Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I find it odd for someone to say that religion is poison to equate religion and God as the same thing. Perhaps this is because many people in the world often to make the same connection, that God and religion are the same thing.

I've often equated religion as the crutch in life. Don't get me wrong. I think religion is a great idea. People need hope, religion more often than not gives that hope to people who have none. I just think that at the end of the road, not everything can be answered with "Because God made it so", an answer prevalent in religion.

To expand further into the unknown, you have to cast aside the beliefs of religion and for people of science, cast aside the possibility that whatever you know to be true might be wrong.

Anyone can expand an idea, live by it. But belief especially in something as strong as religion, people will kill for it. Not exactly something that works on progressing mankind.

marx called it the opium of the masses ... and decartes said 'man does no worse evil than when does it in the name of god.' history tells us that religion does not equal progression for humanity. indeed. however, that's the flaw in the fanatically religious. that they refuse to acquiesce that, anything which man has thus far proven to exist thru the 5 senses, one simply cannot deny. however, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and deny spirituality. like i said, i think its possible to maintain some sort of spiritual belief without subscribing to any spiritual political view. in my view, an evolutionary view of the world does not seem compatible with a belief in a supernal existence.

Why do people not think when it comes to religion?

"how we think, not what we think that matters more"

Really? So if I think "killing is bad" or "killing is good" it doesn't matter because it's "how" I think it that matters? Would you lend money to somebody who didn't think paying money back was important?

The 'how' of thinking is important (and worthy of study) but the 'what' is more important still which is why we generally teach children not to run with scissors before we explain the statistical mathematics required to prove that running increases the likelihood of tripping and impaling.

"i mean to express here my doubt that any human-formed - and therefore political - establishment could ever represent the supernal being."

I think any Christian/Muslim/Jew certainly would agree. The Catholic would certainly say that no human-formed establishment could ever represent the supernatural being. Now if God himself formed an establishment that would be another matter...

"so ... i guess i just think, for those who believe in heaven and hell, ' stop telling me i'm going to hell for blaspheming. concentrate on how you plan to get into heaven"

Oh the irony. soo ... i guess i just think, for those who believe in subjective truth,' stop telling me i've got to stop believing in any objective truth that might involve me mentioning it to you.

even atheism requires belief and faith, in case anyone's wondering.

Atheism requires more faith because a religious person generally has some kind of evidence in the form of a spiritual experience or revelation or (dare I say it) rational argument while an atheist has nothing but the ridiculous claim that "if I can't see it then it doesn't exist" as if there is any scientific experiment you can do to demonstrate that things you can't see don't exist (try going to a street you have never seen for example and see if it exists).

"decartes said 'man does no worse evil than when does it in the name of god."

I think you may have misquoted Descartes there. He meant to say that if you do evil in the name of God then your evil is worse than if you do it on your own. He said this because God is good and doing evil in his name makes him look bad (and gives material for folks like Hitchens to throw around).

History tells us that people are perfectly capable of doing bad things to each other in the name of whatever happens to be lying around. The atheistic communist nations killed millions. That doesn't make it alright for religious people to kill millions but it kind of implies that religion has little to do with it except as an excuse.

Apologies if the above comes over sarcastic. I've had a long day and I need a lie down.

I posted about his book on my blog some time back. I despise the Hitch for his sheer apoplectic pomposity, but the book is well worth the read. I posted about it on my blog back awhile ago, along with Hitchens interview vid with Anderson Cooper. (including his commentary on the death of Jerry Falwell)

Religion and god are not the same thing in my book Kamigoroshi, and his book was still well worth the read.,if you already have a sound understanding of your beliefs that is. Otherwise you might just let Hitchen's do all the thinking for you.

All organised religions are dependent on their followers refusal or inability to think outside the box. Once you begin to glimpse that there is life and meaning beyond illusion, you are lost to the priests or holy men, whatever you want to call them.
Religion is an occupying power that enslaves us within its own parameters and threatens us with damnation if we stray. But you can avoid it. Just don't go there. Or, if you are there, slip away. Get yourself free.

You all better be right

Religion is an occupying power that enslaves us within its own parameters

The laws of physics enslave us within their own parameters but they are still true.

The laws of physics aren't true; they are simple, demonstrable facts. Religions, on the other hand, propagate interpretations and opinions as if they were facts.
There is no mileage in comparing the savoury course with the sweet. But you are welcome to your 'truth'; whatever turns you on is fine by me . . . so long as you recognise the need for co-existence.

"The laws of physics aren't true"

Do you mean that our current understanding of the laws of physics isn't true (e.g. Newton's laws fail at small scales, high speeds etc) or do you mean that the laws of physics that physicists seek to discover and understand are not true?

"they are simple, demonstrable facts"

Are you saying that facts are not true?

Religions, on the other hand, propagate interpretations and opinions as if they were facts.

It depends how you spin the lingo on this one. At one extreme, I could point out that evolution (which I accept btw before we get sidetracked), the big bang, the shell structure of the atom etc are all scientists interpretations of facts. The only facts we have are 'the universe is getting bigger' and 'this is what the fossil record seems to show' and 'when Rutherford threw atoms at gold foil this is what happened' etc. However, once scientists have looked at the facts we have and used reason (usually mathematical reasoning) to interpret these facts we declare the results to be... facts. Kids are not taught in school that the big bang is the most prominent current interpretation of the facts (if it even is any more) they are told.. scientists know this. It is a fact and you are stupid if you doubt it.

So, the flip side of the coin is Religion which tends to operate a similar scheme. Historians take facts from documents, archeology etc and use reason to produce their interpretations. When these interpretations are agreed on they are taken as facts. Julius Caesar (who nobody has met) existed... fact. Jesus Christ existed... fact.

Peoples interpretations of these things are often expressed as interpretations, Pope Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth begins with an explicit declaration... although I am pope the following is not fact it is my view and you can disagree with it.

But you are welcome to your 'truth';

How very kind.

whatever turns you on is fine by me . . . so long as you recognise the need for co-existence

When you say it is fine by you . . . so long as, what will you do if I don't recognise the need for co-existence? Lock me up? Kill me? Not very co-existent of you...

Goodness me, Lovinglt, you are in a rather grumpy mood today . . . and not very coherent either.
No one is threatening to lock you up or kill you. Get a grip, kid.
I don't regard your opinions as a threat. I recognise your freedom to say whatever it is you want to say. In fact if ever anyone does want to lock you up or kill you for saying something, you can call on me. I'll be on your side.

Sorry John,

I didn't mean to come across grumpy. I'm having a fairly good day the sun is shining and the floods have receeded.

As for my being not very coherent, that's a subjective opinion you are entitled to have and I respectfully decline to agree. I still don't understand how you can say "The laws of physics aren't true; they are simple, demonstrable facts.". Can you come up with an example of a fact which is not true?

As for the killing part, I didn't mean to imply that you were planning to lock me up or kill me. Maybe I was unclear. What I wanted to do was point out the apparent contradiction in your view that my opinions are fine by you so long as I recognise the need for co-existence. The "fine by me" part implies that if I do not recognise the need for co-existence then you will have an objection. But if you object to my views what are you going to do about it? If you do anything (like just trying to convince me of my error) and you succeed then you are actively choosing not to co-exist with that person/view. You yourself have an ideology that is against co-existence with any other ideology which is against co-existence.

If someone is against co-existence then you will be against co-existing with them which means you are now against co-existence and are no longer fine by you. You end up against yourself.

How do you deal with that?

Kami said in the first response:

I just think that at the end of the road, not everything can be answered with "Because God made it so", an answer prevalent in religion.

To expand further into the unknown, you have to cast aside the beliefs of religion and for people of science, cast aside the possibility that whatever you know to be true might be wrong.

The worst part of this entire discussion is that everyone equates the radical religious with religion as a whole. "Because God made it so..." is used much less often as an answer and more often as simply an accepted statement. Not even a majority of people who are religious think that dinosaurs lived a couple hundred years ago and that t-rexes most likely ate vegetables, or other crazy things like that.

If you could go further into the idea that to expand into the unknown you'd have to cast aside the beliefs of religion? I'd love to hear the specifics of the ideas behind it.

"If you do anything (like just trying to convince me of my error) and you succeed then you are actively choosing not to co-exist with that person/view. You yourself have an ideology that is against co-existence with any other ideology which is against co-existence.

"If someone is against co-existence then you will be against co-existing with them which means you are now against co-existence and are no longer fine by you."

Sorry, Lovinglt, but you're beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld. It's good to hear the floods have receded in Hull . . . or was that a metaphor?

I should clarify that in the quote above I am trying to understand your thinking, not express my own. My own thinking is not:

"whatever turns you on is fine by me . . . so long as you recognise the need for co-existence"

Your thinking is. You said so. So I am curious, how do you co-exist with those who do not believe in co-existing with you? Do you do nothing?

P.S. I still don't get: "The laws of physics aren't true; they are simple, demonstrable facts."

LovingIt: I wouldn't try to get it for too long. I would assume he was attempting to say they don't need to be categorized as true because they simply ARE, they exist and cannot be true nor false. You wouldn't rightly ask the question, "Are the Laws of Physics true?" you would instead ask, "Are the Laws of Physics correct?"

Then again, JohnBaker really hasn't attempted to address, counterpoint, or discuss any of the interesting things you've brought up, instead he nit-picks one small thing from your posts and mocks it/you. I don't know if other share my observation or not, but that's how i see it.

My contribution to this thread was that Religion is an occupying power that enslaves us within its own parameters. Lovinglt responded by asserting that the parameters don't undermine the truth of religion, thus transferring the whole debate to a subjective level.
Half the world sees truth as relative, the other half believes it to be absolute.
We are not going to agree about that in the immediate future. My question is, therefore, can we agree to co-exist? If we can agree to co-exist then that is fine by me. You talk nonsense most of the time but that doesn't hurt us. We laugh at your nonsense from time to time but that doesn't hurt you. We can get along. It's possible.
On the other hand, if you say we can't co-exist unless we accept your premise, you are in fact drawing up battle lines and we're back in the realm of the middle-ages.

Nonsense is a relative thing, as well. You talk a lot about co-existing, but almost everything you say also boils down to an "us" and "them" conversation. Perhaps the reason you keep trying so hard to force co-existence rather then let it be natural is because you don't accept the fact that we're all human, and we each have our own personal beliefs. No one can tell who's beliefs are better or worse in the end.

Bartoneus, now you're just being implacable. That has little to do with thinking.
Of course nonsense is relative. Who would disagree?
Co-existing is about 'us' and 'them'.
I'm not trying to force co-existence, or anything else. I only spoke about co-existence.
It has become quite clear in this argument that you don't want co-existence. It is abhorrent to you. You want us all to be like you.
And, finally (I'm not coming back here), it's you who wants to talk about belief, not me. After all, it's you who believe in it.

Lovinglt responded by asserting that the parameters don't undermine the truth of religion, thus transferring the whole debate to a subjective level.

My point was simply this, you might not like the parameters laid down by religion but that doesn't make religion false. Just as you might not like the limitations built in to the physical world (most of us can't fly for example) but the fact is it is the limitation is true.

That only makes it subjective if you are foolish enough to think that truth is subjective. Which it clearly isn't.

Half the world sees truth as relative, the other half believes it to be absolute.

It is tempting to infer too much from your choice of words here.

You seem to be implying that relative truth is an observable fact while absolute truth is something you have to believe in.

Is that what you are saying?

John: You certainly love to assume all kinds of things about people, don't you? I certainly hope you come back to this discussion, though it seems you can't enjoy it in some way, I'm enjoying it thoroughly.

Just thought I'd point out also, saying you won't be back to this thread is the definition of -not- co-existing (in this thread).

Bartoneus,

Thinking about what Kamigoroshi said...

"To expand further into the unknown, you have to cast aside the beliefs of religion and for people of science, cast aside the possibility that whatever you know to be true might be wrong."

Kamigoroshi is either being very wise or very silly.

Forgetting the religion bit for a moment, if people of science "cast aside the possibility that whatever [they] know to be true might be wrong" then that's like getting in to a car and driving along and casting aside the possibility that you might ever make a wrong turn. It might get you further, faster but if you do make a wrong turn you could end up anywhere... it is unknown where you would end up and you would indeed be 'further in to the unknown'.

Well, I work in the science field and one of the things that we often discuss is the entrance of belief in science. Not the belief of faith, but the belief that you're not wrong, which is the same as blind faith. In the long run, this can harm your research.

Science is about exploring the possibilities and testing theories based upon the faculties that are disposed to us. It doesn't mean that whatever we hypothesized may be true, more often than not we learn that it's wrong. By accepting that what we found out isn't the truth, we are free to explore it from another perspective, not hindered by bias and intellectual prejudice.

Very true, and most of it boils down to what we do if/when we find out we're wrong. I get the feeling, just from this one thread, that John Baker really doesn't like being told he's wrong. I'm not saying it's true, but there certainly isn't much to disprove it right now.

Being unwilling to accept our own fallacy is a naturally human trait, but what we do when faced with either something or someone that challenges our beliefs we find out how we'd react to it, and that's the key. Do you run and hide from it? Do you get angry? All of these things reveal far more about who we are then most other situations in life.

Another part of this discussion I didn't even touch on is, in relation t pretty much anything: How can you prove to someone that God didn't make it so?

It's not easy. At least I don't think anyone has succeeded yet. We have to understand that if someone wants to believe it to be real, they make it real. For religious people especially fundamentalists, their belief is their world and they shape it that way.

To prove otherwise would be to destroy their world and the human sense of reality isn't exactly a rock solid thing.

Now you're just making me think of this: Death Star > Alderaan

I said Kamigoroshi might be wise or silly.

I'm going with wise.

I still think she's wrong on a few things but it wouldn't be right to leave a half suggested insult floating around that clearly isn't true.

I still think she's wrong on a few things...

You won't be the first or the last to mistake me for a woman. :)

My apologies (not that there's anything wrong with women).

Apparently I am wrong on a few things as well...

Hitchens can be a prize idiot, especially when it comes to Iraq but I think he's spot on when talking of religion. It's good to see people like Hitchens, Dawkins, harris and Dennett taking a stand.

Someone may already have made this point, but every time I hear people talk about how much better off the world would be without organized religion I wonder if they've considered if this actually is true.

Consider the following two groups of folks from the 20th century: on the one hand there are the products of organized religion: Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Desmond Tutu, Oscar Romero.

And then there are the secularists: Adolf Hitler, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin.

I admit these are extreme groups on both sides, but I'd be interested to know if anyone can name a secular person who is a greater hero than those I've named in the religion group or a religious person who is more evil than those I've named in the secular group.

I've not read the book. Does Hitches deal with this issue?

revbennyd

A couple of issues to deal with first, Hitler was by no means a secularist/atheist and, if you delved deeper into Mother Theresa you'd find that she wasn't particularly great or humanitarian.

However, I do get what you're saying.

It's often argued that some of the worst atrocities we've witnessed were committed by atheists. That may well be true but it's missing the point. The real question is what motivated these people. They all had mustaches, but can we blame the wearing of facial hair for the horrors they committed? This goes both ways. Would MLK still have been a good man, one that fought for freedom if he was not a religious man? The answer is most likely yes. There's no doubt that religion inspires good, Hitchens wouldn't argue this. However good people are good by nature and religion cannot be given credit. Moreover none of this says anything about whether God is real.

Now, as for a secular hero. It's a very good question :) I can think of many people that have been great men or women and have contributed to society. Whether they were religious or not I don't know. Many of the great moral philosophers were of course secular, many great scientists the same.

As for a religious person being more evil, well there are plenty. The current Pope and Catholic Church are indirectly (possibly even directly) responsible for millions of deaths and this will continue until they change their minds about the morality of latex. I won't even get onto their harboring and protection of pedophiles.

There's no doubt that religion inspires good, Hitchens wouldn't argue this. However good people are good by nature and religion cannot be given credit.

There is a direct contradiction in that statement. You claim religion can inspire good, and then state that good people are good by nature and religion is not to credit for this. If not in good people who are religious, then where does religion inspire good?

I recommend C.S. Lewis to pretty much everyone, he was an atheist for a better portion of his life who converted to christianity and has written a large amount of logical and thought out arguments pertaining to atheism, religion, and belief.

I was writing quickly :)

What I mean is that religion can inspire good but at the same time, many people would still be good regardless of a belief in good. They would just be inspired by something else. You missed the rest of my post which I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on.

With regards to CL Lewis, well he's a good fiction writer but most of what he's written in terms of religion and God has either been debunked or is now seen as irrelevant. As for his conversion, what were his reasons? None of them really hold water anymore.

Athiestperspective,

While I agree that the current Pope needs to get over a lot of stuff (including his adversion to certain kinds of latex :)), I have a hard time putting him in the same league as Hitler or Stalin.

Regardless, is it not possible that religion is a force that can be used for good or for ill, that the moral weight is really a human problem and not the problem of religion?

I don't know what you have read of C.S. Lewis' non-fiction, but before you disregard his work completely, please read "A Grief Observed." It is a powerfully honest book about his grief around the death of his wife. Or read the introduction to "The Problem of Pain." Or read his refusal to condemn the same-sex eroticism he encountered in English public schools in "Surprised by Joy." There is more to Lewis than often is assumed.
Much of what he writes is actually very human, very honest, and deeply spiritual (in contrast to "Mere Christianity.")

Ben

Is the Pope in the same league as Stalin? Possibly not but he is still complicit in the death and suffering of millions of people with the ability to stop it at any point he likes.

Yes, religion can be a force for good. I'm not disputing that but on balance, I think we could do without it it. In the longer term I think it will do more harm than good. Our children are being exposed to religion on a daily basis, to schools that want to teach them that the earth is 6,000 years old, religion is not the root of all evil, just a lot of it.

As for CS Lewis, I have read plenty of his non fiction. He's certainly a good writer but a bad religious apologist.

Our children are being exposed to religion on a daily basis, to schools that want to teach them that the earth is 6,000 years old

Wow! What school do your kids go to?

:) Fortunately a good one that doesn't teach this nonsense but you'd be surprised just how big the creation/ID movement is right now.

With regards to CL Lewis, well he's a good fiction writer but most of what he's written in terms of religion and God has either been debunked or is now seen as irrelevant. As for his conversion, what were his reasons? None of them really hold water anymore.

C.S. Lewis eventually converted from Atheism to Christianity because of his long-time friend (and Catholic) J.R.R. Tolkien. I find it interesting to simply state someone's reasons for conversion "don't hold water anymore" without even knowing what they were. As well as stating that someone's writing about religion has been debunked and is irrelevant when it's still widespread and well-read. You seem awfully attacking and prejudiced towards this one man.

As towards the entirety of your original post, atheistperspective, it's just not a very well formed argument. You are going on a lot of conjecture about not only what religion historical figures were but also a bunch of assumptions. You assume that MLK would still be a good man even if he wasn't religious, which very likely may be true but it doesn't hold any weight because we have no idea how things would have turned out. Better proof would be actually listing good people who were very much not religious. C.S. Lewis would definitely be one of them, but as with him you'd have to look at their entire lives and find out if they ever converted or changed their beliefs.

Another issue is arguing that the real question is what motivated these people, because history (by its nature) has a way of only recording what people do rather then who they really are or what inspires them to do it. For me, this takes the historical arguments out of it entirely because you can have religious people doing good and bad things, and non-religious people doing good and bad things, they were all humans in the end.

You've taken on an extremist view of religion, and you're definitely talking about religion and religious people as if they are ALL fundementalists and radicals. You're certainly lumping all religious education into teaching the ideas of Intelligent Design, but there are definitely religious teachers out there who aren't teaching it. To me, feeling that religion will do more harm then good is simply pessimism because if you look at the cold hard facts most religions teach above all to love one another. I certainly don't view atheism as leading to more harm then good, and I'd love to hear more about your feelings on all of this. (none of this was meant to be attacking, if it comes off as such please let me know)

Hi Bartoneus

I know a little about C.S Lewis, he formed part of my studies. However I don't want to discuss him really. We'll end up in a stand off between Lewis and Russell and neither of us have the time I don't think :)

"can have religious people doing good and bad things, and non-religious people doing good and bad things,"

I totally agree with you. 100%.

"and you're definitely talking about religion and religious people as if they are ALL fundementalists and radicals"

Well, to some extent they are. Let's take the religion that we are most familiar with. Christianity. Let's play a little game.

I love Erik. Erik is magnificent. He is an invisible flying pink elephant who lives in my back garden. He is all powerful and knows every thought I have. He has given me a moral code with which to live. At the same time, he tells me that this is the only way to live and I must do everything in my power to make sure other people believe the same things. Incidentally, unlike other elephants, he was not conceived normally. He was born of a virgin elephant. Erik is the greatest thing ever to have lived and I live my life by him. He makes me feel good. I don't know how I could live my life without him. Every day I pray to Erik to help me with anything from getting my favorite football team to win to helping me get a job. If I'm really lucky, Erik will answer my prayers and helps me.

I have far too many questions, the world cannot have designed itself, Erik must have done it. I know he did. There must have been a creator, it must have been Erik.

What's the purpose of life? What's the meaning behind it? Erik gives this to me, I can't imagine a world where Erik doesn't exist.

Erik is my God. How dare you criticize my religion? I have the right to believe whatever I wish to believe.

I know, I know, because of Erik I think we should ban stem cell research, it evil. Sex before marriage? That's also evil. Gay? Well you're going to be thrown into hell and burn for eternity. Yes, I do teach my children that Erik is the greatest elephant ever to have lived and that we must live our lives for him. No, that's not abuse, it's my religion, respect it. Condoms? Nope, I don't care how many millions die, you cannot use them. Latex is evil and Erik has told me so. If Erik said so, then it's evil. A women wants a morning after pill because she was raped? Well if the doctor believes in Erik then he's within his right to deny her treatment. Abortion? Under no circumstances.

Okay, I could go on and on and on...but you've probably figures out my point. Christians believe these things. Not all but a vast majority. Even if they only believe the basics I would certainly call them extremist. Their actions may not be but their beliefs are.

Now you might say that most 'moderate' believers are nothing like this. Well, moderate believers are as much to blame as those like Falwell because they create a base on which the radicals like Pat Robertson can play their little games.

Oh, and don't forget that recently, three Republican nominees for President stated that they do not believe in evolution. THREE!

I accept that not all religious people are evil, but today, religion is poisonous, it threatens our species advancement. The most powerful people in the world take decisions on the basis of what Erik once said.

Crikey, we could go on forever :) I could talk all night :) I've already had one idea of a topic to write on my blog from another 9 rules memer which I shall do tomorrow, perhaps, to get the discussion more focused, you could give me an idea which I can cross link with my blog and here. What do you think? I would say there's far too much to cover in this little chat here!

BTW, you don't come off as aggressive, people sometimes say that of me, I just think it's passionate discussion.

Yea I think I'll start a seperate discussion for this later today. :D

I tend to agree that religions act as a poison on society, but not that they have to.

When we say religion, most people immediately take it to mean a set of beliefs, usually supernatural, about the creation and order of the universe. This usually involves all the dogma, rituals, traditions, etc built into what we're comfortable thinking of as religion: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.

That's just one flavour though. Secularism and Atheism are just as much religions as Christianity. I can only think of two semi-exceptions: agnosticism and "science." I put it in quotes because science exists regardless of your belief system, but many people use the scientific method AS a belief system.

There's quite a few religions I don't have problems with. Of my previous list, I don't think Buddhism or Shinto act as poisons on society. I do think atheism does. I do think "secularism" does. Why you ask? These aren't faiths that believe in supernatural (unprovable?) things! Surely anything founded on only what can be proven should be fine!

Well, sort of. The problem with these, and all religions, is that they impose a limit on our thinking. They close our minds, or force us to accept (or reject) things which we have not experienced "just because." To me it seems like atheism and deism are cut out of exactly the same rock. One says believe this because you can't prove it's not there, and the other says don't believe this because you can't prove it's there.

Both sides of the coin inspire fierce passions, and close-mindedness. They both tend to lead to persecution of the other side, or at least animosity.

We all put limits on ourselves, for very good reasons, and very bad ones. I don't care about what any of you choose to believe, but I would hope that you all would accept the possibility of being wrong. The poison comes from rejecting other ideas simply because they are not your own. The poison comes from limiting yourself and others.

Ozone 42, how is atheism a religion? This has been argued many times by many established people and yet not one has ever pulled it off so I'm intrigued to see whether you have a different approach. Or do you have a very different definition of 'religion'?

By the by, I started the other discussion here:

http://9rules.com/religion/notes/5039/

atheistperspective,

No problem! Here's dictionary.com's interpretation.

1. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Atheism fits 1 (half), 2, 3, 5, 6.

1. Atheists believe that a god or gods can not exist, and that the universe was created (or has always existed) without them. They don't have a defined moral code, so this one isn't as strong as the others.
2. Fundamental belief that there is no god or gods, held by every single atheist worldwide, otherwise they're not an atheist.
3. It's an ism! You've set yourselves apart as a group.
4. N/A
5. You have faith there aren't any gods. You may not term it as faith, but it is, because it's not something you can test or prove.
6. With atheism, since there's only one base belief, you're either devout or you're agnostic ;-)

I think definitions 1 and 2 are what's key to something being a religion. A set of beliefs you hold to out of faith/despite not being able to demostrate or prove.

To be very clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the beliefs. I'm saying the level of tenacity (faith) to which one holds them--and does not question them or allow any opportunity for other possibilities--is what can be damaging. More so, those that go out preaching their views as the only right way, or trying to convince others out of their beliefs. Atheists do it too, maybe not as much as some of the other religions.

I tend to lean towards atheism myself, but I'm more than willing to admit I have no idea if I'm right, and I'm completely open to other possibilities.

There is a large difference between faith and not questioning what you believe. The most devout christians who are full of faith can still learn more about the world and their religion as they grow, and can easily be open to new ideas. Again one of the foremost tenants of most religions is to love each other no matter what.

Ozone42

I'm really not sure how you can link this:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

With this:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

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.

It makes no sense at all.

I think you miss-understand atheism and you've connected the definitions poorly.

People often come at me with this and I think it's because they've not thought through the notion of atheism properly. Almost every single definition of religion states that there must be a belief in a divine or superhuman power. Atheists do not believe this.

Incidentally, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that atheism is a religion, apart from that it's factually incorrect. It's often amusing to see people defending religion by attacking me with the idea that atheism is a religion. Often they don't see how amusing that is :) I expect you do.

Ultimately atheists do not believe in a God. That is the ONLY thing that links us all, the only belief that we all have. Atheists can be sadomasochists, Nazis, communists, socialists and so on.

"I'm saying the level of tenacity (faith) to which one holds them--and does not question them or allow any opportunity for other possibilities--is what can be damaging. "

Do you believe in Unicorns? Or fairies? Are you an afairy? Or an aunicorn?

Yes you are! You do not believe in either. (I would assume, correct me if I'm wrong) and thus you are similar to me. You, like all atheists, are open to the idea that a God exists. We just wish to see some evidence. That is why we are not fundamental in our beliefs. We don't believe but, we could if presented with the right evidence. Religious people are all together different. Nothing they are show will change their minds.

"More so, those that go out preaching their views as the only right way, or trying to convince others out of their beliefs."

We do not preach, we simply educate. We want for people to question their faith, why they believe and show them that, once they've thought about it, it's no different to believing in magic or witchcraft.

"I tend to lean towards atheism myself, but I'm more than willing to admit I have no idea if I'm right, and I'm completely open to other possibilities."

I know you're going to bring up the dictionary definition against me here :) but I actually think it needs amending. If you take every famous atheist from the last 100 years, not one will rule out God completely. Not one. Nor do I.

Indeed, many atheists are very open to the deism, what we have problems with are specific personal Gods. I don't know whether God exists. I doubt it, I don't believe he does, indeed it's very unlikely given what we now know through science, but there is a possibility. I don't think we're all that different.

The only real difference is that of how damaging we believe religion to be. Perhaps you don't think about it, but open the paper on any given day and you will see the harm that faith and a belief in God does to this planet. I feel obligated to do something about it. You don't. That's not a bad thing, just different motivations I guess.

If you wish to continue arguing that atheism is a religion, well, fine by me. I don't see how that is in any way a negative when a belief in the supernatural is not involved.

All I want is to raise awareness in people that don't understand the terrible things that belief in God is doing to our societies. We have people winning court cases to teach children that the earth is only 6,000 years old. We have people discriminating on the basis of one's sexuality because God tells them that this is so. We have people killing themselves and others because they believe that this is the most virtuous of actions. We have world leaders telling us that they get advice from God about whether to go to war. We have people dying in sub saharan Africa because the Pope believes latex is evil. We have people demonstrating against the most promising line of medical research available to us (stem cell) because they believe that we have a soul at the moment of conception.

this is 1st century thinking in a 21st century world and it's getting worse.

I've had enough. How about you?

atheistperspective,

You can speak for yourself, and that's cool, but I know plenty of ahteist that disagree with you on a fundamental level. Atheists that preach and try to conver others to atheism. Atheists that hold on the no-god principal and absolutely nothing can shake them (thus atheism rather than agnosticism.)

I would not label anyone an atheist that is willing to accept the possibility of a god or gods. Most atheists I know actively campaign against that belief, and other religions.

I'm not sure what word should be amended in the dictionary, but the common use of the word religion does imply a spiritual or supernatural belief, however that's just one of many common uses. I'd say the word atheist is much more secure, and makes sense having a strict literal definition.

I label atheism as a religion for many reasons that you've illustrated. People are devoted to it, misinterpret (the literal definition) it, choose to label themselves as it, and defend it passionately. You see exactly the same behavior with the religions that do believe in a spiritual being. I'd have to say that atheism fits, because it is defined by it's view on a supernatural being.

Incidentally, I've never seen a unicorn and since I know of no evidence supporting their existence, I tend not to believe they exist. I don't know they don't exist, they could quite easily exist in small numbers somewhere. We discover new species every day.

As I said before, I think most religions are damaging; not necessarily in their original forms or ideas, but in the way people interpret them, and the way they try to erradicate other ways of thinking. I don't care that some christians think the world is 6000 years old, but as you point out, I am completely against that teaching being forced on others.

Well I don't just speak for myself. Even the most radical atheist of the last 50 years, Richard Dawkins will tell you that he would not dismiss the notion that God exists completely. Out of 10 I think he says he's a 7.

I'm probably an 8 so possibly a bit more militant ;)

If you wish to define atheism as a religion then so be it. A fellow atheist friend of mine once wrote the following:

Mostly, a religion is a belief system, which includes rules of behavior, rituals, and, in many cases, an element of the supernatural (e.g. miracles), some claims about the origin of the universe, why we are here, and what happens after we die.

Atheism is nothing like that. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods; there are no rules of conduct, no rituals, no claims about why we’re here or what we’re supposed to do. In fact, there’s not even such a thing as “atheistic beliefs”, since the only thing we have in common is that we don’t believe in something that many other people do. In fact, as someone said before, “atheist” shouldn’t even exist as a word, since we don’t have — or need — words for “people who don’t believe in astrology” or “people who don’t believe in Santa”.

While most religions tend to create some sort of homogeneity (because of a common holy book, a common set of beliefs, and so on), atheism isn’t like that at all. Some, but not all atheists are skeptics, and arrive at atheism simply because it’s the “default”; the existence of any gods has no evidence for it, so, until any such evidence appears, we go with the simpler explanation: the universe is natural. But, other than that, we may not have anything in common."

Do you think that “I don’t believe in unicorns” defines a person? I doubt it. Do you think such lack of belief in unicorns is a religion? Unlikely, to say the least.

---------

Okay, so we both agree that religions are damaging. We just have a different perspective and I have no issue with you determining the cause as 'interpretation'.

As for the 6,000 years old earth, I do care. In this day and age we need to promote science, critical thinking and do our utmost to rid ourselves of 1st century mythology.

Someone once said that religion is the greatest enemy of democracy. How can we possibly vote when we have no idea about what we're voting on? Take global warming. How can we truly save our planet and understand the problem when people truly believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Our society needs scientific thinking if we are to advance as a species. The more we allow ridiculous thinking to go on, the more difficult it is for humanity to progress.

I think that you're unaware of the damage religion is causing on an every day level. I think if you took the time to investigate, you would see just how bad the problem has become. In which country do you live? I'm in the UK. Recently the Government was considering an anti discrimination law making it illegal for organizations or companies to discriminate against homosexuals. They wanted to pass it, then the Church stepped in. Fortunately common sense prevailed and it is now illegal for a hotel to turn someone away on the basis that they are gay. But the fact is, we had a discussion about this. In this day and age the Church argued against the act. In this day and age we were having a conversation about it. Just like slavery, the Church did everything they could to keep it going until they had no more options.

We could sit here all day with me giving you examples, but I won't. Open up any news site and you'll see for yourself.

I just care passionately about critical thinking and the advancement of our race. For the first time in history people on this planet have the ability to destroy it 100 times over. Do we really want 1st century thinking to exist at this point in time? I really don't.

You do realize that though you say atheism doesn't define a person, that you are doing the exact opposite and using it to represent and define yourself in your online persona?

You've been a great example of my point. Through your own words you're just as fanatical as anyone in a spiritual religion. The difference is, I tend to agree with much of what you say. However you may really want to try and take a step back, look at your behavior, and that of those you're campaigning against. The differences are much smaller than you think. I'm not saying this as an attack, or even trying to imply you're wrong in anyway at all on your views.

That's my last bit. As I already said, I have no problem with atheism or your views on it. I truly don't have a problem with what anyone thinks. The moment it becomes a problem is when they try to force that view on others, as you've illustrated in your example of the discrimination law.