NOTE: This thread does not flame against Atheism, but it does criticise it. It displays my definition of Atheism which seems to be not for the general public. If you can't deal with criticism towards Atheism you are in the wrong discussion.

Additionally the fear of extremism is directly linked to very seemingly possible distant futures NOT THE NEXT 2 YEARS.




First of all I would like to say I am mostly against all sorts of organized religions, but in fact I am agnostic. (meaning I dont admit defeat to any superpower untill there is enough evidence to support it)


In my opnion there is a big issue that does not tend to be adressed with religion in the right way. People always complain about how close minded religion really is and that most of their followers are just blindly pusuing the herd. Though how much "better" is atheism really?


Atheism is by my language's definition a religion itself. The translated definition of religion in German and Dutch state that a belief turns into a religion once the belief itself sets an definition of how the world works.


People think atheism is about the "we dont know" factor, but it is not. Atheism preeches the "We know YOU are wrong" factor.


I absolutely agree with the fact that atheism not being an organized religion (yet) gives it a higher level logical acceptance, but where is it going?


Atheism used to be the outcast lunatics hanged to death. Now there are groups forming all over the world  with "logical leaders" behind it. I honestly think atheistm is goign in the same direction as all other religions are going right now. How far do you think you are of having atheism's jehovas whitnesses at your door? I have listened to my lesser educated/informed friends rampage about religion after having seen one biased documentary (Religulous). They were making statements such as, "I am gonna kill all those who believe in religion" etc. This is nothing more than atheist extremism. Even on this webiste it seems that some topics are purely places here ase a response to rage/anger against religious people.


This brings you to the discussion that  should be here, maybe even istead of this entire website (not hating at the website, this place is great), "Are we too unintelligent?"


The reason people follow blindly what is set right infront of them is because they are uninformed and scared of complecated explanations that undermine the value of their own existence in this universe.


Religion is part of the problem, but education is in an infinitely worse state.


(Again I am not hating at atheism, as I am far more happy with it that even Buddism, but merely pointing out a more pressing issue. Next year Ill be attending univesity where I hope to find more who have brought themselves up to date with the real issues)


*EDIT: removed the word absolute from the definition of atheism, this is not correct.

*EDITEDIT:Updated description

Views: 331

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This doesn't address the point I've raised.  Yes, secular humanism is a philosophy.  It is also not a religion.  This has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't involve deities.  Christian humanism is also a philosophy, and is not, in itself, a religion (at least not as far as I know).  It does involve a deity.


If Christian Humanism involves a deity, then it would be a religion. It may take a philosophical approach, but, ultimately, it's a religion.


The fact that Secular Humanism does not involve deities is why it's not a religion but, instead, a philosophy.


Anyway, I'm clear on what you mean now.  It's not really an important issue to me beyond that.


Fair enough.

Correct me if I misrepresent your point, I just figured I'd try rephrasing it. Theology is a subcategory of Philosophy. In other words, all religions are philosophies, but not all philosophies are religions - just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Yea I should've figured this community would get defensive and totally ignore my main point given in the discussion topic.


You can lock the discussion as people cant get over themselves (like many religious people) to not immediately get defensive when I criticise their beliefs.

No one is  getting defensive Kim, they simply corrected you. While some people seem to treat atheism like a belief system and so it is an easy mistake to make to call it one. However how some people seem to treat atheism does not change the definition of the word.
that is the problem, you think you are correcting me, you should be argueing me.
I haven't actually ignored your main point. If you reread my original reply, you will find that I agree with your conclusion despite our disagreement on the classification of Atheism as a religion.

you are misinterpreting my point. I go by the definition of a religion not by the definition of atheism itself.


The definition of religion states: customs, morals and unified beliefs of how the world functions.


As atheists agree that science is most likely correct. They follow this definition, making atheism a religion.

Firstly, I've not seen that definition of religion anywhere. That may be your opinion, but it is not the generally-accepted definition of religion. What source is it from?


Secondly, science is completely independent of religion.  How do you reconcile the many Theist scientists? Or scientists who don't care whether there's a god or not?

source has been previously linked, its wikpedia for the word religion in german and dutch

"Secondly, science is completely independent of religion.  How do you reconcile the many Theist scientists? Or scientists who don't care whether there's a god or not?"


Why don't you reply to erik's point?

He edited his post after my initial reply, here is my response:

Science is not independant of religion at all in history they were at war, now there is piece but the basic logic behind each are similar just that one requires proof and the other does not. Appart from that religion and science are incredibly similar.


as for the scientists who do not believe in deities, they do believe, just in other things. A human is incapable of not having faith in anything, be it something abitrary as love. One always has faith in their beliefs. Following that logic, the faith scientists have in the basics of science itself (which has not been proven) could be seen as sort of religion in itself.

A human is incapable of not having faith in anything.


I don't have faith in anything. Sometimes I have reasonable expectations based on evidence, but that's quite different than faith which is belief that isn't based on evidence.


I don't understand how anyone could claim religion and science are similar. The methods each use to gain knowledge couldn't be more different.



© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service