Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by AutomaticSlim

 

star for you. I can't wait to hear the atheists in the crowd go nuts. They hate it when they are set side by side with all those other "crazies" .

And they are all nutz.

Thanks for the star. I think we are all a little bit crazy at times.

Concerning the one poster who wanted to become a priest of atheism and not pay taxes...I think it's worth a try!
Though he/she should look into this link to get started with researching it: Religious Tax exemptions

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

This had only been discussed here 8000 times before (SEARCH).

That being said, no, atheism is not a religion. That is why it is called A-theism, as in lack thereof.

Your flamewar disclaimer doesn't work. This isn't Gary Larson's School for the Gifted.

DEFINITION OF RELIGION -

re·li·gion  /riˈlijən/Noun
* The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
* Details of belief as taught or discussed.

edit on 12/2/2012 by PrplHrt because: (no reason given)

Sir that is ONE DEFINTION OF RELIGION.

here is websters definitionS

Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Please note NUMBER 4 "CAUSE, PRICIPLE OR SYSTEM OF BELIEFS HELD TO WITH ARDOR AND FAITH"

Note no mention of a "supreme being, god, jehova, allah, ect".

Now alot mention that athiest follow "science" and that somehow is the ultimate truth/how things work.

If one cares to to research on science the ONLY DIE HARD RULE is THERE IS NO HARD RULES in science.

How many times has science been forced to change its "facts" when other facts come to light.

Some that have happened that were "facts of science"
The sound barrier is unbreakable
The smallest particles are electrons, neutrons, protons (now quarks).
There are only three dimensions.
Nothing can go faster than light (wormholes ring a bell?)
Computers will never be portable.
Earth is flat
Space travel is science fiction
Warp drive is science fiction.

Need I go on?

As the OP stated and the definition backs up.
A "religion" in its simplest (and unpopular to athiest) is a belief system held to with conviction.

So if true athist practice seperation of church and state than how are they any different in forcing their "faith" on others than a radical islamic, radical christian, radical rastifarian?


Sometimes truth sucks

reply to post by strafgod

My definition of an anti-theist is more organized towards a purpose rather than simply lacking a belief, even then I couldn't consider it a religion. Religion requires worship in my opinion

Most definitely a purpose. To be vocal, or take action, against something you don't believe in, something thought to be detrimental to society. I thought you said anti-theist you would call religion. If that's not what you meant my mistake.

The makeup of what constitutes religion has been laid out pretty well by others in this thread. And you're right worship of something supernatural is a component. That is not included in my 'purpose' of being anti-theist.

Christopher Hitchens called himself an anti-theist as well. He was also an atheist. You could have the atheist that is anti-theist like this man, or you could have the atheist who adorns their cars with 'co-exist' religion stickers in support of tolerance. How an atheist chooses to express atheism (active or passive) doesn't ever turn it into religion, so long as it's still actually atheism.

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by AutomaticSlim

 

star for you. I can't wait to hear the atheists in the crowd go nuts. They hate it when they are set side by side with all those other "crazies" .

And they are all nutz.

Thanks for the star. I think we are all a little bit crazy at times.

Concerning the one poster who wanted to become a priest of atheism and not pay taxes...I think it's worth a try!
Though he/she should look into this link to get started with researching it: Religious Tax exemptions

At times? Have you read this website? But i digress.

I just find it amusing that athiest hate being lumped in with all the other belief systems. I guess it just seems disingenuous for them to say their beliefs are more valid than another's when science tells us there is a good chance we live in a finely tuned universe and hence have a creator.

reply to post by scrounger

How many times has science been forced to change its "facts" when other facts come to light.

Forced?

That change is integral to what science is to begin with.

Yes, I have always thought that it was one.

Things that I thought that came from religion
1. Gods, goddesses, demigods, and heroes : none
2. Origins on the human race: chance occurrence
3. Afterlife :none
4. Moral stance on issues: all stances are correct as long as it agrees with the person you are talking with.
(note all morality is based on religious views.)
5. What is needed for salvation: since there is no afterlife there is no need for salvation.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


Alright this is great no more taxes. Now where do I fill out the forms and get ordained?

Windword and I are set.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


This makes me laugh.

Atheism is nothing like religion which controls people's lives. It is an opinion and a reaction, not a way of life and only comes to light when others discuss religion.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


yes forced.

Galileo comes to mind.

Originally posted by Another_Nut

At times? Have you read this website? But i digress.

I just find it amusing that athiest hate being lumped in with all the other belief systems. I guess it just seems disingenuous for them to say their beliefs are more valid than another's when science tells us there is a good chance we live in a finely tuned universe and hence have a creator.

I agree with your comment about the existence a creator, however I'm not sure that it is "science" telling us that.

What is interesting to me is that those who don't believe in a creator often, but not always, point to evolution as the reason why a creator is not necessary. However, evolution is a theory which started with Chas. Darwin and his 'Origin of the Species.' What they don't mention is that it's NOT called the 'Origin of Life.' What scientific proof is there for the spontaneous origination of life, either here or anywhere in the universe? The whole primordial soup argument requires just as much faith as believing in a creator, in my opinion. The leap from random organic molecule formation into something which can reproduce itself is enormous. Of course atheists can just say the mere existance of life is proof that it happened randomly and no creator was needed. This is one argument which isn't likely to go away, that is until Jesus comes back or something miraculous like that happens.

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by thaddeusbushkeee

 

Evolution has nothing to do with creation and little to do with atheism, but I can live with atheism being a religion

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Ah not meaning to get off topic but to answer your question YES evolution (in its pure taught form) shares one basic fact with creationism. It shares the fact that SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING.

In the creation story God said let there be light, let there be animals, ect.

In the teachings of evolution it says there was a "big bang", the universe was created, planets/systems just compressed together and some basic elements JUST HAPPENED to mutate to all the living things that exist today.

Seems to me they seem to me on the very basic level they say the same thing.
One says God started it.
One says a random unexplained "bang" happened and all things just "randomly" just happened.


Now a scientist in developing the scientific method showed with a piece of meat in a sealed jar that flies were not "created" out of nothing. Hence giving us the scientific method.

But evolutionists like yourself would have us believe that while compelling evidence exists of organisms adapting/mutating/changing over time that the whole thing was started from nothing.
To add to that all life from eggplant to cat to man came from the same basic "soup mixture" and just "happened" to make all things. Thats odds the vegas bookmakers would not touch.

That is like saying I throw together the contents of my pantry and magically come up with a thanksgiving dinner complete with the spices combining to make a turkey.

Now in no way am I saying that all evolution is bunk, far from it.

But I just showed that evolution is taking a page from creationists in DIRECT VIOLATION of perhaps the only scientific rule to exist. SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

To add to this argument evolutionists are still calling it a theory (abit a good one) and not come out with a press conference saying "its now a proven fact". Hence the continued looking for the "missing link"

Seems like a type of continued "religious quest" if I ever heard of one

Now to tie it back to the OP origional thread.

Evolution, athism, ect is a faith/religion by the very basic definition of the word.

There is items in evolution, athism, science, judism, christianity, the great spagetti monster that are taken at face value AKA FAITH with those practiioners looking to find the truth/facts to back it up.

The only difference is (ex evolution vs christianity) I am willing to keep an open mind and not be offended if someone believes other than I do.

One side aka athiesm feels if they are offended they can tell everyone else to stop whatever that offends them.

So tell me again how the basis of genesis (bible) is different that the first chapter of a book of evolution called the big bang?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Hi Grimpachi, you are almost there in terms of your appreciation. Not quite I don't believe. I presume thaddeusbushkee is a theist or "progressive atheist" like myself. I have no religious faith, and "believe" there is NO GOD. But I do understand that to teach modern evolutionary theory in high school is to teach we are the product of a purposeless process. There is nothing "sly" or underhanded about thesits recognizing this and asking that it be so acknowledged. This is simply fair, and most importantly, it is to UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION.

To be a theist in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is by definition to believe you were intentionally created with a reason in mind. You were created for a purpose by a God. To be a person of no faith such as myself, is to believe we are not the product of an intentional creative power. To understand evolution is to know this. To teach this in high school means to acknowledge this. ALL OF IT.

The theists are correct in pointing all this out. There is nothing "sly" about it. As a matter of fact, it is incredibly straightforward. This is what Christianity is all about, or is not about if one is a non-believer. Evolution means YOU WERE MADE WITHOUT PURPOSE. Religion in our western tradition means an intelligence created you with purpose. To teach evolution is to acknowledge the difference. There can be no half measures and this is the problem with the school sytem's approach, though never acknowledged directly as such.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by AutomaticSlim

 

Alright this is great no more taxes. Now where do I fill out the forms and get ordained?

Windword and I are set.

I'd consult a lawyer first (local laws will vary), then set up a non-profit entity and start working on your bylaws and setting up the organizational structure. Oh, and you'll probably have to sue the city, state or other governmental agency to get tax exempt status.

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim

Originally posted by Another_Nut

At times? Have you read this website? But i digress.

I just find it amusing that athiest hate being lumped in with all the other belief systems. I guess it just seems disingenuous for them to say their beliefs are more valid than another's when science tells us there is a good chance we live in a finely tuned universe and hence have a creator.

I agree with your comment about the existence a creator, however I'm not sure that it is "science" telling us that.

What is interesting to me is that those who don't believe in a creator often, but not always, point to evolution as the reason why a creator is not necessary. However, evolution is a theory which started with Chas. Darwin and his 'Origin of the Species.' What they don't mention is that it's NOT called the 'Origin of Life.' What scientific proof is there for the spontaneous origination of life, either here or anywhere in the universe? The whole primordial soup argument requires just as much faith as believing in a creator, in my opinion. The leap from random organic molecule formation into something which can reproduce itself is enormous. Of course atheists can just say the mere existance of life is proof that it happened randomly and no creator was needed. This is one argument which isn't likely to go away, that is until Jesus comes back or something miraculous like that happens.

You should really read up on the fine tuned universe. Its basically the entire reason science came up with multiple dimensions/universes.

They had 2 choices either this universe was created for us or we just happen to live in a universe (out of infinite universes) that allows us to exist.

eta I think the creation of life is also a scientific joke. I was taught in elementary school that "spontaneous generation" was garbage from the 1800s. But that is exactly what evolution describes. Life from nonlife.

Now if u say evolution only works after life has begun then you have a real problem because you still have to make the jump to life which still hasn't been done in a lab.

reply to post by EllaMarina


I don't see "atheism" as a religion, because their faith does not promote the concept of spirituality. Buddhism is a religion, because they promote spirituality. However, Buddhist and other nonbelievers, who do have knowledge of a God concept, and choose not to believe in a God are not athiest.

Atheist means no belief in a god but those claiming to be atheist have a belief. A true atheist would have to have no knowledge of the concept of a God. A new born baby is an atheist. ATS people aren't atheist.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


You are absolutely correct AutomaticSlim. I am a professional biologist(MD/PhD), won't go into details here about my background. My opinion; there is no empiric evidence for the formation of a bird heart-lung from that of a reptile, nothing in the fossil record. If you know of it, let's see it, hear it.

I am not a "believer" in terms of "religious belief", but as a life long student of living systems, I can honestly that say I have been forever pelted with one weak argument after another and never bought into the neoDarwinian approach to explaining our being here. How can one? The model as presented is weak.

As I am fond of saying, as are some of my friends that study this sort of thing, because bacteria develop resistance to penicillin, or HIV to various anti-retrovirals, this does not mean a fish became a man based on the evolutionary mechanism as currently presented to college students. There is no empiric evidence, molecular, fossil or otherwise.

Originally posted by Another_Nut

You should really read up on the fine tuned universe. Its basically the entire reason science came up with multiple dimensions/universes.

They had 2 choices either this universe was created for us or we just happen to live in a universe (out of infinite universes) that allows us to exist.

I will read up on that. I recall hearing something about that before. A choice had to be made, and they chose the multi-verse over a created universe. Thanks for that lead.

It's hard to read the whole thread, I just skimmed through, and it seems like much I would want to say has been covered.

There are different types of atheists, implicite/explicit, positive/negative.... the original meaning of the word refered to an absence of belief, but then there are some you run across that have a belief- that there is no God.

I see the word anti-theist was proposed here- I like that. I proposed that definition many times on message boards in the past.

Because I understand what people are refering to when they bring this question up- they are refering to the atheists who are reacting to the theists. In fact, it is just another poke and provocation for them (which they are always sure to answer).

In turn, these anti-theists will always try to poke and provoke the passive or implicit atheists to join their ranks- through suggesting that in their refuse to join the fray, they are closet atheists, wanna-be religious', rooting supporters of religious fanatics.......

It is in that sense that they are just like the religious ones- they have a belief about reality (there is no God), and they try to get others to join them in that belief and in the actions they take against their "enemies" (those not of their belief). They even use bullying and manipulation- The religious may tell me I need to join them because I will burn in hell if not, but I have been harrassed by anti-theists that accused me of secretly worshipping religious members and harboring a desire to be accepted into their ranks one day.

Simply not believing in God doesn't constitute a religion, but these people I am describing skate dangerously close to it.
-They preach on message boards just like the ones with the pro-God belief.
-They are fighting evil in the world too, trying to exorcise it from the minds and bodies of others too.
- They also, try to bully people to join their holy war through accusing them of being evil if they don't.

But that all kinda supports the theory that you become what you narrow yor focus and emotions on, doesn't it?
But that is just another hypothesis too.

reply to post by remembering

4. Moral stance on issues: all stances are correct as long as it agrees with the person you are talking with.
(note all morality is based on religious views.)

The biggest reason I am an anti-theist right there. The horrible asinine belief you need religion to be moral.
How absolutely ridiculous.

All morality is based on religious views?

Religious people and their high horses.

So an atheist health care professional that takes a Hippocratic Oath and dedicates their life to others health.... nothing moral about them eh? Your thinking is immoral.