Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

reply to post by nidstav


There are plenty of commentators who aren't even religious that point out Atheism having dogmas.

I did a brief search on atheist dogma and there are tons of articles that claim that Atheists do in fact have dogmas. I'm not particularly concerned about whether they do or not, Just pointing it out.

reply to post by Annee


Well, and there's no deity. Religions require two things. Dogma and a deity to worship. A lot of people think Buddhism is a religion too. It is not. It is a philosophy.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Though you do have to admit that there is a lot of evolutionary evidence that is primarily conjecture.

I guess it really depends on what facet of the subject you want to call conjecture. I am not an authority on bio chemistry or evolution, but I have never heard something suggested by an authority on either which was not based on some form of empirical evidence, other than something that is purely hypothetical (such as abiogenesis) and something like that would not be presented as fact or a valid theory unless some evidence existed.

reply to post by JayinAR

Buddhism is a religion too. It is not. It is a philosophy.

More precisely a life consuming philosophy.

reply to post by randyvs


Oh absolutely. I just like to make sure everyone is aware roof the terms they are using I. Debates like this. Most often the mud slinging crap can be avoided if people understand the terminology. For instance, this thread wouldn't have even been authored if the terms were understood.

Of course atheism isn't a religion. Its silly to even suggest it could be. Haha

reply to post by Openeye


I happen to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation myself. There's plenty of proof that a species will adapt to its environment or die out. But macro-evolution is something that is purely conjecture. One species turning (evolving) into a different species altogether has not been proven, merely conjectured.

Otherwise we wouldn't have the "missing link" conversation every time a scientist digs up a new fossil.

Reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I was joking with ya back on page 2. Dont get bent outa shape lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


Not bent out of shape at all. My apologies if it came across that way.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

You are creating terms here. Haha. Evolution is defined as a change in the allelle frequencies of a given population over the span of generations. This is fact. This happens. It is also fact that species do evolve. The fossil record clearly shows this to have happened. To deny it is willful ignorance.

reply to post by yourmaker

It only makes sense because you all agree on it... doesn't make you right, at all.

One can make sense all day long and never be correct. However, we can all count on one fact in all of this, together we must all agree. In the end, there will be a single truth for all to come to terms with. So why is that ? Is that truth a vehicle ? The key to which may be how we interact with that truth ? What we believe about that truth may have everything to do with being right, even whether or not we are left.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I happen to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation myself. There's plenty of proof that a species will adapt to its environment or die out. But macro-evolution is something that is purely conjecture.

This honestly is a misconception

Micro and Macro evolution



The separation of the two simply adds more confusion, confusion caused by semantics, not by evidence or lack there of.

There are many examples, Wolves to Dogs, Silver Foxes.

reply to post by JayinAR


Well, to each his own I suppose. I have no issue with adaptation whatsoever, but one species becoming another hasn't been proven in my opinion.

The fossil record does not depict this phenomenon over any length of time. I don't think that it's willfully ignorant to disagree with a commonly held belief.

Show me a species that starts off as one thing and ends up as something totally different resulting in it's own tree of relatives and I would have to incorporate it into my worldview, otherwise, I would have to respectfully disagree.

reply to post by Openeye


I separate them merely to highlight where I agree and where I disagree, that's all. Evolution is evolution, but aspects of it aren't factual in my opinion.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Where do you suppose the platypus began?

At the beginning I would imagine. lol.

The better question would be: What was it before it was a platypus? or What will it be afterwards? As far as I can see, it's always been a platypus.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Do you deny it is possibly one species becoming another?

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Show me a species that starts off as one thing and ends up as something totally different

Happens in Hollywood all the time.



Scared the hell out of me when I was four.

reply to post by Annee

God can not be proven or dis-proven.

You seem to be attributing that conclusion to atheists. If so, why do so many self proclaimed atheists try so hard to push the idea that there is no God, onto those that do believe there is a God?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by PrplHrt


Hmm, that's an interesting question. While I have no reason to believe that it has ever happened, I couldn't honestly say that it could never happen. That would require me to have knowledge that is FAR beyond me.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

It was a yes or no question.

The platypus has webbed feet, a duckbill, a beavertail and the males have a venomous spur (sort of like a rooster). It lays eggs despite being a mammal.

It is clearly an animal in evolutionary transition from bird to mammal or from mammal to bird.