JeSoul:

TheHomer, thanks for your last response.
You are right in that some foundation needs to be laid on the meaning of certain words we're using here. The only side effect of undertaking that is that too often we see good threads spiral into the abyss of definitions of defintions.

---

Deepsight and Homer,
you both continue to insist that atheism is simply a lack of belief - I have tried (and thanks to posts from E and I) to stress that modern atheism is simply not just a lack of belief - it is an active belief that there in no God. Indeed you could reverse the case and say "christianity is simply a lack of a lack of belief in God". Both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven - and both are very active in converting followers. Christians have the bible as their holy text, while atheists have a revolving door library of holy texts - the most recent scientific books.

You will both notice I mentioned twice I have no need or desire to flatter atheism with the title of religion - but just for kicks - what characteristics does a movement need to possess in order to qualify for the title of "religion"? Uyi already tried to address this in his famous "discombobulate" post but rather than show us where he was wrong, opponents simply dismissed it as a grammatical exercise - many of which the 'dismissants' themselves are famous for.

I repeat; Uyi said EXACTLY NOTHING and today I am not in the mood to address nothingnesses.

As for you perhaps you can spend the evening reflecting on just why communism should not also qualify as a religion under the premises that you set up.

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer >>> using the definition of religion you gave Stoicism, Empericism, Idealism, and yes, theism and atheism fall under religions.

It seems you don't note the fact that practices and beliefs which are highly sacred (to a person) are predicated upon these isms. They all have a belief in idea they regard as sacrosanct.

It seems as JeSoul feared, we're about to get bogged down in definitions.
What are the [b]sacred [/b]beliefs in empiricism, stoicism, idealism, theism and atheism? Sacred being the keyword here.

Uyi Iredia:

The best definition of atheism (devoid of the hissy-footing present atheists characterize) is this : Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

That nullifies all the twaddles about not playing cards not being a hobby et al.

Yes your definition is good. So how do you turn that statement into a religion with sacred beliefs and practices?
Also, the definition can have two meanings.
The meaning I'm going for is that this God is not first assumed to be true because I don't think the evidence available is sufficient for him.

this gets interesting   Okay just in case I might I have goofed i have created a new thread asking participants thereof to define religion. It is becoming clearer by the post that we have different views on what constitutes religion. I surmised that by proving the fact that Atheism is based on belief and faith (as much as Christianity) and the fact groups of atheists are systematizing (or enunciating) their so-called unbeliefs; that i could dismiss Atheism as religion

y'all oppose     >>> so let's backtrack and ask ourselves what is, and what constitutes religion. I dare all atheists on this forum to agree

@ homer >>> b'cos what is apparently sacrosanct to Atheists is their lack of belief in God.

Well said and simply spot on!
When i pointed out that atheist have away off there normal orthodox denial of the existence of deity or deities to a more agressive conversion and intolerance it was said that the case was a singularity incident and cannot be use as a yard stick in concluding that atheism is another form of religion. While on the other some many isolated weak incident have been used by the atheist to portray God or religion in bad light. E.g islamic suicide bombers. I only see double standard. There is no arrow pointing religion the is not pointing atheism.

JeSoul:

TheHomer, thanks for your last response.
You are right in that some foundation needs to be laid on the meaning of certain words we're using here. The only side effect of undertaking that is that too often we see good threads spiral into the abyss of definitions of defintions.

---

Deepsight and Homer,
you both continue to insist that atheism is simply a lack of belief - I have tried (and thanks to posts from E and I) to stress that modern atheism is simply not just a lack of belief - it is an active belief that there in no God. Indeed you could reverse the case and say "christianity is simply a lack of a lack of belief in God". Both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven - and both are very active in converting followers. Christians have the bible as their holy text, while atheists have a revolving door library of holy texts - the most recent scientific books.

You will both notice I mentioned twice I have no need or desire to flatter atheism with the title of religion - but just for kicks - what characteristics does a movement need to possess in order to qualify for the title of "religion"? Uyi already tried to address this in his famous "discombobulate" post but rather than show us where he was wrong, opponents simply dismissed it as a grammatical exercise - many of which the 'dismissants' themselves are famous for.

@ Deep Sight >>> spare this thread some words and __________ >>> if you don't want to address then why do you do so >>> stop contradicting yourself >>> abeg !!!

Sorry >>> i meant Texas Pete

@ homer >>> yep !! yep !!! we are getting bogged down by definitions >>> the word we all differ upon is obviously religion

>>> I dunno why u can't see that what's sacred in Stoicism is simply put being stoic >>> Stoic philosophy is much deeper than that >>> i like it and incorporated some of it into my 'religion' >>> but don't entirely accept it.

>> Touche >>> then >>> What are they ? (i.e Shintoism, Taoism) >>> are they unique ? or deist ? >>> I'm aware that Shintoism, in particular, is based on ancestral worship

JeSoul:

TheHomer, thanks for your last response.
You are right in that some foundation needs to be laid on the meaning of certain words we're using here. The only side effect of undertaking that is that too often we see good threads spiral into the abyss of definitions of defintions.

Yes I can see that happening now.

JeSoul:

---

Deepsight and Homer,
you both continue to insist that atheism is simply a lack of belief - I have tried (and thanks to posts from E and I) to stress that modern atheism is simply not just a lack of belief - it is an active belief that there in no God. Indeed you could reverse the case and say "christianity is simply a lack of a lack of belief in God". Both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven - and both are very active in converting followers. Christians have the bible as their holy text, while atheists have a revolving door library of holy texts - the most recent scientific books.

I addressed the issue of the definition above.
The number of holy texts are generally expected to be limited in some way   .

JeSoul:

You will both notice I mentioned twice I have no need or desire to flatter atheism with the title of religion - but just for kicks - what characteristics does a movement need to possess in order to qualify for the title of "religion"? Uyi already tried to address this in his famous "discombobulate" post but rather than show us where he was wrong, opponents simply dismissed it as a grammatical exercise - many of which the 'dismissants' themselves are famous for.

I think for a movement to get to the level of religion, I think it needs sacred texts, rituals (acts that are repeated in a certain way expecting some response from the deity it's being directed at), poor evidence of efficacy of said acts and some other things. These were just on the spur of the moment and may still need to be modified.

Uyi Iredia:

this gets interesting   Okay just in case I might I have goofed i have created a new thread asking participants thereof to define religion. It is becoming clearer by the post that we have different views on what constitutes religion. I surmised that by proving the fact that Atheism is based on belief and faith (as much as Christianity) and the fact groups of atheists are systematizing (or enunciating) their so-called unbeliefs; that i could dismiss Atheism as religion

y'all oppose     >>> so let's backtrack and ask ourselves what is, and what constitutes religion. I dare all atheists on this forum to agree

@ homer >>> b'cos what is apparently sacrosanct to Atheists is their lack of belief in God.

I don't think a lack of a belief can be considered sacred because I don't think people consider the non-belief in Zeus holy.

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer >>> yep !! yep !!! we are getting bogged down by definitions >>> the word we all differ upon is obviously religion

>>>I dunno why u can't see that what's sacred in Stoicism is simply put being stoic >>> Stoic philosophy is much deeper than that >>> i like it and incorporated some of it into my 'religion' >>> but don't entirely accept it.

That's like saying what's sacred in Christianity is being a Christian but we know this is not so. There are sacred objects, rites, and beliefs that are not to be questioned.

thehomer:

. . .

I think for a movement to get to the level of religion, I think it needs sacred texts, rituals (acts that are repeated in a certain way expecting some response from the deity it's being directed at), poor evidence of efficacy of said acts and some other things. These were just on the spur of the moment and may still need to be modified.

Where are the sacred texts for Amadioha, Ogun, Shango, Obatala etc worship?

it is akin to saying that >>> what is sacred to Christianity is Christ >>> remove Him and you have rendered Christianity impotent >>> why do you think the historicity of Jesus Christ has been argued ? >>>

BTW I have added to my previous post >>> check it

Enigma:

Where are the sacred texts for Amadioha, Ogun, Shango, Obatala etc worship?

see the bare faced problem    >>> we don't even agree on what a religion is *[i]I raise my hands up in bewildermen[/i]t*

Rhino.4dm:

I only see double standard. There is no arrow pointing religion the is not pointing atheism.

  Lol.
There's this infamous NL atheist many of the old timers will remember well - Therationa aka Huxley. He had this signature that I laughed off at the time:

Every Christian is an atheist with respect to Al-lah, Buddha, Zeus etc

---

Homer see the problem? As Enigma just showed, there are plenty of faiths that have been officially titled "religion" out there right now that do not have all those criteria you listed. Some do not even believe in a "God", but that rather we are all gods, others have no sacred texts, others do not have fixed/set rituals they practice. There is no universal template for constitutes a religion - this is the main problem.

The best we can do I think is compare across the board - the similarities, and I'm seeing a whole lot between the structure of modern atheism and many established religions.

Enigma:

Where are the sacred texts for Amadioha, Ogun, Shango, Obatala etc worship?

You must recall that back then, what West Africans had then was an oral tradition so did not write these things down. They would have if they could.

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer >>> yep !! yep !!! we are getting bogged down by definitions >>> the word we all differ upon is obviously religion

>>> I dunno why u can't see that what's sacred in Stoicism is simply put being stoic >>> Stoic philosophy is much deeper than that >>> i like it and incorporated some of it into my 'religion' >>> but don't entirely accept it.

>> Touche >>> then >>> What are they ? (i.e Shintoism, Taoism) >>> are they unique ? or deist ? >>> I'm aware that Shintoism, in particular, is based on ancestral worship

I would have placed them under atheism because they did not use a concept of some deity.

@Uyi Iredia,

I will rather take it a step further and say that the religion of atheism is evolution.  Religion, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is:

"a cause, a principle or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion"

It does not necessarily have to involve the concept of a deity for it to be classified as a religion, it has to be a cause or principle that is zealously pursued as is displayed by our folks here on the NL religion section.

The belief in molecule-to-man evolution causes most people to become atheists as Richard Dawkins, the atheists' leading armour bearer admitted in the interview below when he was answering a question about the logical extension of atheism to evolution, He said:

"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=2

This is what Michael Ruse, a doctor in one of the evolutionary sciences, wrote:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.  Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Another Professor of one of the Evolutionary disciplines William Provine tells of the beliefs that evolution is religion when he said:

"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.  There is no life after death.  When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead.  That's the end for me.  There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

You can see from their quotes that the religion of atheism has no end product and that they believe that evolution reigns supreme.

@ homer >>> We previously argued on faith >>> Would you concede that with respect to the possibility that there is in fact a God, atheists have faith ?

>>> put in another way >>> would you agree that atheists have faith in the fact that there is no God ?

>>> contrast the two questions and give me an answer

JeSoul:

The best we can do I think is compare across the board - the similarities, and I'm seeing a whole lot between the structure of modern atheism and many established religions.

Okay. You tempt me.

What is the defining element of religion - viz: what does Religion seek to acheive - what is religion driven towards?

Start there.

@Deep Sight and Purist:

Sigh. This is unfortunate. I thought you guys were smarter than this. There is, to be candid, no confusion about my posts. You both seem to be biased here.

Referring to some atheists who are notorious for mudslinging on threads about religion, I asked, WITH MANY SMILIES to introduce humor, what are THESE atheists doing in the religion section? It was simple sarcasm. Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician. (Not so with religion). So doing, I was telling that his example is out of the ballpark. I ask, does he understand or should I break it down? Rather than admit he didnt get it, he went defensive and lied it was sarcasm. As for Deep Sight, I explained already. In case its not clear cos of the hot Nigerian Sun, here again:

1. Atheism is NOT a religion, going by the correct definitions of the two.
2. Some people say they are atheists, but in their militancy they have a form of religion as well.
3. Question then: are such ones really atheists then? If yes, revisit 1 above and redefine Atheism or Religion.

I spoke about Atlantis and politics as an example. Would it be sane when people are discussing real political systems for me to jump in and declare that the documentation handed down to us about Atlantis is false? And I keep doing stuff like this from thread to thread? Also I open new threads to declare "Santa Claus does not exist". "All you know about Atlantis is wrong" etc. Over and again, ad nauseaum?

If God does not exist to a certain atheist, it may be sensible to open a thread and discuss how this inexistence affects him or his nations' policies with respect to those who thinks he exists. That may make sense. But rather, like viruses, they skip from thread to thread into meaningful conversations that have no direct meaning in their lives except they are also religious subscribers, bandy insults and demean God in order to try to gain new converts. Most times they do open threads, it is to scorn religion and God. Is this not akin to Abuzola's zealous religious attacks on Christianity?

If you still dont get my point, its too bad. Im sure its clear to at least Enigma and JeSoul. At least two is fine with me. Im not explaining this further.

@ OLAADEGBU >>> I love the way u presented it. >>> Evolution is the religion of Atheism >>> I had subtly mentioned this earlier

Uyi Iredia:

There is a valid point that was raised by the homer & Purist - that theism isn't a religion. Correct.
The fact that religions are based on various 'isms' such as Taoism, Theism, Buddhism, Shintoism goes to show that religions can be ascribed to them. Note that Shintoism is in fact a religion_the official religion of Japan. Same goes to atheism_ we have seen modes of thought which have atheistic or agnostic underpinnings e.g evolutionism, secularism, communism e.t.c

I can already predict the objections of atheists >>> that not all atheists agree on evolution >>> *I laugh* >>> not all 'Christians' agree on Christ >>> anyone know the concept of a cultural Christian !!!

@ all posters >>> you must understand that I didn't wake up one morning to declare 'Atheism is a religion' >>> over time and in the course of debating atheists >>> i noted similarities between atheism (especially militant atheism) with religious mold of thinking

InesQor:

Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician.

This alone kills the bird. In this event Larry King, Aisha Sesay, Christian Amanpour and every other public pundit are all politicians.

Infact all the beer palour analysts of current affairs are all POLITICIANS.

Good grief.

This is the height of absurdity.

@JeSoul: Your last post makes a lot of sense. Religion does not appear to have a clear cut definition in its current global state. I think thats the problem here cos as huxley said, Im an Atheist to Sango worshippers too.

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer >>> We previously argued on faith >>> Would you concede that with respect to the possibility that there is in fact a God, atheists have faith ?

>>> put in another way >>> would you agree that atheists have faith in the fact that there is no God ?

>>> contrast the two questions and give me an answer

same way christians have faith(?) that there is no allah as described in the koran or that there is no zeus as believed by the greeks. with you guys logic i guess it'll be right to say that islamic fundamentalists who militantly persecute christians in the nigerian north are of 2 religions, islam and belief in the non-existence of the christian god or better yet, the catholic church of old who persecuted non-catholics of the christian faith are both of the catholic christian faith and the religion of no faith in non-catholic religious denominations. it's quite amusing how being religious and being anti-religious have come to mean the same thing to some peeps on here for whatever reason

this is actually quite absurd and a non-issue and, like a poster stated before, quite a waste of time and energy bickering over nothingness

Uyi Iredia:


@ all posters >>> you must understand that I didn't wake up one morning to declare 'Atheism is a religion' >>> over time and in the course of debating atheists >>> i noted similarities between atheism (especially militant atheism) with religious mold of thinking

Can the same not be said even to a greater degree of COMMUNISM?

CAN YOU TELL ME IF COMMUNISM IS A RELIGION? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

@Deep Sight: dude what does it mean to be active in politics or to have strong political views? What does it on the other hand mean to be a politician? To be political? Maybe I am wrong, for I am not as learned as you are. Please enlighten me on this.

Religion is driven towards an understanding of reality.

@ Mudley >>> I agree >>> You said it >>> and quit with the Texas Pete's lukewarm logic (which irks me) >>> if it is nothingness, treat it as such >> SHUT UP

Uyi Iredia:

Religion is driven towards an understanding of reality.

You have defined the goal of PHILOSOPHY and NOT the goal of religion.

This is tiresome.

No (don't push your luck, depending on how this goes I might at some point say that Communism IS a religion)  

Nobody needs to tell texas pete that communism was predicated on an atheistic worldview >>> This quote by Karl Marx sums it up

"Religion is the opium of the masses"
- Karl Marx

Deep Sight:

You have defined the goal of PHILOSOPHY and NOT the goal of religion.

This is tiresome.

Lemme assume my definition is wrong (It is NOT) >>> oya ! define the goal of religion

@Deep Sight:

By the way, why are you always ready to misrepresent others?   You took my quote and CLEVERLY edited the context (outlined in red below) which I placed in a bracket.

Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician. (Not so with religion). So doing, I was telling that his example is out of the ballpark.

became

Purist replies about politics, and I show him the definition of a politician. Actively discussing politics ALONE makes you a politician.

To the effect that readers on the thread will assume that I am arguing that religion and politics operate under that same defining token.

Guy, this is EVIL. Stop it.  

Uyi Iredia:

No (don't push your luck, depending on how this goes I might at some point say that Communism IS a religion)

Nobody needs to tell texas pete that communism was predicated on an atheistic worldview >>> This quote by Karl Marx sums it up

"Religion is the opium of the masses"
- Karl Marx


Lemme assume my definition is wrong (It is NOT) >>> oya ! define the goal of religion

^^^ This above . . .

Just makes me weak. I very much hate to be adopting the antics of Enigma as he has often related to me, but I really must excuse myself for now. I have no words to address the incongruities that you propound.

Perhaps  some pounded yam and guiness stout will revive me later on.

Actively discussing politics is enough to be political, to be part of a POLITICAL system. Maybe not be a "politician" although Deep Sight is yet to define that word here.

Actively discussing religion is not enough to be religious. As has been pointed out, you may need to discuss religion (even though you are an atheist) because of your environment or because of policies made by your society. But when you go about it in a militant fashion, attacking belief systems even when nothing is endangered, proselytizing, seeking converts, discussing how to meet up to share ideas; when you discuss this in a religious manner you are definitely religious.