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

In the german translation, it says, "Es gibt keine wissenschaftlich allgemein anerkannte Definition des Begriffs Religion."  I'm pretty sure that's saying there are no generally accepted definitions for religion (which I happen to disagree with, but we'll go with it for now).  


Additionally, in Statistics B, you'll find "Non-Religious" listed as a statistic.   From the reference: "Begriffsdefinition lt. Encyclopædia Britannica: Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion."


Anyway, the point is your source doesn't exactly agree with you.

Any book on atheism, pick one!

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 absolute 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.

Wrong.  Atheism is the rejection of the claim that there is a god, because there is no evidence to support the claim.  Simple as that, nothing more nothing less.  This is not at all "an absolute definition of how the world works".  Opinions of atheists can vary greatly on different topics because there is no devine law governing our morals.
That being said, I tend to agree with your conclusion.  Education is definitely a huge part of the problem, especially here in the US.
Edit: sorry about the jumbled text... formatting doesn't seem to be working for some reason.
Your arguement is repeated what I wrote myself to begin with.

No, it isn't.  You say atheism is "an absolute definition of how the world works".  It is not.  It's the rejection of a positive claim on the grounds of lack of evidence.  In other words, atheism doesn't by definition say "there is no god"; it says "there is no evidence to support the claim that there is a god."


Granted, some Atheists do say there is definitively no god.  These are a subset (Gnostic Atheists) of the superset Atheists.  Even if you want to argue for Gnostic Atheism being a religion, I think you will fall short.  By the definition of religion you provided, yes it fits.  But I personally do not agree with your definition, nor do any definitions I've read in dictionaries, where invariably there's a reference to worshipping the supernatural, explaining the purpose of life, and laying out a moral code.  Atheism (even Gnostic Atheism) does none of these things.

I removed the "absolute" from what I wrote intially as it seems to not give the right idea of what I mean to say. I do disagree with your arguement.


A religion is a belief system that only requires customs, a unified way of seeing the world, etc. NOT A DEITY


What atheism is not, is a organised religion.

I understand your point, I guess this just has to do with me thinking everyone has some sort of a religion/belief system. I feel as thogh a human wont function with one, so eventually I came to see atheism as a religion
well, of course we all have our own moral compass.  That doesn't mean that mine has to align with anyone else's, nor does it mean that I have my own personal religion.

Their is a huge difference between a philosophy and a religion. Can you guess what it is?


That's right: belief in a deity.


Yes, philosophy and religion are similar, but they are distinct from each other in that one way. No deity, no religion. It's that simple.

I never said they didn't overlap. Indeed, they are quite similar. But "religion" includes belief in a deity, philosophy does not. That may be the only difference, but it is an obvious difference.


Religion and philosophy are both views about the world and how we should live and so on. But only religion has belief in deities.

B. It is true. Once you include belief in deities, you go from philosophy too religion.


Take Buddhism for example. In the West, it is a philosophy, because no one actually believes in the deities. In the East, however, deities are included, and it is considered a religion.


Any religion can be a philosophy: just remove the belief in Deities (Humanistic Judaism, Western Buddhism, etc). The opposite, however, is also true: any philosophy becomes a religion once you add the belief in deities.


Or, put another way: a philosophy is no longer a philosophy when you include belief in deities; it has become a religion.

I don't know where you got this definition, but it's factually incorrect.  Theology is a part of philosophy.  It's not a field I personally see value in, but that doesn't change its nature.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about philosophy as a study of general and fundamental problems. What I'm talking about is the grouping around the philosophical answers to some of those problems that does not qualify as a religion due to the lack of belief in a higher power or powers, such as Secular Humanism.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service