Why Atheism Is A Religion

The "I Am" essence of Buddhism is the same essence as God in my personal opinion. Finding God is finding yourself, and also finding the Oneness within the many.

Now people will chime in, "well, why don't you just call it finding yourself? Why call it God?" I can agree with this sentiment in the fact that the word "God" gives off many different and abused interpretations, and perhaps may even need to be tossed out as a term due to all the miscommunication that can come from using the word. But just getting real about it, I think that Enlightenment itself is finding your own God essence. Not limited to some Supernatural Cosmic essence, though I feel that it is both a mighty thing and yet the most simple thing.

Many on here have given the whole deal with "peeling potatoes is peeling potatoes" of Zen Buddhism to not make anything seem more bombastic that it is in regards to Enlightenment. But one of my favorite Spiritual teachers said that it's both a crazy mind-blowing transcendental thing and yet simultaneously very simple, very ordinary, and very much in this reality. The essence of God is both in my opinion.

 

But now, getting back to the point. I feel that if Atheism isn't a Religion then it needs to not be focused on Religion so much and trying to end it.

And I still feel it is a Religion because:

1.) It deals with a particular belief, conclusion, what have you, about the basic truth to existence, and has many members that all share the same common underlying belief, conclusion, etc.

2.) It deals with the concept of God and/or gods, depends on the concept of God and/or gods, and wouldn't exist without the concept of God and/or gods.

To me it's hard to argue that that isn't a Religion of sorts. So as much as Writer and others argue that God is a "concept"...well it's obviously a concept for Atheists too. Otherwise Atheism wouldn't exist. Have Atheists ever considered that what they don't believe in may also just be an idea in their heads?

"But that's why we're Atheists", they'll chime in, "Because God is just a concept or metaphor!"

But maybe YOUR concept of what God is that you don't believe in is ALSO a concept and has nothing to actually do with what God actually is.

"Well then that's just more proof that nobody knows what God is and that's all just an idea".

Maybe. Or maybe something of this nature that we are talking about is simply beyond language, such as Tao, or Zen, and is reliant upon subjective experience ultimately. Once again, as dealing with the Determinism thread, it comes back to the Observer at the end of the day.

 

And yet humans can throw their dogs a slice of pizza for lunch!

 

I'm getting just as tired of this shit. I would not mind you going back though, because just as you I also don't like it when I feel wrongfully accused of something. And in this subforum I see a lot of people that have to explain what they don't believe (because others project stuff on them) to an unneeded ammount.

How this went: you said something about christians that you know put them down. You got a critical reaction to that, which is not really suprising. This reaction from me included the remark I enjoy the art of offensive provoking too at times (esp. in musical form). And I ment it. I merely noted what you said and went along with it. So where did I accuse you of anything you didn't do?? I honestly don't see it. How it at first instance appears to me is you made an offensive remark about all christians (perhaps ment in a silly way), I reacted to it and you get overly defensive about how I accused you of loving it to put them down. Well you really didn't seem to hate it when you shared your offending remark about them, and that's where I was coming from. I was joining in on that, like I can appreciate that too and then I get this.

So really man, I don't blame you for feeling done with this shit (it's always like this in this subforum) but I wanna make clear I didn't accuse you of anything you didn't do. If you say you don't like putting down christians all the time I will acknowledge that. Can't say I'm sorry for accusing you because I really didn't ment to. When you said that it came as usual out of the blue for me I am explaining myself here because just like you I don't like to get accused of shit or projected shit upon me. But it seems by having an opinion that counters the majority (or at least the loudest group) on here it gets done all the time. All I am is an openminded agnostic (technically, it's not like I 'feel agnostic' or call or perceive myself that) and maybe it is because of that that I notice there is often just as much biased thoughts and prejudice in atheists about theists and people who are part of organized religion as is the other way around. It seems they themselves (not talking about you here btw) have a hard time acknowledging that.

By making such a claim about atheists in general by the way I am not dissing atheism (just to state the obvious). It is often stated as such, or that I have a problem with atheism. Just to be clear that is not the case at all. I am not biased for focussing more on atheists than theists in my reactions to others on here. If the far majority on this forum were consistently putting down atheists and/or atheism (instead of it mainly being Chinacat :-D) I might argue the same from the atheist perspective. But now I don't see how that is needed as atheists are generally being the ones dissing theistic belief because it is so far from their understanding it must be unreasonable. And... lead to unreasonable actions in reality of course! Well that is obviously what I often am reacting against.

-----------------------------------

To the person who regards me as the (sub)forum referree. Thanks, I'm honoured you got that idea of me But although I may be sounding like a mod from time to time because I find a certain party on here is being stigmatized too often, this is mainly done because it is my sincere opinion. As much as other people can't resist sharing their opinion time and time again on here, so am I exactly sharing mine.

Frankly, and this is to mr. Writer, I think it sucks that my opinion and feelings can be put away so easily as being politically correct, but I wish to assure you that I am not repeating stuff I heard from the PC lobby or media etc. etc. I have considered many stances and views and this is what I happen to think and believe. When i say what I said about constructive discussion and writer having the same kind of debates with every theist, that applied to the discussions on these forums. It's not like I think that just because I see the value of respecting people and beliefs we don't agree with is worth a restriction in freedom of speech or anything. I also don't think this respect extends to religious (or other for that matter) people to no end. So don't project that shit on me.

 

Clearly we don't all live in the same reality. "There is one Earth, but infinite worlds". And why must we all agree on what that reality is? Clearly we never have, and most likely never will. It would be hellish if we all did agree.

What does "what the rest of us" mean? And just because something subjective doesn't conform to "the rest of us" (an imagined subjective concept of yours), doesn't mean that it doesn't pertain to that person's subjective experience, which in turn plays a part in their objective reality.

 

It would be hellish if we would all have to agree. It would not be hellish if we would actually all agree with eachother, it is just not a likely thing to happen

I agree, this urge that we all have to agree on what reality is is not always useful. Generally it comes from right intent I guess, but you know that proverb about hell and good intentions? Sometimes we just don't agree on reality. I however have a hard time not going against this sentence 'we don't all live in the same reality'. We do. It's our individual perspectives that can sometimes make us feel and think that it is otherwise.
I also agree that on itself there is no problem with a subjective personal conviction. People will alwways have them. To try to get them out of people as a whole because they might lead to unfortunate actions is a setup for failure. It is not about any subjective conviction a person can hold. Just like it is not really about the dogma that people who don't believe in it have a problem with. It is about the possible effect it can have on the people who believe in it. This is why some people have so much trouble with other people's subjective convictions or the dogmas of their religion.

 

No chance of you all being in agreement with so many posters here in ignorance of the very definition of the word religion. Trollishly voicing your disdain for atheism, "hear, hear, you RELIGION!". "No belief is a belief, my pubes are all unique religious sects". How fitting that 'no thought' becomes it's own religion when people are religiously ignorant of the very definition of religion. Alright, we are all guilty of ignorance, it is a human condition. We will always be limited in our mental capacities and senses.

 

What is the "real" definition of religion?

 

The fact that we are all posting on this url, on the same forum completely destroys your argument. I'm sure there other examples you have in mind but it might behoove you to mention in what capacity you are talking about, rather than making these broad generalizations and act as if they are apparent when Clearly they are not.

 

How does this destroy my argument?

 

Maybe if Atheism wasn't so obsessed with Religion would it not be very apparent that Atheism's identity relies on Religion itself, which to me makes it just like any other Religion, pitting itself against all others.

 

We all live in a reality with computers where we are posting on a specific HipForums website, where theoretically anyone (who is not banned) can do the same as well.

 

Ok. Missing my point. Infinite worlds that i referred to means that despite the fact that everything is One, that there is an endless variety of world-views, lives, whole ways of looking at and live life. So to say that we all live in the same reality and therefore must all agree is rather incorrect.

 

Weak man, That is such a TheDope response!

 

No, you missed MeAgain's point.

 

It's the levels of ignorance that really separate us. This takes us to extremism and fanaticism. Increase the volume of a 3Khz tone and it's just a more disruptive and annoying 3Khz tone. That's the test, how fucked up your convictions of ignorance become when they are amplified. Can anyone here honestly say they associate religious extremism with anything good? I think it was Sam Harris who said "The only thing wrong with Islamic fundamentalists is the FUNDAMENTALS of Islam. Atheism IS lack of belief, zero belief of something. The exponent of zero is ZERO! Yes, atheists can be fanatics about stuff but it has nothing to do with atheism itself. Irrational fanaticism about God or anything or anyone can be dangerous. People are very good at justifying selfish ignorances, I can still come up with a lot of shit but God aint one of those excuses. No, you will never see an atheist kill people because God told him to. Yes, I am deeply concerned about how religion exploits people and corrupts morality. Maybe obsessed? I don't know but definitely concerned. The 'NO GOD' has nothing to do with my concern at all. Plenty of Christians are deeply concerned about Muslims and their violent oppressive culture. I say yes, I totally agree, it is not irrational to be concerned about a religion who's doctrine calls for the death of anyone who doesn't agree. But I also see a bit more than the Christian, that Christianity is also a dangerous vicarious redemption pseudo morality.

 

First off, Religion doesn't equal Religious fanatacism.

Secondly, ATHEISTS DO BELIEVE SOMETHING. They believe that there is no God and/or Deities.

If God is something that is completely transcendent and not in this realm then why is the lack of evidence in the third dimension PROOF that there is no God when God isn't necessarily supposed to be limited to this reality?

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God based on evidence or lack thereof. They don't KNOW that there is no God based on evidence or lack thereof. They see a lack of evidence in this reality, and therefore conclude that something that's supposed to be TRANSCENDENT isn't here and therefore isn't real. Doesn't really make much sense.

 

I could just as easily argue that Zen itself then is non-existent, or Tao for that matter, since it relies on subjective experience. Nobody can conceptually point to it or talk about it because it's supposed to be beyond language. Why wouldn't God be the same way?

I agree that Christians have created a specific image of God but I also don't see why something as all-powerful as God wouldn't be able to take on the form and image that anyone equates God with. In the East it will take on the form of Hindu Gods, and in the West it takes the form of Jesus. But if everything is One, then there's no problem with God taking on a variety of forms (including me and you) and yet is ultimately beyond restriction to any of those forms.

 

As for what I've underlined, are you saying that religious fanaticism existed before religion itself? Or is it just an inevitability? Where does religious fanaticism come from then?


I'm not sure what the point of your second line was (which you took the time to put in boldface)... Yes, that is the premise. Are you willing to rule out the three Abrahamic monotheisms? What about the entire cast/crew on Mount Olympus? Are one of those camps easier to discredit?

"then why is the lack of evidence in the third dimension PROOF that there is no God when God isn't necessarily supposed to be limited to the third dimension?"

This is simply an ever-receding pocket of ignorance... If God is wherever you want him to be (as it's clear he's apparently in many different places judging by the responses to this thread), then this is simply a "theory of anything" which chooses to place the man behind the curtain in a more and more difficult place to sniff out as the ages go on.