than before, and now includes info about 'praying to death.' It formerly ended at "Technically this form of murder is legal"

Quote:

If you go about nilly willy labeling things as religion based on a text book definition, you end up opening the world up to all sorts of legalized nastiness that otherwise would be illegal and punishable.

So, just as you changed the word 'respect' in your posts to 'protection', read 'protection' where my post said 'respect.'
I look at religion in a scientific manner, that is why I have these criteria.
I declare everything a religion which falls into this criteria. The thing is, where you say that some groups should not get this 'protection' (now), I say none of them deserve that protection.

Quote:

Early Christianity started out with the Hebrews, and it had little to do with Rome, and more to do with opposing the entire idea of polytheism to begin with.

Please check out the link I provide in that post, above the section you quoted there. The asterisk in the bit talking about 'how many of them are actually christian.'

Quote:

Why is it legal? I didn't include that part?

No, but it has since been edited in. stare  

[Sanguvixen]

I'm not really interested in debating too much anymore. I'll still spin a good one in the guilds if I have the time.

Sometimes I'll go through before a person posts, and edit typos out. However, after you posted regarding the post in question, no editing was done. Maybe you read too fast, or something? If you didn't read it all the way, it's not my fault.

I don't edit posts after someone responds to it, only before.

I didn't edit my posts to change any words, only typo's, and that was before you post it? I heavily edit sometimes before a person posts. Did you read it, and come back later on to respond? You should have read it again to be certain that nothing was added, or if so, you see it.

You took my bit about certain things that religion gets as being labeled as such in America, and turned around to call it "respect". Respect, and protection are two different things.

Do me a favor. I don't care if you separate someone else's posts in order to post back. Stop taking mine and cutting them into pieces. I don't like it at all. You've cut some things that go together into pieces, thus taking away from the meaning they have combined.

I cannot see Religion and Spiritualism as the same thing, but if that is your cup of tea, go ahead and drink it. It harms me not. When you use the term religion so loosely, because it fits into "your" criteria, that bothers me. I've already alluded to why. There is no need to post it a second time.

It wasn't edited in. Enough said. Read before you post. Read all of it, okay? I do you the same by reading all of what you say, sometimes twice for better understand.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

Did you read it, and come back later on to respond? You should have read it again to be certain that nothing was added, or if so, you see it.

Maybe you edited while I was posting then?

Quote:

You took my bit about certain things that religion gets as being labeled as such in America, and turned around to call it "respect". Respect, and protection are two different things.

I did read the word respect, however, as said in my last post: if you change where I have written "'respect'" to "protection" it has the exact same meaning as far as being a response to your posts is concerned.

Quote:

Do me a favor. I don't care if you separate someone else's posts in order to post back. Stop taking mine and cutting them into pieces. I don't like it at all. You've cut some things that go together into pieces, thus taking away from the meaning they have combined.

Sorry if I have done so it was not intentional. I do it because it is easier to show what particular bit I am responding to when I quote it, and nothing else. So could you do me a favour and point out when I do it.

Quote:

When you use the term religion so loosely, because it fits into "your" criteria, that bothers me. I've already alluded to why. There is no need to post it a second time.

Again, if you have a problem with regards to the criteria as regards its scientific validity, please post them.
But that does not seem to be your objection. You complain that religious groups get legal protection for their views, and some groups which do not
'deserve' such protection are found to be religious by these criteria.

So my question becomes this: Why do you declare the other groups deserving of such protection? If you do not, then isn't your problem with the protection rather than the declaration of religiosity?

Quote:

It wasn't edited in. Enough said. Read before you post. Read all of it, okay?

I will take your word for it and assume I did not pay enough attention.  

[H0wling_Blue]

Atheism according to dictionary.com



a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]


—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.