Atheism IS a Religion.

[Ellie]

It was eating meat that increased the brain-power of the monkeys, and lead to them learning to use tools.

Gotta remember it's not really monkeys that turned into us. They say they are our closest relatives in the animal world, but it's really one ape-type-creature that evolved into humans, monkeys, chimps, gorillas, etc.

 

[Astromech]

Since when did this become another origin of life debate?  :crazy:  It doesn't really belong here especially since you can be theist and still believe in evolution.

Atheism itself is not really a religion. It just is the belief that there is no God, but it is still a belief no matter what people want to say.

Religion is formed by beliefs on unknown things, I think. Under that definition, many atheists would be religious in a way, unless they have absolutely no opinion on the origin of life, afterlife, soul, etc. I'm sure many would disagree because science "proves" things, but that has been debated already so I won't go into it.

 

[Venetia]

Yes, please stop the chatter on the origins of species and all that. This is not Darwin v. the 700 Club :wink:

But toward Astromech: You can't say that religionless people are atheists. I don't deny the existence of god, I'm just skeptical of every possibility. There's no denial, only apathy.

Atheism follows a fairly set doctrine, whether there's a "bible" or not--no god, no heaven, and we're here due to a natural incident.

While yes, the Chaos Theory covers the notion that anything is possible and to believe that something won't happen is a blind leap of faith ... There are some things that are a given.

Applying the Chaos Theory, one could infer that in one occurrence of your touching your monitor, there's a 1-in-3,487,592,087,509,230,598,203,598,205,98,205,982,035,938,205,982,095,809,485,049,588,767,867,687,698,767,674,565,434,353,425,324,532,453,245,327,587,668,967,986,574 chance that your hand will pass through. But the chance of that happening is so infinitesimally small, it probably won't happen.

What's the diff?

Everyone dies. And life did emerge from some point. So when rhetoricals get mixed into the equation, it becomes less about probability and more about faith.

Your jumping off a cliff and having faith that the water below won't kill you isn't a religion, because it's not an set belief system shared among many. Your belief that you will be met by solid nothing after death can be referred to as a religion because it's a belief system shared by many about something that happens to us all.

I think atheists are afraid of the possibility that their belief system is in the same category as Christianity, but the probability that you will die is 1-out-of-1, and if you're making hypotheses about such blatently unknown-but-known factors, you're citing a religious following, regardless of the lack of rituals, text, or history.

It's fine to believe whatever you want, but you can't walk around thinking you're hot shit for lending your faith to science, because in the realm of the unknown, you're just a tepid puddle of piss.


BTW, I suppose, if a bunch of other people adapted to my way of thinking, I might inspire some kind of ... "Apathyism", where there are accepted boundaries on what to believe (or, what to disbelieve). And then it'd be a religion.

Edit: --Whoops, only that one paragraph was at Astromech, not the whole rant o_o;;

Also:

Atheism isn't a religion, its a category. Atheists reject religion.

Theists can be Christians, Buddhists, Hindu, etc. But an atheist can only be an atheist. Although atheists don't really have to believe in science I think it would be ridiculous for one not to. But still, Atheism doesn't really mean a person believes a certain thing, its just that science and atheism go hand in hand.

And about scientific theories, a scientific theory is not a theory as in you say "I have a theory" based on something you have observed. A scientific theory has a LOT of evidence to back it up before it can even be considered a theory. If you don't believe in evolution, you might as well not believe in gravity either.

A widely believed falsity. If you want to get down to semantics, theism is the belief in a god or gods. Buddhists don't believe in a god, and Confucianism didn't honor any set god, either. Atheism could be construed as being anti-god, meaning that they are godless, but it's still a belief system surrounding the origin of life and what happens after you die.

And scientific theories S-H-O-U-L-D be based of a large array of trial-and-error testing situations. But there are human errors, data errors, problems rising concerning current technology/methods, and people who just plain fudge the results. It's amazing to find how small the test groups are for psychological theories, or how scientists can skew a result to get more funding.

There will always be error, and scientific theories, while more reliable than random theories, are still very fallible.

But this debate isn't about that :P. It's about getting around the semantics to what lies deeper.

 

[Level10]

Atheism could be construed as being anti-god, meaning that they are godless, but it's still a belief system surrounding the origin of life and what happens after you die.

But that's the thing - it's not a belief system surrounding the origin of life and what happens when you die. It's simply a disbelief, or lack of belief, in any god or gods. Not all atheists believe in evolution and no afterlife.

Take Buddhism, for example. It is a religion. It is also atheistic. Christianity is a religion, and it is theistic. Atheism and theism aren't religions in themselves.

 

[Yoshine]

if A god is a all knowing being
then to know there is no god you make yourself a all knowing god
defeating the purpose of atheism 

 

[Despain]

But that's the thing - it's not a belief system surrounding the origin of life and what happens when you die. It's simply a disbelief, or lack of belief, in any god or gods. Not all atheists believe in evolution and no afterlife.

Depends on the kind of atheism. There's different levels of atheism, primarily between strong and weak atheism. In one, it's simply the diesbelief of God. In strong atheism, though, it's the belief that there is no God. There's a difference, and it comes down to what the individual believes.

It's impossible to say whether atheism itself is a religion or not. At its core, in the broader sense of the term, it's not a religion. But strong atheism, Atheism, can certainly be.

 

[mawk]

if A god is a all knowing being
then to know there is no god you make yourself a all knowing god
defeating the purpose of atheism 

WHAT

(Seriously, though, I don't get the argument I assume you're making. Religion isn't based around knowing there's a god or a lack thereof. It's the belief in one direction or the other that defines religion and so royally screws us over by making us fight amongst ourselves. Trust me, if atheists knew for a fact there was no god, there wouldn't be any debate over the issue for very long. At the moment, God is in Doc Schrödinger's box, and we're not yet sure whether the radiation killed him or if he was even in the box to begin with.)

 

[e]

So what...if the atom decays, God dies? This thread is becoming more interesting!

 

[mawk]

So what...if the atom decays, God dies? This thread is becoming more interesting!

He's neither dead nor alive until we open the box, though. We've placed God in a state of quantum flux. :thumb:

Incidentally, that quote is going in my sig for massive lulz and the small amount of blackcurrant soda that painfully forced its way through my nose.

 

[___]

So what...if the atom decays, God dies? This thread is becoming more interesting!

*laugh*  I knew there was a good joke in the Schrödinger's box reference, bravo.

 

[Ratty524]

Wow, why didn't I pay attention to this? I seriously hate it when people act like Atheism is a fact (especially on Gaia Online... >_>).

No one ABSOLUTELY knows how humans, the planets, and whatnot came to exist, and EVERY scientific statement on how the world came to be is a THEORY (hense why it's called the "Big Bang THEORY).

 

[Necrile]

I am not gonna bring my religion in this, it'll only spark a flame war. But let me explain my thoughts on this:
Try and imagine all the religions of the world as colors, but all of them believe in a God or Gods in some shape or form. Athiesm is the "black" of the religions, because it doesn't believe in God period. So I, personally, don't think it is a religion because of this.

 

[mawk]

Black's not a colour? Oh, no! D:

That metaphor is... clear as mud, I'm afraid. I can see where you were going when it was still a metaphor, but how you arrived at your conclusion is a mystery to me. :\

It seems kind of odd to contribute to pages of discussion with a simple colour metaphor and its real-world associations.

 

[Necrile]

I'm saying that basically since everyother how religion has god in some shape or form, and athiesm lacks a god, it is not a religion.

 

[Venetia]

Oy.

Nor every religion features a god or god(s). Read up on other religions sometime, hon.

 

[Cthulhu-man]

I have seen so many posts in this thread saying "people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe" yet in the same post they would turn and assert their very own opinion as though it was fact.

And honestly, why do so many users on this thread keep trying to define atheism? WHERE DO YOU FIND THE MOTIVATION? "lack of religion at all" or "it is a religion, blah blah blah." Who cares. Everyone obviously has their own ideas, and to keep participating in this little tug of war is actually quite petty. Did any of you notice that you're not getting anywhere?

Perhaps we could input useful information, opinions that matter? I personally have seen many atheists bashing christians just for fun, blurting out lines as snappy and as obnoxious as "your mother" jokes at any and every occasion that arrises. I've seen atheists that honestly get offended when a friend is converted to christianity. And I've seen christians attack with just as much venom. The only variable in this is ego. It's a childish game, and in the end, neither side has made progress.

 

[mawk]

Instead of placing yourself above all of this and boxing our ears for being stupid children, why not follow your own advice and contribute something other than preening to the debate at hand?

Sorry, but the sort of thing you described is kind of how debates go. It's tough to convince people of anything over the internet, and trying to act like we're bickering hacks because of that is just a "dick move," as my colleagues would say.

 

[Cthulhu-man]

One thing I really love, is how you pretend to represent everyone participating in this topic. And I wasn't referring to everyone, by the way. But you can spin it in the direction you like, I suppose. But then again, perhaps I implied otherwise. I do get carried away, and often forget things.

I'm only placing myself above obvious stupidity. I think it's fine if users want to argue to defeinition of atheism. That is, the topic, anyway. But to keep proving or disproving the same point over and over again with no new material and saying things people have already said again and again is redundant. I should have clarified this in the first post.

I agreed with Venetia that atheism is a religion, and it seems as though they came up with a lot of good evidence. Those who opposed, seemed to just say the same shit again and again.

 

[shiroun]

Just for a slight reference.


Atheism is a form of worship. However, it can go either way. It will be debated and shunned for millenium to come.


Whoever said Atheism is the 'black' of all religions, that is an incorrect statement.

Rather, they are the 'white' of all religions. Black is a color that contains every color of the spectrum in it. White contains none but itself.

Touche.

 

[mawk]

One thing I really love, is how you misuse commas.

Well, not really, but it's about as pertinent to the discussion as the thing you said.

I think it's fine if users want to argue to defeinition of atheism. That is, the topic, anyway.

Then what are we arguing about? Jeez, you confused me for a second when you said this:

And honestly, why do so many users on this thread keep trying to define atheism? WHERE DO YOU FIND THE MOTIVATION? "lack of religion at all" or "it is a religion, blah blah blah." Who cares.

Just misspoke, right?

But to keep proving or disproving the same point over and over again with no new material and saying things people have already said again and again is redundant. I should have clarified this in the first post.

Oh, that. You're right, you should have. Besides, there's an easier way to fix this: If you think we need some new material, contribute something new. Stop complaining about the hole in the tent unless you've made an attempt to fucking fix it.

One thing I really love, is how you pretend to represent everyone participating in this topic. And I wasn't referring to everyone, by the way. But you can spin it in the direction you like, I suppose. But then again, perhaps I implied otherwise. I do get carried away, and often forget things.

I love(,) how you penalize me for using the pronoun "we." I've said that I disapprove of what you're doing because you're acting that you're better than us as a whole.
I refer to everyone participating in the topic, but do I pretend that I'm talking for them?

Besides, what does it matter that some people in the topic are better at debating than others (with some of them being very awful?) In your previous post, not only did you find the less literate members objectionable, but you stated how distasteful you found the very topic, and that we should all have the gall to discuss it as such length as to become tiresome to you.