Atheism is the religion of the innately stupid. Stupidity has to flow through your veins to insist that there is no God.

olojoro:

Atheism is the religion of the innately silly. Stupidity has to flow through your veins to insist that there is no God.

Well, without holding brief for the atheists, the bolded can be said of theists too, mutatis mutandis. It all depends, really.

I can't say I disagree with you buddy. Isn't it scary that most of the people on earth with us are that silly?

Why does it matter if God exists anyways? Besides the whole imaginary afterlife thing

Indeed. There is no point dignifying the subject with any responses. I am rather surprised that some otherwise objective minds are found supporting the notion.

Jesoul. I hope u realize that further to everything u hzve said, and just as thehomer pointed out, capitalism, communism, etc would all qualify as religions.

Come on!

Rhino.4dm:

But every ardent contributor in the politics section has 'intrest' in politics by extension they are all intrested in political activities.

just passing.


U used to be my friend before u went gaga solo. Now u can see what becoming my enemy opponent have caused u. lol

@Purist:

Come on! We all know how you meant that. DO NOT hide behind the definition of "sarcasm". When you have been hit, it is only polite to accept your wrong and say "touche".

As for the topic, do you care to show where I said Atheism is a religion? Isn't my point the fact that you are so immutably obsessed with religions, enough to make the birds of a feather phrase apply to you in some regards? And isn't that WHY i said ONLY Enigma seemed to get my point (or at least gave a response that shows that he did?)

Or maybe it's the word "religion" that has gradually lost its pristine meaning and needs to be re-evaluated.

InesQor:

LOL LOL LOL!

My point exactly, bro!! Thankfully at least ONE person understood it

De thing na waaa o jare  

The 'evangelical' atheists here (some of them even aggressive if not militant) are obviously proselytising: seeking to prove that their own 'faith' {in godlessness or in lack of god, if they prefer} is right or trying to 'debunk' Christianity and other religions; basically they are trying to prove that their own belief or faith or religion   (sarcasm alert!) is better than anyone else's. Now that's interesting, isnt't it? I would say it shows at least two forms of insecurity: (a) they do not know that their own belief, faith or religion   (sarcasm alert) is right and thus need the reassurance from attacking 'weaknesses' in others; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they are indeed basically doing that which they accuse others of ---- practising a 'religion'  (sarcasm only partly alert!!!). What with all the contention, criticising, proselytising etc?

There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them.

Compare those with our evangelical (aggressive if not militant) atheist friends who are indeed obssessed with this same God that they claim do not exist. Of all the threads and discussion on the forum they encamp in the religion section!

Enigma:

De thing na waaa o jare  

The 'evangelical' atheists here (some of them even aggressive if not militant) are obviously proselytising: seeking to prove that their own 'faith' {in godlessness or in lack of god, if they prefer} is right or trying to 'debunk' Christianity and other religions; basically they are trying to prove that their own belief or faith or religion   (sarcasm alert!) is better than anyone else's. Now that's interesting, isnt't it? I would say it shows at least two forms of insecurity: (a) they do not know that their own belief, faith or religion   (sarcasm alert) is right and thus need the reassurance from attacking 'weaknesses' in others; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they are indeed basically doing that which they accuse others of ---- practising a 'religion'  (sarcasm only partly alert!!!). What with all the contention, criticising, proselytising etc?

[size=15pt]There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them. [/size]

Compare those with our evangelical (aggressive if not militant) atheist friends who are indeed obssessed with this same God that they claim do not exist. [size=17pt]Of all the threads and discussion on the forum they encamp in the religion section![/size]

GBAM! GBAM!! [size=16pt]GBAM!!![/size]

And the court rises.

LOL!

As far as I have observed, the only atheist that does not look like he actively proselytizes here is Seun Osewa (if I am right, he is an atheist). Manmustwac on the other hand, does that infrequently. The others are either rabid or so defensive that their militancy becomes obvious. They have a faith, a belief system as well. Do they not as well then have a religion?

I laugh in pidgin Cantonese.

That wapt-senile gay stinking loon need to be quarantine , the coward shouldn't be ashame to admit that Richard fuC.king dawkins is his god.

toba:


U used to be my friend before u went gaga solo. Now u can see what becoming my enemy opponent have caused u. lol

you unleash your godmother [s]muki[/] on me
No permanent friend or enemy on NL, only intrest! Namaste. . . .

Contrast -

InesQor:


As for the topic, do you care to show where I said Atheism is a religion?

And -

InesQor:

They have a faith, a belief system as well. Do they not as well then have a religion?

Respectfully sir: you are confused.

@Deep Sight:

Even if the respect is mine, the confusion is yours only.

I said ATHEISM is not a religion. BUT some professed atheists go about it like a religion. Are they then atheists? Or does religion have to be redefined to suit them?

This is a classical example of the fumbling Deep Sight. I clearly delineated the exception and you jumped in head first.

Thats still why I said only Enigma understood me. The parts I outlined in Enigma's most recent post shows my points too.

Which was why I asked in my first post: what are THESE dudes [you know who] doing here? If God does not exist, is it not futile to discuss religion? Do you see me opening threads in Politics to discuss Atlantis and other inexistent worlds?

^^^ Things like 'nuance', 'subtlety' etc are not easily appreciated by quite a lot of {our} people

@ Texas Pete >>> SMH at you >>> didn't even bother to pit up the links I requested for. A lazy brushing aside off my points is all you did. I guess that wraps it up

InesQor:

Thats still why I said only Enigma understood me. The parts I outlined in Enigma's most recent post shows my points too.

Which was why I asked in my first post: what are THESE dudes [you know who] doing here? If God does not exist, is it not futile to discuss religion? Do you see me opening threads in Politics to discuss Atlantis and other inexistent worlds?

It is not futile discussing religion even if one does not believe it because we live in a world where people make decisions based on these religious beliefs that affect others religious and non-religious alike.
About your Atlantis analogy, if I came across a person believing in Atlantis I may or may not comment but if there are enough of them who based on this try to influence public policy, I would be concerned and would try to engage in discussions about it.

There is a valid point that was raised by the homer & Purist - that theism isn't a religion. Correct.

Question to both the homer & Purist >>> What is Theism ? (A. Philosophy B. Religion C. I have another answer)

But we know that (most if not) all religions are classified under theism. This further proofs my point. In so far as religious thinking (embodied by religions) comes out of theism then it only goes to show that the same plausibly applies to atheism. Note my use of the word inchoate.

To further prove Atheism as a religion (albeit inchoate), it is necessary to remonstrate the subtle use of faith by atheists by :

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


@ all posters >>> Depending on how you respond to this I might bring out the second part of my essay in this thread >>> or worse yet, start it as a new topic_with a less controversial title

InesQor:

Which was why I asked in my first post: what are THESE dudes [you know who] doing here? If God does not exist, is it not futile to discuss religion? Do you see me opening threads in Politics to discuss Atlantis and other inexistent worlds?

maybe because religion and the belief in imaginary entities is a bane to our society. see boko haram, mutallab, all the 419 houses masquerading as churches in every street corner, not to talk of the dumbing down of an entire citizenry into reliance on imaginary friends up the sky instead putting their heads and hands to productive use

many people are on the politics section not cos they're politicians but because they are not happy with the political situation in naija. same with non-religious peeps on here unhappy with the nauseating religious situation back home

@ uyi. why not add racism, tribalism, feminism etc in your list of -isms that can be ascribed to religious thoughts

My point has been made. That is all.

@ Mudley >>> of course >>> feminism, in particular,  is generally agreed to have been started by Simeone de Bouivare (sic) an atheist and a dear mentor of Paul Satre

Uyi Iredia:

There is a valid point that was raised by the homer & Purist - that theism isn't a religion. Correct.

Question to both the homer & Purist >>> What is Theism ? (A. Philosophy B. Religion C. I have another answer)

C. I think it's a concept about the existence of deities.

Uyi Iredia:

But we know that (most if not) all religions are classified under theism. This further proofs my point. In so far as religious thinking (embodied by religions) comes out of theism then it only goes to show that the same plausibly applies to atheism. Note my use of the word inchoate.

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

Not all religions are classified under theism.
Theism is not a religion like I said.
Sure Shintoism and Taoism in some forms may be considered religions so what?

And in what country is atheism the official religion?
Evolution is a scientific theory so like other scientific theories, there is no presumption of a God.
Are you claiming that secularism and communism be considered as religions in this discussion?

Uyi Iredia:

@ all posters >>> Depending on how you respond to this I might bring out the second part of my essay in this thread >>> or worse yet, start it as a new topic_with a less controversial title

Ok.

Uyi Iredia:

@ Mudley >>> of course >>> feminism, in particular,  is generally agreed to have been started by Simeone de Bouivare (sic) an atheist and a dear mentor of Paul Satre

okay. i see. so she was a member of two religious institutions, atheism and feminism. makes sense. and while you're at it also add albinism, alcoholism, cynicism, skepticism to the list of religious beliefs. we learn new things everyday

Rhino.4dm i see you are doing 'em mudslinging with mudley. . .make sure u guys sure have a great time doing so.

offtopic: here is my email: tonyet5@yahoo.com. hoping to receive a mail from you. its very important

@InesQor

InesQor:

@Purist:

Come on! We all know how you meant that. DO NOT hide behind the definition of "sarcasm". When you have been hit, it is only polite to accept your wrong and say "touche". 

Quit dancing around words.  Admit you goofed, and we'll move on.  You obviously FAILED to sense the sarcasm in my intial post, and now you try misrepresent my own intention for me?  Try again, dude.

InesQor:

As for the topic, do you care to show where I said Atheism is a religion?

You didn't need to spell it out explicitly.  When you said this, you certainly had reached the same conclusion as the OP, which is further made evident by the way you went hysterical on Enigma's 'corroborating' post.

InesQor:

Isn't my point the fact that you are so immutably obsessed with religions, enough to make the birds of a feather phrase apply to you in some regards?

And isn't MY point the fact your 'fact' is wrong?  If those who are 'obsessed' with the politics section or political matters cannot be said to be politicians just on the basis of their 'obsession', why then should the rule suddenly change for religion?  And wait, don't shift the focus to "in some regards" just yet.  That was NOT your point initially, at least, going by your first comment on this thread, and it's certainly NOT the point of this thread either.  The topic says, atheism IS a religion.  Full stop.

InesQor:

And isn't that WHY i said ONLY Enigma seemed to get my point (or at least gave a response that shows that he did?)

Obviously.

InesQor:

Or maybe it's the word "religion" that has gradually lost its pristine meaning and needs to be re-evaluated.

Naah, no problem with the word 'religion'.   The problem is with you peeps trying to fit in odd concepts into the definition of the word.

Okay. Expect me

Tonye-t:

Rhino.4dm i see you are doing 'em mudslinging with mudley. . .make sure u guys sure have a great time doing so.

offtopic: here is my email: tonyet45@yahoo.com. hoping to receive a mail from you. its very important

@ Enigma

Enigma:

There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them.

Well, you'd find that more often than not, this is usually the case in non-religious countries.  Here in Finland, for example, you'd barely see a Finn bring up a religious issue with you.  Even if you bring it up yourself, they'd rather just avoid such discussions altogether, because to most here, there's really no point in such discussions since God barely means anything to them.   In a highly religious country like Nigeria however, where the actions of most people are influenced by their religious beliefs, and have direct and indirect effects on others - the non-religious inclusive - it becomes increasingly difficult for both the religious and non-religious to keep mum on religious matters.   In a nutshell, people generally speak on things, not because they're obsessed or 'interested' per se, but because it affects them in one way or the other. When such effects are reduced significantly, then you should normally expect to see a proportionate decline in talks about them as well; and vice versa.

^^^ I don't see how any of that justifies the encampment by atheists in the nairaland religion section or how it justifies poking nose into discussions among Christians to work out/trying to understand their own faith, or how it justifies starting numerous threads to show that God cannot exist, Christianity cannot be true, Christian doctrine is man-made, made up etc. Accordingly, the obsession of some of the atheists here with the religion section and their activity or 'activeness' is not that distinguishable from practising a "religion".

@ Mudley >>> nah   'Mudleyism' is suffice to explain all the 'isms' you mentioned  *typical Mudley schmuck*

@ homer >>>

thehomer:

C. I think it's a concept about the existence of deities. *1

Not all religions are classified under theism.*2
Theism is not a religion like I said.
Sure Shintoism and Taoism in some forms may be considered religions so what?
*3
And in what country is atheism the official religion?*4[b]
Evolution is a scientific theory so like other scientific theories, there is no presumption of a God.[/b]*5
Are you claiming that secularism and communism be considered as religions in this discussion?*6

Ok.

*1 >>>   I don't agree to that 'answer'. Too ambiguous. Deism and Atheism can also be defined as concepts on the existence of deities. I'm going to hold you accountable at some point in time based on this 'answer'  

*2 >>> I said so too. Guess we're square on that, eh  

*3 >>> So >>>  given that they are 'isms' under theism that are religions. Why can't the same be said of atheism?

*4 >>> (In effect) Communist China  and USSR (under Stalin's regime) _both are underlined by a serious repression of religions especially Christianity.

*5 >>> B'cos of the effect of secularism >>> such wasn't the thinking during medieval times, when science was perceived as a means inquiry into nature & reality created by God >>> God was very much presumed in that age of learning >>> This quote by Einstein should put things in perspective

"Science without Religion is lame and Religion without Science is blind"
-  Albert Einstein

*6 >>> nope >>> but i demonstrate that in effect they resonate with atheism than they do with theism >>> this can be further explored >>> but I don't think this is the time to argue such

Enigma:

^^^ I don't see how any of that justifies the encampment by atheists in the nairaland religion section or how it justifies poking nose into discussions among Christians to work out/trying to understand their own faith, or how it justifies starting numerous threads to show that God cannot exist, Christianity cannot be true, Christian doctrine is man-made, made up etc. Accordingly, the obsession of some of the atheists here with the religion section and their activity or 'activeness' is not that distinguishable from practising a "religion".

I quite agree with you.  But the militancy of some atheists doesn't justify the claim that atheism IS a religion either. For me, the only connection I can possibly find between religion and atheism is in my signature.

Going by this, one can see that the examples of religions that I gave above do fit but neither atheism nor theism does.

@ 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.

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.

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.

Uyi Iredia:

. . .

@ homer >>>


*1 >>>   I don't agree to that 'answer'. Too ambiguous. Deism and Atheism can also be defined as concepts on the existence of deities. I'm going to hold you accountable at some point in time based on this 'answer'  

Yes that is correct and this does not make them religions either.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> I said so too. Guess we're square on that, eh  

Yeah just to make that clear.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> So >>>  given that they are 'isms' under theism that are religions. Why can't the same be said of atheism?

Taoism and Shinto are [b]not [/b]under theism.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> (In effect) Communist China  and USSR (under Stalin's regime) _both are underlined by a serious repression of religions especially Christianity.

This still does not make atheism nor communism a religion within this discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> B'cos of the effect of secularism >>> such wasn't the thinking during medieval times, when science was perceived as a means inquiry into nature & reality created by God >>> God was very much presumed in that age of learning >>> This quote by Einstein should put things in perspective

It was presumed then but we know better now and do not presume such when using scientific methods to gain knowledge. Besides, most of the people living then were religious so what view do you expect them to take?

Uyi Iredia:

"Science without Religion is lame and Religion without Science is blind"
-  Albert Einstein

I do not agree with Einstein's quote if the definition of religion is as I've accepted it in this discussion. And keep in mind that he too did not believe in a personal God.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> nope >>> but i demonstrate that in effect they resonate with atheism than they do with theism >>> this can be further explored >>> but I don't think this is the time to argue such

So what if they resonate with atheism?

Inesqor - there seems quiet alot of confusion about you in this thread. You clearly contradicted yourself in one breath claiming that you did not say atheism is a religion and in another breath averring the reverse. And add to that the fact that you plain goofed in raising the definition of a politician as trhat very definition stands in stark contradistinction to everything you have tried to advance on this thread.

With deep respect, you have it all terribly mangled up.

However I am sorry to say that I consider the notion advanced in the OP as so irredeemably misconceived and disastrously preposterous such that I do not have the energy to invest in such a ridiculous discussion. Any person who asserts that Atheism is a Religion simply has no grasp of the English Language and basic precepts. I have no energy for this.

Think what you will, sir, it matters not. I suggest we rather invest our time in some chess where I am yet to redeem my name from the embarrasment you handed out to me sometime ago.