its a lack of theism often pursued religiously
I disagree. I'm an atheist because simply I see no evidence for any of the religions. I'm also aware that religion has caused a lot of evil. That's it.
the fact that your arguiing a cheeky comment doesnt demonstrate that well, but i respect everyones beliefs or lack thereof =)
How is it cheeky?
NO! not religiously, just passionately :)
I suggest you find someone who cares about it as much as you do. Im more concerned with other matters. this was given in a light hearted fashion.
In some ways it would seem like it it is, religious people use sc
Correcting you, religion uses ancient texts written by people thousands of years ago...
Atheism uses facts based on testable conclusions applicable here and now. It doesn't matter what the difference between two religions is. It's simply less saying that 1=1.
The fundamental premise which you mention could therefore NOT be the same thing.
No not correction because not every religion has been around thousands of years ago. Bahaii and Mormon's for example have only been around since the 1800's and that's just two examples. Besides that most large religions have a tendency to revise texts and re-interpret things as their thinking about the world changes. Scientists also do this, when their theories are tested. That's why Hawking beats out Newton, why Freud is now considered to be full of ***, it's also why people have stopped using Leeching and Blood letting.
If they are changing it, they are making it up as they go along.
not necessarily language evolves words might have had a different meaning, or something might have been mistranslated. societies change. Just because the science of something changes doesn't mean that's fake too
False. There is no correlation between science and Atheism. Those that attempt to make this claim are merely trying to take information from science which has nothing to do with religion, and use their "proofs" as a means to argue for no religion. This is a logical fallacy. It is creating a straw man, and attacking the straw man.
you know who else likes straw men? the gays :p
Haha People need to lighten up, I am really not married to either side of the debate I just enjoy having a good one. Personally my own views are murky on the whole thing. One thing I perhaps forgot to clarify is the relationship between science and religion.
The two aren't necessarily incompatible, there's lots of scientists out there who are religious people, and lots of scientists who are atheists and lots of atheists who aren't scientists blah blah blah. Whether or not they use actual sciences to back it up there's a logic and a method behind it and that is part of science. To complicated things even further a good scientist that's worth his weight and doesn't want to look like a dope usually has a tendency to keep themselves open to possibility that they might be wrong.
The main difference is one side believes in an invisible sky daddy and our side does not. Can't forget that.
Religions are a lot more complicated than that and it's ignorant comments like that give good atheists a bad name...
Its not an ignorant comment. In full explanation it sounds worse. They believe in an all powerful deity that knows their every thought action and heart for their entire life and will judge them accordingly. 24/7/365 monitoring.
Let's not forget the idea that they believe the creator of everything wants to dictate the sex life of everyone. From circumcision to virgin only weddings and advocating death to gays, the absurd beliefs of religion have given humanity a bad name. Are we really supposed to believe bronze aged goat herders knew more about humanity and the universe and our world then we do now?
Sorry but your unfairly oversimplifying what it's all about, you can disagree with something and still respect it. Not every religion or belief system is like that and the way you talk about it makes me think you don't have a clue about world religions to know what you're even talking about
And yet the fact remains, their are billions of people who believe the unproven creator of the universe has a vested interest in their sex life. Worse still, their are millions of fundamentalists that believe it is their divine obligation to enforce sex laws on others. You can not talk about religion and simply ignore this reality. You don't even attempt to refute what I've said, it is truth. I don't sugarcoat religion nor show respect when it isn't due.
Are their exceptions to what I've pointed out? Of course! And I find it puzzling that people basically mold their own personal religion and god rather then to just scrap the whole idea
Why are you preoccupied with sex? Don't take this the wrong way but you haven't exactly made a compelling case based on anything other than facile assertions that you seemed to have pulled out of the same populist bullsh*t anyone can get from picking up a book at the under $10 table from a Barnes and Nobles.
You're only really scratching the surface when I am saying you need to take a deeper look than that to make a better judgement. The philosophy behind different theological constructs goes a lot beyond simply 10 lines on a set of rocks, just because I haven't seen it means it doesn't exist. For instance one of the big splits in the protestant movements had to do with how to interpret scriptures.
*i.e whether they were supposed to be read literally or if they were metaphors with deeper meanings
Do you really think the majority of believers ponders as a philosopher would on the varied history and meaning of their ancient religion? Please. Spare me that notion. Most believe due to indoctrination, and that 3000 year old texts are right because they say they are. Ideals about love and peace take a back seat to ideals on how to control sex lives. How to control others. Their may be a very deep ocean indeed but if most are simply treading the surface then that is where the only important judgement can come from.
Again with the sex talk, I am still not seeing what you're getting at. The fact that you keep harping back to it just proves how shockingly you undervalue humanity. Indoctrination is just a way of getting into the pool and even hard line atheists are guilty of doing the same thing, but at the end of the day it's only fanatics on the fringe of society that ends up making a name for some of these people. That's hardly a representation of what religions are about if a majority of people out there seem to walk and talk like everyone else and I bet you'd have a hard time picking them out from a lineup.
Religious indoctrination is convincing others the pool exisits, and you must dive into it. Have you ever seriously pondered the modern day effects of thousands of years of religious belief and dogma? The problem is both the fringe minority and how the majority basically ignore them and never even attempt to justify their own beliefs. Yes I am glad the majority of people walk and talk like everyone else, which was why I pointed out that whole belief in an invisible sky daddy as a big difference between atheists and theists...crude humour but entirely accurate.
Again if my last point wasn't clear Indoctrination is a method that both sides use for their own ends. Aren't some atheists guilty of convincing others that the pool doesn't exist too? Absolutely. I also think you're overstating the effect of dogma on people's lives otherwise we'd be living in a world with many more theocracies. The fringe character and the majority are separate for a reason, if a nutbar atheist starts bombing churches should I suddenly mistrust all atheists because of some guilt by association? No because that'd be ridiculous.
Hardly. Atheism isn't organized, we don't congregate together, and most have far more religion in their background then not. You'd be hard pressed to find any scale comparison between theists and atheism when it comes to indoctrination.the theists are the champions on that.
When one does a comprehensive study of dogma and society, you realize nothing can be overstated.
I'm not saying you lump them altogether,the fringe and the majority, but you also just don't ignore the connections. One should be concerned when say Islam on the whole barely speaks out against their fringe side, when other religions denounce their violent zealots.
How could using science to disprove false claims be a fallacy?
You imply that one has to use something that has to do with religion in order to debunk it.
A strawman fallacy is when you make an argument against something, implying that it was the other persons position when it was not.
The position of religion (most of them) is that there is a god with three characteristics: Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent.
All three of those characteristics are impossible in nature.
Using logic one can determine that the claim that there is a god is wrong, that is not a strawman.
purple monkey dishwasher
No atheism is the absence of god-belief.
Nope, try again. The definition of religion is the reverence for a supernatural power or power(s) regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Atheists are pro-reality. Atheism has no dogma, no rites, no holy books, no places of worship and no clergy of any description. It offers no moral guidance, no political opinions and no world view. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That definition is too simplistic. It doesn't account for secular humanism.
its a matter of words and the intensity we use to express
A simple explanation can't be counted out because it is simple. Quite the contrary.
Well I love this response.
I can't disagree with you, but that's because you've been untestable... which is NOT a good thing.
Stating that Buddhists don't believe in a deity doesn't mean atheists are a religion simply because they have the same characteristic.
I'm not very up on my buddhism, but over the past few centuries, there have been MANY denominations with MANY deities to each one. So saying that Buddhism (as it is now) has no deity is like saying McDonalds has no hamburgers.
I digress though....
I think you mean to point out that Atheism has a sort of following. Though it can't be a set of practices as you've stated... and "values" is a shaky one since apparently racism can be one now.
I like that you don't consider yourself definable, but at the same time that makes you ... null. Like a god... cant be defined or described, but must be acknowledged...
Wrong. Are you anti big foot? Anti tooth fairy? Or do you just not believe in nonsense?
wow where where could I begin on this. Saying "I don't believe you" with regards to theists, Is not a religion any more so than bald is a religion and abstinence is not a sexual position. Atheism for me is a position on a single issue. me saying that i do not believe in god does not in my view constitute a system of belief. It's just my view. Or to put it another way - if atheism is a religion the is theism a religion also? No, theism is a category and the sub divisions under theism divided down to the point where they become religions - where it be catholic, protestant, hinduism, buddhism, ... whatever - those are the categories that are all undr theism. What I am talking about is the alternative heading A-theism. In atheism there is no god, it does not include dogma or tenents.
It is religion standing upside down.Religion or atheism,antithesis or thesis all the same.
absolutely. They just worship a god they don't acknowledge.
Which god is that?
That's theirs to determine. It usually isn't hard to figure out though.
only if you're Norwegian
Nope! ....no worship involved
A Japanese winter dish?
Can you even explain how one would go about worshipping a god one did not even acknowledge? I'm an atheist, and you're making a claim directly about me. Can you prove your claim?
Penn Gillette said calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. I agree with him. I am an atheist, I am not a zealot or a radical. I have read the Bible, and found it to be something I do not believe in, though I do admire the teachings of Jesus. There are many evangelists in the media who obviously do not admire, or even believe, what Jesus had to say. And I do not even want to get into the topic of politicians who claim to be followers. Have a good day.
Atheism is the manufacturing of your self in to being your own god.
There for you don't have to recognize or bow to anyone or anything else.
Not sure if this is more of a Religious or a Psychological narcissist.
Secondary note : IntangibleAsset you should know that "Chi" from Chinese Martial arts, takes it's origins of philosophy passing through Buddhism, back through Hinduism and back even further to the Brahman cults of very ancient India.
No, I don't believe I am a god so that I don't have to submit to a god. Horribly wrong and baseless statement.
Religion has very little to do with God.
Religion is systematic belief.
I say atheism is very much a religious point of view.
and you could say you're a cow
...but I'm hearing your MOOING!
No. Atheism by definition does not recognize any kind of god.
It has been posited that they in fact do, and that they have "FAITH" in the idea that there is no god.
This is all BS, because it simply begs the question again upon atheists... "Oh you don't have FAITH in god, but you have FAITH that there is no god."
Which is just more BS, since a no god scenario needs NO faith, and a god scenario needs complete unquestioned faith.
Either way what I think really matters is this:
God doesn't care what religion you are... just how you act.
I've already explained that you need no faith to not believe.
I respect you Inta, but I can't go further than extending that fact to keep said respect.
Just like you have faith that there is not a teapot orbiting the earth?
WOW... THAT's neither here nor there.
With so many man made things orbiting the Earth, a teapot doesn't seem so far fetched.
WTF are you trying to say here?
NO! ....just a reasonable doubt
Wrong. By definition, you can't know anything by faith alone. However our brains have all sorts of ways to detect what is most likely utter bullshit.
according to the irs it is
According to the IRS ( the lie that no one dares look into )
it is a category, of how to classify people. What do they believe. Government cares less about what you believe, they just want to know how they can manipulate you, and with their classification question, they have an insight on how to lie to get you to do what they ultimately want.
No, and not playing football isn't a sport.
Just like every one that does not collect stamps have organized themselves into an anti-stamp collecting secret order?
No. You have a god.
Not doing something is never described as a hobby.
You don't consider not collecting stamps a hobby, and in the same way you wouldn't consider not believing in something a religion.
No, it isn't. Its a rejection of all god claims. That's it. We don't worship science, for their have been atheists just as long as their has been religion, atheism is a result of critical thinking and ob
I am having difficulty accepting your words, but tell me if you have the "clarity of thought" how does one justify mans law? For this is the significant hing pin in my theist tendencies. For people of iritation, who are around me, are spared violence, not because of any man around me, but from the idea that there is a law given by that which is higher than man - god. This is what prevents me from extermination of some irritants. There has never been found by me, any human that I would consider my superior. And I have never heard of mercy from any athiestic source.
What we impose upon ourselves needs no justification beyond ourselves. Man's law is a result of a group collective agreement on what should not be permitted. As social creatures, we recognize that while we can live alone, living in groups is better, so we will determine what's moral largely based on empathy. It doesn't take a supposed god to tell us murder is wrong.
If you are a student of history, then your words are hollow. For the vast majority of recognized events of worth to record have been war. Which is simply murder on a larger scale, for the purposes of old world kings, expanding their power. Following those kings, of this world, would never cause the development of "a higher conscious", only when you have a different option can that thought even be challenged. The corruption of kings, their evil actions of usurpation of land, materials and even the ownership of slaves, has no alternative on this earth - until an outside interference introduces the concept. I believe that this is the reason for 30,000 plus years that Africa showed no significant civilizational development.
When your king is your god, and he declares that you are to attack the neighboring village, you don't live if you question. But with a significant higher power - then you question.
Nonsense. Had you asked the slaves, or put the slavemasters in chains, if they didn't object, you'd get a very honest answer. You're only confirming what I previously said, that we justify what we do. Even the most vile king would show grace to those he felt worthy of such. Even the most devoted warrior would question his king if the situation warrants. Their is nothing from a supposed god that we have not figured out for ourselves, and if anything, morality has matured from the biblical days.
Every athiest I have known has made science their religion and many take scientific theory as absolute fact. If a scientist claims something occurred 65 million years ago they accept it as fact. Of course, the scientist only has his theory to account for such a claim, and the theory could be flawed. When I counter that in fact it's nothing more than an educated guess I am ridiculed for daring to question science. Sorry, we haven't a clue what happened 65 million years ago. We can theorize, but we don't "know".
And deductive reasoning. But don't tell me you "know" something happened 65 million years ago. That is what you might call your "scientific leap of faith". Many Cathoilcs believe the Pope is infallible. Many scientists believe this to be true of themselves.
No, they don't. This is why the scientific method is based on objective evidence. Sorry, you're just plain wrong.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. When a scientist invests time and effort into a theory, its backed by evidence. objective evidence. That when examined by others, yields a similar result. Saying it's an educated guess cuts short the methods used, which change it from merely guessing to what is most probable. If you want to question science, do it using scientific methods. If you just want to proclaim your mental prowess is superior merely because you say so, then you are deserving of ridicule.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices ba
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
good question..if religion is faith and faith is believing something you can't prove......and there are depot non believers ok threat was pushing a little maybe
I think therefore I am thinking
religion is about worshiping something if you are not worshiping something then no
I watch the evidence of what people do, and not what they say. When you look at the way people celebrate and rejoice about sports, they are in worship, yet we would not label football, soccer, or baseball a religion. Maybe we should. When you get those who with passion argue for Atheism, they are exhibiting all of the traits of religious zeal, they are acting in the accord that anyone who would worship Jesus, Buddah, or Allah would argue.
I just believe they are arguing to make themselves into a god.
That's the best arguement I've heard towards the whole "Atheism is a religion" argument dragon.
Still holds no truth though. I haven't seen any atheist league of anything being celebrated for no reason on national anything or anything that doesn't really matter.
So far, atheism has merely celebrated, WITHOUT a local fantastical hysteria, SCIENCE.
refusing to practice blind faith
Isn't anti anything...It's just common sense
From my understanding, an atheist is one who has no belief in any gods and thereby would not fit the definition of being another religion.
What about it?
touched a nerve?
No, it just didn't make sense.
To you or to the asker of the question?????? geez some people.
apparently to the "geez some people" ...whoever they are ...maybe they're like zero sum principles.
*shakes head*, why dont you replay to the question asked if you have such strong opinions?????? Do you really go round ep looking for answers that makes senses? toss!