Religion; The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

[ZenitYerkes]

Harvester, if you want to prove UFO's don't exist, first you have to know about them. And if you want to prove it seriously, you have to make serious research.

Same applies for God. If you want to make something else apart from making religious people look inferior without actual basis, knowing about the rest of religions won't make you bad; on the contrary, it could make you good.

Start with the Gospels, I think you'd have nothing to fear for trying.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Harvester of Sorrow

I said religion not the members of TOS. There is no need for me to study it, I have absolutely no interst in it at all. Trust me, I dont have to read about an invisible man for me to not believe in him.

Harvestor, if you don't study something, why would you put forth claims about it? You can't just sit there, not have the slightest clue about what different religions teach, and start asserting what you think religious people are all about and not look like an idiot (no offense). It's like the big bully at school everyone encounters:

Teacher: Johnny? Can you come up here and explain what I've written on the board?

Johnny: No. It's stupid and wrong!

Teacher (though she'd never respond like this in reality, but) : How is it wrong?

Johnny: I dunno, it just is! You're just stupid, and everyone who agrees is also stupid!


At least, this is what I'm sensing from all this.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

No. I'm saying you cannot produce any proof that God doesn't exist, which means you also can't claim your opinion on God is anymore logical than any monotheist's.

I agree if we are referring to the entity called "God." We can apply the principle of indifference to the probability that such an entity exists (thus making it 50/50). The ideas of god are a different matter, though. If someone says that a god contains certain attributes, I can argue against this particular idea of god without needing to provide any argument as to whether or not an entity called "God" exists. This is because the idea of god and god exist independent of each other. If I were to disprove someone's idea of a god, I haven't necessarily provided proof of God's nonexistence nor would I need to provide proof of God's nonexistence in order to disprove someone's idea of god.

@Harvester: Your religion (atheism) cannot dictate what is and isn't true just by saying it's more logical.

I just want to clarify something: While something that can be called a religion may have atheism as an attribute, atheism itself is not a religion.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I agree if we are referring to the entity called "God." We can apply the principle of indifference to the probability that such an entity exists (thus making it 50/50). The ideas of god are a different matter, though. If someone says that a god contains certain attributes, I can argue against this particular idea of god without needing to provide any argument as to whether or not an entity called "God" exists. This is because the idea of god and god exist independent of each other. If I were to disprove someone's idea of a god, I haven't necessarily provided proof of God's nonexistence nor would I need to provide proof of God's nonexistence in order to disprove someone's idea of god.

I agree. However, we're sort of past all discussion about any particular god now, where it's more about "Is God? or isn't god?"

Whether it be the Christian God, the god of Islam, the god of Judaism (almost same as Christian, except they deny Jesus), the gods of Hinduism, the Zoroastrian god, the Greek gods, the Urantia Book god, the Mormon god, etc. We could go on and on about which and whatever god is the "true" god, but no one can ever provide any proof that He/she/it doesn't exist. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I just want to clarify something. While something that can be called a religion may have atheism as an attribute, atheism itself is not a religion.

By religion I mean the technical definition of what properties it possesses. "Religion" according to dictionary.com (and others) means:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" would be the theory of evolution. The fact that "esp." was used can indicate any such belief does not necessarily have to be about anything to do with the supernatural or "superhuman".

"...usually involving devotional and ritual observances..." would involve such organizations like Atheist Alliance International or IHEU, and still hold to practices like marriage (only with any mention of God removed), birthdays, or any burial. One mockery-like ritual is the "de-baptism" where blow-dryers are involved. Other secular "rituals" like commemorations are also observed, like Darwin's birthday, or the date of the publication of On the Origin of Species.

"...often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" would be the layout views of the Humanist Manifesto.

Atheism has its high priests (Richard Dawkins; Bill Maher; Stephen Hawking; etc.), its churches, its own bibles, gatherings, organizations, and celebrations. It is, by definition, a religion. God, however, has nothing to do with religion.

[Taw Tsamsiyu]

Atheism - How many gods do YOU not believe in?

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Whether it be the Christian God, the god of Islam, the god of Judaism (almost same as Christian, except they deny Jesus), the gods of Hinduism, the Zoroastrian god, the Greek gods, the Urantia Book god, the Mormon god, etc. We could go on and on about which and whatever god is the "true" god, but no one can ever provide any proof that He/she/it doesn't exist. And vice versa.

I agree with you and why I feel it can be justified to apply the principle of indifference to the existence of god. The ideas of god (such as those described by the various Christian, Islamic, et cetera sects) are another matter where we can study and make logical arguments for and against such ideas. This is also why I am not too interested in whether god exists as much as I am in the various ideas people present about god...

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

By religion I mean the technical definition of what properties it possesses. "Religion" according to dictionary.com (and others) means:


"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" would be the theory of evolution. The fact that "esp." was used can indicate any such belief does not necessarily have to be about anything to do with the supernatural or "superhuman".

Atheism is not evolution. And the theory of evolution concerns itself with the diversity of life (to equate the theory of evolution with colloquial evolution is the fallacy of equivocation). Atheism is a single belief, much like theism is a single belief (neither of which are religions in and of themselves). Since your reference on the definition of "religion" states that a religion is a "set of beliefs," I am wondering how a single belief can be considered a religion (especially when this single belief does not address the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe").

"...usually involving devotional and ritual observances..." would involve such organizations like Atheist Alliance International or IHEU, and still hold to practices like marriage (only with any mention of God removed), birthdays, or any burial. One mockery-like ritual is the "de-baptism" where blow-dryers are involved. Other secular "rituals" like commemorations are also observed, like Darwin's birthday, or the date of the publication of On the Origin of Species.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that god does not exist. What you describe is added on top of this single belief. Also, I do not understand how celebrating a birthday is considered a "devotional and ritual" observation concerning itself with a set of beliefs on the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

Atheism has its high priests (Richard Dawkins; Bill Maher; Stephen Hawking; etc.), its churches, its own bibles, gatherings, organizations, and celebrations. It is, by definition, a religion. God, however, has nothing to do with religion.

Hyperbole is not an argument. Again, what you describe goes beyond what the definition of atheism is. You have shown what may be examples of religion based on atheism, but this does not make atheism a religion any more than the presence of Christian religious sects makes theism a religion.

EDIT: Sorry if my language seems a little confrontational, I don't mean for it to be.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Atheism is not evolution.

I should've worded it differently. Atheism uses evolution as the explanation for the "cause, nature" etc. of the universe.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Since your reference on the definition of "religion" states that a religion is a "set of beliefs," I am wondering how a single belief can be considered a religion (especially when this single belief does not address the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe").

Atheism has various principles involved to make it a single belief system. Evolutionism is one of these principles.

(Btw, I'm very sorry I haven't been to reply on the Evolution thread; I thought I'd take a break from it since I've got a few projects to work on.)

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that god does not exist. What you describe is added on top of this single belief. Also, I do not understand how celebrating a birthday is considered a "devotional and ritual" observation concerning itself with a set of beliefs on the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

A belief in a lack of God doesn't exempt it from being religious. Atheism is a relatively new belief to man. But most atheists hold to the absolute version, in which they claim to know God doesn't exist (i.e. Harvester), thus not calling it a belief, but rather a "true concept".

When breaking past this barrier they automatically become a religious group, since they claim to know something doesn't exist, even though the very object they reject can't be proven in the first place. This is against the rules of logic (like any religion is by default, including Christiainity). By claiming to know something they cannot prove, they have left logic and entered religious speculation.

Birthdays are a ritual celebration performed by all sorts of religions, including atheism. Adding "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" to the equation doesn't separate it from the belief as a whole. That's like asking what the study of plastics has to do with the space shuttle. It's a part of the whole. But I do admit, you don't normally think of a birthday as a "ritual".

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Hyperbole is not an argument. Again, what you describe goes beyond what the definition of atheism is. You have shown what may be examples of religion based on atheism, but this does not make atheism a religion any more than the presence of Christian religious sects makes theism a religion.

So, if it looks like religion, sounds like religion, talks and exerts itself upon the public like religion... what else could it be? Why else is there an "-ism" at the end of "atheism"? You only give suffixes like that to "a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory". Is atheism not part of this?

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Sorry if my language seems a little confrontational, I don't mean for it to be.

Oh not at all. What I'm overjoyed about is the fact that you aren't being so disrespectful about religion like some^^^^^^^ are...

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I should've worded it differently. Atheism uses evolution as the explanation for the "cause, nature" etc. of the universe.

Atheism doesn't necessarily use evolution for any sort of explanation. This is where we disagree. I don't find it logical to add characteristics to atheism as they are not pertinent to the definition of atheism.

Atheism has various principles involved to make it a single belief system. Evolutionism is one of these principles.

Atheism has a specific definition, there are no principles involved with atheism outside of those added by the individual or group. The fact of the matter is atheism, in and of itself, consist of one belief.

(Btw, I'm very sorry I haven't been to reply on the Evolution thread; I thought I'd take a break from it since I've got a few projects to work on.)

That is okay, I don't want you to feel obligated to reply. Reply when you feel that you want to...

A belief in a lack of God doesn't exempt it from being religious. Atheism is a relatively new belief to man. But most atheists hold to the absolute version, in which they claim to know God doesn't exist (i.e. Harvester), thus not calling it a belief, but rather a "true concept".

Can you cite a source that supports the assertion that most atheists hold to the absolute version of atheism?

When breaking past this barrier they automatically become a religious group, since they claim to know something doesn't exist, even though the very object they reject can't be proven in the first place. This is against the rules of logic (like any religion is by default, including Christiainity). By claiming to know something they cannot prove, they have left logic and entered religious speculation.

Breaking this barrier doesn't define them as a religious group according to your definition of religion. I didn't read anywhere in your definition that explained that a knowledge claim about god means that one is religious. One doesn't necessarily enter religious speculation when they leave logic (and neither does religious speculation mean that one is religious).

Birthdays are a ritual celebration performed by all sorts of religions, including atheism. Adding "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" to the equation doesn't separate it from the belief as a whole. That's like asking what the study of plastics has to do with the space shuttle. It's a part of the whole. But I do admit, you don't normally think of a birthday as a "ritual".

While something may be part of the whole, one must be careful about affirming the consequence (a logical fallacy). If one is religious, then they follow rituals. The fallacy occurs when one uses the consequence (they follow rituals) to infer the antecedent (one is religious). In other words, just because someone partakes in ritualistic behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean they are religious (even if the ritual is used by a religion). This was the point I was getting at.

So, if it looks like religion, sounds like religion, talks and exerts itself upon the public like religion... what else could it be? Why else is there an "-ism" at the end of "atheism"? You only give suffixes like that to "a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory". Is atheism not part of this?

You're getting away from the definition of religion that you originally offered. The suffix ism is also used to express belief, action, or conduct: Source.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Atheism doesn't necessarily use evolution for any sort of explanation. This is where we disagree. I don't find it logical to add characteristics to atheism as they are not pertinent to the definition of atheism.

Then you'd be an atheist without a cause to be an atheist.

If you're an atheist, your entire worldview revolves around rationalizing things as if no god existed. This would include everyday occurrences, such as why someone gave a curt remark to you. It'd also include the overall meaning of life. The average atheist believes once death arrives, you simply cease to exist. The atheist (IMO) has no other option except evolutionism to explain the origin of life. It's automatically a natural part of the person's worldview.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Atheism has a specific definition, there are no principles involved with atheism outside of those added by the individual or group. The fact of the matter is atheism, in and of itself, consist of one belief.

That's not true. As I've said, an atheist has a radically different worldview as compared to a theist's. This worldview must include a belief in evolution (because there's no other alternative), a belief of what happens when one dies, a belief of purpose surrounding one's life, etc. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going after death? Atheism, as a religion, must answer these four fundamental questions; and it does.

The original definition I gave is the basic outline surrounding what religion could mean, but that definition is not limited to itself. I just used it because there might be others here who'd claim it must always involve a deity or supernatural entity of some sort, when such a being is technically unrequired.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Can you cite a source that supports the assertion that most atheists hold to the absolute version of atheism?

I base my assertion on the personal experience I've had with the many I've encountered.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Breaking this barrier doesn't define them as a religious group according to your definition of religion. I didn't read anywhere in your definition that explained that a knowledge claim about god means that one is religious.

First of all, it isn't "my" definition, it's the first definition given on dictionary.com. And I used it specifically to drive the point that religion doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the supernatural. You keep saying, "According to your definition..." "I didn't read anywhere in your definition..."; the definition I used was for outline purposes to establish a particular point I was making, not the be-all end-all concrete definition that must stand absolutely alone.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

One doesn't necessarily enter religious speculation when they leave logic (and neither does religious speculation mean that one is religious).

Well, then what else could it mean? That they're being idiots? I don't find any other explanation that fits the thought process.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

While something may be part of the whole, one must be careful about affirming the consequence (a logical fallacy). If one is religious, then they follow rituals. The fallacy occurs when one uses the consequence (they follow rituals) to infer the antecedent (one is religious). In other words, just because someone partakes in ritualistic behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean they are religious (even if the ritual is used by a religion). This was the point I was getting at.

Well, my point was that anyone'd naturally assume a person would follow rituals if they're religious (like what you just said). However, I don't think certain rituals define specific beliefs at all times. When you think "religious ritual" you automatically think something like the Catholic mass or the Jewish bar mitzvah, but I think any ritual is just the practice of a specific process that everyone (or most everyone) in the said religion (but not limited to it) takes a part in. Atheism has such rituals; not to say they're religious rituals, but they're rituals nonetheless, which falls under the definition I gave in the beginning.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

You're getting away from the definition of religion that you originally offered.

I'm not fundamentally bound by the definition I cited.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

The suffix ism is also used to express belief, action, or conduct: Source.

Agreed.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Then you'd be an atheist without a cause to be an atheist.

If you're an atheist, your entire worldview revolves around rationalizing things as if no god existed. This would include everyday occurrences, such as why someone gave a curt remark to you. It'd also include the overall meaning of life. The average atheist believes once death arrives, you simply cease to exist. The atheist (IMO) has no other option except evolutionism to explain the origin of life. It's automatically a natural part of the person's worldview.

An atheist could believe anything that they wanted concerning the origins of life, universe, et cetera and still be considered an atheist. They could hold no beliefs on the origin of life and the universe and still be an atheist. As long as the don't believe in a god, they are an atheist no matter what they believe concerning the origins of life or the universe. If someone believed they built a time machine, went back in time, and ignited the beginning of the universe, yet still not believe in a god, they are an atheist (even if their belief on the origin of the universe is rather out there...).

That's not true. As I've said, an atheist has a radically different worldview as compared to a theist's. This worldview must include a belief in evolution (because there's no other alternative), a belief of what happens when one dies, a belief of purpose surrounding one's life, etc. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going after death? Atheism, as a religion, must answer these four fundamental questions; and it does.

Atheism doesn't have to answer any of that because, fundamentally, atheism does not concern it self with any of that. Atheism represents the belief one has concerning the existence of god. Theism doesn't have to answer any of that, either. Theism and atheism are just single beliefs that can happen to be the influence as to what an individual chooses to believe concerning the questions you listed. An atheist can believe in reincarnation, for example. But one doesn't need to have a belief, or any particular belief, on an issue such as what happens after death because as long as the individual doesn't believe in a god, they are an atheist.

I base my assertion on the personal experience I've had with the many I've encountered.

My experience is mainly in the opposite. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't go as far as to claim with abslute certainty a god doesn't exist (he says to make such a claim is unscientific).

First of all, it isn't "my" definition, it's the first definition given on dictionary.com. And I used it specifically to drive the point that religion doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the supernatural. You keep saying, "According to your definition..." "I didn't read anywhere in your definition..."; the definition I used was for outline purposes to establish a particular point I was making, not the be-all end-all concrete definition that must stand absolutely alone.

I apologize, I tend to phrase it that way in order to signify that the definition we are using was a definition you presented. I'll do my best to rephrase it a different way (though, habits can be hard to break)...

Well, then what else could it mean? That they're being idiots? I don't find any other explanation that fits the thought process.

Many times people leave the realm of logic when their reactions are influenced by emotion. If someone doesn't believe in God because they are mad at God, they are not coming to a conclusion logically; rather, it is coming to a conclusion emotionally. Or sometimes people will disregard logic in order to protect themselves from cognitive dissonance.

Atheism has such rituals; not to say they're religious rituals, but they're rituals nonetheless, which falls under the definition I gave in the beginning.

To say that a birthday falls under rituals as to the definition you gave is incorrect, as the celebration does not concern itself with any sort of religion (unless someone chooses to do so). When the definition you posted mentions rituals, it is pertaining to rituals concerning that particular religious set of beliefs. A birthday, in general, would not fall under rituals as it pertains to the definition you gave. This is because a birthday can be considered a ritual concerning the birthdate of an individual (probably best described as a cultural ritual). Now if a family celebrates every birthday by starting out with a prayer to their deity, the prayer could be considered a ritual under the definition of "religion" you gave as this ritual is derived directly from their beliefs (the ritual is in observation of their beliefs).

I'm not fundamentally bound by the definition I cited.

I agree, but I like to stick to a definition because if our terms are not defined, or the definition changes, it becomes hard to have a discussion. Just let me know when you are planning on using another definition; otherwise, I'll assume we are still discussing a term in accordance with the last definition offered...

[xcrunner08]

*sigh* oh the religious arguments. These always end in bloodshed, literally and metaphorically. I just wanted to get my two cents in. I am a religious person. I believe in God. It's the way I was raised and it's what I myself have come to believe. I do, however, respect everyone else's belief. I do not think that if someone believes something different, your going to be eternally damned. Far from it.

The afterlife I believe in, people are held accountable to how they held themselves to the beliefs they followed in life, if that makes sense. I won't judge you based upon your religion. What I DO NOT like, is when people disrespect the beliefs of others. Harvester of Sorrow: You started a topic on religion, and yet you have done no research on religion (IIRC what you said correctly).

Having done no research, you also bash those who believe by calling MOST of us feeble-minded. I assure you most are far from feeble-minded. Just because we choose to believe in a higher power does not mean we are brain-washed or otherwise. It's a personal choice. If your an atheist, I don't mind, but stop attacking religious people and get some facts out there before you put it down.

[Советский меч]

There arent enough facts when dealing with religion to study. They are yet to provide solid evidence of an invisible man, and i am betting they never will.

[ZenitYerkes]

I believe bringing the proof of God's existence or non-existence it's actually the same: it'd be answering the same question, "Is there anybody out there?". If there is no solid evidence from the religious side, there won't be one either for the atheist side; since it is the same question what we try to answer and we've got the same proofs in front of us.

However, what makes you be religious or not is what is called the faith gap. This is, to jump from the reason land and accept some things by just having faith in them (eg Christ's resurrection, the existence of God,...). When we do the jump, however, we don't see what's below; finding out whether God exists or not for example would mean that you see down; and what you could find is a bridge between the reason and the faith land (this is, God is a reasonable being and therefore we can reach it via this bridge) or just void (God is unreachable and unreasonable, impossible, nonexistent).

All that in a metaphorical sense of course.

But what makes me really think over this is not the existence of God itself, but how the actual God is (if it exists). How if it wasn't as we picture it?

[Woodsprite]

And then there's Pascal's wager. Thing is, though, Dawkins tried to discredit the argument, saying one could lead a better, fuller life on the bet that there wasn't any god at all.

...Maybe. But on a gravestone you have a dash between your birth and death, and it depends on what you do with your dash that will either affect the world, or leave it as it is. Either way, you're going to be dead longer than you were alive, so life is really nothing when you compare it with eternity. Better to bet on something eternal like death, than something finite like life on earth. That's where Dawkins' argument falls flat, imo.

[PaTRioT]

In this day and age, if there were no bibles or books teaching of the various religions. If you were never told about any of it. Would everyone still come to the conclusion that there is a god out there somewhere that created everything?
I personally think not.
I think religion as a whole is an outdated system of control, that aligns and divides masses of people all over the world.
I'm sure we'd all find other reasons to kill eachother without gods, but i know alot of blood has been spilled through history in the name of 'god'.

That being said, I have no faith, no belief in afterlife, no man in the sky watching out for me, no heaven and no hell.

I treat others how I like to be treated back, I always help people out when I can.
I don't fight with people. well mannered
I am no lesser of a person not worshipping a 'god'

I know also alot of people think that religion is good because of the moral teachings they have aswell, but surely, you shouldn't need to go to a church to be taught to have manners, and not steal and kill etc etc etc.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm content to say it how I've spent my life seeing it