Is Atheism Classed As A Religion? What are your views?

[sheepdog 10]

They don't worship animals, sheepdog. Treating a living being like you would like yourself to be treated is called empathy, and you don't need Jeesus or the bible to figure this out on your own. So how do you feel about using your puppies as food? No? Also, using the bible as some kind of an absolute science reference book isn't very smart.

Actually, they do worship animals. Maybe your not familiar with the lunitic fringe of the animal rights movement. They believe we should not enjoy animals in any way shape, fashion or form. They consider pet ownership the same thing as slavery. They do put animals at either equal or above humans. Did you know that one animal rights idiot had to be taken to court to stop him from donating one of his own daughters kidney's to save a sick monkey? (notice I said his daughters, not his own) It isn't empathy to do something that insane.

No, personally I wouldn't care to eat dog meat. But that is a personal preference of my own, and I am smart enough to realize that not everyone feels the same way. In countries other than the USA it is common to eat dog. And believe it or not, I would never try to force my personal opinions on someone else just because I wouldn't eat dog. It is within their rights to have the choise especially when it comes to something as critical as the food you eat. No one should make that choise for another person due to his or her own "personal" beliefs.

Now, for the Bible as a science reference book? No, maybe not science, but certainly a code of morality and decency. Weather one is religious or not. You wouldn't say it is dumb to not steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc would you?

[Baniboy 3]

Technically, pet ownership IS slavery due to the fact that the pets don't have the chance to CHOOSE whether they leave or stay with their owner.

Having a book as your own moral guide... I don't have a problem with it (well, unless you don't cherry pick the teachings, I wouldn't like one promoting slavery, stoning people to death on sabbath and murdering infidels, but if you cherry pick the ones that you feel you're okay with, I don't care). But when you use a BOOK to tell OTHERS what they are justified to do or not do, you have gone too far. That is wrong in every way possible. You can't use gods or souls as a rational argument/backup for anything. Especially if they're mentioned in a fiction book that is inconsistent with reality.

Now, I give you one more chance to tell me why other animals' life is less important than, for example, your life.

You wouldn't say it is dumb to not steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc would you?

You can derive why one shouldn't generally steal, lie, cheat or kill without using any supernatural elements. If the bible told that stealing was wrong but killing was fine, would you be okay with it? Morals don't come from books. Morals come from within, based on what one feels about certain action/thingy. However, by manipulating one's mind and changing the models you can change how one feels about certain action, thus changing their "morals".

And by asking you to eat dog I specifically meant one of your OWN puppies/dogs. Or just killing one of them for no reason.

[anwiii 17]

Technically, pet ownership IS slavery due to the fact that the pets don't have the chance to CHOOSE whether they leave or stay with their owner.

haha you are too funny bani. i think technically you are correct if you want to twist the definition. for the most part though, owning a pet is not slavery at all. what you are basically saying is that having kids is slavery too until they are free to do what they want after 18 years.

Having a book as your own moral guide... I don't have a problem with it (well, unless you don't cherry pick the teachings, I wouldn't like one promoting slavery, stoning people to death on sabbath and murdering infidels, but if you cherry pick the ones that you feel you're okay with, I don't care). But when you use a BOOK to tell OTHERS what they are justified to do or not do, you have gone too far. That is wrong in every way possible. You can't use gods or souls as a rational argument/backup for anything. Especially if they're mentioned in a fiction book that is inconsistent with reality.

i agree 100%!

Now, I give you one more chance to tell me why other animals' life is less important than, for example, your life.

in most of the united states, it is legal to hit and run a cat and ILLegal to hit and run a dog. dogs have more rights over cats. therefore, why shouldn't humans have more rights over dogs? in fact, under the law, we do! i think all living beings have their own purpose, but an animals purpose compared to a human's purpose is different.

You can derive why one shouldn't generally steal, lie, cheat or kill without using any supernatural elements. If the bible told that stealing was wrong but killing was fine, would you be okay with it? Morals don't come from books. Morals come from within, based on what one feels about certain action/thingy. However, by manipulating one's mind and changing the models you can change how one feels about certain action, thus changing their "morals".

i agree for the most part. you're talking deep now. basically though, morals are generally learned from what is accepted by society. the proof is in the other thread where we are discussing the death penalty. one way we learn what is generally accepted is through books. i think if people looked inside themselves to truely know themselves and distinguish what is right from wrong, the world would be a better place. you are right. there are some things that the bible and other books can never teach which pretty much makes the bible incomplete for anyone to follow word for word.

And by asking you to eat dog I specifically meant one of your OWN puppies/dogs. Or just killing one of them for no reason.

who would want to murder a cute puppy?!? shame on them! actually, if i was in a country that served dog, i would probably try it just to say i tried it. it reminds me of an old television series though called "china beach". someone wanted to buy a puppy and said they needed a couple minutes before they can take it. they came back to pick up their puppy and it was in a brown paper back already butchered.

i know i commented on this thread about if atheism is a religion. we do use "religiously" as an adverb to describe someone who is passionate about doing something. i still don't think atheism is a religion only because it's a belief NOT to believe and there are no rules governing that belief for it to be a strong belief. all an athiest is is someone who is limiting themselves to believe in something. how can limiting beliefs be considered a religion??? personally, i don't know why anyone who isn't religious would want to label themselves as atheist. they don't like to consider themselves as followers of any one religion but would group themselves together with a label? that is religious-like or cult like if they don't want to follow the rules of the majority. almost to the extreme of anarchy thinking. if they are unable to follow natural law? they wouldn't be suspeptable to man made laws either(for those who will label themselves atheist) since they are arguing that they don't believe in something that not only can't be proven, but going against the general belief within their own society.

personally, i am not religious, but i would rather be living in the middle of a 99% christian society rather than a 99% atheist society ANY DAY! to me, there is a HUGE difference between someone who just doesn't believe in certain things, and someone who would label themselves an atheist.