He wasn't Christian per se, but he was definitely religious in a sense.

Well said, and my point toward Leauki.

AJ, I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you in any way, which is why I'm extremely glad we can finally agree on something. 

I wouldn't classify Hitler a Christian.  "Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsfuhrer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the final solution (Holocaust), told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing — he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions"(Padfield, Peter Himmler New York:1990--Henry Holt Page 402). 

I would probably classify Hitler and most the upper eschelon as a New Age Fanatics.

Fanatic, yes. New Age? Come on, fanatics have been around for a long time. lol jk.  In a way I could agree with your inferrence (inferring?). It's hard to tell in my opinion, because he was and is a very, very complicated individual. Fascinating really, in the sense of his mind. On one hand he was extremely brilliant, artistic, etc....but on the other hand...well, yeah.

Attacking me? N'ah, you wouldn't do that, not when my finger hovers over the big red button. lol, anyways, no worries. I do get testy sometimes with people, but no worries.

Be well, ~Alderic

How was that "your point"???

My point was that you've been coming across like you are claiming that secularists are the root of evil, etc. etc. Not saying you shouldnt say that if you believe it, but that it just rubs people the wrong way.

If Atheism is a religion, how can it be a government? Wouldn't Communism abolish Atheism?

Makes no sense whatsoever. (Except maybe in the sense of circular logic.)

Atheism, like theism, is a belief, not a religion.

Communism abolishes all religion but not all beliefs.

I guess you feel that a religion can't be a government at the same time. Please don't go to any Theocarcy, please.  Then to your next question you are making a non-sequitur: denying the antecedent, trying to be all sly there. 

I also think you don't understand two things.  First what religion is.  Religion is according to websters dictionary: 1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Second, I don't think you fully understand circular logic. Circular logic is in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.)

Let's look at this Communism according to definition is atheistic.  Then let's look at what the dictionary has to say about religion.  According to definition 4 it is a cause, principle, or a system of belifes held to with ardor and faith.  Is Communism a system of beliefs? Yes, so it fulfills that part.  Is Communism a principle and a cause?  Yes, it can be either.

Let's look at the definition of atheism according to good old webster's again:  a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity.  (a meaning no + theos meaning G-D)

Now can atheism be a religion.  Let's see here.  Just so you don't think that I'm just focusing on definition 4 of religion (which Atheism fits).  I'll look at definition 2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.  Does Atheism have a set belief? Yes (oh wait are you going to try to be all sly and say aren't they disbelieving in believing therefore they have no beliefs ::::muawhahahahah:::::).  Is atheism set of attitudes? Yes.  Since there is an and (you could say that needs to be all three to qualify to be a religion since the and is in the definition and not an or) there now does Atheism have practices?  Yes, not believing in G-D.  Is Atheism a religion, yes.

I agree with this part Leauki.  That is an excellent way of putting it. 

Atheism can be a religion as I stated in the above post.  It would be defined better as a system of beliefs.  Then what is a system of beliefs essentially a religion.  A religion doesn't necessary need to be G-D centered.  Hence why Buddhism is a religion even though they don't necessary believe in a G-D.  Some people will try to label Buddhism as a philosophy trying to make it seem superior to all other religions because its a philosophy yet most religions are philosphical.  Some are just more philosphical than others.

You're incorrect in a sense. A set of beliefs does not equate with it being a religion. I have my set of beliefs, does that mean I suddenly am the head (Pope?) of my church? Nein. (See below)

One of the primary things is the refutation of a creator.

Precisely, because a religion is a set of beliefs geared towards the way/meaning of life that relies on the supernatural, whereas atheists are primarily irreligious or unspiritiual. They may believe that the earth/life formed one way, but the catch is that it is a way that is not supernatural. So, in essence to say that Atheism is a religion...is like saying that an apple is an orange.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Some helpful links provided by your friendly, hell bound, neighborhood Atheist.

Be well, ~Alderic

Right.

@ The People's Party

Sigh.

Athiesm as RELIGION? Please. If it's a religion, it's a religion of one reinvented for each individual. Ask ten athiests a question and you'll probably get eleven different answers. Theres no creed, no dogma, and absolutely ZERO organization. The only common thread is that athiests do not believe in a god or gods. Everything else, ANYTHING else, varies widely. Many athiests are heavily religious (see Buddhism). Many athiests believe in supernatural phenomena. You can't put athiests neatly into a box like you can adherents of a religion because by nature they pretty much can't be made to agree on ANYTHING. I seem to recall Richard Dawkins describing organizing athiests as a group (say, for political action) as equivalent to herding cats, which lines up with my own observations.

And yes, LACK of belief IS a sound basis for excluding athiesm from the label of "religion". Do you believe in the tooth fairy? No? Does that make you a member of the religion of atoothfairyists? No? Good, we're done here.

The mention of communism as some sort of example is assinine. Communism is a totalitarian ideology that tolerates no rival. Of course they're going to condemn and attack religion, just like they attack capitalism and other rival ideologies. It's not athiesm that's causing the issue there, it's Communism's unrealistic and unbending dogma.

As for athiesm being intolerant... that doesn't hold water. Are some individual athiests intolerant? Sure. But there's nothing in the concept of "not accepting the existence of a deity" that has any bearing on tolerance or lack thereof. Even being more specific about what type of athiest you're talking about doesn't really help that argument. Secular Humanists (which again is still casting a rather wide net) are generally pretty happy to let people think whatever they want to think, and certainly the common themes among Secular Humanists have more to do with freethinking than limiting free thought!

And now, the lovely mention of social darwinism and attempting to pin it on evolutionary thinking. That's utterly ridiculous. Social Darwinism is based off, at best, a poor understanding of evolutionary principles, and at worse just used evolution as a cover for preexisting racism. Eugenics, again, has NOTHING to do with evolution by natural selection, and is instead a form of artificial selection like what we do with domesticated animals. In fact, Darwin was opposed to that sort of interpretation.

Finally, the off-handed jab at evolution. Pseudo-science? REALLY?

Lets see what wikipedia has to say about pseudo science:

Lets see. The theory of evolution by natural selection is:

• Logically sound
• Based off 150 years of accumulated data and experimentation
• Has survived several competing theories, like Lemarkian evolution
• Adequately explains most of the data we have accumulated
• Has been observed in a lab
• Is applied practically in many different fields, including computing science and microbiology

I dunno. Sounds pretty fucking scientific to me.

Presuming that you're talking about folk like Richard Dawkins, the position they promote is that religion is harmful and that it shouldn't be allowed to influence other people's lives. Is that tolerant? Hell no, and they don't even pretend it is. But that's a far stride from "wanting to destroy any one that's not like them" as the religious extremists of the world are happy to do on a daily basis. From what I can tell of Dawkin's position, he's a huge advocate of free speech and thinks his beliefs stand up well enough on their own that there's no need to silence those who would criticise them.

Mmkay. Rant over.

Now, Leauki, it's sad to see a good post like this get utterly derailed like this, so I'd kind of like to get back to the original topic. I'm sorry for contributing to that derailment.

The events you're describing make me sad. It's really quite pathetic... any belief that requires violence to support it in lieu of standing on its own merits isn't worth the breath taken to express it.

Excellent. Thank you.

But they're both fruits.  Good analogy Lucas...because in my mind to say there is no God like the Atheist claim, they must be a "fruit" factor involved.   

You can be religious about anything...including atheism.  You can be a religious beer drinker or religious about cleanliness.  You can make anything a religion.  Like Peoples said atheism can be considered a religion.  I know the atheists don't want to hear that because they pride themselves as being non religious but they're fooling themselves.  They are just as religious about having no God as I am about God being alive and well.  They are just not God centered. 

Those are just word games. You're extending the word religion well beyond its typical usage to win a semantic argument, and devaluing the word in the process.

When one says that one is a "religious beer drinker" you are using religion as a METAPHOR, not as a declaration that your booze guzzling habits are in fact religious in nature.

No one prays to beer.

hmmm so does that mean I win?    JK

not everyone prays.  You don't have to pray to be religous about something. 

All religions involve prayer.

Hey, 'scuse me? i pray five times a day to Bud! (Not really...lol)

The one i like is "I shower religiously." Nope, I do not bathe in any ritualistic fashion.

Mmm, they may be fruits, but they're still different. An apple is not an orange.I do admit that i could've waited like thirty seconds to think of a better analogy.

You can be "religious" about anything, in a sense. The catch though is that Atheism is the absence of religion. So how can you be religious with something that is essentially non-religious? It's like saying you're a non kosher jewish pig farmer or something.

Anyways, since you're getting into semantics...lets take a look at the term religous, and it's definitions:

–noun

*** Nothing here could be attributed to atheism. They all lead to the supernatural in some way or link.

Lets go to wikipedia:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.

Key word, supernatural. Nope, no atheism.

I'll concede that, metaphorically, it may seem like Atheists are like that, but believe you me...I, nor any of my atheist friends/acquaintances/connections are religious atheists. Can you say Hebrew National hot dogs? >_>

Are they kosher?

Non sequitur, the paragraph you quote doesn't say anything about religion and atheism being irreconcilable.

In fact there exist many atheistic religions, just like there exist many monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Buddhism and animist religions do not suddenly disappear just because you want atheism to be the opposite of an approach to human spirituality.

Communist personality cults are religions, even though there is no (supernatural) god.

Nor does a religion with a god necessarily demand any belief in anything. It is perfectly possible to be a religious Jew and follow all the commandments without even believing in G-d or His prophets. (This doesn't work in Christianity.)

It was tongue in cheek, a joke.

Whatever Leauki, don't take the word of an Athiest, merely that of a religious person who claims they know more. >_>

So was mine.

How does that reconcile with this?