It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kody27


Please don't get confused and start comparing science with religion. No they're not the same, one is based on bogey tales, the other is taken from direct observation. You can't have faith in something that you've directly observed because it's there. Faith is only required when you can't observe something but choose to believe it anyway.



I don't know why you quoted my post in yours, because from what you wrote, you did not even read mine.
What you said has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.


Which was-

No matter what your convictions are, whether they come from science or religion,

if you are both acting the same way, doing the same behaviors, then from an external point of view, there is little to no difference between you.





edit on 3-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Most religions are like the saying, "You can lead a horse to water." Unfortunately there is no scientific way to prove or disprove of the things some religions claim, although quantum mechanics is bridging the gap between some aspects of some religions.

In the case of religions like those of Abrahamic origin, they make a lot of claims with little to no evidence; they are faith based and often of the blind variety because they are not allowed or are strongly discouraged to question it. The beauty of more mystical religions like Buddhism is that they are all about direct and personal experience and wisdom, and are not concerned with the concept of deities, at least in the classical sense.

Consider astronomy: you tell me there is something called a galaxy out there made up of billions of stars, but without a picture or letting me see through the telescope, why should I believe you? What this "direct experience" is is like peering through the telescope. This is where we transition from "belief" to "knowledge", or gnostic in other words, because I saw and experienced it myself and didn't just take someone's word for it.

I agree with what you said but it doesn't apply to everything. Several religions are philosophical in nature and not dogmatic at all. The burden of proof for those non-dogmatic religions lies on our shoulders though, as they are personal.
edit on 3/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

People today don't even question science anymore. That's the problem. Science IS becoming the new religion. I keep making questions about science, deep questions, and all I see is people being afraid to question science, as if science is some sort of a god.



This is precisely the problem. Religion was the old authority. Science is the new authority. Of all people, scientists should know better than to make uncritical assumptions or to accept the status quo -- science is about putting hearsay to the test, even if it is hearsay from another scientist.

Alas this is the result of institutionalization. Some people get powerful, other people get lazy, and many people get manipulated.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
No Atheism is not a religion. Atheist don't "believe" there is no god, they KNOW there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Faith? Faith is believing what you know aint so. Atheist don't need faith to believe a god doesn't exist, they have science and logic for their proof. Faith is believing in something you're really on the fence about and my be wrong. You have faith because you hope it's right.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I think this thread has gotten somewhat off-topic here (and I share in the blame). We have pigeon-holed atheism as being the same thing as scientism, which is not true.

Buddhism is atheist, and I think we can all agree that Buddhism is a religion.

Does the belief that there is not a God actually constitute a religion? I think religion has more "meat" than just the belief in God's existence or non-existence. I think there must also be rules, historical accounts, etc for something to be considered a religion.

Thus I would say that atheism is not a religion by itself; it is just one belief that can be part of a bigger set of beliefs (a religion).



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
There is a difference between religion and belief. Religion is a sense of belonging, a kind of grouping of you point of veiw with others. Belief is the individuals point of veiw without seeking a group of likeminded people. Even though there are likeminded people.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent

Alas this is the result of institutionalization. Some people get powerful, other people get lazy, and many people get manipulated.


Exactly. As in the good old days of The Vatican and the Inquisition.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by favouriteslave
No Atheism is not a religion. Atheist don't "believe" there is no god, they KNOW there is no god.



How do they know that there is no God? What instruments do they use to observe this? Did they observe God's non-existence, or did they somehow violate the rules of logic to prove a negative?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wagnificent
 


I don't know, ask an Atheist, I'm Jewish



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by georgeandrew
 


I believe a religion would not only include a "Set" of specific beliefs but also ritual in how they are followed. Example Easter mass, Prayer, Passover. They are the repetitive actions or motions that one thinks they must abide in for their belief in such god.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
All I know is that I'm not religious, but stay far away from the "atheist" title because I find them to be more fanatic than any other religious group.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent

Originally posted by favouriteslave
No Atheism is not a religion. Atheist don't "believe" there is no god, they KNOW there is no god.



How do they know that there is no God? What instruments do they use to observe this? Did they observe God's non-existence, or did they somehow violate the rules of logic to prove a negative?


How could one prove the 'non-existence' of 'something'? Something can not non-exist, for the moment it becomes something, or is considered something, implies its existence. Until God is proven to exist, there is no argument to be had. The proposition "God exists" is false. Can it be proven otherwise?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Oh my, what a thread...

Looks like some theists trying hard to fit those pesky non believers into their religious worldview.

To help you out a bit I shall use the following quote: "God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?"



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent

Originally posted by favouriteslave
No Atheism is not a religion. Atheist don't "believe" there is no god, they KNOW there is no god.



How do they know that there is no God? What instruments do they use to observe this? Did they observe God's non-existence, or did they somehow violate the rules of logic to prove a negative?


This is funny. How do you know there isn't a white elephant with blue wings somewhere out there? Did you observed his non-existence?

Hint: the absence of any evidence that it exists or existed at some time is enough for a logical person to conclude that it doesn't exist.

What instruments were used to prove that God does exists?
edit on 3-12-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is one of those questions that can be answered by agreeing to a common definition of religion and atheism. It's amazing how many of life's greatest conflicts could be solved by agreeing to use the same dictionary.

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." - Voltaire



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have no doubt atheists could be considered a religion. It's pretty easy to get a tax-exempt number.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeskillet
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


and why are people "staking their life on it"? are you saying that its a life threaning situation to propose a scientific hypothesis?


No hypothesis are not a threat, faith in a hypothesis is though, faith that at death you go to the dust with no chance with a future hope for all eternity, that is dangerous, as that would really effect how you live you life right now.

Of course that whole thought process comes from faith in science as it is understood right now, but here is the variable, science keeps changing, updating as we learn more. What is correct today is wrong tomorrow.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

How could one prove the 'non-existence' of 'something'? Something can not non-exist, for the moment it becomes something, or is considered something, implies its existence. Until God is proven to exist, there is no argument to be had. The proposition "God exists" is false. Can it be proven otherwise?


That's exactly the point. Non-existence cannot be observed, thus atheism is based on belief rather than knowledge...

If you read my previous posts, you would see that I am agnostic. I am not trying to assert that God does exist. I am trying to assert that atheism is dogmatic, not logical.


Originally posted by WhiteHat
the absence of any evidence that it exists or existed at some time is enough for a logical person to conclude that it doesn't exist.


No it's not. That's what a dogmatic person concludes. A logical person follows the rules of logic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so a logical person would suspend judgement rather than jump to a hasty conclusion.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
On topic:

Some atheists are more anti-god, and happy to show that at every opportunity, from reasons I can relate to. But most atheists are just people who didn't fell for the Santa story. How the absence of a specific belief can be another belief? It's ridiculous.
I don't believe in god, but I'm not against it; I don't "believe" in science, since the science have the good habit to prove it's statements, and to correct it's errors as soon as new discoveries are made. I don't completely "believe" in evolution, and don't reject it either; I still wait for the scientists to fill some gaps.

I also wait for the religious people to fill the gaps in God's story. There may be something to it, but no one seems to know for sure. ( Like when you KNOW something, and there is no need to BELIEVE in it). So until then, just let me be without your Santa. I'm neutral about all this thing.

Atheism is not a belief, and is not a religion. It's just like grown up people talking with their kids about Santa, at least for me. I don't want to burst their happy bubble, but I'm not ready to send Santa letters every day of the year just to keep their illusion alive.
The problem is that religion always needs an enemy to defeat, an evil side to blame for what they can't explain. Which is quite immature, if you ask me. But considering Santa and all that, what can you expect?
edit on 3-12-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
I'm not trying to start a religion-based flame war here, I really am curious. I just find it interesting that an Atheist can say that they have no religion or faith, but they cling almost fanatically to evolutionary science during discussions, much like a christian will cling to the Bible, or a Muslim to the Quran.

Isn't that essentially the same kind of behavior?


No, because the definition of religion is that behind the scenes there is some sort of power above and beyond the natural laws at work. Christianity and the Jews have God, the Muslims have Allah, Scientologists have their ghosts of angry space aliens murdered by Xenu the galactic warlord, and so on. The supernatural by definition requires faith in their existence, and the definition of faith is believing in things we hope are true.

It is self evident that a the notion of a power above and beyond the natural laws and believing in things we hope are true are the exact opposite of how science operates, where ideas remain only theories until they are confirmed or denied. You many not agree with the theory of evolution but you cannot deny there is a hell of a lot more evidence that supports the theory than there is evidence supporting the notion that some invisible guy is living up in the clouds who can magically create humans out of clods of dirt.



new topics




 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join