Is Atheism a religion?

endacl

ShooterSF wrote: »

Must be a pretty good explanation coming...

First time for everything I suppose...

ShooterSF

endacl wrote: »

First time for everything I suppose...

Seems to have gone off line. Guess I'll have to try and sleep knowing I'm missing the great morals of the stories. Perhaps he shall return in 3 days to enlighten me.

Why hast thou forsaken me jesus nut?!!

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seems to have gone off line. Guess I'll have to try and sleep knowing I'm missing the great morals of the stories. Perhaps he shall return in 3 days to enlighten me.

Why hast thou forsaken me jesus nut?!!

This is all I could do for you. Sorry.:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6IWX1_XHQ

endacl

Jernal wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seems to have gone off line. Guess I'll have to try and sleep knowing I'm missing the great morals of the stories. Perhaps he shall return in 3 days to enlighten me.

Why hast thou forsaken me jesus nut?!!

This is all I could do for you. Sorry.:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6IWX1_XHQ

That'll do. Nice one.

robindch

Jesus Nut wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNtkigfOGS4

Wow. I'd always thought that Fulton J Sheen was one of the church's heavy hitters.

Looking at the above performance, he could have stood in for Graham Norton.

Undergod

Jesus Nut, are you saying there's no afterlife? Also, we've gone way off-topic.

Dades

What's a topic?

Kidchameleon

Atheism IS a relegion. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Can any Atheist here give me proof that there is no god? They have as much proof of their beliefs as any Muslim, Catholic, Sceintologist etc... have of theirs.

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheism IS a relegion. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Can any Atheist here give me proof that there is no god? They have as much proof of their beliefs as any Muslim, Catholic, Sceintologist etc... have of theirs.

You realise you are now a member of hundreds, possibly thousands, of religions by your reasoning.

Gbear

koth wrote: »

You realise you are now a member of hundreds, possibly thousands, of religions by your reasoning.

Including the Unicorn non-believers religion, the people who belive that bridges wont collapse when they cross them religion and the people who believe that the Earth is a sphere religion.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheism IS a relegion. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Can any Atheist here give me proof that there is no god? They have as much proof of their beliefs as any Muslim, Catholic, Sceintologist etc... have of theirs.

What exactly is your definition of a religion? A belief that cannot be proven?

I guess that makes my belief Roberto Baggio was the best player of his generation a religion too, right?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So in other words you concede that we have to have faith that the peer-review process has not screwed up, whether intentional or otherwise.

Define faith. If its faith like religious faith (ie no evidence), then no we dont, there is a plethora of evidence that peer review is reliable. I dont have faith in science, I trust it, because it has been shown to reliable work uncountable times.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you go back to the person everybody ganged up on & read the quotes I think you'll see this was the question being posed & despite the back-slapping the point remains correct.

You must have been reading different posts to me. No-one denied the possibility that bad papers pass peer review, but the OP only offered up the possibility in answer to science and peer review in general being reliable and so his suggestions do sound like the typical paranoid conspiracy rantings on the CT forum. The OP wasn't trying to discredit any particular paper (and even if he was, he never presented any evidence) he was trying to discount all of science because of the possibility of a very small subset of it being flawed or fraudulent. I dont see how anyone could be so naive as to miss that. I dont see why you think that the OP is using the word faith in the same sense as you mean it here.

The rest of your post is just repetition of these points as far as can see, as far as I can see.

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

So in sponsoredwalk's way of thinking even believing we exist is a religion as it relies on an assumption, I mean "faith". Ok then can we have a new word for people who claim knowledge (not assumptions, not even best guesses) of things they can't know, can't test and can't show us? Just so we can go back to distinguishing the clear difference.

I've been thinking of this and I think that you had it right way back in the thread when you said "It's not faith though. It's trust."
At the moment, we have a problem where you can use "faith" for believing in something despite no evidence, and believing in something because of the evidence, and so certain people will try and equate these two situations even though they are clearly miles apart. I think differentiating "faith" as believing in something despite no evidence (eg like in religion, faith in god etc.) and "trust" as believing in something because of evidence (eg like in science, trust in physical principles, chemical reactions etc.) will remove this issue. You have faith in something because of emotional reasons, you have trust in something because of rational reasons (not saying faith is irrational, btw, it is arational).

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

What's a topic?

A bar of chocolate:

MagicMarker

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The story about mary getting preggers from the holy spirit is really just a way to explain the magic that happens when a sperm and a egg join... Its the holy spirt doing it

I lol'd.

Turtwig

The assumption that belief and opinions require evidence is a faith based one.:)
Simples

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Define faith.

I gave you 5 & asked you to pick your favourite one.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

so his suggestions do sound like the typical paranoid conspiracy rantings on the CT forum.

Very selective interpretation, one I've pointed out more than once is full of sh*t.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont have faith in science, I trust it, because it has been shown to reliable work uncountable towns.

The ideological similarities are more apparent by the post
http://www.studiesintheword.org/faith_is_trust.htm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

he was trying to discount all of science because of the possibility of a very small subset of it being flawed or fraudulent. I dont see how anyone could be so naive as to miss that.

Any evidence of this?

Undergod

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheism IS a relegion. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Can any Atheist here give me proof that there is no god? They have as much proof of their beliefs as any Muslim, Catholic, Sceintologist etc... have of theirs.

Kidchameleon - Do you believe I am wearing a red shirt?

Galvasean

Sonics2k wrote: »

People should really think before they try claiming that Atheism is a religion. Because it's bloody well not.

There is no arguing this, no debate, and no discussion. It quite simply cannot be a religion.

Hmm.. 30 + pages. It just goes to show how people will argue about anything.
From what I can tell the 'Atheism is a religion' brigade's reasoning entails that anything that can be believed (or by that extension not believed) is a religious belief.
I must have over a million religions at this stage.
Right now I must be part of that religion that believes Ireland probably won't make it to the knock out stages of the Euros, that religion that thinks Leinster will win tomorrow, that religion that believes I will eat something for dinner within the next two hours, that religion that believes the kettle will work when I go to make a cup of tea shortly...

Zombrex

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheism IS a relegion. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Can any Atheist here give me proof that there is no god? They have as much proof of their beliefs as any Muslim, Catholic, Sceintologist etc... have of theirs.

Atheists reject the claims religious people make with regard to the existence of their deities. If that makes us religious then doesn't that making believing anything or rejecting any claim a "religion" (eg I'm not going to win the Lottery = religion, the bus will arrive at 6pm = religion, the waiter is attractive = religion, my fire alarm is currently working = religion).

Which is just stupid. This thread should be renamed the "Stupid claim of the day" thread.

sponsoredwalk

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

re·li·gion

   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Every dictionary has a definition of religion, but not every definition is equally good. Some are decent, but others are horrible. Sometimes older dictionaries have better definitions than newer ones, but more recent comprehensive dictionaries tend to have the better overall definitions of all. It's easier to understand what religion is if you understand the advantages and disadvantages of some of the more commonly cited definitions found in dictionaries.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913:

• Religion: The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety.

This definition, like many of the older ones cited here, focuses on belief in the existence of deities. More than that, it specifies deities which have power over our lives and to whom we owe some level of obedience and service. This excludes from religion many forms of Buddhism, religious humanism, and even deistic belief systems. Because of that, this definition is too narrow and exclusive to be very useful — but it is the sort of definition you will find many people using.
On the positive side, though, this definition acknowledges the important role played by rites and ceremonies in religious belief. Many definitions of religion fail to point them out as being relevant.

The New Century Dictionary, 1927:

• Religion: Recognition on the part of man of a controlling superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence and worship; the feeling or the spiritual attitude of those recognizing such a controlling power; also, a manifestation of such feeling in conduct or life; the practice of sacred rites or observances.

This definition is like the previous one in that it focuses on a particular sort of theism as the defining characteristic of religion while also recognizing the relevancy of rituals to the religious life of believers.
The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1966:

• Religion:
  
  1. The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man’s relationship with the powers and principles of the universe, especially with a deity or deities; also, any particular system of such beliefs, attitudes, etc.
  
  2. An essential part or a practical test of the spiritual life.
  
  3. An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous care: e.g. His work is a religion to him.

This definition is noteworthy for making explicit the fact that belief in gods — and, in particular, gods which control our destiny — is not necessary for religion. Although it acknowledges that belief in a god or gods is common, it is clear that religion has to do with wider issues regarding the nature of the universe and reality.
This definition also points out how religion encompasses different aspects of human existence, including attitudes and behavior. It fails to note the important social aspects of religious system, though.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:

• Religion: 1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers,
  
  2. the state of a religious,
  
  3a. one of the systems of religious faith and worship, 3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,
  
  4. the profession or practice of religious beliefs,
  
  5. archaic, scrupulous conformity,
  
  6a. a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one’s own, humanity’s, or all nature’s destiny,
  
  7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance, 7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

One noteworthy aspect of this definition is #7, which refers to causes and principles which people pursue with zeal. This is often the origin of misunderstandings about religion because people fail to realize that, when the word religion is used in this sense, it is being used in a metaphorical way. Thus, baseball isn’t really a religion for some people — when used in that context, calling it a religion simply means that they follow it in a way which is more akin to the devotion normally reserved for religion.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971:

• Religion:
  
  Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
  
  A particular system of faith and worship.
  
  Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
  
  Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.

The Oxford English Dictionary is one of most respected sources for how words in the English language are and have been used, so its entry on religion merits careful consideration. The first definition focuses upon belief in divine powers, which is how people in the West typically conceive of religion. The second and third, though, delve more deeply into the subject by describing psychological and sociological aspects of religious belief systems.

The World Book Dictionary, 1976:

• Religion:
  
  1. Belief in God or gods,
  
  2. worship of God or gods,
  
  3. a particular system of religious belief and worship,
  
  4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.

This is the worst of the lot — the definitions here are refer to belief in gods, a circular “system of religious belief,” and the metaphorical sense of religion. That is misleading to anyone trying to get a better grasp of what it means for a belief system to qualify as a religion.


http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/dictionary_old.htm

Que?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I gave you 5 & asked you to pick your favourite one.

I'm asking you to define it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Very selective interpretation, one I've pointed out more than once is full of sh*t.

You've claimed that it is full of sh*t, you have so far failed to back it up.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The ideological similarities are more apparent by the post
http://www.studiesintheword.org/faith_is_trust.htm

I am using "trust" in the definition I gave in this post (admittedly after the post you just quoted). The "faith" i have in science is not remotely like the faith required in religion. It arises through fundamentally different paths and is justified with evidence.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Any evidence of this?

His post that I quoted:

Malpaisian wrote:

Bannasidhe wrote:

Sometimes a scientist's work 'fails' the tests - sometimes it passes.

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

He tried to disparage peer review in general, not specific papers. It was based on complete ignorance of the peer review process. I'm at a loss as to how you can't see this. Did you read his posts?

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

Which is just stupid. This thread should be renamed the "Stupid claim of the day" thread.

Food goes in here.

*Points in ears*

endacl

Maybe we should all meet for a beer. No user names allowed. Realise over the course of an evening that in the real world it really doesn't matter.

sponsoredwalk

endacl wrote: »

Maybe we should all meet for a beer. No user names allowed. Realise over the course of an evening that in the real world it really doesn't matter.

Cough :cool:

Galvasean

endacl wrote: »

Maybe we should all meet for a beer. No user names allowed. Realise over the course of an evening that in the real world it really doesn't matter.

Yes it does! People need to know that they are wrong! :mad:

endacl

Galvasean wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Maybe we should all meet for a beer. No user names allowed. Realise over the course of an evening that in the real world it really doesn't matter.

Yes it does! People need to know that they are wrong! :mad:

Or at least are wrong until verifiable evidence is presented...

I believe in beer.

Turtwig

endacl wrote: »

Or at least are wrong until verifiable evidence is presented...

I believe in beer.

Teetotaler here so go rot in hell!:mad:

spannerotoole

swampgas wrote: »

This old argument that science is just another belief system, involving "faith", is missing one blindingly obvious fact: science works.

Science isn't just about creating a nice story that explains the world around us, it strives to observe and measure, then explain how and why it works. Based on scientific understanding, we can manipulate the world around us in new ways and make it better. We can build machines, electronics, medicines, rockets to the moon. It works. It is truly amazing how science and technology have transformed the world we live in.

To make out that science is just another religious faith is to massively misunderstand what makes them different.

You will notice that the original argument is "Is atheism a religion?" not "Is science a religion."

Not all atheists are scientists, just the same way that not all scientists are atheists?

spannerotoole

Jernal wrote: »

Teetotaler here so go rot in hell!:mad:

You may have alcohol free beer. I believe that the lets all go for a beer thing was merely about association rather than getting drunk oblivion.

swampgas

spannerotoole wrote: »

You will notice that the original argument is "Is atheism a religion?" not "Is science a religion."

Not all atheists are scientists, just the same way that not all scientists are atheists?

This is true - I realised this after I had posted it. However, the thread had deviated into science territory when a poster called spannerotoole brought Evolution into the discussion

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78790048&postcount=42

Also ask is evolution true, ...

Panrich

Zombrex wrote: »

Atheists reject the claims religious people make with regard to the existence of their deities. If that makes us religious then doesn't that making believing anything or rejecting any claim a "religion" (eg I'm not going to win the Lottery = religion, the bus will arrive at 6pm = religion, the waiter is attractive = religion, my fire alarm is currently working = religion).

Which is just stupid. This thread should be renamed the "Stupid claim of the day" thread.

The word 'believe' is the problem here. To the religious mind, to believe is to 'know' that something is so as a foundation. It is a fundamental of religion to 'believe' in God(s) and doctrine(s) without the need to question the veracity or origins of these beliefs. This is called faith. Believe with a capital B in essence

The word has no such connotation for the atheistic mind. The word believe is mistakenly foisted upon us when we should use the word trust. The word trust has no religous undertones and therefore is a more honest word to use for an atheists position.

I don't 'believe' that there is no God. I trust that there is no God based on the available evidence (ie none). If someone can provide compelling evidence, I will trust that there is a God. I will always however fail to 'believe' in God because I couldn't blindly 'believe' in anything.

Kidchameleon

Panrich wrote: »

The word 'believe' is the problem here. To the religious mind, to believe is to 'know' that something is so as a foundation. It is a fundamental of religion to 'believe' in God(s) and doctrine(s) without the need to question the veracity or origins of these beliefs. This is called faith. Believe with a capital B in essence

The word has no such connotation for the atheistic mind. The word believe is mistakenly foisted upon us when we should use the word trust. The word trust has no religous undertones and therefore is a more honest word to use for an atheists position.

I don't 'believe' that there is no God. I trust that there is no God based on the available evidence (ie none). If someone can provide compelling evidence, I will trust that there is a God. I will always however fail to 'believe' in God because I couldn't blindly 'believe' in anything.

Stupid play on words. Religious people could just say they "trust there is a god"

Kidchameleon

Ok well maybe it is not a religion, but it IS a belief system and has many similarities with religion.

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Stupid play on words. Religious people could just say they "trust there is a god"

How could they? what exactly would someone be putting their trust in?

AtomicHorror

spannerotoole wrote: »

You will notice that the original argument is "Is atheism a religion?" not "Is science a religion."

Not all atheists are scientists, just the same way that not all scientists are atheists?

Not all scientists are atheists, but I'm inclined to say that any atheist who hasn't used science of some sort to arrive at their conclusions about religion is correct by pure accident.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok well maybe it is not a religion, but it IS a belief system and has many similarities with religion.

Two things jump out at me there.

Doesn't a "system" indicate more than one single belief/disbelief? Is that not the definition of a system?

Secondly, what are the similarities to a religion? Please bear in mind that you are comparing *atheism*, rather then the users of this particular forum.

Kidchameleon

koth wrote: »

How could they? what exactly would someone be putting their trust in?

Eh, that there is a god

Maybe you should break out the Ann and Barry books?

Turtwig

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Eh, that there is a god

Maybe you should break out the Ann and Barry books?

Define : God.

Galvasean

Panrich wrote: »

The word 'believe' is the problem here. To the religious mind, to believe is to 'know' that something is so as a foundation. It is a fundamental of religion to 'believe' in God(s) and doctrine(s) without the need to question the veracity or origins of these beliefs. This is called faith. Believe with a capital B in essence

The word has no such connotation for the atheistic mind. The word believe is mistakenly foisted upon us when we should use the word trust. The word trust has no religous undertones and therefore is a more honest word to use for an atheists position.

I don't 'believe' that there is no God. I trust that there is no God based on the available evidence (ie none). If someone can provide compelling evidence, I will trust that there is a God. I will always however fail to 'believe' in God because I couldn't blindly 'believe' in anything.

Meh, then they'd just bastardize the word 'trust' too and they'd be saying atheism is a religion because atheists trust that there is no god and it takes just as much faith to trust there is no god as there is to trust that there is one yaddyyaddyyadda....

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

Two things jump out at me there.

Doesn't a "system" indicate more than one single belief/disbelief? Is that not the definition of a system?

The word system can mean many things. Use your kop on as to what it means in the context of my post...

Dades wrote: »

Secondly, what are the similarities to a religion? Please bear in mind that you are comparing *atheism*, rather then the users of this particular forum.

* Militant preaching of beliefs
* "Everyone else's beliefs are wrong and mine are right"
* Needing to have a group to belong to / be part of
* Fund raising
* Political interference
* Weekly meetings
* Beliefs that have no scientific proof

The list goes on

Galvasean

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Militant preaching of beliefs
* "Everyone else's beliefs are wrong and mine are right"
* Needing to have a group to belong to / be part of
* Fund raising
* Political interference
* Weekly meetings
* Beliefs that have no scientific proof

Because ALL atheists do all of those things? Pull the other one.

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Eh, that there is a god

Maybe you should break out the Ann and Barry books?

Repeating back the statement that I was questioning doesn't answer my question.

You said that someone could easily say they "trust there is a god". My reading of Panrichs was that atheists trust there is no god based on available evidence.

For you to claim the religious could also say that they "trust there is a god" in response to Panrich means that they must have some form of evidence to support that trust, otherwise you're just using trust as a synonym for hope/faith.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The word system can mean many things. Use your kop on as to what it means in the context of my post...

Charming.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Militant preaching of beliefs
* "Everyone else's beliefs are wrong and mine are right"
* Needing to have a group to belong to / be part of
* Fund raising
* Political interference
* Weekly meetings
* Beliefs that have no scientific proof

The list goes on

No, the list doesn't go on. It doesn't even start with what your mentioned because I don't know a single individual who meets your criteria. And I know a lot of atheists.

Why am I even bothering?

Turtwig

Does anybody know anyone who meets KC's criteria?

Sarky

Yes, but they're all religious so I imagine they don't count.

Galvasean

Jernal wrote: »

Does anybody know anyone who meets KC's criteria?

I've met a few people who meet 3 or 4 of them. Still, a far cry from making atheism a religion mind you.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, but they're all religious so I imagine they don't count.

So you admit atheism is a religion?

*DING DING DING!!!!*

AtomicHorror

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Militant preaching of beliefs

Just like political parties, charities, research groups and sports teams.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* "Everyone else's beliefs are wrong and mine are right"

Just like political parties, charities, research groups and sports teams. Also, human nature. The study of logic and later the scientific method are attempts to overcome this sort of nonsense. Both notably frowned upon by religions but much liked by atheists.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Needing to have a group to belong to / be part of

Just like political parties, charities, research groups and sports teams. Also, people are social- nothing religious about that.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Fund raising

Just like political parties, charities, research groups and sports teams.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Political interference

Just like political parties, charities, research groups and sports teams.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Weekly meetings

Where? Nobody invited me. Well, atheists in the pub invite me to stuff on facebook but it's not weekly and I never go. Haven't been excommunicated yet!

Kidchameleon wrote: »

* Beliefs that have no scientific proof

There's no such thing as scientific proof. That phrase is only used by people unfamiliar with science.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The list goes on

It doesn't appear to.

I conclude that in addition to being a religion (and an ice cream), atheism is a political party, charity, research group and a sports teams.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

...and a sports teams.

Look I Englished!