tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985652.post112887274668697569..comments2023-06-01T08:01:17.017-07:00Comments on The Lost-Tooth Society: Is Atheism a Religion?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985652.post-1129259812261677332005-10-13T20:16:00.000-07:002005-10-13T20:16:00.000-07:00Of course Atheism is a religion. It expounds what ...Of course Atheism is a religion. It expounds what it believes is true and derides what it considers false, regarding metaphysical and supernatural matters.<BR/><BR/>And the idea that 'not believing' a proposition is a grand and noteworthy difference from 'believing it is not', is preposterous hairsplitting -- incorporating an assumption that only the adherents of one's own faith have an appreciation of subtle philosophical distinctions. That adherents of traditional religions are like a zombie army with one lock-step belief.<BR/><BR/>What piffle. Christians come in many different shades and hues, in terms of what we have experienced, believe and understand. The laughable stereotype of the single 'superstitious and ignorant' Christian is proof on its own of the religious nature of Atheism -- a crude and intolerant religion at that...kipwatsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15570009917672909788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985652.post-1128981562928924692005-10-10T14:59:00.000-07:002005-10-10T14:59:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comments, and the excellent links....Thanks for your comments, and the excellent links. Perhaps I could have been clearer, if it bothers you so much.<BR/><BR/>If I had written, "If you are anti-[traditional] religion, then you are pro-atheism." As I made clear in my post, however, I mainly refer to those activist atheists who seek the removal of all references to religion on public property or by government officials or entities. To those atheists who simply have no faith in a Higher Power and don't care about the subject beyond that, I say 'go in peace'.<BR/><BR/>I'd also like to comment on your assertion that the WND article was "dishonest."<BR/><BR/>The whole point of my post, and the point of the article you reference is that for purposes of 1st Amendment issues, atheism IS a religion. The example of the Cross in San Diego is a perfect illustration: An admitted atheist wants the removal of Christian symbols from public property, and is opposed even to the transfer of the property to private hands. This is a first amendment issue, and therefore the relgious standing of atheism is part of the equation. The courts have held that atheism, for the purposes of 1st amendment issues, IS a religion. Therefore no not take into account the symbols of atheism—the lack of symbols—is wrong, and if enforced, "excessively entangles" government in religion, that religion being atheism.James Z. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11750492088613078235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985652.post-1128880619964684002005-10-09T10:56:00.000-07:002005-10-09T10:56:00.000-07:00By itself, atheism is no more a religion than thei...By itself, <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm" REL="nofollow">atheism</A> is no more a religion than theism is. Both can be part of religions, but they aren't religions on their own.<BR/><BR/>The absence of symbols promoting Christianity cannot be construed as a promotion of atheism. If there is an absence of symbols promoting Hinduism, is that a promotion of Judaism? Of Scientology? Of atheism? What nonsense. The government promotes atheism if it tells people in some way that atheism is preferable to theism, but the government isn't doing that by not promoting some religion.<BR/><BR/>"If you are anti-religion, then you are pro-atheism."<BR/><BR/>First you say that atheism is a religion, then you say that anti-religion is pro-atheism. Thus, anti-atheism is pro-atheism. Black is white, up is down, and night is day.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, some religions are atheistic (some forms of Buddhism, some forms of Hinduism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, etc.). Are these atheists "anti-religion"? Of course not. <BR/><BR/>The WorldNetDaily article you reference <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/b/a/195836.htm" REL="nofollow">is dishonest</A>, by the way.<BR/><BR/>So, your entire post proceeds from a serious of false premises and bad inferences, leading to an absurd conclusion. Congrats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com