among believers (though usually meant as a kind of bizarre insult as in "Well you mock our religion but you have a religion too!" or the ever-popular whine: "It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does in Jesus!"

It is very odd - like listing "Not Collecting Stamps" under "Hobbies"

(NB - I have no idea whether or not the admins are believers, and it's none of my business)

Oh, and Welcome!

To those who invited me, I replied that I usually stay away from single issue forums or groups. However, I have repented of that.

I intend to frequent them more as many are, at bottom, about treating people equally which is a core value of mine (and, I believe a core value of anyone who is not evil and/or misguided).

And, I am solidly for strict separation of church and state.

Like it or not, atheists are defined by religion. (More specifically, by our lack of religion.) Even the label "atheist" defines us in terms of a God or gods that we don't even believe are real. If it weren't for all of the bad that religion inflicts on both societies and individuals, there would be no need for an Atheists & Agnostics discussion group. If there were no religions, there would be no need for the term "atheist".

There are lots of things that are not religions. Filing them under religion because they are not religions does not seem logical to me.

But, as I posted to Warren Stupidity it's not a huge deal for me, now that I found this group. I would think atheists would mind being filed under religion though.

In fact, I get just as annoyed by people trying to call it a religion as anyone else. And while there are lots of things that aren't religions, those things aren't defined by a lack of religion.

I don't think your tree analogy is appropriate because there are other categories for treeless places such as plains, deserts, and savannahs. No such categories exist for those without religion. Also trees aren't a problem for treeless places the way that religion is a problem for those without it. Because religion is such a problem for us, it is often discussed in this forum. Not only is Religion and Spirituality a appropriate place for A&A, it is the only logical place, imho.

However, I would not file plains, savannah or deserts under forests.

I might file forests, plains, savannahs and deserts under "topography" or something like that.

I don't think atheism should be filed under religion anymore than I think religion should be filed under atheism. Neither is a subset of the other.

Atheism could be it's own forum, as is religion, or they could both be under a broader category, like personal beliefs or like philosophies.

Again I note I am replying because I did start the thread, but it is not a huge deal for me. It's only made the forum a bit more difficult for me to find. Now that I've found it, I've "recovered."

I think it's perfectly appropriate.

Being atheist is a design necessary to define separation from theists. We define ourselves to separate from mythical systems which cannot employ non-belief. If religion defined atheism then religionists would have defined atheism as a complimentary or acceptable system. On the contrary, theistic religions do not accept atheism as a viable condition, they reject it.

I agree with the idea, "If there were no religions, there would be no need for the term "atheist"" but not because religion defines anything, but because we find it necessary to define ourselves as their systems deny our position as acceptable. Do theistic religions want atheists to exist? No, they do not. If there never were theistic religions it doesn't mean there would not be another term for people who only adhere to scientific proofs compared to those who accept subjective points as fact. Would that mean that scientific-proofers define subjective-facters? or the other way around? No.

They did not define us any more than we defined them, we are simply defined.

I think ZombieHorde expressed what I was trying to say most accurately in post #27: "Atheism makes no sense without the concept of religion."

Atheism is not the same as not having a religion. As our religionista friends are so quick to point out when the demographics of the rising population of "nones" comes up, some of those nones have a belief in gods, they are theists.

What other category would we be in?

I am not saying it's a huge deal. It's just that I just looked for this forum because I was invited to post here and could not find it because I never thought to look under Religion.

It's the equivalent of none in a set of options. Or at least that is how I understand it.

My understanding is that this group was set up by the admins as a holdover group from DU2.0.

I personally am more bothered by the name of the group. It kind of implies that atheists & agnostics are completely separate things (they aren't).

This is sometimes used against us in the religion forum by people who don't identify as atheist but yet still think they have the right (privilege) to define us and tell us what we think.

pretend no expertise or deep thought about the subject. However the members of the group seem to have different opinions about it as well.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of whether atheism is a subset of religion.

as others have pointed out above, atheism is about religion only in the sense that it professes a non-belief in religion. Baldness is not a hair-do, and a parking lot is not a forrest.

I think it would be better put under a heading of philosophy or something of that nature.

There are many things I don't believe in. I don't believe in an invisible teapot hovering 8 feet above my couch. It would be silly, then, to put a "non-teapot believing" group under the heading "people who believe in teapots hovering above their sofas"

may be most appropriate.

Even if someone considers them two sides of the same coin, the coin would be the category. You would not have a category called Heads and file Tails under it, or vice versa.

They are both kinds of philosophies or personal beliefs or something. I don't pretend to know what the best category name would be. The way it is, though, it looks as though atheism is a religion.

I agree with you, and welcome to our little corner of the internet. I hope you find some good discussion here.

As I posted upthread, I came to the idea that I should be posting in groups--and not only when a group thread happens to be in "Latest" -- only very recently. So far I like it.

and to denying the religious component is akin to excusing the bullshit religion foists upon us on a daily basis. After all, if we only discussed atheism in the forum, we would have very short discussions.

"There is no evidence of a God or gods."
"Ayup."

Instead, most of our discussions are about being an atheist in a world dominated by religion, and religion is very much the crux of the matter.

Just my $0.02. I know we're splitting hairs here, but if I don't do this I'll have no excuse not to go grocery shopping.

Maybe that's why I have such a tough time seeing it as activism when some posters say it's their only activism activity.

all should be under "Philosophy" not religion. That's realistic.



I'm sure the reason atheism is under Religion is simply habit and custom.

of a category in a position subsidiary to that category.

Consider a category of atheism with religion subordinate to that. IOW, flip the hierarchy. How many believers would be happy with such an arrangement?

though I did not make that association consciously. (I posted a coin analogy upthread.)

a "special type" of atheist? That is, one who isn't quite "there" yet?

I guess, if I thought the description fit and I was not in a mood to tell the "referrer" that it was none of his or her business, I'd agree. If I did not think the description fit and I was not in a mood to tell the "referrer" that it was none of his or her business, I'd disagree.

Why do you ask? Do you ask because that is how you see me? Or because you have been called an atheist who is not quite there yet? If so, I recommend one of the following responses: (a) It's none of your business; or (b) I agree; or (c) I disagree; or (d) that does not resonate with me, but I do not rule out the possibility that you could be correct.

My point was only that it would make just as much (little) sense to place the religious under the category of atheism on the grounds that most believers are monotheistic.

I have been told--quite obviously correctly--that I am very literal So, when you ask me how I would like something, I am going to take that very literally.

gotta re-calibrate and come back later when my funny filter is fully operational.

We were relegated here as a gag, and it stuck. It makes it easier for the believers to find us so they can monitor what we are saying.

Glad to have you here. I have seen some of your posts and welcome you to our little corner of hell.

God is a religious concept. Atheism makes no sense without the context of religion.

You don't have to define atheism in the negative.

Atheism is also the belief that humans are the most powerful beings. Of course, that may not be correct, given we don't know what is going in all galaxies. But, I am sure, given time, people could come up with a better definition of atheism than the first one that occurred to me quickly, one that is affirmative.

but it currently means "godless," and is therefore a good fit in the religion category.

Why would we want to change the definition? What would be the advantage?

We realize we're not powerful, at all. Look at http://www.livefromiceland.is/webcams/bardarbunga-2/ . That's powerful. We're not.

However, we don't believe there is a meddlesome god out there to save our bacon, so we act accordingly and try to make our lives as ethical as possible because that's the kind of world we'd rather live in. Believers push their judgment off until after they die. Our judge is right in the mirror.

Atheism is the disbelief in a god or gods. There is no "there" there.

For one thing, I have not attended church services since I was about 14 or 15. And, when I did attend, I was not in a place where they called out other people. They were a pretty kind bunch. I was lucky.

Atheism is the positive assertion of the non-existence of god(s).

It's not a lack of anything.

That might seem to split hairs to some, but I think it's a critical distinction.

So I understand where you are coming from. Some atheists say "simply godless," while others say "the belief there is no god."

I am in the godless camp, but I respect your definition too.

And I have to admit to havng personally wavered on the whole point, hair-thin though it might be.

two forms of atheism as gnostic vs agnostic atheism. Both are atheism, gnostic fits your positive atheist.

and so questioning religinists can always have a second choice. It's visibility, if there are only churches and no one talks about not going to church you're gonna feel alone if you don't believe, being right next to the churches gives someone a place to go if they don't believe. Due to past events, and people's actions religion had to be separated from GD, this is the place where we can talk about religion from a non-believing point of view.

In the comparisons, bald is not a hair color, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but asexual is a sexual orientation.

On DU2, they stuck us under "Science," something that worked a little better. However, it also made a lot of science nerd believers upset and afraid our presence turned people off to science or something like that. So here we sit, turds in the DU punchbowl.

atheism, conventional religions, pagans, astrologists, etc. could all pitch a tent.

(I am going to think hard before I start a thread anywhere again.)

I think not.

Jonathan Miller sort of explains the mindset, I think.

'In fact, I am rather reluctant to call myself an atheist … The reason I am so reluctant is that atheism itself has acquired almost sectarian connotations, and it hardly, as far as I can see, seems worthwhile having a name for something which scarcely enters my thoughts at all. For myself, as for many people, it’s only in the light of such current controversies with regard to belief that I’ve found myself willing to articulate my disbelief"

become secular law kind of force all of us to think.

I am not against believers, but I am against theocrats, or as a friend used to call them, neo-theos.

Jerry DeWitt has mentioned his brush with the dominionist movement in his lectures. (I know you're God's man.) That isn't a figment of our imagination.

Apart from that, I take issue with many of the tenants of most of the belief systems. Is it an accident that three major world religions take anti-woman, anti-gay, caste-centric stances? I wonder. It isn't that I dislike believers. I don't. My family is full of them. I love them very much. What concerns me is the ability of believers to pass over and ignore the bits of their scriptures that they can't agree with from a moral standpoint. I remember doing exactly that and it baffles me that I ever could have.

(I know you're God's man.)

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Before Jerry DeWitt was outed, he had entered the political arena backed by members of his Pentecostal church. His political supporters would say that to him as a form of encouragement. Of course, after he was outed, his political aspirations turned to ash.

As a criticism directed to you, no. I posted the direction of my thoughts based on your post, is all.

We are here because of habit and custom. Religion, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. should be under Philosophy.

The "Second Class Citizens Who Everybody Hates" forum was full already.

I haven't started many threads. Does an OP get to name a thread winner? If so, I pick the post that made me laugh most, which is this one.

And, fwiw, I don't hate atheists as a group.

Actually, since I try hard not to pry in real life, I am not sure how many atheist individuals I know. I married one, but I am not sure I knew that when I married. I knew he did not attend services, unless someone invited us to a wedding in a church. I knew he did not care about outward manifestations of religion. However, I am not sure I knew that he was an atheist. One of the nicest, most honest men you'd ever want to meet and a great Dad.

Atheism is not a religion, no, but it is a position one may take on religious propositions, and religious propositions alone. It doesn't answer any questions but those of a religious nature. For lack of its own parent category, Religion seems the best fit, in my opinion.

and thus, clean up the neighborhood a bit.