Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

grimpachi

technically speaking, or rather, medically speaking, a creator of "DNA-based life forms" can be defined as a geneticist. if you create something made with DNA, you must know about DNA. that's not to say that it's nothing more than that, but if such a thing had happened, understanding of DNA would be a requirement of creator(s). and since we know such things (DNA, geneticists) are possible, what was once thought impossible, is no longer so. the argument of unscientific impossibility, is therefore, poof, gone.

the new argument is to what degree, if any (evolution, cave men, dinosaurs, etc). this is where the 300+ year old papal interpretation did the most damage and is why it is clung to religiously by atheists who employ the argument that evolution disproves creationism of any kind, whatsoever.

it's easy to tilt strawmen.

reply to post by undo


That wasn’t what I was talking about when I said creator. I thought made it clear I do not believe in a supernatural type of creator.

I was simply explaining my stance on what I consider the qualification of atheist. I am not really worried about the semantics of any particular religion or what they consider a creator.

I do not really get involved with any particular religious doctrine whether it is papal or the Mayan sun god it is all the same to me. I was born into the world an atheist with no knowledge of deity’s and my family has never made me go to any church of any type so I will probably die an atheist. I tried church once because my girlfriend felt it was important and went along with it until I heard some very disturbing things being preached and I feel no need to expose myself to an atmosphere of such things ever again. It is fine if others are into that but not me.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

That wasn’t what I was talking about when I said creator. I thought made it clear I do not believe in a supernatural type of creator.

your definition of supernatural, is however, straight out of the atheist guide on how to disprove papal writs in three easy lessons lol

reply to post by luciddream


Yeah sort of. A true agnostic believes there is some all-powerful force behind it all just that humankind has no way to perceive it. In other words they do not believe any religion has it right and most agnostics will reject any dogma related to religions. I am paraphrasing big time here but that is the basic jest of it.

Agnostic Atheist is open to the idea of Agnosticism but is grounded in atheism.

As someone else put agnostics and atheists are like kissing cousins. They are very similar and can be interchangeable or intermingled. Neither requires a ceremony of any type.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

That wasn’t what I was talking about when I said creator. I thought made it clear I do not believe in a supernatural type of creator.

your definition of supernatural, is however, straight out of the atheist guide on how to disprove papal writs in three easy lessons lol

Are you trying to convert me or something or do you not get what I am saying?

Especially because I don’t even know what papal is. The first time I have heard of such a thing was when I read it here the other night. Sorry but I am not familiar with it and I am last person you will ever convert.

If this is about semantics then I am sorry but supernatural is the best description I can give that everyone understands.

i don't require a ceremony either. that's why when you see the critical texts that use examples like "ceremony," the "supernatural", "creationism" and so forth, in very specific terms that almost entirely rely on debunking popes, that you can recognize the most atheists are like ex-communicated catholics, cause they won't accept any other definition of the ancient past but the catholic one, and that because it's so easy to poke holes in.

i'm interested in what our ancestors saw, heard, believed and did. i also find science fascinating. i don't discount either, particularly since i took the time to read about them both, in their original presentations, rather than second hand.

papal=from the popes of the catholic church and their governing bodies. in this case, from 300+ years ago. yes, critical papers about the non-validity of ancient texts, are based almost entirely on the faults the enlightenment period found in the teachings of the catholic popes and their higher criticism professors were the ones that tossed almost all the ancient historical texts in the mythological garbage can, in an attempt to prove the popes had the most accurate interpretation of what came before. life the universe and everything, courtesy of the vatican. then, they tossed the papal interpretation of the bible in the garbage can too cause there was literally nothing left of historical value, to support it.

you know how people can be effected by the power of suggestion before viewing something?

reply to post by undo


Can you explain to me why a papal would be considered relevant in this case? I stated what I consider atheism to be and I didn’t name any established religion nor have I read where anyone has tried to disprove or prove any religion to be true so why exactly would a papal be relevant in this thread?

Does it somehow establish atheism as a religion?

p.s. no i'm not trying to convert you. i was just building my case that most atheists who argue by using only the papal interpretations of 300+ years ago and subsequent critical papers of the enlightenment period, are in essence catholic, because the papal version of what happened to our ancestors is the only one they will accept.

if you ask them to read it in the original languages, unravel it, go back to old texts like the sumerians or akkadians or egyptians, cross reference, do your research, they refuse or take their pre-suggested bias in with them and the whole thing ends up being just a regurgitation of pope whatever.

the closest we get is zeitgeist, which has more holes in it than my pasta strainer (although they make several excellent points, they tend to lose ground with researchers when trying to disprove the bible or other ancient texts by bringing up the fact the catholic church taught the christmas tradition as the birth of jesus when it was actually a pagan celebration of the winter solstice (for example). the teachings of the popes of 300+ years ago, have no bearing on what happened in 9000 BC for example. the disconnect is huge.)

reply to post by undo


I understand what your saying about the Catholic Church and their hand in putting the bible together, but there is plenty of stuff in the Old Testament, that the church hasn't tampered with, that give atheists fuel for rejection.

Things like talking snakes, Jonah and the big fish, God in a pillar of fire, all those animals in Noah's Ark, God telling the Hebrews to kill everyone in their path, etc. etc. etc. are all Jewish mythology that has been adopted by current day Christians.

Personally I reject the God themed mythology of the entire Bible, New Testament and Old, not just the Catholic version of God.

reply to post by undo


I think I see where you are going with this.

I do not know if I would be good to debate on those issues or not because I probably know more about Buddhism than Christianity. I was never indoctrinated into any particular religion during my life. No one has ever answered my first question when dealing with a first source deity. Who made who? That goes for both man vs. deity or deity vs. deity so I have looked more into philosophy of life rather than origin of life. However I have found that most Atheists have come from some kind of background based in an established religion so I can see the dilemma when speaking about such things.

As for myself I do not even trust stories of modern times the way they change even American history is taught differently than when I was in school so any interest I have in ancient texts would be completely subjective to how I view humanity’s nature of changing facts to fit its purpose of that time.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by undo

 

I understand what your saying about the Catholic Church and their hand in putting the bible together, but there is plenty of stuff in the Old Testament, that the church hasn't tampered with, that give atheists fuel for rejection.

Things like talking snakes, Jonah and the big fish, God in a pillar of fire, all those animals in Noah's Ark, God telling the Hebrews to kill everyone in their path, etc. etc. etc. are all Jewish mythology that has been adopted by current day Christians.

Personally I reject the God themed mythology of the entire Bible, New Testament and Old, not just the Catholic version of God.

i've been studying all this stuff, cross culture too, and what you just said, is verbatim enlightenment period criticisms of papal interpretations. when i say papal interpretations i don't mean they wrote the thing (the bible), i mean they hoarded the information after it was compiled by them, didn't let anyone else read it for 1500 years, and just taught people their own version of it, most of which wasn't even in it, to begin with.

personally, i think all the patriarchs of the old testament were pharaohs, even david and solomon. you really have to study the texts of the ancient world to figure that out. also, the translators of the latin and english versions, took their own bias into the text while translating it, and as a result, there are definitely papal interpretations of the text effecting how the text is translated. not on a big scale but on a significant enough scale where, once you know what you're really looking at, it kinda shocks ya.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by undo

 

I understand what your saying about the Catholic Church and their hand in putting the bible together, but there is plenty of stuff in the Old Testament, that the church hasn't tampered with, that give atheists fuel for rejection.

Things like talking snakes,

in the text he's called a nachash (original language)
the derivation of the word is from sorcerer, that is to say, master of pharmaceuticals and (snake) medicine. et. al, the nachash was a doctor of genetics. he gave the eve, the ability to sexually reproduce. apparently it wasn't possible to reproduce in that manner before that. to have knowledge (Tree of the knowledge of good and evil) was to have sex with. adam knew his wife and she gave birth. so rather than saying he was a talking snake, it would be better to say that the geneticist (ever see the symbol for rna and dna? the cadeceus? the rod of asclepius?) talked to eve. not quite as dramatic is it?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

I am actually thinking of becoming ordained depending on the cost. I know most of it is free but there seems to be some administrative fee.

the fees were advertised before they were criticized... they want $650.00

btw the United States Supreme Court (government) recognizes atheism as a religion.

atheism is a lack of belief in a/any deity... the Federal Government recognizes this as a philosophy which in turn with a following/adherents is considered a "religion"

personally I call it or consider it "soft-satanism" or weak-satanism" mainly because atheism's adherents focus on a sole practice of Christianity.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

I am actually thinking of becoming ordained depending on the cost. I know most of it is free but there seems to be some administrative fee.

the fees were advertised before they were criticized... they want $650.00

btw the United States Supreme Court (government) recognizes atheism as a religion.

I will accept that when I can get a tax free status from it however that is not recognized yet.

I still do not see why People are so hard up to classify atheism’s a religion.

Socrates had philosophy and so do many people that don’t qualify as a religion.

Of course Bill O’Reilly stated that Christianity isn’t a religion instead it is a philosophy. I do not buy into that B.S...

In my book philosophy doesn’t qualify as a tax free status so all those churches better start coughing up the taxes unless old Bill is wrong.

What makes me an atheist?

Is it a dislike of organised religion?
No, although I do dislike organised religion due to its controlling nature over humanity for far too long, I can see that at varying times people find solace, comfort, wisdom and acceptance in their religion of choice.

Is it my acceptance (not belief) of the scientific method, and the acceptance that scientific theories evolve and change?
No. While I am happy in most cases to accept the work that others do in order to progress society through discovery and experimentation, in my own field, area of expertise if you will, I will prove my own theories. (Or not, as happens far too often)

Is it Henry, the mild mannered janitor? Could be!
But no, it’s not Henry either.

There is one thing and one thing only that makes me an atheist.

I am an atheist because I have no belief in a deity.

I am going to use the tooth fairy analogy, not as an attack so please bear with me.

When we think about the tooth fairy, it is easy to be glib and say we believe it exists. We might even convince ourselves that at some time, in far distant history, something did exist that led to to the tooth fairy myth. We tell our children that it exist, this helps the child to deal with one of the earliest forms of personal loss and takes their mind of the short lived pain of losing a tooth. It also adds an air of mystery to the world that a child can appreciate. We do the same with santa and a whole realm of good and bad mythical creatures.

Now before the flaming starts, I am not drawing comparisons between religious folk and the children in the outline above and would appreciate it if no-one uses my text in order to do so.

The point is that when, if, we think of the TF at all, and I mean really, REALLY ponder on the existence of such a creature, my guess is that you know it doesn’t exist, we all do. I fact I’ll go as far as to say, that unless you have a young child, you probably never even think of it at all.

I know that in the room next to the one I am in now, there is a bath, a sink, a toilet, a shower. I don’t believe it…I know it. Now I could be wrong. Something could have happened since I was last there to alter those facts, but really, the chances are so infinitesimally small that I am confident in my belief.

For me to not be an atheist, I would need to believe that a deity existed with the same utter conviction I have that my bathroom is as it was this morning and is as described above. No room for doubt. And my guess is that most religious people have that level of conviction in the existence of their god.

I do not!

No matter how hard I look, (and I have looked) or how much I’ve wanted to believe, (and there was a time I really wanted to believe) I keep coming up against the same wall. Pondering god leaves me feeling like I am trying to believe in the tooth fairy when I should be feeling my bathroom.

And that’s why I am an Atheist....No religion here...move on, move on.

reply to post by Grimpachi


if you build a physical building, name it the church of atheism and have service and patrons I am sure if you filed for exempt status it'll be granted.

Religions are philosophies and faith and religion are two separate things wholly. One can have faith and be without a religion (which is a practice)

reply to post by idmonster


in Islam they call non-believers or un-believers "Kafir" properly translated into English it means "Coward"

my religion is Heavy Metal... I practice it. my faith is in Jesus Christ, I believe in him.

there is no reason to have fear of God all in the name of looking cool amongst your peers... be not ashamed my brothers and sisters.