Are all atheist antireligious?

[Davin]

I personally find it wiser to find out exactly what person means instead of assuming. Why do you not just say why you made very loose comparisons?

Being less than a whole page into a topic, it seems rather obvious.

To be against religion is basically to be against HAF...extremely loosly saying of course.

So loosely in fact that is doesn't make much sense. Not everyone is so loose with the defnitions of words as you seem to be, so the comparison can't reasonabely be made between your admittedly loose definitions and what other people are saying.

Cannot one be against the actual definition of religion without being against those things in your loose comparisons? Yes, very much so.

[AnimatedDirt]

Of course you can be against it.  Problem is that you'd simply be denying the reality of comparisons that fit, loosely.

It's not TO prove that HAF is a religion, simply that HAF fits as a 'religion' (by loose comparison) in that it resembles in many aspects other groups that we call 'religions'.  To be against religion is to be against that which makes HAF, HAF.  It's a community of believers or non-believers.  Whichever way you choose to view the HAF thinking.  The formation of a group is to protect a certain idea.  HAF's idea is that God (or gods) does not exist...and certainly to promote critical thinking and free thinking.  It's other main purpose is that there are "happy" Atheists.  Not all are angry.  So HAF has a set of rules and guidelines that the creator of HAF has seen fit to make/keep this place a haven of sorts for EVERYONE, Christian and Atheist to coexist.  HAF does not exclude those that think different unless they are seen as defiant to the rules.

[Stevil]

Well, to start, is this presupposing Christianity and Islam to stand for all religions? Secondly, to say Abrahamic religions are institutions for the hate of women and gays is a completely ignorant and and unfounded opinion, mainly being a completely selective and overly dramatized interpretation of them in order to justify your own irreligion.   

ignorant and unfounded.
Let's start with the dehumanising of women, wrapping them up so that one cannot recognise the individual, the person beneath. Not allowing them to be taught in schools, to drive cars or to stay alone in hotel rooms. Not allowing them to travel without a letter of permission from their male owner.

Christians have the "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

[Davin]

Of course you can be against it.  Problem is that you'd simply be denying the reality of comparisons that fit, loosely.

Definitions that are so loose in fact, that you're point falls out. You implied that your loose comparisons were intended to say that those who are against religion, are also against things like buddies getting together to play video games together. While I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept the reality that one can be against religions and not against LAN parties, you seem to be saying that, that is not possible.

It's not TO prove that HAF is a religion, simply that HAF fits as a 'religion' (by loose comparison) in that it resembles in many aspects other groups that we call 'religions'.  To be against religion is to be against that which makes HAF, HAF.  It's a community of believers or non-believers.  Whichever way you choose to view the HAF thinking.  The formation of a group is to protect a certain idea.  HAF's idea is that God (or gods) does not exist...and certainly to promote critical thinking and free thinking.  It's other main purpose is that there are "happy" Atheists.  Not all are angry.  So HAF has a set of rules and guidelines that the creator of HAF has seen fit to make/keep this place a haven of sorts for EVERYONE, Christian and Atheist to coexist.  HAF does not exclude those that think different unless they are seen as defiant to the rules.

I don't accept your loose comparison because it includes far too many other things. The only way those loose definitions would make sense to support the point you're failing to make, would be if you take that those loosely compared things only occur in religion, which, all rational people wouldn't accept (given that things like people gathering together are not inherently religious, and so and so forth with all your weak examples). The major reason your comparisons fail to support your point, is because people can be completely against religion, and completely support those things in your comparisons without being contradictory. In one clean quotable: opposition to religion is not in any way exclusive of those examples that you gave.

[Recusant]

I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.

I think that religious freedom is an important quality of any secular society. However, I also think that the freedom to practice according to one's religious beliefs should not extend to the freedom to pursue harmful actions in the name of doctrine, from denying medical care to one's children to stoning women to death for being raped. It is foolish to think that religion is by its nature benign; those who do harm in the name of religion should not be immune from suffering society's sanction.

As for "viable component," that seems to be a poor choice of words. "Viable" means, among other things, "capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately." I don't see any other meaning that would change the question to make sense: Religion has met those criteria all through history, and shows little sign of failing to meet them any time soon. Perhaps a better question would be "Who sees religion as a very valuable component of human society?"

Personally, I think that religion in general has often been a more detrimental than positive influence on human societies. However, given the number of times believers have trotted through here proclaiming that they would probably be vile destructive people if not for their belief, I suppose that a case might be made for the value of religion to society.

* * *

Good to see you here again, AnimatedDirt. HAFism    wouldn't be the same without its faithful theist acolytes.

[Cforcerunner]

Well, to start, is this presupposing Christianity and Islam to stand for all religions? Secondly, to say Abrahamic religions are institutions for the hate of women and gays is a completely ignorant and and unfounded opinion, mainly being a completely selective and overly dramatized interpretation of them in order to justify your own irreligion.   

ignorant and unfounded.
Let's start with the dehumanising of women, wrapping them up so that one cannot recognise the individual, the person beneath. Not allowing them to be taught in schools, to drive cars or to stay alone in hotel rooms. Not allowing them to travel without a letter of permission from their male owner.

Christians have the "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

Okay, so this means that Jesus taught husbands marry for the purposes of  dictating the women as personalized slaves? Again, everything must be rationalized in this sort of extreme dramatization in order to convince yourself of this.

[AnimatedDirt]

...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion OF SORTS.

[Tank]

If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.

Keep it civil folks.

[Stevil]

Okay, so this means that Jesus taught husbands marry for the purposes of  dictating the women as personalized slaves? Again, everything must be rationalized in this sort of extreme dramatization in order to convince yourself of this.

What?

The only statement I made in the last post was a direct quote from the bible. I didn't explain any further, because it already says enough to make my point about Christianity.

[Tank]

...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion community OF SORTS.

[AnimatedDirt]

...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion community OF SORTS.

Too bad the topic title isn't about anticommunity.

[AnimatedDirt]

If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.

Keep it civil folks.

Didn't realize it was getting heated.  Apologies if it was me.

[Whitney]

HAF isn't a religion because religion has a very specific meaning....you could call HAF a community or perhaps even a philosophy but we don't have dogma or a set of spiritual beliefs one must follow/have in order to participate here (other than the can't be a troll/jerk/preaching house rules...in which case my physical home is a religion too as the same rules apply).

It's true that HAF would not need to exist if the concept of god didn't exist...but that doesn't make it a religion.  The phrase "Atheist is a religion like bald is a hair color" comes to mind.

If you want "religion" to also mean community then we might as well just get rid of the word religion and instead refer to "religions" as "faith communities"...and that just seems unnecessary to me since I'm not big on changing the English language for no good reason.

[Tank]

If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.

Keep it civil folks.

Didn't realize it was getting heated.  Apologies if it was me.

It's not heated yet but my spidy sense is twitching 

[Davin]

...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion OF SORTS.

And yet, equally loosely defined, HAF is not a religion. My point is, that the looseness of your comparisons includes far too many other things to be in any way useful and any equal looseness can apply to contradictory statements. So I find that your looseness of definition is far less effective towards the point you're trying to make than it supports it.