View Single Post
Old 03-14-2013
Fat1Fared's Avatar
Fat1Fared Fat1Fared is offline
Chumba Wumba
Gender: Male
Location: The Ministry of Evil
Blurb: What is a blurb?
Posts: 9,458

Ok, I am just going to respond quickly as I feel a meeting of minds and resolution to this debate is impossible. As such, these closing remarks will be my last, not because I wish to be imprudent or ignore anything else you have to say, but because I lack the time to respond to a debate which fundmentally has no way to go from here.

Originally Posted by ShizukaMikudou View Post
Yes, religion with the definition of "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." is very generalizing definition, and is very different from the definition of religion: "Details of belief as taught or discussed." The second definition is the one I have been using, and the first definition is the one I have been explaining that my meaning is not.
In regards to the first definition, well I never suggested that is the definition of religion, and you seem to be claiming that have not made such a claim ether, so I am afraid that I cannot understand its relevance to our debate.

In regards to the second definition, well I have very little to say other than that I consider it to be as equally wrong as the first definition; however, if, as you have suggested, you did previously use this as your definition of religion, then ironically you have proven yourself wrong because:

1-Atheism is not a belief, it is lack of belief.

2-Atheism is not taught, it is just a lack of belief.

Temporarily, meaning that in this situation at this time, right here in this thread topic, I'm not using the definition you're thinking that I am using, so for the duration of your reading this, please disregard, temporarily, the definition you thought was true for a different one, which, though is different, is also true.
Well, once again, what you said makes little to no sense, so forgive me if I am incorrect in my assumption here, but I must ask; are you basically saying that when I am talking to you, I should just forget the definition of words as they should be and accept whatever definitions you wish to give those words?

Yes, well, I am not sorry to say that I will not do this for you.

Metaphorically, meaning that when I state that atheists believe that they are their own god, I obviously do not mean it literally. As stated before, the word "god" is being used metaphorically, not literally. Here, it represents an idol, or a role model that a person looks up to for moral support.
Well, the debate of whether you did say this, or just meant to, aside, I think it is worth noting that I do not consider myself an idol or role model, (nor for that matter do I think that is an apt description the word 'god' ether, but that again is another debate not worth having). You seem to be working under the misconception that people must always base their ideals on something higher than mankind, even if that something else happens to be themselves. This is very simplistic and discounts how complex some social constructs are, making it pseudo-intellectualism at best.

Skeptically, as in simply that I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, nor just blatantly saying "Christianity is right and all atheistic beliefs are wrong!" Instead, I am saying, "Here is my opinion. It is a philosophy. Although I believe in it, I do not expect you to believe in it, and I understand that to you, it is only a philosophy. I expect that you are skeptical of it, so I proceed to explain my opinion further."
That is not what being skeptical means, nor for that matter are your ideas, ones that would be defined philosophical. Your ideas would not even come under theology really; I guess, if they are anything academic (which I would assert, they are not) they would be deemed to be sociological theories. You are looking two socially constructed concepts and trying to (re-)define them.

Getting far off topic here. I used the word "religion" to describe atheism as well as Christianity and all other religions. Keeping it at that, my usage of the term, religion, should be enough to give it the definition I've been aiming for this entire time. If the word, religion, bugs everyone that much, then fine, I'll call it a worldview. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religions are worldviews.
Atheism is not a worldview, it is a lack of a belief. A worldview is a set of beliefs about the world and its existence, but atheism lacks any defined set of beliefs because all it is, is a lack of belief. I do not even to think or believe anything to be an atheist, I just need to lack belief in god/gods.

The people here have no problem with the word religion, they are just confused as to why you feel the need to re-define several concepts just to prove that atheism is a religion.

I actually do not mind that you believe it is a religion, I think you are wrong, but I do not mind; the reason I have come this far with this conversation is because I am confused as to why you are so determined for it to be something it is not and I am trying to work out why. I used to go to a RC school and a lot of the pupils there wanted Atheism to be a religion because they felt that somehow demeaned it as a concept. I honestly do not believe that is your intent, so I am confused as to why you are so determined to change what Atheism is.

Atheism is not a belief, nor does it have any rules, ideals, rituals or anything else which a religious organisation requires to be a religion. It even lacks the most basic thing all religions, whether the religion has a god or not, require, aka faith. Atheists, by definition, have no faith. (That is different to them being faithless). So why are you so determined to make atheism a religion?

Alright, here: Atheism is a Religion Says US Supreme Court

I quote from the very article I referenced previously: "When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights."
Well, now you have moved the goalposts, but anyway. The judge there is wrong, but as that is quite a weak argument without me wasting hours expanding on it, so I will just waste an short space of my life to explain that basically the judge is clearly using what is known as the marge d’appréciation to get what he considers a fair result. Judges often like to change the meaning of the law to get a fair result, or at least what they consider fair. However, as often, as such as here, judges cannot do this, they instead change the meanings of other things for the purpose of getting the result they want. AKA, here, the judge cannot change Article 1 to apply to non-religious organisations, so he just changes what religious organisations are in regards to the meaning of article one. As I said, that would be a legal definition and does not apply outside of a court.

If legal definitions applied outside of a courtroom, then everyone who ever suffered a physical head-wound would be deemed insane, while someone who hears voices telling him to kill people is, according to legal dictatories at least, totally, sane.

Oh, and men, legally speaking, cannot be raped. :P So yes, legal definitions are rarely good ones to use outside of a courtroom.

It is also worth noting that while atheism is not a religion, we are not saying atheists cannot be religious. Most Buddhists are atheists. So by that account, these inmates were not making an atheist religion, nor did the judge, the inmates, who were atheists, were acting in a religious manner for the purposes of Article 1 because to be a part of their group/organisation you had to follow certain rules and practices that can be defined as a form of religious practice/organisation for purposes of Article 1. This means all the judgement actually says is that atheists can act in a religious manner and create religious organisations.

If we are to go further than that and say that their actions are not just the foundation of their own religious practice, but instead the foundations of an overall atheist religion, that then means that to be an atheist one must act according to their religious practices because that is what atheism has now become. This would mean, by definition, myself and millions of others instantly just stopped being atheists. As we are all still clearly atheists, clearly atheism is not defined by the rules and practices of those inmates, and as such their religion is not atheism, nor is atheism now defined by their religious code. Atheism itself is still what it always was, this judgement just means that now atheists, for the purposes of Article 1, can start religious organisations. (See what I mean about being able to make up bullshit legal definitions.)

How so? Do you have any reasons to back up your statement?
As I have said, my opinion is that as Atheism is a worldview, an opinion on the world, it is also a religion. A philosophy, here where philosophy has a very good definition of the word, religion.
This I have already refuted, so I will end here by saying, you never answered my question, so I suspect you simply cannot understand why you are wrong.

Thus why a meeting of minds between is impossible.

Last edited by Fat1Fared; 03-14-2013 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote