Are the followers of nietzche and atheism a religion?

[dan020350]

If a belief generates followers
surely the belief of non-belief must also generate followers

What generate followers? History shows there is one group there are followers, then someone believes differently the students go there, or within the group there is trouble so I will form a semi-republican group.
What is the contradtiction?

[weepingforloman]

Nietzsche's beliefs could be classified as religion (they do require certain beliefs about humanity and God) but I think he would be mortified if you said so.

[dan020350]

Exactly. When you believe in something you have become a follower of that belief. So how can one serve two masters? Or have many beliefs?

[Cervan]

Are the followers of nietzche and atheism a religion?

Nietzsche didn't invent atheism. Not all atheists agree with or "follow" Nietzsche. It is entirely possible to be an atheist and yet disagree with Nietzsche on a great many issues, as I do.

I think there are many misconceptions about what atheism is. Some theists honestly don't know what the term means, but others are dishonest and choose to perpetuate misconceptions by repeating lies about atheists which they know are lies, such as "atheists believe in nothing", or "atheists hate God." People need to know the differences and distinctions between atheism, skepticism, and nihilism.

Atheism is a feature of a worldview, not a worldview in itself. There are as many different types of atheists as there are different types of theists. To automatically associate any atheist with Nietzsche, Stalin, Ayn Rand, or Darwin (or with the theory of Evolution, more correctly, since Darwin wasn't an atheist), and therefore with the worldviews of those people, is just as incorrect as automatically associating any theist with John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Joseph Smith, or the Pope.

As for the "follower" thing. Some people are followers, some people are freethinkers. Freethinkers and followers exist among atheists and theists alike.

[dan020350]

According to your definition atheism is a term that represents philosophy. While thesit represents pagan/ nature/ religion.

[weepingforloman]

Exactly. When you believe in something you have become a follower of that belief. So how can one serve two masters? Or have many beliefs?

I agree with you here: I don't think the argument that "all religions are equally good" can hold up in any logical sense. I don't think Unitarianism has any value whatsoever--I think that the only instance in which combination of beliefs is possible is by picking and choosing elements of different faiths, because most beliefs are mutually incompatible. For instance, I know of Christian/Buddhist hybrid believers, but the idea behind Buddhism is to achieve perfection and nirvana, while Christianity openly states that no man can be perfect. The combination of beliefs is just wishful thinking.

[dan020350]

"There is one belief, and one truth. That is be true to God" said Jesus
perfection is something different. If you think you are perfect that means you are not perfect. A perfect being is is really a true human being that does not argue for right and wrong.

[Cervan]

According to your definition atheism is a term that represents philosophy. While thesit represents pagan/ nature/ religion.

I have no idea if this was in reference to my post, but I'll address it anyway.

Atheism is an aspect of a particular worldview or philosophy, just as theism is an aspect of a particular worldview or philosophy, but neither term constitutes a worldview, or a philosophy, in and of itself.

For example, Ayn Rand was an atheist, as was Stalin, but philosophically speaking, they were worlds apart.

Similarly, Martin Luther King, the civil rights leader, and R. J. Rushdooney, one of the founders of Christian Reconstructionism, were both theists, but held very different worldviews.


In other words, atheism and theism are representative of whatever philosophical views they are a part of, but do not define those views, in and of themselves.

[bazarov]

To have a religion, you have to have a God, a supreme creature. And Nietzsche wasn't a God. Then Marx, Engels, Socrates or any else would be a God.
People like parts of there philosophy, not their whole existence. And believers like everything in Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha etc.

[dan020350]

to have a relgion one must hae a god. To have a God, means the person must be different then the majority and he must speak poetically, philosopcally, and argumentively convincely and beautifully.

[Triskele]

to have a relgion one must hae a god. To have a God, means the person must be different then the majority and he must speak poetically, philosopcally, and argumentively convincely and beautifully.

well, i personally have a problem with this opinion... considering that buddhism, confucianism, hinduism, and most native animistic/totemic religions don't have a god in the sense that western judeo-christian or Mohammedan religions or sects do, does that then relagate all religions not latin or arab based to be invalid?

[dan020350]

buddhism confucism or any other relgion that believes they have no god really do have a God. Either that is the ancestor, king, no God, or no being God.

[Triskele]

buddhism confucism or any other relgion that believes they have no god really do have a God. Either that is the ancestor, king, no God, or no being God.

so you are saying that their beliefs are invalid because they subscribe to a different religion, and that they actually do believe in god, they just don't know it? i am truly confused, they do not belive in a deity, they subscribe to a spiritual philosophy that has no connection whatsoever to western cultural altar adoration...

[Hyacinth42]

Here are some definitions of religion:


1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
5. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

None of these list having a god as a requirement for them to be a religion, and therefore, atheism is a religion :P

[kilted exile]

Ok, I think the only one of those definitions that could possibly incoporate atheism is # 5: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" because all of the others refer to a set of beliefs seeing as atheism is one shared beliefthese definitions in no way include atheism - and even number 5 is on some pretty unsound foundation.

The problem with #5 is that it is very broad and it can include nearly anything - if atheism is included as a religion in that way then every political ideology is also. Something which I doubt many would agree with


**Also I think a lot of religious types may disagree with atheism fitting that description because of the mention of ethics, which many have argued elsewhere in this forum is not answered by atheism but is a carryover from a previously religious society and divine law.

[dan020350]

so you are saying that their beliefs are invalid because they subscribe to a different religion, and that they actually do believe in god, they just don't know it? i am truly confused, they do not belive in a deity, they subscribe to a spiritual philosophy that has no connection whatsoever to western cultural altar adoration...

When one believes in nothing, he believes in the image of nothing. When one believes in god, he believes the image of god he created, which is not god.
When one believes in spirtual enlightenment, he is seeking or believing a non-existent being. We love to assume, we love to seek , and we love our own fears.