This is topic Atheism as a religion? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=022504

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
I heard about this last week but can't seem to....ok ok, haven't really tried to find any more information on it, but did anyone else hear about this?

The proverbial "they" want to recategorise Atheism as a religion, and different levels of atheistic 'belief' as different denominations.
I'm sure last time i checked Atheism was a general description for lack of religion or belief neh?
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Seeing as there's no Church of Atheism whose structure one might conceivably hope to change, "they" have windmill issues.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Different levels? What, am I a class II atheist and a level IV vegan?

Life is starting to seem more and more like an RPG...
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Atheism, doesn't that literally mean "without god"?

I guess you could form a religion from it. But no athiest that I know would be interested.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would LOVE to become an ordained atheist preacher. I wonder what our creed would be, and whether people who are secretly agnostic -- like me -- would be punished with an eternity of nonexistence in the afterlife, or simply permitted to share nonexistence in the afterlife with the rest of us.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I admit I once considered atheism a religion -- or at least a faith -- and annoyed quite a few atheists with my innocent insistence that they were too religious. They had beliefs on the soul, the afterlife, the existence of a higher power, etc, with none of it provable in any way. That's faith in my book.

But atheism does not supply rituals or codes of living, and I've come to accept that those are integral parts of a religion.

So now I consider atheism as a philosophy, a belief system, or a determined guess, depending on whom I'm talking to.

We apatheists just sit back and shake our heads...

[ March 17, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Tom - maybe a modification of Zelazny's classic Agnostic's Prayer?
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Atheism is more like a class of religions.

Something like Atheism + Evolutionary Theory + Humanism would be more of a religion.

[ March 17, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I think you'd have to devise a new religion based on atheism, evolutionary theory and humanism. There's not really one now, or at least nothing organized. I could use a summer project...

Believing in evolutionary theory doesn't mark you as atheist, there are an awful lot of Christians who have no problem working theories of evolution and natural selection into their faiths. Obviously they are Christians who do not subscribe to the inerrancy of the Bible, but knowing how something was done doens't necessarily lessen the impact of why something was done, and by Whom.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
A religion doesn't really need to be organized. Many Christians don't belong to any church specifically, or don't even go to church, but still have their religion. Some even have very unique, self-made religions.

A religion is just a set of beliefs defining how you view the world and should act within it. Atheism is really just a single belief, but an inidividual would combine atheism with a variety of other beliefs about the world and morality (doesn't have to be humanism and evolution) to make his or her atheistic religion.

Some object to this and argue that religion is a term reserved for supernatural belief systems. My view is that that's a pretty arbitrary line to draw, but if people want to draw it then at least we can say that atheist belief systems are the equivalent of religions in function, whether or not we can technically call them 'religions.'

[ March 17, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Atheism, imho, is not a religion.

It is the lack of it.

However the current popular understanding of the word is a more militant view...as in not just an unbeliever in the supernatural, but someone who goes out of their way to disprove religion.

And the new term for the old atheist is now called agnostic.

Of course I might be wrong. In my house being an atheist didn't imply hostile feelings towards religion. Now we use agnostic as our call sign.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Well, if you're an agnostic you don't believe God doesn't exist - so you can't really be an atheist if you are an agnostic. Don't misuse terms just to avoid being lumped with atheist extremists - any more than Muslims should stop calling themselves Muslim just to avoid being lumped with Al Qaeda.

But, yes, agnosticism is more along the lines of religionlessness. However, I think to be truly without religion you would have to also have no stance regarding what is right or wrong, no stance regarding the origin of the universe, and no stance regarding the true nature of the universe.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
That's what I'm saying though... is that atheism didn't mean extremist in the past. I still don't think it does. But many people think it does so I use the word agnostic.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I love it when this circular argument comes up occasionally.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It's a religion without an institution, meaning it's tough to pin down exactly what "codes" they live by. However:

• Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive).
• Atheists periodically change some of their arguments to fit modern knowledge of why and how things work, yet ignorantly assume other religions don't do the exact same thing. Sounds a whole lot like dogma to me.
• If an atheist wants to have a regular set of "life rules" from which to live, there is an option: it's called Humanism. Not all Christians belong to a single church for their theism—are they not still Christians? Depending on who you ask, the answer would be "no," mostly from the crowd who defines their Christianity by the church to which they belong. However, these people believe in a god, and they specifically believe in the Christian God. Atheists believe in the non-existance of that and any other god, and most don't have affiliation with any specific institution—does that make them less of an atheist?
• It requires just as much faith to believe there is no divine as it takes to require in the existance of the divine. Neither can be had without a leap of faith included in the belief.
• This one is opinion. Most atheists believe that they are better off believing that there is no god(s), and that those who believe in the divine are delusional or fooling themselves. If this isn't pretension, I don't know what is. A religion tends to instill in its believers that they have the Ultimate Truth and are Right in what they believe. Atheism fits this profile just as easily as any other.

quote:

---

However, I think to be truly without religion you would have to also have no stance regarding what is right or wrong, no stance regarding the origin of the universe, and no stance regarding the true nature of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive).

---

quote:

---

Atheists periodically change some of their arguments to fit modern knowledge of why and how things work, yet ignorantly assume other religions don't do the exact same thing. Sounds a whole lot like dogma to me.

---

quote:

---

If an atheist wants to have a regular set of "life rules" from which to live, there is an option: it's called Humanism. Not all Christians belong to a single church for their theism—are they not still Christians? Depending on who you ask, the answer would be "no," mostly from the crowd who defines their Christianity by the church to which they belong. However, these people believe in a god, and they specifically believe in the Christian God. Atheists believe in the non-existance of that and any other god, and most don't have affiliation with any specific institution—does that make them less of an atheist?

---

quote:

---

It requires just as much faith to believe there is no divine as it takes to require in the existance of the divine. Neither can be had without a leap of faith included in the belief.

---

quote:

---

Right and wrong are not inexorably linked to religion, they are linked to mores, which are not mutually exclusive from religion, but are not necessarily dependant on it, either. A discerning agnostic can recognize and accept the mores of any religious influence they like, but to be agnostic, they simply don't accept that these mores are the end-all-be-all of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Says who? not believing in God because you have no evidence of it is NOT faith. I don't believe there is someone in my closet with a knife, but its not FAITH that makes me believe such.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists have faith that there is no god, based on their belief in scientific proof (none of which is conclusive).

---

Says who? not believing in God because you have no evidence of it is NOT faith. I don't believe there is someone in my closet with a knife, but its not FAITH that makes me believe such.

---

quote:

---

Ummm, who says an athiest need to conform to whatever modern theories are out to argue that God doesn't exist. The only argument needed is "there is no evidence that he does".

---

quote:

---

Not sure where you are going with this. Just because a person believes in a certain philosophy as another person it makes them part of a religion?

---

quote:

---

Thats bullcrap. To believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence DOES NOT require the same leap of faith as believing in something DESPITE there not being evidence for it!

---

That's bullcrap only if you think the only argument against atheism is the "prove a negative" argument. It is not. It doesn't have to have the same leap of faith, it has to have a leap of faith that is based on each conclusion. Obviously, since the conclusions are not the same, the leaps necessary will be different. Just because they're different does not make them unnecessary.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Xavier: sure it does. You do not know for a fact that there's no one in your closet. You have a guess, based on solid knowledge of the historical events surrounding your closet and the likely probablility of there being anyone in there, but you do not have proof. You have faith.

Granted, your assumptions give you an excellent chance of being right, so your faith is probably justified. But it's still faith.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I love arguing with you Leto . Just wanted to point that out. There are certain people I like debating with for the sake of debate, and you are certainly one of them

Anyway, I am about to go eat, so won't reply just yet (wanted to leave like an hour ago).

I will say before I go though that I am not, in fact, an athiest.

My belief system right now would be that I don't really have one, and am kind of lost in my spiritual journey, and have no idea where I will end up.

I just am aguing because I think you are wrong .

[ March 17, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent.

---

Tres, do you seriously make every moral decision you ever make based solely upon the nature of the universe? If so, you must be incredibly slow in making decisions. When the nature and origin of the universe does not influence the way one's mores are chosen, you cannot claim that the mores chosen are based on the nature and origin of the universe. Really, that's silly. Perhaps you should learn to understand the beliefs before you judge them as amoral.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Xav, those questions I asked still count in that if you ask them from a rhetorical atheist POV, you'll see what I mean in how they are required in the belief.

And yeah, I gotta run, too. Gonna go see Hidalgo today!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Thats bullcrap. To believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence DOES NOT require the same leap of faith as believing in something DESPITE there not being evidence for it!

---

quote:

---

Which requires faith, believing in Fred or not believing in him?

If you say that it requires faith to disbelieve in him, then at least admit that the amount of faith required is FAR FAR less.

---

quote:

---

Tres, do you seriously make every moral decision you ever make based solely upon the nature of the universe? If so, you must be incredibly slow in making decisions. When the nature and origin of the universe does not influence the way one's mores are chosen, you cannot claim that the mores chosen are based on the nature and origin of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you should learn to understand the beliefs before you judge them as amoral.

---

I know I didn't say anyone was amoral.

I said some people were actually religious, even though they were atheists or agnostics - but that hardly makes them amoral.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Dagonee, am I believing in the non-existence of Fred or not believing in Fred's existence?

It comes down to the same thing. They are the same belief. The only difference is in the degree of certainty as far as I can see.

Yes, I agree that if an athiest's position is that "I do not believe in God, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, now and in the future" then yes, they are using faith as their rational, and could be considered a religion.

Is that really what they think though? Seems to me that most of them think about it logically and come to the conclusion that God does not in fact exist because there's no evidence that he does (and perhaps also thinking there is evidence that he doesn't). Just as none of us believe in Fred because there is no evidence he exists.

We could say though that there is an equal amount of evidence that Fred does and does not exist. Thats just semantics though. It requires LOGIC to assume he doesn't (but a small amount of faith to believe with certainty that he doesn't), it requires FAITH to believe Fred does.

[ March 17, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I believe in Fred.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dagonee, am I believing in the non-existence of Fred or not believing in Fred's existence?

It comes down to the same thing. They are the same belief. The only difference is in the degree of certainty as far as I can see.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I agree that if an athiest's position is that "I do not believe in God, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, now and in the future" then yes, they are using faith as their rational, and could be considered a religion.

Is that really what they think though?

---

quote:

---

Seems to me that most of them think about it logically and come to the conclusion that God does not in fact exist because there's no evidence that he does (and perhaps also thinking there is evidence that he doesn't). Just as none of us believe in Fred because there is no evidence he exists.

---

quote:

---

We could say though that there is an equal amount of evidence that Fred does and does not exist. Thats just semantics though. It requires LOGIC to assume he doesn't (but a small amount of faith to believe with certainty that he doesn't), it requires FAITH to believe Fred does.

---

quote:

---

Dags, I'll be damned if the two statements don't look like the exact same thing to me, too. Edit: Also, I don't believe uncertainty is the same thing as saying there is no God. Isn't it possible for belief to be in a kind of null state, neither positive or negative?

---

You're edit makes the same point I was making...
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Then I am confuzzled as to how your point makes the two statements under discussion say different things. uncertainty is not the same thing as a *belief* in non-existence/that something doesn't exist as far as I can tell.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite of something.

"I believe God exists."
"I don't believe that God does not exist."
"I don't believe God exists."
"I believe God does not exist."

Four different statements with four different meanings, althought he middle two probably reflect a very similar state of mind.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
O.K. I understand your point now.

I would put a modifier in your statement of

"Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite of something." and make it "Not believing something is sometimes not the same as believing the opposite of something."
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

Tres, you're refusing to separate right and wrong from the nature of the universe. Since you don't have the ability to distinguish between the two (or are intentionally refusing to try), There's not much that can be accomplished from trying to explain to you a concept which you are refusing to even try to understand. Suffice to say, it's in the accepting that right and wrong are not definitely, completely, and inexorably linked to the nature and origin of the universe that allows an agnostic to still have a sense of right and wrong without knowing how the universe and man were created.

---

quote:

---

While that is the origin of the word agnostic, I have never heard it used that way. Today, it means:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

---

quote:

---

Xavier, you can't possibly believe that there is only one type of faith, or only faith in one thing.

---

The question becomes how to qualify the faith such that we can filter out the 'real' religions, eh, Dags? *significant look*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Storm, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
It hearkens back to our discussion of freedom of religion and what that meant.

For instance,

quote:

---

I've got to agree that atheism isn't a religion. Religion is more than just believing in something.

---

To further expand on his point, by the same token, saying 'I believe in God.' isn't a religion, either, though atheism and theism can be parts of religions.

[ March 17, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.

As I said before, I don't care if atheism is called a religion in some semantic online debate.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods.

The key word is belief. Theists believe in god, gods, or God, as the case may be. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist.

---

quote:

---

There is some breakdown among atheists who call themselves "strong atheists" (believe there is no god) versus "weak atheists" (lack belief in a god)

---

quote:

---

The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.

Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.

---

quote:

---

As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,

---

quote:

---

but there are also groups such as the North Texas Church of Freethought, some Secular Humanists think of themselves as religious. Michael Newdow (the pledge of allegiance guy) is an atheist who argues that he is religious, and that atheism should be on equal footing with religion.

---

quote:

---

The idea of atheism as a religion generally gets a less than warm reception at atheist gatherings.

---

quote:

---

Also just because the root of the word atheist is a-theist, that doesn't mean that's what the word means today.

---

quote:

---

The universe is, by definition, everything. Therefore any claim about the nature of right and wrong is a claim about the nature of the universe. What would it even mean to separate the two? That's like saying that claims about the earth are not claims about the solar system, when the earth is part of the solar system.

---

quote:

---

I just knew this would turn into a battle of pointless defining and redefining of terms. It sounds so much like the old creationist argument that evolution is a "theory" where "theory" is redefined as "unsubstantiated guess" instead of "tentative conclusion based on available facts". Atheism is as much a religion as creationism is a science.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the worship of a supernatural being or beings; it requires belief in the supernatural.

---

Wrong. Pay close attention to definitions 2 and 4. Only theist religion requires the belief in a creator, and not all religions believe in the supernatural. See Glen Arnold's examples of religions that do not (like Humanists).

quote:

---

Atheism requires only belief in the natural: that which can be detected and quantified using our five senses, and by extension, machines that we have invented to detect elements of the natural that our five senses cannot.

---

quote:

---

Because I come from a conservative religious background and became an Atheist later in life, I think I can help clarify the issue for those who have not had the experience of "losing your faith". A person becomes religious usually through some type of "religious experience".

---

quote:

---

So the point of this whole thing is: I became religious because of an emotional experience, and I stayed religious because of an emotional feedback system. I became an atheist because of education. I remain an atheist because no evidence (other than emotional) exists to support belief in the existence of a god.

---

quote:

---

MoonRabbit became an athiest after LOSING her faith! Not gaining faith!

Its so hard to accept that you guys can't see this basic fact.

---

quote:

---

Tres, when you use your computer, do you have to have secure and positively absolute opinions as to how the computer was designed, built, and the software written? Sure, for everything you do, you can look up its origins, but to do so would require effort that is generally counter-productive and ultimately useless outside of actually designing and creating software and hardware. When I decide what is right or wrong behavior, I do not require the knowledge on how the universe was created, where the origin of man lies, nor whether or not there is some kind of divinity in the universe to make a decision. That you are implying I do shows a lack of understanding on your part.

---

quote:

---

Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion

---

quote:

---

Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nothing in biology or any other science "disproves" religion, as long as you accept the possiblity that God--the most powerful being in the Universe--is playing a trick on us by falsifying "scientific" evidence that we know to directly contradict the Bible and what we know to be true within the Bible

---

There! Now it all makes sense.

---

quote:

---

The point is that I do not require affirmation for or against the existance of the divine in order to make moral decisions. You are saying that I require such affirmation to make moral decision.

---

Where did I say that? That's not my point.

My point was what I said in the original quote you responded to:

"They can recognize the beliefs of others, yes, but if they claim one is right and others are wrong then they have established unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe and how it should be interprettd, and thus have religious views, or their equivalent."

Nowhere does it say anything about needing to know whether or not the divine exists in order to have moral views. I only said, and only intended to say, that you need some assumptions about the nature of the universe, in order to judge right from wrong.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Creationism.

A science? I see no such listing at this site, which you used for your previous definitions, John L. "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."

This is what comes of arguing on the basis of semantics.

[ March 17, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tres, I assume you are a theist? Then you believe that the best moral system is one based on God's laws. I think we all can agree that an agnostic can have pretty good morals based on their perceptions of the good of the individual and society.

But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.

A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God. An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached. They draw their own conclusions as best they can. Different ways of looking at the universe.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Someone I'm sure has made this point on this thread or others like it. Most atheists I've known (people who don't believe in god or a religion) weren't even raised in a religious household. They don't even self-identify as atheists. I think it would be a stretch to label such folks as atheists.

Logic and definitions of religion aside, the issue here is the "need" to label.

I don't have the time, interest, or social need to watch football. what does that make me?

(a freak, obviously)

fallow

[ March 17, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Hmmm...

Real world example (I'm serious--for once)

My kids firmly believe that there is a guy living in our basement. In fact, they claim to have seen glimpses of him moving around and hiding, when they turn on the basement light and prepare to go into the basement.

Needless to say, it's very difficult to get them to go in to the basement. By themselves, it's absolutely impossible. Such is the strength of their belief.

I want to believe everything my kids tell me. If I am going to doubt them, I so far have had the guts to let them know directly that I doubt them. I tried for a while to ridicule their belief that a guy is living in our basement, but it only pissed them off. I don't do that any more. (Man! There are so many great analogies here to how I've debated religion in the past!)

So, with them standing at the top of the stairs, I took one of those million candlepower flashlights, and looked all over the basement for him. I shone a light into every corner--even in the crawlspace under the mudroom (where, I am firmly convinced, we've got some Mafia guys buried--but that's another story). I looked for evidence that we have a guy living in our basement--candy wrappers, piles of poop, things put in places that I didn't put them there, footprints in the sand (I'm sorry--dust), you name it.

I have never been able to find the guy supposedly living in our basement. That would be a lack of direct evidence. I have also been unable to find any indirect evidence of a guy living in our basement (candy wrappers, etc.).

It's not enough to say that "I don't believe that there's a guy living in my basement," that's like saying "I don't believe it's not butter." Of course it's not butter--I just don't believe it. This statment implies that there may be a guy living in our basement, but I just don't believe it. That would scare my kids.

It is far more acurate to say that "I believe that there isn't any guy living in my basement."

Because, you know, there isn't.

How many of you believe (I almost said "think"--sorry) that there's a guy living in my basement? Also, how many of you believe that I should act as if there's a guy living in my basement?

After all, just because I cannot find any evidence that he's living in my basement doesn't mean that he's not living in my basement!

How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?

What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?

And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.

DOG

[ March 17, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
fallow -- I'm with you. I don't even know why. My father loved watching football. I just never picked it up.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Gee, eslain, since your link does not say whether it's a science or not, what is your point? How about this or, better yet, this one? I don't necessarily agree with it, but creationism has been adequately worked down to a science. Even they think so. How convenient (yet again!) that atheists deny it vehemently.
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto,

Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?

Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.

Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")

Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.

The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.

But, I'm more than happy to be correted on this. Because, even so, my point still holds.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

How much faith do I need to have to feel comfortable in my belief that there isn't any guy living in my basement?

What if my kids thought that a horse, or an elephant, was living in my basement?

And, just to screw up my argument--what if my kids thought that a snake was living in my basement? Because, at one point, there was.

---

And yet again, you show conclusively the contempt atheism holds for Christianity by comparing their concept of a divine creator with a human in the basement (or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or choose your imaginary-being-of-a lesser-cosmic-scale). I'm sure all Christians thank you for your contempt and disregard.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I propose a small, but significant, difference between belief and faith. Faith is believing in something enough that you act according to those beliefs. I have faith in God. That means I believe in Him enough to confidently act as though He exists. I pray regularly. A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.

An agnostic chooses the middle of the road, usually leaning towards non-belief (reminds me of Dog's guy in the basement) because they generally believe it is more likely that God does not exist than that he does, but their actions can vary a great deal from individual to individual. Do some agnostics pray? I would assume so. Probably not often and only in times of great stress, but they do not rule out the idea of God's existence, so they might (at times) act as though He does exist. (Prayer being used as my example.)

[ March 17, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

But you believe God-based morals to be superior. Am I right? That is only natural, given your belief system. Seems to me that is the heart of the disagreement.

---

quote:

---

A theist believes they can know absolute truth through info from God.

---

quote:

---

An agnostic trusts what they can judge for themselves and does not believe that absolute understanding of absolute truth can be reached.

---

quote:

---

Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?

---

quote:

---

Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.

---

quote:

---

Judaism?

---

quote:

---

Mohammedism?

---

quote:

---

Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")

---

quote:

---

The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.

---

quote:

---

It was not an attempt to show contempt or disregard for the Christian (or any) faith.

---

quote:

---

Tres, everyone has faith. I wouldn't turn on my light switch if I didn't have faith that the light would turn on. Even agnostics have faith that the sun will rise in the east each morning.

---

quote:

---

Science is not separate from religion

---

quote:

---

It does make a lovely analogy to the theory that God exists, but when I started telling the story, I wasn't thinking of how closely I might make it fit the analogy.

---

quote:

---

nor does it [science] exist to disprove any religion

---

I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)

Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.

But don't ask DaVinci.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
"As you can see, these teams are rarin' to go."

*steps past frothing DOG*

"ma'am!"

approaches Beverly with microphone.

"What brings you out tonight?"
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*Fallow looks into the camera, confused*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I just follow what fascinates me most, fallow. Parts of this discussion are a lot more fascinating than others.
 

---

Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
 
Just because I live in Portland and have a wife, doesn't make me a she. I'm not even a she-male, just a plain old male. Sorry to burst your bubble.

quote:

---

Since creationism is a science, you must agree with me

---

Reminds me of a joke I heard in grade school:

Q: If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, why is a cat like a sidewalk?

A: Because neither one can play the piano.

Science is a term used to describe the process of accumulating data, then forming an idea based on the data. Then collecting more data, and modifying the idea to fit the data. Then trying to figure out a way to test the data, in case any of the data were wrong through some kind of error. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually you reach a point where new data doesn't change the idea too much and you can say with some degree of certainty that the basic idea is probably right. Despite decades of research into all types of biological science, no data has been observed which contradicts the basic idea that living things change over time. When an extraordinary claim is made (cold fusion comes to mind), it is subject to testing by large numbers of independent investigators.

Creationism starts from the assumption that the world was created in a finite amount of time by a sentient supernatural being. Everything a creationist does is an attempt to prove that. Facts which can be "reinterpreted" to support the preexisting assumption are retained, and those which do not support the preexisting assumption are rejected or ignored.

What advances in biology, medicine, technology, or any other science have come about as a result of practical applications of creation science? If disease is caused by evil spirits and not bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites and prions, as the scientists would have us believe, then why does medicine work? Shouldn't prayer and exorcism work better?

I'll close by saying that while I loved the Star Wars movies as a kid (Yes, I stood in line on opening day to see Episode 4, which was then called, simply, Star Wars), when I went to the theater to see the "enhanced edition" and Luke Skywalker shuts off his computer because a voice says "trust your feelings, Luke", I found myself wanting to yell "What a crock of S***! Turn your computer back on, you idiot!"
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Soooo, if Creationism is bad science, is it still a science?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Biologically, I am a reformed Jew.

---

quote:

---

Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.

---

You might want to learn about more about the very WIDE spectrum of beliefs in Judaism.

Start by googling Gerald Schroeder. While I personally have issues with both his science and his theology, he is proof that your statement simply indicates that you need to meet more Jews.

Hi, I'm Jewish and I believe that the Torah has quite a lot of good science in it -- and a fair amount of allegory. Figuring out which parts are which is what makes it fun!

[Edit: noun, adjective -- whatever]

[ March 18, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
"Fascination!"

*fallow makes bug-eyes into the camera"

"You heard it here folks. Intrigue. CUrioSITY. FAsciNATION!"

*approaches DOG*

"Mr. DOG?, or can I call you K-9?"

*DOG spews frothing saliva on fallow. wipes jowels on jersey and pysches-out the competition*

"Mr. DOG? It's been a long hard season of training sir. I understand you've even given up toilet-bowl lapping in favor of preparation for tonight's event. What do you visualize as the outcome of this game?"
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
DOG -- yeah, I guess you're right. I stand corrected.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, and to those of you who can't imagine why we would argue over such a silly topic, I think Dagonee put it rather well.

quote:

---

Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.

---

quote:

---

Tres, here's a thought from an agnostic I know. He says that he believes there is not enough evidence to think the existance of God is likely. So he lives his life as though it is unlikely. He believes the sun rising is far, far more likely. In the same way, agnostics create their own morals based on what they believe is most likely to be true.

---

quote:

---

Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.

---

quote:

---

Storm, there are aspects of religious exercise that go beyond speech. For example, wearing a headscarve is not viewed as a speech by those who do it - it is a modesty action. The right to avoid being drafted for religious reasons is not speech.

Speech protection is not enough to protect free exercise of religion.

---

quote:

---

I never said that I didn't think ther was a "divine existence" in Buddhism. I said that I didn't believe that Buddhists made any strong claims as to how the physical world was created, or how it works. To be honest, neither did you state how Buddhists believe the world was created, and how it developed. I'm not going to give you grief if you don't know--I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any claims.

---

quote:

---

Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith."

---

quote:

---

Do followers of Islam have a non-scientific belief system as to how the world was created, or how life developed and changed over time? (Something to compare with "Creationism", let's say). I tend to think, "not."

---

quote:

---

Biologically, I am a reformed Jew. Heck, some of my best friends are Jewish! Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Science is not separate from religion

---

Care to expound upon that? Just because religious groups tried hard (and sometimes succeeded) at various scientific explorations does not mean that the two are inseparable. The creation of the Arabic numbering system works just as well in the hands of an atheist as it does in the hansda of a theist. Newton praised God in the forward of his Principia Mathematica, but Newton did all the work (well, not really--he stole a lot of it from others. He was the Bill Gates of his time). And some say that Newton added that dedication just to keep from being imprisoned for heresay.

---

quote:

---

My parable (ooh! Gotta love that Freudian slip!) was intended to explore the depth of a-religious faith, nothing more.

[edit--"nothing more" is probably incorrect--but you still refuse, apparently, do discuss the issue. You're spending most of your energy calling me "contemptuous"]

You read my "contempt" into it, I'm afraid.

Here, let me help you, I think you have something in your eye...

---

quote:

---

I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)

---

quote:

---

Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.

---

quote:

---

That's why I can only participate up to a point. I'm a devout apatheist -- "don't know, don't care" -- and watching everyone split hairs gets repetitive after a while.

---

Welcome to debate on teh intarweb.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and Eric, I'm currently on a dial-up connection (I'm far away from home this week ), so both sifting through my few thousand links and pulling up definitions from online dictionaries (because pics of my own dictionary would be just as difficult ) becomes time consuming and inconvenient. I don't really expect anyone who feels atheism isn't a religion to change their mind, any more than I expect any atheist who doesn't already (there are a few who do) have respect for other religions as valid beliefs to change their mind. I'm just pointing out the obvious errors in "knowledge" and "logic" within atheist arguments.

And MoonRabbit, I apologize. I don't know why I thought you were a she, but I stand corrected. However, I already pointed out how creationism is a science, it just is a science that you do not believe or support. That's fine. However, denying that it's a science is rather hypocritical, considering your previous post regaling us of your experience with your former pastor telling everyone how everything else was wrong and inferior. Do you get what I'm saying? Maybe you don't view it that way, but looking at the way you put it from outside your own point of view, that's exactly what you've gone and done.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and I have two brothers who are atheist, and while they still won't admit that atheism is a religion, they do admit that it requires faith that God does not exist (at least one of them is even shaky on that). David Bowles also agrees with me about the faith part, though he's been much too busy to post.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
fugu, but my question is, if religious expression and belief is, for all practical purposes that I can see, really indistinguishable from non-religious expression and belief, why confuse the issue? You make the point that the state can decide and this is cool. O.K. Does this not still beg the question?

The *only* defining feature that I can see of 'religious' thought is that you have enough people get together that say 'this symbol or thought is important to me, and if you don't get out of the way and let me wear it/eat it/potray it, me and all my friends are going to go jihad on your ass.' From the point of view of individuals, or people in the minority, I think this definition a little troubling.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We institute the different treatment because it is constitutionally required.

Make no mistake, religious allowances are just that, allowances. The idea is that the government has the power to control many things, but only where they do not impinge upon religious beliefs. The reasons for this are many, and include such things as not being able to crack down on people of certain religions by making laws which conflict with their religions.

So instead of having to judge the intent behind the law and only allowing laws which aren't designed to persecute religious people, the government is merely not allowed to interfere with any religious expression which may reasonably be accomodated in a civil society.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Creationism isn't a science for any commonly accepted definition of science. It is not falsifiable on any account, it does not make verifiable predictions, it is not based on evidence, and it has no experimental basis.

To quote the lay definition, science is

quote:

---

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

---

quote:

---

I cannot create a scientific experiment to test whether God could create the universe, and no one can. its definitionally impossible.

---

quote:

---

It is within the realm of science to investigate the possible correlation of the Bible and known history and prehistory.

This, however, is not the whole of creationism. Creationism inextricably entails the idea that the world was created by God.

---

The part of it that is science is quite well within the confines of modern science. However, it's a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences. One can argue that vested interests are influencing the science (in fact, I do), but you'd have to first accept that they are conducting science to begin with.

If you want to say creationism as a whole is not a science, that's fine. Creationism as a whole is both science and religion. However, creation science is a science.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'd say that there are certain areas of creation science which fit the definition of science (though they are usually prime examples of bad science, being fraught with bad logic, false assumptions, and generally atrocious methodology).

However, creation science is usually just a veneer of a title given to creationism in an attempt to appear scientific, and as such most creation science is not science.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
You're entitled to believe that, but it doesn't make it any less of a science than many others. It just makes it a science with vested interests. There are still plenty of sciences that have schools (of thought) with vested interests. In fact, most people use them in debate when their (sometimes questionable) results match their preconcieved hypothesis.

Are we going to get into a hierarchy of sciences now? What would be used as a barometer for it? (I can see the vested interests lining up for dibs now)
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Incidently, science is much more of a religion than atheism is.

After all, science has it's own dogma that scientists must abide by and accept or else they get called "unscientific" by the scientific community. It has divisions and sects along the lines of major disagreements within that dogma, although it has no official organization. It tackles most major religions questions, with the notable exception of morality, which it tends to stay away from. It offers explanations of how the universe came to exist, what it's nature is, and how it functions - some of which are even more bizarre and seemingly supernatural than the God explanation.

Atheism, in contrast, is really just a single position on a single issue.

[ March 18, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
:dedicated atheist Bowles leaps into the fray:

Okay, really quick- atheism requires faith, as John has predicted I would say. It takes faith to say, definitively, that no deity exists. Atheists who pretend otherwise open themselves up to attacks they cannot sensibly defend against.

Here is the essential difference: the leap of faith for a theist is significantly larger than the one an atheist makes. As there is no hard, conclusive, objective evidence of a god's existence or NON-existence, it is simply easier (and, I would argue, more logical) to conclude that one DOES NOT exist. But this conclusion, based on it is on ABSENCE, is most definitely a leap of faith. I know my atheist friends are frantically shaking their heads at me, murmuring about polka-dotted dragons and such, but they know as well as I that even EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED theories are, at the end of the day, liable to be falsified... that is the heart of empiricism.

So, I declare as an atheist, I theorize the non-existence of god. I BELIEVE he doesn't exist. And the means of falsifying this belief are out there for the theists to utilize. If they do, if religious people can use logic and science and other objective methods to demonstrate the existence of god, my belief will change.

As for religion, I hold a deep respect for it. At its best, it creates a memetic framework for human existence, embuing our lives with meaning in a way that simple awe at discovering the universe has been unable to match. I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.

More later.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?

As for whether or not its bad science, the reasons for it typically being bad science I gave are objective (the atrocious methodology not in all cases, but its a superset of the other two, anyways).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.

---

quote:

---

Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?

---

Actually, neither creationism or evolutionary theories are science, because neither are falsifiable. Both are hypothetical extrapolations of science, which cannot be proven or disproven with experimental data. Science can only talk about present data, because that is all it can experiment on - and cannot extrapolate about the past or the origins of things.

So, yes, technically creationism is not science. But then you'd have to throw out a bunch of other things people like to call science. If you are going to call extrapolations of scientific data science too, like evolution, then you must also include creationism, and every other potential explanation of scientific data.
 

---

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.

Jesus, you say the most bizarre things sometimes.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Yeah, Dag, David isn't the huge Herbert fan. I am. (hence the name "Leto" which I used to use... after Leto II, the ultimate God Emperor)

Oh, yeah, and David:

quote:

---

Well, yes, I've read all of Herbert's works. But that's not quite what I mean. I'm not talking about using religion to manipulate people, but creating a religion that will evolve with us and that will have as its sacraments and tenets the healthy survival of humanity, the broadening of its understanding of humans and the universe they live in, and the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe.

---

That's what most of the groups who knowingly manipulated in Herbert's works believed, too.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Kurt Vonnegut's works, particularly Cat's Cradle, but truly most all of his work, has a similar idea of human-created religions (and is probably much funnier to read than the Dune series; though I hear the latest stories are unintentionally humorous ).

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Cat's Cradle was a good book. But I thought his handling of religion was superficial at best. It dealt with the sociological benefits of religion, especially for people with little material comforts available, but glossed over the moral implications of a religion. I know that was partly his point, but I still found it an incomplete treatment.

I'm sure, judging from your handle, that you disagree.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well, I think he only addressed the moral implications implicitly, which is okay, because to be explicit about such things makes for bad satire

I think he believes that someone will be the good guy, someone the bad guy, always in any society. If there aren't, society will either collapse, or "invent" one.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Leto,

quote:

---

However, it's [creationism is] a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences

---

quote:

---

Science has been tied to many faiths throughout its whole existence.

---

quote:

---

Science is not separate from religion

---

quote:

---

Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.

---

quote:

---

That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.

---

quote:

---

So, is science tied to religion, or isn't it?

---

quote:

---

I refer to the Christian approach to claiming "Scientific bragging rights" because they are currently the only group in the United States that is making any claims whatsoever in that category. The Jews aren't. The Muslims aren't. The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't.

---

quote:

---

BTW, Leto, I do apologize for the "Mohammedism" reference. I apologized in my earlier post, but I don't think you "got it." The "Moslem" reference was intended to echo a common, classless, ignorant (but, hopefully, not offensive) reference to the Muslim faith.

---

quote:

---

I also apologize for not knowing more about the Hebew faith. But I stand by my statement that there is no Jewish push to teach Jewish "science" in secular schools (and I'd love to hear of pushes for Old-Testament Creationism in shuls).

---

quote:

---

The reason I pick on the Christian faith is that the Christian faith, specifically among the other faiths, has had the financial ability to support research into the sciences, but has usually chosen not to pursue them.

---

quote:

---

What research projects is the Vatican currently pursuing (besides how to safely restore old paintings)?

---

quote:

---

I will incorporate that into my dogma, however. For next time.

---

quote:

---

That the Islamic faith has supported scientific studies, there are no doubts. Heck, I'm sure that there are lots of Muslims pursuing scientific studies even now--but where is there support coming from? From religious/cultural centers? Not from madrassas, certainly. From governments? I'm sure the Saudi Arabian government is supporting a lot of petroleum research. Do you want to make a case for it being a religious thing? I think not.

---

quote:

---

If a [place religion here] University is supporting of the sciences, is that sufficient representation of the religion itself? Or is that just because the University has chosen to pursue both? I honestly do not have an answer.

---

quote:

---

Since I can both support and refute my statements, I would ask the same of you, Leto; for the sake of open communication.

---

quote:

---

Allow me to be the one to inform you that it is indeed offensive

---

quote:

---

The original point of conflict was you saying other religions didn't have schools of scientific thought in any official capacity

---

quote:

---

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!

---

quote:

---

Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?

Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.

Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")

Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.

The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!

---

You've been given proof of the existence of the different schools of thought

---

quote:

---

And, you know what--I really don't have any difficulty ... if they even go and pursue "illegitimate" research, such as finding a real basis for "Creation" Science" or "Intelligent Design" or paranormal phenomena.

I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!

---

quote:

---

All we need is for God to create another animal, from scratch, like he did when he created the world.

---

quote:

---

4) ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny

---

quote:

---

It is entirely possible that both God can create things from scratch and that life evolved from single-celled organisms

---

quote:

---

it's a more self-consistent belief system

---

quote:

---

But, just to shut you up, let me list the bedrock layers of evolutionary theory, each of which creationism or whatever else has to explain away, falsifying scientists' current theory as to how these elements tie in together

---

quote:

---

And please, let's not go into the "Everything not proven impossible is therefore possible" thread again. That world's a world of pure chaos, and trust me--you don't want to go there.

---

quote:

---

Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.

And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things. If, of course, it were possible that he really existed.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and my link is nothing more than an explanation of what it means to be an atheist, from the atheistic perspective.

---

quote:

---

Atheists reject this definition for the same reason that Black people reject the definition that they are only 3/5 human. It isn't true. It does, however, smell strongly of "vested interest."

---

quote:

---

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.

---

quote:

---

Then it's like I said in my first post: if you accept that the most powerful being in the universe likes to or wants to play with supposedly scientific evidence to confound us, then you're more than welcome to him. I think that would be a pretty silly God.

And, since there is no evidence to indicate that God is not cruel, capricious, or very silly, it is certainly possible that he is all those things.

---

Well, yes, that is possible. Or it is possible that he is perfectly good, and has a perfectly good reason for arranging the "evidence" the way it is - a reason that may not be obvious to us.

I just know that I'm certainly not going to go around judging whether or not God is silly.

I do suspect, though, that a world in which God's existence was obvious to all would not be all that great of a place - or, at least, not a place where people would be very free to act without worrying about God looking over their shoulder.
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
Glenn,

It's "DOG," not "Dog." As far as I know, there is no "Dog."

Tres/Xaos:

Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have. It's not "nasty" judgemental (you know, like me calling God "silly," or Leto/John calling me "an ignorant slut"), but it is still judgemental.

And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.

John/Leto,

I don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.

Yes, I started off a bit trollish. And I was insulting (I do seem to recall telling you to bite me, but it was only that once, and you had posted a nasty response back to me...so there). But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.) You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.

Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.

You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.

Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.

And then we can all get back to work/school/whatever.

--DOG

[ March 18, 2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
I'm a little lost.
 

---

Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
 
I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.

I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.

This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.

One of the key things people are missing (or ignoring) is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. I think Carl Sagan came up with the analogy: If I said that the rings of Saturn were inhabited by tiny purple men, would the burden of proof be on me to prove that they exist, or on a skeptic to prove that they don't? If you say that there is a god, one which cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, or otherwise perceived by any instrument known to man, is the burden of proof upon you to offer evidence of his existence, or is the burden of proof on me to prove that the undetectable being does not exist? It's a ridiculous argument.

One of the books that really influenced me was Food of the Gods - The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution by the late Terence McKenna. He has an interesting theory about the roots of religion and how it was intertwined with human evolution. Some of his thinking is a bit new-agey for me, but I found the concepts he proposed to be very interesting.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
moonrabbit,

can you expand a bit?

curious.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 

quote:

---

There has been no valid arguments made in this thread about atheism not being a religion,

---

quote:

---

Can one prove absence? Can one prove randomness?

---

quote:

---

taking up the "proving" core of lotsa logically bitchin' arguments. one can't logically prove absence, nor can one logically prove randomness.

---

quote:

---

I'm bothered by the insistence of religious folks that atheism requires "faith", and then defining faith as "any belief in anything". I think the analogy was made that you have faith that the light will come on when you flip the light switch, so that means you have faith.

I'd call it more of an expectation based on experience. If you have flipped the switch hundreds of times, and each time you do, the light comes on, then the reasonable expectation is that the light will come on when you flip the switch.

This is different than religious faith. If you had a light switch which is not connected to anything, and you believed that flipping it would turn on the lights, then that's more like religious faith. Religious faith involves believing the impossible, and believing that it is made possible through divine intervention.

---

quote:

---

Do you want God to be "perfectly good," then? It seems that you're making the judgement that "good" is preferable over "silly." Your imposing your own personal preference on what you're interpreting God to be. Because there's no acceptable proof for or against either position, how are we to know? All we can do is impose our own opinions on what we feel is an appropriate personality for God to have.

---

quote:

---

And why, exactly, would a world where we actually knew God to exist, and knew his rules for ascenscion into heaven (instead of having to wade through the requirements specified by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different religions and interpretations) be a bad place? Are you stating that ignorance is a prerequisite for free will? I put it to you that (perhaps) you were brought up to believe this, and would courteously ask that you consider this alternate apporach for a moment before you reject it out of hand.

---

quote:

---

A debate without a common sense of what are the axioms, what are the boundaries and limitations of logic (see "desperate name calling"), and what is the specified topic, can devolve into sputtering. Eloquent sputtering, but sputtering.

---

Agreed...so what are the axioms and boundaries? I assume they are on what is religion and what constitutes a relgion? And in whose eyes? There are plenty of "faiths" that are ritual-filled, creed-, and spirtually-centered in the US, but not all of them qualify as "religions" in they eyes of the law. While the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, Muslims and so on have the benefits of being considered a religion, you won't find many pagan, polytheistic, or otherwise small faiths getting that recognition. Not sure what this brings to the discussion, but I guess it would help to know what are the boundaries of the "religion" definition? If too broad, just about anything is a religion if more than one person can be described by it ("it" being some descriptor like "enjoys potato salad" or "does not believe in the divine" or...).



fil
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
fil,

It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster.

If I had to start from the top, I'd say there is some question regarding "Is atheism a religion?" That's a pretty simple question with few terms.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Knight Ender (Member # 6205) on :
 

quote:

---

from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.

---

Sevumar, well said. That is definitely how I feel about it, and atheism is not a religion for me. The fact that most atheists are open to new arguments or information is a defining difference from most religions.

Hey, John L, I was wondering where you were. I was just asking Paul if you got banned or something. You know Pete did huh? But I was not involved this time at all. It was him and your friends Ev and Enum. And what's this you and Leto being the same person? That's not true is it? If it is, either you are a great writer or scyzophrentic (sp?).

KE
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
John L on Hatrack != John L on Ornery.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 

 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
MoonRabbit, neither I nor the unmaker are what you would call "religious," since I'm agnostic and David is an atheist. Care to make up some motives as to why the two of us are showing how atheism requires faith to believe its basic definition? Or are you just going to continue to use the "you're saying that because you're religious" excuse? I mean, I think atheism is a religion, but as far as I knew, you were saying it isn't, and to call David (unmaker) religious is kind of self-contradictory. Just thought you'd like to know that.

quote:

---

2. If you look at my original post that you're railing against, I first defined atheism, and then pointed out several religions that incorporate atheism, and/or atheists that consider themselves religious. I'm not claiming that atheism cannot be an element of religion.

---

quote:

---

3. You still haven't answered my question about theism, which I DO consider disingenuous. What are you trying to avoid?

---

quote:

---

4. When did I claim that atheists describing our own viewpoint is "better than the same thing done by others about their various faiths?" Chistians are entitled to define their own religion. I never claimed that I was entitled to define Christianity, because I'm not a Christian (not a theistic one, anyway). What I'm saying is that You and Noah Webster have no business telling us atheists what we believe.

---

quote:

---

don't get you. Maybe I read you differently when you posted as Leto, but I don't seem to recall this level of nastiness from you.

---

quote:

---

But I raised issues and you ignored them, or claimed to be insulted by them (the man in the basement story...apparently it struck a nerve. Oops.)

---

quote:

---

You also overreacted to the whole "Mohammedism" thing, and were somehow blinded by (righteous?) anger at a supposed slight to a group you have acknowledged you don't even represent--even after I repeatedly apologized.

---

quote:

---

Every time someone posts text or a link to support their beliefs regarding atheism, you immediately claim "Dogmatism," (woof!) as if it's become a Pavlovian response within you. It's dogmatism on your part, is what it is.

---

quote:

---

Let's cut to the chase: SOMEONE please define what a religion is (does it or does it not require a deity, an institution, a collection of recognized beliefs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, cute acronyms, etc.), and then all us different atheists will tell you whether we think we are part of a "religion" or not. If you all have different definitions of what religion is, we'll give each of you different answers, as appropriate to your individual definitions.

---

quote:

---

You've also lost your sense of humor. I'm sorry about that, I really am.

---

quote:

---

I already described what makes atheism a religion: faith (with a firm basis, in this case scientific proof), the evolution and integration of modern thought (even though many incorrectly accuse religion of not doing this), a "leap of faith" or similar "experience," and the typical "this is superior/advanced/enlightened thought" paradigm. The only argument for atheism not being a religion is the lack of an institution, and there are institutions—web sites, support groups, churches like Humanist churches—that could arguably qualify.

---

quote:

---

It's probably a good idea to know what one is arguing for or against before one lays one's ego on the line. This is a recipe for confusion and disaster

---

Agreed, a good idea. I can see how this thread quickly derails as though it seems like an easy question ("is athiesm religion?") it really has a lot of definitions. The definition of religion really seems to morph person to person. If the institution definition is put forward, then no, it isn't a religion. There are no "Church of the Eternal Athiest" with mugs, bake sales and car washes. If the Federal definition is put forward, then no, it isn't...I can't claim a tax exempt status for gathering with non-god believing friends to discuss our non-belief in the divine. But when we do as some and start to conclude that the very discussion of athiesm alone makes it a religion, well then I guess it is, but then so is just about any discussion. Dog Grooming websites discuss in detail rituals, beliefs about it (natural cut or styled for shows, perfumed or not, etc.) and so on which by the same definition, makes it a religion. Facetious, I know.

Is it the online discussion about the unprovable make it religion? Then the dog grooming and sexual fetish sites would then not be religous, but as noted, some scientific understandings and ideas aren't all provable...does that make those discussions religious? (Like discussion of how teleportation or time travel might work, for example)

Oy!

Fallow, you bring up an interesting point...putting egos on the line. Why are people doing that? I guess that could be asked about a lot of threads. But still, it is unnerving that so many have gotten so heated up about it. As any parent can tell you, if you want to get off a significantly hot line of discussion, stop that part of the discussion. People saying "I am waiting for your apology" and "yes, but..." statements will only enflame. Move on. Get back to the meat of the discussion as there is plenty of points of view to discuss without a "he said/she said" type argument.

Hey, that should be a thread..."Argument Clinic." Hmmm...

fil
 

---

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 

quote:

---

By the way, David, what do you think of my claim that atheism is a "religion without an institution (yet)?"

---

quote:

---

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

---

quote:

---

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. YES

---

quote:

---

Can you argue the non-existence of anything? Is that possible to do?

---

quote:

---

A true atheist (and I think there are far fewer atheists than agnostics) believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God. A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.

---

quote:

---

"Us atheists" is yet another example of showing religious characteristics, by implying a solidarity.

---

quote:

---

it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.

---

quote:

---

If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The word agnostic still refers to knowledge (not belief). An agnostic is someone who recognizes that without proof, there can be no knowledge of god's existence, or his non-existence.

Since most people do not claim to have actual proof of its/his existence/nonexistence, most theists are also agnostics and most atheists are also agnostics.

---

Only when regarding the Christian God. You'll notice I mentioned the divine. If you believe there is no divine, then you are atheist, hence:

quote:

---

As for atheistic religions, there are quite a few, starting with Buddhism,

---

You must not understand Buddhism enough to understand that while there is no concept of god like Christians believe, there is indeed a divine existance. You should learn to stop defining everything from strictly Western Christian points of view.

---

quote:

---

Bah, like anyone is going to allow Semanticman ® to dictate definitions to them, Tres

---

Actually, it seems like if such a person existed, he'd be the guy to turn to in semantic disputes.

quote:

---

BTW, by your "definition" of falsification, science has no basis for saying anything (like "stars are big balls of gas undergoing extreme nuclear reactions under massive pressure"), because it could all just be GOD and we can't do it in a lab (and even stuff proven in a lab could be work of the DEVIL!!!!).

---

quote:

---

BTW, Treso--you're too vague. That's just a belief system. I'd have to answer YES.

---

quote:

---

Enough other people here and elsewhere have made a very good point that not believing in an ill-defined, self-contradicting, unproven, all-powerful entity does not require nearly as much faith as beleiving in one.)

---

quote:

---

So trade unions are religions, because they imply solidarity?

If I exercise religiously, does that make exercise a religion?

If I have "faith" that my daughter will get home before 10:30, does that become a religious belief?

In an attempt to prove that atheism is a religion, you've watered down the definition of religion to the point where it becomes meaningless.

---

quote:

---

There are different "theisms" only in that there are different gods to believe in. Satanists believe in the Christian God, does that make them Christians?

---

quote:

---

Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim that they worship the same God, but in different ways. Does this mean that a Muslim is a Jew, and a Jew is a Christian?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

it's only convenient for those who want to deny that atheism isn't a religion.

---

A little freudian slip there. Watch your double negatives.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you'd read my reply to your first post, you would find that I corrected your incorrect definition of atheism, and already addressed the other points of your post.

---

Bull. First, my definition of atheism is the version that is accepted by virtually every atheist organization I know of. Second, your definition claims that all atheists assert the nonexistence of God, which simply isn't true.

---

quote:

---

You a funny man.

---

quote:

---

First: You're accusing an atheist of defining everything from a Western Christian point of view.

---

quote:

---

Second: By defining atheism by Christian terms, you are "defining everything from a Western Christian point of view" instead of accepting the definition used by atheists.

---

quote:

---

Third: you say Buddhism is atheistic ONLY compared to the Christian God.

---

quote:

---

How many anthropomorphic Gods have you left out? About 10,000? Typical Christian viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

You attempt to create a false dichotomy between divine and godlike, while failing to address the issue of my post, namely, the difference between belief and knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Whether you like it or not, we need those terms to be distinct, or there is no way to avoid arguing in circles.

---

quote:

---

But then, my guess is that this is precisely why you choose to use unfair definitions, because you have no interest in achieving understanding.

---

quote:

---

John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?

---

quote:

---

Religion - any identity-defining set of one's most fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, how to understand it, and what one's role should be within it

---

Tres, the problem with your definition is that it encompasses every human being on the planet with sentience. Reduce a definition enough, it no longer serves its purpose. Other people agree. In order to function as something that is useful to us, it must reasonably represent the commonly accepted set of religions, and not an excessive number of things commonly not accepted as religion.

John L's apparent definition of religion would have to include any group of people organized under a set of core beliefs, especially if these core beliefs affect their surroundings/interactions with their surroundings. Environmentalists, for example, would be religious under my understanding of his definition. So would Pro-choice activists. And so would Vegans. And Vegetarians. And Democrats. But the problem is that these groups inter-relate. One can be a member of many of these organized belief systems. I'd prefer a definition of religion that would minimize cross-membership. Some religious allow for companion belief to an extent (see Unitarians, maybe Vedanta), but there is a commonly agreed limit. If someone were to tell you that they're a staunch Muslim and Christian and Vajrayana Buddhist, as well as Shinto, you might not take them seriously. This person's definition of 'staunch' would lose its usefulness.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Suneun,

Considering that "religions" are severely disadvantaged in the allocation of public resources, it is important to have an expansive definition of religion, at least with respect to public funding of expressive activities. For example, environmental groups advocating severe population controls including legalized suicide and forced child-per-couple limits (presumably enforced via abortion) can receive funding from student activity fees at many public colleges, while a group opposing such policies from a religious perspective cannot.

Similarly, an artist can receive public funding for displays using religious symbols for the purpose of ridicule, but an artistic representation of the crucifixion is denied funding because it is religious.

I'm opposed to the government granting resources for purely expressive behavior when the government must examine the content of the expression. And as long as one category of speech is continually disfavored in allocation of public resources, I'm opposed to government funding of any expressive behavior.

But it seems unlikely that such public funding will be eliminated, so I think it's necessary to define religion expansively in order to protect taxpayers from funding purely expressive behavior that is reprehensible to their conscience.

How's that for a derailment?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I respectfully disagree.

=)

Nope, I don't have a good argument against, yet. But I think the expansiveness of the definition brings a lot of problems. Like if Environmentalism counts as religion, then what do we do with political parties? They'd count as religion if environmentalism did. Then where would we be?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, forgetting an actual definition of religion for a minute, what are your thoughts on government funding of private expression?

If the principle of the establishment clause is to keep government from forcing people to support speech that is against their conscience, should the same principle apply to "non-religious" forms of expression?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dag, belief in democracy would fall under that definition of religion. And somehow I think government funds, even if obtained from those who dislike democracy, going to democracy just isn't unjust.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't feel strongly about things like humanities grants and arts funding. In general, I approve of them. In general, I think that the government and govt spending is simply inefficient, not necessarily that the money is being allocated inappropriately. I hate seeing money wasted on excessive bureaucracy.

It's like new operating systems. When Microsoft and Apple used to update an OS, they'd just build on top of the existing system. The performance suffered, because they weren't willing to reconstruct and optimize the system. Now, both companies have created more streamlined operating systems that do more with their resources.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
That's pretty clearly not the purpose of the establishment clause, I think. The purpose is to prevent the creation of a state religion, not prevent the funding of forms of expression which are not universally approved of. I mean, political protest is a form of expression that's not universally approved of, yet our government supports that wholeheartedly (well, parts of it do).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
fugu, then why is religious expression specifically excluded if it is granted on the same basis to all religious groups (which would mean no one religion is being "established").

When funds are forcibly collected from all and then used to fund some forms of expression but not others, certain groups are disadvantaged.

Further, enforcing this kind of ban necessarily requires the government to examine the content of the speech being funded, and denying funding to "disapproved" kinds of speech. Sounds like censorship to me.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Tres, the problem with your definition is that it encompasses every human being on the planet with sentience. Reduce a definition enough, it no longer serves its purpose. Other people agree. In order to function as something that is useful to us, it must reasonably represent the commonly accepted set of religions, and not an excessive number of things commonly not accepted as religion.

---

quote:

---

I'm opposed to the government granting resources for purely expressive behavior when the government must examine the content of the expression. And as long as one category of speech is continually disfavored in allocation of public resources, I'm opposed to government funding of any expressive behavior.

But it seems unlikely that such public funding will be eliminated, so I think it's necessary to define religion expansively in order to protect taxpayers from funding purely expressive behavior that is reprehensible to their conscience.

---

Plenty of public funding goes towards restricting public expression to the sensibilities of what would commonly be called religious people. And I'll bet you the amount of fines that are collected from people stepping over that line outweigh the amount of money doled out to fund the (few?) peices of art that they would find objectionable.

So, let's just get the government out of the regulating expression business all together, shall we?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Because the idea isn't to forbid only the establishment of religion, its to prevent the establishement of religion, or even the preference of organized religion over non-organized religion and non-religion. Remember that many of the founding fathers were deists, a non-organized religions of sorts. From their perspective, I think, any funding of religion would lead to an automatic discrimantion against their religious beliefs. It is because beliefs on religion are so valued that they are not funded, not because they are not valued.

[ March 20, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't mean that it would be a vote at all. It's like this:

{1, 2, 3, 4} commonly accepted as being in group A
{5, 6, 7} unknown set
{8, 9, 10} commonly accepted as being not-A

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, all commonly accepted as religion.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Science are unknown in this debate
Democracy, Vegetarianism, Environmentalism are commonly accepted as not-religion. Substitute in 'Liking Basketball a lot,' 'Collecting weapons,' and 'Really Liking Meat,' if you'd like.

To be a helpful definition, it would encompass all of the group A responses, and none of the not-A responses. Then we can see if the unknowns fit or don't fit.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
where's DOG?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Well, my defintion includes all of A, and excludes all of not-A, except in cases where the things in not-A would actually be referred to as religions.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
But I think your definition does include Environmentalism and Democracy and Vegetarianism. Let me trounce up some backing information and compile an example. But I don't agree that you've won this one with such a definition.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Okay, this is off the top of my head without actually being them in particular. They're only examples of how one person might respond.

I broke it down into:
1) nature of universe
2) how to understand universe
3) role in universe

I don't think I, personally, can answer "how to understand universe." I, uhh... watch it? Okay. I watch it. That's how I understand it.

Vegetarian:
1) Filled with living creatures deserving of life
2) by positively interacting with living creatures
3) by not eating/harming living creatures.

Democracy:
1) That the universe exists with equal rights to all humanoids, and humanoids have the ability and right to manipulate the universe
2) Understand the universe by seeing how actions affect the universe
3) Role should be making decisions based on majority vote while also taking the minority under consideration (simplified democracy)

Environmentalist:
1) Universe is worthy of maintaining because of its own inherent worth
2) Understand through appreciation
3) interact with as little impact on the environment as possible.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
btw, someone else feel free to bolster those admittedly mediocre descriptions.

Besides those descriptions, if every sentient being has an opinion about what the universe is, whether it be based on exterior content or interior thought, and you define that as religious, then how does that help in Dagonee's quest to minimize governmental involvement?
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

No, you can't deal with definitions like that. Whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily right. Sometimes the majority is mistaken. For instance, if it is commonly accepted that "Muslim" means "terrorist extremist", that doesn't make it true. Or, if it is commonly accepted that "Cult" should be defined in such a way as to include Mormonism, that doesn't mean Mormonism is a Cult. It might just mean the majority is mistaken.

---

quote:

---

John L's apparent definition of religion would have to include any group of people organized under a set of core beliefs, especially if these core beliefs affect their surroundings/interactions with their surroundings. Environmentalists, for example, would be religious under my understanding of his definition. So would Pro-choice activists. And so would Vegans. And Vegetarians. And Democrats. But the problem is that these groups inter-relate.

---

quote:

---

And this is exactly my point regarding John L.'s definition of atheism. His definition, that an atheist denies the existence of God, is just as untrue as the definition of Muslim as terrorist. Since it's untrue, the definition is invalid.

---

Riiiiiight, because I don't agree with allowing you to redefine the socially, academically, and common definition of the word, I'm a racist. That is the most creative Godwin-esque invocation I have ever seen. Way to further invalidate your argument.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*walks into bleachers with pretzel in mouth*

mmmmMMHHAHAHHRRUMPH!!!!

*sprays pretzel bits*


 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that one can be an atheist and a Unitarian.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
oh, and an atheist and a Jew, though then we get to argue about whether or not all jews have the religion of judaism.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Saying you can be an atheist and a Jew is like saying you can be Catholic and Polish - in this example "Jew" would clearly be used in the ethnic, not religious sense.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, and Tres:

quote:

---

No, you can't deal with definitions like that. Whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily right. Sometimes the majority is mistaken. For instance, if it is commonly accepted that "Muslim" means "terrorist extremist", that doesn't make it true. Or, if it is commonly accepted that "Cult" should be defined in such a way as to include Mormonism, that doesn't mean Mormonism is a Cult. It might just mean the majority is mistaken.

---

quote:

---

A true atheist believes enough that there is no God to confidently act as though there is no God.

---

quote:

---

A true atheist would never pray, even when death threatens.

---

quote:

---

basically pulled a "whoops, sorry, I only said that because <insert another ignorant and insulting remark>" when called on it, which is hardly an actual apology. You may as well have said, "I didn't mean to call him a nigger, I meant to say porch monkey."

---

quote:

---

Mike:

quote:

---

John: I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say in response to fil's point about atheism as part of a religion. It seems to me we're talking about different categories entirely. What do you say?

---

I say I'm talking about apples and fil is talking about oranges, then. Atheism is used as part of some religions, yes, but has been slowly becoming its own religion as well. Consideirng the history of many other religions, this kind of "offshooting" shouldn't be so unbelievable. Just because they believe some of the same things doesn't make them the same, only similar. That's why LDS and JW are similar, but not the same. And discussion of both in terms of Catholicism is not addressing each of them in proper context, only in comparison to Catholicism.

---

I agree about the apples and oranges.

I think the two different things we're talking about are (1) atheism and (2) The Religion of Atheism, leaving aside the question of whether (2) exists or not. We can even define (1) in the stronger sense of someone who believes (or has faith, if you prefer) that God (or the divine) doesn't exist.

OK.

So, the question is, is a Unitarian atheist (or a Jewish atheist, as I am*), who is an atheist in the sense of (1) above, also necessarily a member of the Religion of Atheism (sense (2))?

John, you may be right about the formation of an atheist religion in this country, but I think you are wrong to assume that all (or even most) atheists belong to it.

-----

* And not quite in the sense that Dagonee suggested, as I do practice some Jewish traditions and I consider myself more than just an ethnic Jew. Yet also an atheist.
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
BTW, when my mother was dying of leukemia (a most horrible way to go, I might add; I strongly reccommend against dying from leukemia), she did not "all-of-a-sudden" become religious on her deathbed. She stayed an atheist to the end.

And of course, as atheists, we feel that it really is the end.

My father, brother and I were very uncomfortable at the Jewish funeral. Somewhat less talk about "God's love," and ascending into heaven than I've heard at Christian funerals, but enough to make us think, "Oh, shut up! and let's continue!" None of us felt the least bit comforted by any of this.

As I threw the rocks down onto my mother's simple coffin, I thought, "there she is; whatever she was--whatever she had--is now lost. Her mind, her brain, is already starting to collapse and decompose. All her knowledge, all her love and laughter, lost."

That's atheism. It ain't no religion, friends.

--DOG

[ March 21, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I never said all atheists belong to it, fallow. In fact, most atheists have such a knee-jerk reaction to the word "religion" that they practically retch at the slightest implication of belonging to one.

As for the rest of you: screw it, you can have this stupid argument. All you are doing is redefining and trying to recreate the world to work according to your rules instead of the rules they work by. Someday, you might finally understand, but people have been known to live their whole life without even trying in other religions, so I don't really expect it.

Oh, and Glen: that quote misstates something about those Eastern religions: they aren't talking about having different religious beliefs coexisting. Confucianism is more of a social outlook than it is a religion, much like Humanism (one can be humanist and Christian as well, just subtract the atheism). It can incorporate the religious aspects of something larger, like Buddhism or the Tao (which, by the way, is similar to Confucianism). For example, "It is perfectly acceptable to be a Buddhist, Taoist, and a Confucian." To mix the three would make the person not completely Buddhist, not solely a Taoist, and more a social Confucian than religious. Trying to get out on some kind of technicality is really poor rhetoric, since the whole way religion is handled is different between East and West, and the only things that are interchangable in Eastern religion are the ways of living, not the religious beliefs. There are splits in Buddhism over this very thing, in case you didn't know that (much like the differences between the Catholic church and the LDS church and the JW church). Still mutually exclusive, they're just easier to interchange and modify into slightly different faiths than the West is.

And DOG, really nice to pull a "just kidding!" after doing it.

quote:

---

I'm confused. Webster lists "moslem" as a variant of "muslim". Are you really offended by non-standard spellings, John?

---

quote:

---

Finally, Kathy Park wants to know why “Moslem” is considered an offensive spelling. The problem with spelling the Arabic word meaning “one who surrenders to God” as “Moslem” and not “Muslim” is that people end up pronouncing it mawslem, which is a different word that means “oppressor.”

---

quote:

---

A further welcome step has been the move by the Daily Express to use the spelling 'Muslim' rather than 'Moslem', after representations from the MCB in July 2002. The latter perverse spelling is prevalent in a number of papers and the MCB intends to pursue the matter.

---

quote:

---

A “Muslim” is a member of the Islamic faith. In 1990, the Associated Press altered its stylebook to drop the highly offensive and misleading spelling Moslem, and replaced it with the acceptable and phonetically correct spelling “Muslim.” The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, are using this spelling.

The use of the term “Mohammadan”—a usage initiated by some early orientalists—is highly misleading because it implies the worship of Muhammad, a concept totally alien to the Muslim belief.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Mohammedism?

---

How very insulting. It's called Islam. Islam.

---

quote:

---

Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith."

---

Which apparently deeply offended (and continues to offend) John; who is--as we now know, neither Islamic nor very religious.

But I'm so very tired of his nonsense. He seems to constantly accuse others of the very same things he is guilty of himself. He insults me, and accuses me of calling him names (to be honest, I have--I told him to bite me, and called him a schmuck, but he seems to find my supposed slights towards him in totally unexpected places). I also told him that I personally found some of his responses contemptible. Which I still do.

He also demanded my apology on a number of occasions, but has tended not to be satisfied by my response unless I meet certain unspecified criteria. And, on the other hand, he has never apologized for nor barely acknowledged his own errors.

This is no longer a viable discussion for me. I have answered the initial question put forth, and have (I feel) contributed some valuable insight. It has degraded into a frustrating series if invectives, and unless something changes (and I don't know what--but, like pornography, I'll know it when I see it), I'm bugging out.



--DOG

[ March 21, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

It's "DOG," not "Dog." As far as I know, there is no "Dog."

---

Ahem
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
A pat on the head from Geoff helps, too...
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
(now gets it)

But RND, are you a Rat or a Dog?

I thought the following quotation was from Mark Twain, but it turns out it is attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

President Lincoln once got into an argument with a man who insisted that if they re-framed the issue by calling it another name, there would be no disagreement. The exasperated President is said to have replied, "Look here. If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would it have?" "Why, five", said the man. "Wrong", said President Lincoln. "Four. You can call it a leg, but it's still a tail."

Like I said, there is no "Dog."

This one, Mark Twain did say, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Now, if you had said, There is no dog, then I would have agreed with you, since I am merely a rat whose NAME is Dog. But since you said There is no "Dog," putting quotes around the word Dog to cite it as a name and not an animal, I have to take exception. There is a poster here named "Dog". One who happens to be a rat.

This is all very, very important
 

---

Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
 
RND,

I find your answer insulting and contemptuous...

Oh, wait--I'm posting as DOG, not John L.

I'll be right back---don't look! (takes off glasses)
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*listens to other game on the radio*

*mutters to self*

"antheism ain't a religion!"

*watches crybabies leave the field and hopes for a good halftime show*

*pulls pamphlet from back pocket*

"It says so right here!"

*jabs finger at blank page*
 

---