• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Athiesm is a technocratic cult

Atheism as a religion? Of course.

"Humanists are content with fixing their attention on this life...Theirs is a religion without God..."

Morain, Lloyd & Mary - HUMANISM AS THE NEXT STEP, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1954) p. 4

and a footnote in a SC issue.

"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Vol 6, L. Ed. 2nd ed. p. 987

What's the problem?

None of those mentioned atheism...other than mentioning that humanists tend to be atheists.
 
None of those mentioned atheism...other than mentioning that humanists tend to be atheists.

What does 'without God' mean to you?
 
What does 'without God' mean to you?

Obviously it means they're atheists, which is why I said "that humanists tend to be atheists." However, it's humanism that might be considered a religion, not atheism.
 
Obviously it means they're atheists, which is why I said "that humanists tend to be atheists." However, it's humanism that might be considered a religion, not atheism.

Nobody can prove the non existence of God just as nobody can prove God does exist. Both are metaphysical/spiritual/faith positions. In that sense they are religious.
 
Nobody can prove the non existence of God just as nobody can prove God does exist. Both are metaphysical/spiritual/faith positions. In that sense they are religious.
Do you expect people to chase orbiting teapots, too? LOL!
 
Do you expect people to chase orbiting teapots, too? LOL!

If Russell thought it important then far be it from me to arbirarily discount it.:D
 
If Russell thought it important then far be it from me to arbirarily discount it.:D
What I'm saying is, just because I don't believe in God that doesn't mean I exclude the strict logic but extremely improbable possibility that he could exist simply because we know of no way to prove otherwise.

But the same could be said of unicorns, leprechauns, and garden gnomes. When I say I don't believe in them does that also make me religious?!?
 
What I'm saying is, just because I don't believe in God that doesn't mean I exclude the strict logic but extremely improbable possibility that he could exist simply because we know of no way to prove otherwise.

But the same could be said of unicorns, leprechauns, and garden gnomes. When I say I don't believe in them does that also make me religious?!?

Good question. Not in my opinion. However, if you, as some atheists often do, go to great lengths, to the point of proselytizing as Dawkins does to say that they don't exist, then yes it becomes an ideological viewpoint, An obsession, a probable religion. Then again, you would expect someone to have presented a reasoning as to why those entities existed.
 
Last edited:
Good question. Not in my opinion. However, if you, as some atheists often do, go to great lengths, to the point of proselytizing as Dawkins does to say that they don't exist, then yes it becomes an ideological viewpoint, An obsession, a probable religion. Then again, you would expect someone to have presented a reasoning as to why those entities existed.
Most specific ideological viewpoints are not religions. See ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...athiesm-technocratic-cult.html#post1061998953


Dawkins doesn't chase orbiting teapots, either. If you believe he denies the existence of god without that caveat then you haven't watched or read much about him. Most atheist understand the basic logic involved. It's only their detractors who push the issue because they have no other argument.
 
I didn't want to read the whole thread...but has anyone pointed out that the OP misspelled "atheism" in both their thread title and their graphic?
 
Nobody can prove the non existence of God just as nobody can prove God does exist. Both are metaphysical/spiritual/faith positions. In that sense they are religious.

You can think whatever you want, even if it's not true. My point in the response was that those quotes don't support your argument at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom