Comments on: Atheism: The inverse religion?

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:04:54 +0000

Yes, Flies, that is the intention. In order to point this out, however, they are forced to describe religious behaviour in our terms, and ultimately paint it as negative in some sense.

By: flies

flies — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:52:10 +0000

What amuses me is that so many religious folks choose to deride us by saying we’re just like them. What does that say about them?

I don’t think this is on the mark. We claim atheism is not a religion, doesn’t require faith, and so forth, differentiating ourselves from theists. The response you’re talking about is an attempt to show that we’re aloof and arrogant in making these claims. They are happy about who they are and see our attempt to distinguish ourselves as a failure for us to see what we’re really like.

By: Christopher Mankey

Christopher Mankey — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:03:38 +0000

“Atheists may not have a religion but they sure are religious.”

No.

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:01:35 +0000

Oh yeah, that. JD and Gandolf railroaded it in the end, but the consensus we reached before that point was that it's possible for atheists to be religious about it in some sense, but not all of them are. Here's a linking tutorial for your reference, Feeno. The above link on "that" was done with the following HTML, but replace [ and ] with < and >: [a href="http://feeno-ifibecameanatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/congratulations-youve-made-it.html"]that[/a]

By: feeno

feeno — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:49:31 +0000

Hola mi amigo

I will learn to link one day? But until then…

I wrote a post on Wed. Nov. 11 2009 titled “Congratulations you’ve made it” You actually left 5 or 6 comments. Check it out again. I think I may have conceded to you eventually?

Later Holmes, feeno

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:28:31 +0000

If you’re going to try a zinger like that, Feeno, I’d appreciate your definition of “religious”, in particular the way it differs from “enthusiastic” and “activistic”.

By: feeno

feeno — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:04:01 +0000

Atheists may not have a religion but they sure are religious.

Late, feen

By: Naumadd

Naumadd — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:34:40 +0000

I’m at least one so-called “atheist” who knows there is no such thing as a “religion of atheism” in so far as there is no “philosophy of atheism”, i.e., a well-defined metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics of “atheism”. I can say, however, that I do have a well-defined personal philosophy with all of the requisite principles required to call it such which, as it happens, leads me to reject the claims of theists and anyone else claiming an alleged “supernatural”. In the eyes of theists, this makes me an “atheist”, however, neither my philosophy nor my “religion” or, to put another way, the manner in which I put that philosophy into daily practice, is “atheism” although it IS naturally atheistic. Such a term is only needed when speaking of my beliefs and practices as they relate to theism. Outside of that comparison, my philosophy and religion have whatever name I choose to give it which has nothing at all to do with theists, their beliefs and practices. I might call it “rational naturalism” or “naturalism” or any number of other things. My philosophy and religion focus on the genuinely real and true in and of nature and on my human life and its abilities, talents, skills and passions in relation with it. Nothing more and nothing less than what’s real.

Believing “atheism” to be a well-defined religion is a claim that “atheism” is a well-defined philosophy. It is not. It is merely a term relative to theist beliefs to describe those who do not believe and practice as they do. It is neither a philosophy nor a religion one can believe or practice.