Can militant, gnostic atheism whose practitioners actively proselytize and evangelize be considered a religion? Does it at least share some similarities with religion?
Can militant, gnostic atheism whose practitioners actively proselytize and evangelize be considered a religion? Does it at least share some similarities with religion?
only in the way anarchism could be considered a system of government.
Can militant, gnostic atheism whose practitioners actively proselytize and evangelize be considered a religion? Does it at least share some similarities with religion?
only in the way anarchism could be considered a system of government.
Why is that? It seems to me that people who militantly believe that there is no God and who actively try to convince people they are right and to join them sounds pretty much like a lot of other religions.
Why is that? It seems to me that people who militantly believe that there is no God and who actively try to convince people they are right and to join them sounds pretty much like a lot of other religions.
Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's the absence of belief in the supernatural. So by some definitions of the word, atheism is a religion. Just not one that asks for your money so that it can keep asking you for money.
because atheism is "no god" like anarchism is "no government". Religion is a set of beliefs which informs how the world works and how you should act based on the authority of some godhead.
Atheism isn't an alternative religion that says "science is the godhead, act accordingly", it is the lack of religion, leaving you to figure things out for yourself. The problem is that we, as a society, are bad at dealing with groups that are defined by their shared lack of something so saying "atheist religion" feels like it makes sense even though it is an oxymoron.
Why is that? It seems to me that people who militantly believe that there is no God and who actively try to convince people they are right and to join them sounds pretty much like a lot of other religions.
The absence of a thing is not that thing.
That may be true, but I'm talking about the ways the adherents act towards others. From what I've seen, militant atheists tend to treat others in manner very similar to the way fundamentalist religions treat others. The main difference is that the religions say, "You'll go to hell if you don't agree with us and we'll shun you and disrespect you for your beliefs unless you convert to our beliefs." and the atheists say, " You're mentally ill if you don't agree with us and we'll shun you and disrespect you for your beliefs unless you convert to our beliefs."
That may be true, but I'm talking about the ways the adherents act towards others. From what I've seen, militant atheists tend to treat others in manner very similar to the way fundamentalist religions treat others. The main difference is that the religions say, "You'll go to hell if you don't agree with us and we'll shun you and disrespect you for your beliefs unless you convert to our beliefs." and the atheists say, " You're mentally ill if you don't agree with us and we'll shun you and disrespect you for your beliefs unless you convert to our beliefs."
They aren't as bad as the militant peer reviewers. I've herd they're likely to eat you if your paper is wrong...
Please, this is just the stupidest fucking argument I've ever heard. Most people I've seen who have been labeled militant atheists are actually quite nice. Besides, most of them are pacifists any ways. Just because someone disagrees with you vehemently doesn't mean they are militant.
There are plenty of atheist groups that will take your money. I dont remember the one's name, but I saw them on the history channel. And it about this entire family that raised money for atheism but then embezzeled it.
Are soldiers murderers because they kill people? Are security guards a form of organized crime because they get paid to protect small businesses?
Calling atheism a religion because people argue its case against other religions is creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition.
There are plenty of atheist groups that will take your money. I dont remember the one's name, but I saw them on the history channel. And it about this entire family that raised money for atheism but then embezzeled it.
I heard anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's the absence of belief in the supernatural. So by some definitions of the word, atheism is a religion. Just not one that asks for your money so that it can keep asking you for money.
Can you name any religion that does not have the belief in the supernatural?
There are plenty of atheist groups that will take your money. I dont remember the one's name, but I saw them on the history channel. And it about this entire family that raised money for atheism but then embezzeled it.
I heard anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.
You have no idea how much of a hard time I had with this in my argumentation class. Apparently, in the field of debate, anecdotal evidence is perfectly valid.
There are plenty of atheist groups that will take your money. I dont remember the one's name, but I saw them on the history channel. And it about this entire family that raised money for atheism but then embezzeled it.
I heard anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Is that kind of like when you say that some militant atheists you've met are very nice people?
No, because murder is, specifically, the killing of another human being with Malice Aforethought. Neither of these conditions are applicable for a regular soldier, particularly in combat. This does not mean, naturally, that a soldier cannot be a murderer, however, if a soldier is required to kill in the commission of his duty, then no, he is not a murderer.
Are security guards a form of organized crime because they get paid to protect small businesses?
Not really, No, because they're not breaking the law as the usual protection scam does in a number of ways. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but for something to be a form of organized crime, generally, it has to actually be a crime.
Is that kind of like when you say that some militant atheists you've met are very nice people?
Show me one 'militant atheist' who's engaged any sort of violence or militaristic behavior.
Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist.
Oh no doubt that human beings can do bad things. But I'm talking about people labeled specifically as 'militant atheists' (the new buzzword along with New Atheists). Those who've been labeled as such as a pejorative term.
Comments
R = set of all religions, contains no non-religions
A = athiesm a set which contains no religions
A is not a subset of R!
Atheism isn't an alternative religion that says "science is the godhead, act accordingly", it is the lack of religion, leaving you to figure things out for yourself. The problem is that we, as a society, are bad at dealing with groups that are defined by their shared lack of something so saying "atheist religion" feels like it makes sense even though it is an oxymoron.
Sounds pretty similar, really.
Please, this is just the stupidest fucking argument I've ever heard. Most people I've seen who have been labeled militant atheists are actually quite nice. Besides, most of them are pacifists any ways. Just because someone disagrees with you vehemently doesn't mean they are militant.
Calling atheism a religion because people argue its case against other religions is creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition.