The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Atheism is a religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

GUEST OPINION: 7th Circuit's "Manna from Heaven"

Monday, August 22, 2005

- Andrew Longman


OPINION - It is of critical importance that the Christian movements in the United States of America not miss an absolutely golden development and apply its results without modesty or restraint.


The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Atheism is a religion. We have been waiting for this for years.


Brian Fahling, attorney for American Family Association, absorbed in the intracacies of the individual case, was in no position to recognize the larger import.


Indeed, he missed it.


"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion....”, he said. No Brian! Not like that!


The one thing that possibly could have been better than having a federal appeals court declare atheism to be a religion is if the U.S. Supreme court declared liberal-naturalism to be a religion. And that, my friends, should be our utter, concerted, cause for which we should be willing to sacrifice nearly all.


Why, you ask?


For forty years in the USA, we have been fighting the waves of contagion spilling from our court system as, time after time, rulings have been handed down against Christianity and Christian principle explicitly because our beloved faith has been inarguably a religion.


The targeting and public rejection of our convictions has been strictly and solely because they are religious convictions.


You may not have a cross on the seal of the city because it is expressly religious. But note now my friends: you may not have the absence of one because it is expressly a religious absence.


It has been permissible in this land to remove principles, symbols, practices, policies from the public square explicitly because they are religious.


But we may now show that the removal of these things is also explicitly religious - it satisfies the religious convictions of atheism. As such we have a new opportunity: the state may neither affirm the cross on the council’s wall nor take it down in support of atheism.


Every man on the street knows that the state continually assaults the public decency by approving of atheism in any and every way and rejecting public Christianity in any and every way. It is obvious to the casual observer that a program to atheize society has been pursued by the courts. We can now sue the government for this forced atheism and we should.


This will require great vigor, subtlety, and thought. Do not just knee jerk do whatever the Family-blah-blah council says to do. In this, an attorney with such a group has totally missed the cultural sword that has been handed to us. Instead we must recognize with freshness and newness all that God is doing.


For thinking people it is stark offense, grating and shameful like Lance Armstrong’s yellow girlfriend, that the state, full of coercive power and unelected officials, has forced its religion on the populace through the tyranny of the arbitrary in the judiciary.


But never the less, this judiciary has to give some reasons for what it does. It is, to some lesser extent, bound by the previous things it says, by the contortions of logic it institutionalizes.


There are arguments they have constructed over the years to carefully justify the railroading of Christianity from public life; things you say can and will be used against them in a court of law - as we make the same arguments to strip atheism from public life.


We cannot remove the cross from city seal! It would be a state endorsement of atheism. We cannot force a time of prayer long established in a state legislature to become a “moment of silence”.

Atheists practice moments of silence in substitute of prayer. Making such a substitution would mean that the state were publicly conforming public practice to support atheistic doctrine. The court has no purview.


We cannot deny the investigation of Creationism on public property simply and only because we must remove mention of the Supreme Being from the schools.


Atheism explicitly endorses the removal of mention of the Supreme Being from public schools - it is the convicted faith of atheism to be antithetically hostile to, for example, the Christian or Jewish presentation of God. As such the state cannot be involved.


Do you see the manna which has just fallen from heaven?



Its about time. This should bring about some really interesting debates in cingress.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Well, that's quite clearly ridiculous-aside from the fact that Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, it's only central tenant is the aforementioned-there is no belief structure beyond this, no set of commandments, no unifying principals.

It makes about as much sense as saying liking chocolate is a religion.

[Proletariat]

Look at them. Stupid atheists. Screaming skywards, shaking their fists at a non-existent God, "You do not exist!"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The ignorance coming off of it's author is giving me a headache.

So the truth really does hurt. ~D

[Duke Malcolm]

I don't see anything wrong with this ruling. Athiesm is the belief that no god exists, Agnosticism is lack of religion. Let's hope HM Government sees this and puts Athiesm as a separate choice on the religion sections of documents so Agnostics can have their rightful place of "No Religion"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That the religious right would throw all that away for some outdated and ignorant belief that has no more business in the modern world than a Celtic Druid does is the epitome of Selfish.

Do you really believe this tripe?

[Hurin_Rules]

Can anyone provide more information on the ruling?

I fail to see how lack of belief can be considered a belief.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I fail to see how lack of belief can be considered a belief.

They dont lack belief. ~:confused:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I fail to see how lack of belief can be considered a belief.

Tripe is believeing this is the position of most christains and all the other stupid things you claim they favor or oppose like science. Get a grip on your bad self.

[Lemur]

Tripe is quite tasty if you cook it right ...

http://www.leedsmarket.com/traders/tripe/imgs/shopfront.jpg

[Crazed Rabbit]

If this means what the author says it does, if this decision is siezed with full force, then...

BOO-YAH!


It doesn't matter what most christiains think when just a few can do this much damage to rational secularism. I think Napoleon had the right idea.

Christians aren't going to go against science with this ruling. They are going to stop the dismantling of religion in public by atheists. Get a grip.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Pnally I only like it in pepperpot soup. Man that stuff is delicios.



The famous pepper pot soup originated during Washington's siege at Valley Forge. When Washington demanded a stomach-filling dish for his soldiers, the cook, after remarking, "There are only a few scraps in the kitchen," produced this fragrant soup. Tripe, peppercorns and all the scraps went into the caldron and made this excellent soup. It soon put the men into such high spirits they cried out, "Bring on the Red Coats!"

."

The only company I know who makes it is Campbells.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, it isn't. Further, it is (now) unconstitutional, as the atheists are just trying to impose their religion on use. Both groups deserve fairness, and this is what Christians are finally getting.

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

The "Dismantling of Religion" is a good thing. When it comes to the religious right, the slippery slope is a very real concept.

Here, GC is talking about outlawing all religion due to the excesses of the extreme fundamentalists as a good thing. Earlier, when I said that there's people out there that believe this, other folks called me a paranoid crackpot.

Thank you GC. You've made my point better than I ever possibly could.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well now....

I believe that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, and Science are all belief systems, but the latter two are clearly not religions in that neither admits/relies upon some higher power to explain things.

Since the US Constitution restricts the establishment of any particular religion, I am not sure that the 7th had a basis for any such ruling.

Are Belief System ALWAYS describable as a religion?

Interesting thought.

Seamus

[Ronin]

well....it´s nice to know that judges are morons practically everywere....

not believing in a divine figure is a religion.......talk about an oxymoron :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are Belief System ALWAYS describable as a religion?

If you follow them religously then I would say yes. ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

How is it a religion? That's insane. Damn judges. What idiots.
Anyone who thinks aethism is a relgion is a fool. People like this will evantantually drop dead from being stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How is it a religion? That's insane. Damn judges. What idiots.
Anyone who thinks aethism is a relgion is a fool. People like this will evantantually drop dead from being stupid.

Unfortunately, it would appear that this drop-dead effect comes too far after puberty for it to constitute Darwin award material. ~;)

Seamus

[Steppe Merc]

Too true.

I mean, how is aethism a relgion? There is no organized belief system other than the lack of a god, there is no religous leaders, no figures... how could it be a religon? It can't...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How is it a religion?

Whats religion? Is it how you think of god? You have to BELIEVE there is no god to be an athiest. Thus it is a belief system based on god just like many other religions. Saying theres no god is just a big a leap of faith as saying there is one. Also trying to make your opinion the only one allowed is clearly the same as what most people degrade organised religions for.

[Adrian II]

You have to BELIEVE there is no god to be an athiest. Thus it is a belief system (..)No, that would make it a non-belief system.

God (pun intended), I can't believe I take part in this discussion... :embarassed:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, that would make it a non-belief system.

No as their whole view of the wolrd is based on this as you call it non belief.

[BDC]

That's stupid.

So is there any way of just ignoring everything now in the USA? Agnostic isn't counted as a religion yet is it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no organized belief system other than the lack of a god, there is no religous leaders, no figures... how could it be a religon? It can't...

Yes there are and the most prominent is a little organization called the ACLU.

[Don Corleone]

Webster's defines religion thusly:


1) a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and/or ruler(s) 2) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often having a code of ethics and a philosophy.

Clearly, atheism does not qualify under the first definition, but does under the second. Agnosticism, as some have pointed out, fails both criteria. Like any established system of belief, atheism assumes facts not in evidence. This doesn't mean that they're wrong. It means it is impossible to know categorically if they're right or wrong. Thus far, nobody has disproved the existence of God(s), they've just made arguments about the likelihood of said deity(s).

As far as atheism not being a religion because it's not an organized belief system... shamanism has no sacred texts or creeds, but would anybody argue that shamanism isn't a religion?

[Adrian II]

No as their whole view of the wolrd is based on this as you call it non belief.Exactly, that makes it a non-belief system. :wall:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So then capitalism is a non belief system since it doesnt believe in communism ~:wave:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I don't believe there to be some kind of invisible, magic gremlin floating above me right now.

Is that a religion?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

II don't believe there to be some kind of invisible, magic gremlin floating above me right now.

Is that a religion?
.

Its yours. By the way its also mine.

[Adrian II]

I don't believe there to be some kind of invisible, magic gremlin floating above me right now.

Is that a religion?Do you have a code of ethics based on non-belief in the gremlin? Do you worship the non-existence of the gremlin? Is there a philos...

*blows out brain*

[Crazed Rabbit]

Great, that's gonna be a mess to clean up. To bad I don't beleive in hiring janitors, or the cleaning power of soap.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

LOL by the 7th Circuit Court

[Lazul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Not a religion, Atheist dont believe in metaphysics, no supernatural being, only what can be touched and seen is real. There for, its NOT a Religion.

Atheists are simple people that casted of the idea of supernatural beings and such and trust in a non-supernatural, non-metaphysical science.

[Steppe Merc]

How is there a system of beliefs? Does every aethist believe in the aethistic moral codes? What are those aethist moral codes? Since when did they exist?

I don't get how me not believing in god makes me the same religion as lets say Byzantine Prince. We don't have the same ethical or moral code.

And if you there is a set in stone system of beliefs, call it that. Don't call it a religion, because that's just dumb.

[Don Corleone]

Isn't Wikipedia an open contribution site? Couldn't i go enter a definition of religion that specificially mentions atheism? At least pick an objective standard for your definitions.

[Ironside]

Do you have a code of ethics based on non-belief in the gremlin? Do you worship the non-existence of the gremlin? Is there a philos...

*blows out brain*

Here's another one that will give you headache. Going without any religous symbols is now a symbol of the Atheist faith. ~;p And it will be offensive to Christains (well it is US we're talking about)...

USA, the country were the entire population is controlled by small fringe groups on both sides, and those lacks the word reasonable in thier dictionary. :bow:

Oh and how many new religions can you find by this definition? ~;)

2) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often having a code of ethics and a philosophy.

I'm guessing humanism is one.

[Steppe Merc]

Isn't Wikipedia an open contribution site? Couldn't i go enter a definition of religion that specificially mentions atheism? At least pick an objective standard for your definitions.
Excellent point, Wiki is questionable at best.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Webster > Wiki.

And Atheism is a belief in no metaphysical being, while agnosticism is a lack of belief in a metaphysical being. An important distinction, and I can't believe some of you guys don't get it. Which leads me to conclude that you are just refusing to see the light.

But that all doesn't matter. A judge has ruled in our favor now. Not so one-sided...

[Ronin]

Isn't Wikipedia an open contribution site?

yes it is, but they do have editors.

[Byzantine Prince]

Where are the tax cuts? ~D

I wish they do this in Canada. I can start my own church(because no one has thought of that before). And then we can all sit down and pray to Atheos for more bread and prosperity. :book:



I think the main reason for this is that it's more convient to place the option atheism under the question of religion in pamphlets.

[AntiochusIII]

Wow. These judges are stupid, aren't they? The most basic Webster dictionary says that religion is 1. belief in god or gods 2. a system of worship.

The first definition may be too broad a generalization but the second clearly makes a major point. What, exactly, do Atheists worship? None.

Edit: As for BP's point, it is much simpler to provide a choice of "no religion." Do these judges have brains?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wow. These judges are stupid, aren't they? The most basic Webster dictionary says that religion is 1. belief in god or gods 2. a system of worship.

The first definition may be too broad a generalization but the second clearly makes a major point. What, exactly, do Atheists worship? None.

Funny how you didn't actually quote Webster's 2nd definition in detail.


2) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often having a code of ethics and a philosophy.
Atheism is a system of belief, even though it is a relatively simple system. It is the belief, not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no God.

[AntiochusIII]

Funny how you didn't actually quote Webster's 2nd definition in detail.I did intend to, but my only dictionary in hand here is a pocket one. And the definitions it gives I already put up.

Here is a definition from dictionary.reference.com :


re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


By the way, why didn't you quote the entire Webster, if you have one?

And not every belief system is a religion.

[Xiahou]

And Atheism is a belief in no metaphysical being, while agnosticism is a lack of belief in a metaphysical being. An important distinction, and I can't believe some of you guys don't get it. Which leads me to conclude that you are just refusing to see the light.Indeed. Atheism is usually associated with vehement proselytizing- a religious quality. I'd say agnoticism is more like what most people are talking about here.

[AntiochusIII]

I must remind people here in this thread that having one condition for religion doesn't make it a religion. It needs to meet all criteria.

Just because Atheism completely denies any possible existence of a supernatural being doesn't mean that's enough for it to be a religion.

[Steppe Merc]

I've got a question. I believe the Grateful Dead are awesome, and are the best band ever. Many other people, called Deadheads, believe this along with me. Now, does that mean Deadheadism is a religion, because we all believe that they are the best band ever?

[Xiahou]

Just because Atheism completely denies any possible existence of a supernatural being doesn't mean that's enough for it to be a religion.So if I completely affirm the existence of a supernatural being Im not necessarily religious either?

[Xiahou]

Logic, Proof, and everything but the (by the way: unprovable) religious viewpoint are on the side of Atheism. I'd bet my left pinky finger that the judge(s) who made this ruling were christiain. Rubbish I say.Care to lay out how logic, proof and 'everything' is on the side of atheism? Im up for a laugh. ~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Example One: The Big Bang. All life, the universe, and everything, from a single point. Sounds like divine creation to me.

Example Two: The Begining of Life. How did life begin, if not by divine intercession? Did water just start reproducing?

Atheism can explain neither. In fact, atheism denies the existence of a God (a belief about the supernatural).

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd bet my left pinky finger that the judge(s) who made this ruling were christiain.

Considering that 85% of americans consider themsleves christains this would be a safe bet probably. I bet most members of SCOTUS are christains also. But they dont use their religion to make descions much as you would have us believe it seems.

[Xiahou]

Jee, that's a pretty long list. It can be shorter put by asking this question: can you prove the existence of your god to a scientific and rational standard?

Until you can, logic is on the side of Atheism.I'm not required to prove it- I acknowledge its a "belief". You're trying to say atheism is provable- lets see it.

Until you can, logic is on the side of theism. (Since apparently just saying so makes it so.) ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and it does not contradict things we know to be true

So you know that its true there is no god? LOL

[AntiochusIII]

I do believe tests have been as far as the beginning of life is concerned. Under the right condititions, with the right elements present, life does just sort of pop up.Yes. There was this quite famous test long ago (like, 1800s) that shows that, under the ideal condition, which in this case is a "soup" of elements like Carbon and others, "powered" by electricity and the sun, formed together into amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein. Protein, of course, is basically our body. The soup was made with consideration that it was like the early ocean - filled with "nutrients" that would later be eaten up. [though this part is just a theory here - of course, with geological basis] The electricity reproduces electrifying effects of lighting, which, considering how Earth rained for millions of years, should've been a lot of energy. The sun, of course, was always there.

Interestingly, it took much longer for amino acids to form together into different proteins.

Hence the start of life, according to the result of this effective and surprisingly simple experiment.

Forward to the Big Bang theory. It is a popular theory with a strong base, but it is not considered indisputable or absolute. Many failed to recognize this and simply assume that since the majority of the scientific community agreed on this theory right now, it is a fact just like a biblical "truth."

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And yet those tests prove intelligence is required to create life (as far as a few proteins are life). I don't think the tests were in the 1800's, but they required scientists (intelligent beings) to set up specific conditions (conditions that may never have existed in the natural world) for life to "pop up."

[Soulforged]

Whats religion? Is it how you think of god? You have to BELIEVE there is no god to be an athiest. Thus it is a belief system based on god just like many other religions. Saying theres no god is just a big a leap of faith as saying there is one. Also trying to make your opinion the only one allowed is clearly the same as what most people degrade organised religions for.
A big leap of faith Gawain of Orkeny, do you think that? You're totally wrong the very basis of science (and also atheism for that matter) is not believe in nothing like certain always look for better paradigms. The faith is blind believe in anything, and following the definition of religion, atheism is not a religion.

[Xiahou]

That's ridiculous. They were put their by a higher being. ~;)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Thats ridiculous. Those elements wound up on Earth naturally.

Yes, but (as my understanding goes) they weren't found in the right conditions that were artificially created by scientists creating the experiment.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And I'm saying maybe those scientists were wrong.

And before you type "Prove it" could you at least give me a link to the experiment we are vaguely discussing? I think I read a NASA study about this, but I want to be sure.

[Papewaio]

So what is the system of worship for atheists?

All this says is that you have an A-grade moron for a judge who wouldn't even have the ability to get a management position in FEMA.

[Papewaio]

And I'm saying maybe those scientists were wrong.

And before you type "Prove it" could you at least give me a link to the experiment we are vaguely discussing? I think I read a NASA study about this, but I want to be sure.

Millers Experiment (http://hometown.aol.com/ksmith9526/MillersExp.htm)

Millers Experiment - PDF at Astrobio.net (http://www.astrobio.net/cgi-bin/h2p.cgi?sid=1515&ext=.pdf)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On Logic:

Logic is not on anybody's side. Logic is a specific set of tools used to construct rational statements and resolve argument. It is important to note, however, that any logical argument is based on a number of "givens" (explicit or implicit). Trying to use logic to prove or disprove a "given" is rather difficult.

On Primordial Soup:

A very famous study (Good link Pappy),but nobody has been able to set up any test of the next phase(s) -- going from macromolecules to "life." I find this part fascinating.

Seamus

[Papewaio]

Well here is a good link:

From Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html)


Can you clarify one thing? Have all of the amino acids been synthesized in pre-biotic experiments, along with all the necessary components for making life?
Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids. If you count asparagine and glutamine you get thirteen basic amino acids. We don't know how many amino acids there were to start with. Asparagine and glutamine, for example, do not look prebiotic because they hydrolyze. The purines and pyrimidines can alos be made, as can all of the sugars, although they are unstable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So what is the system of worship for atheists?

What system of worship does someone who believes there is a supreme being worship? Belief in god is then not a religion either. Therefore the mention of god cannot be seen as establishing a relgion according to your own logic.

[Del Arroyo]

Atheism is most definitely a religion. It is the acceptance on faith of the idea that no god exists. This is not a scientific nor a logical way to think.

I am personally not very religious, and I find atheists to be utterly ridiculous, at least as ridiculous as fundmamentalist evangelists.

DA

[Del Arroyo]

No complex or ordered belief system is necessary for Atheism to be a religion. All that is required is that their belief in the non-existence of a god be accepted on faith-- which it most definitely is.

Someone who has reasonable doubts about the existence of a god may feel it likely that one does not exist, or that the typical depiction of God is innacurate-- if such people are anything, they are agnostics. But it takes a true fundamentalist to definitely declare-- "There is NO God."

Atheists are small-minded and deluded.

DA

[Papewaio]

Atheism is most definitely a religion. It is the acceptance on faith of the idea that no god exists. This is not a scientific nor a logical way to think.
DA

religion

n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: faith, religious belief]
2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: faith]

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

They are the opposite of each other. Defining atheism as a religion is the equivalent of calling black the same shade as white.

When you get to the point of reversing a definition is this a wise judgement or one of petulance?
Or do you have a Judge who likes to make particularly ironic statements?

[Xiahou]

We doing the 'dictionary dance' again? ~D

Let's look at Websters online dictionary.

religion:

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I'd say that 2 and 4 could easily fit Atheists.

[GoreBag]

We doing the 'dictionary dance' again? ~D

Let's look at Websters online dictionary.

religion:

I'd say that 2 and 4 could easily fit Atheists.

Option 2 certainly does not fit. Institutionalisation of Atheism is silly. Is there a church of No-God?

[Xiahou]

Option 2 certainly does not fit. Institutionalisation of Atheism is silly. Is there a church of No-God?

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

I guess you missed the part before the 'or'?

[Soulforged]

I am personally not very religious, and I find atheists to be utterly ridiculous, at least as ridiculous as fundmamentalist evangelists.

DA

Hey amigo I'm an anarchist and an atheist. Do I seem ridiculous? ~;).

Btw there's no point in trying to proove that atheism is religion, from a terminological point of view are mutually exclusive and period.


religion:

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


I'd say that 2 and 4 could easily fit Atheists. Wrong the 2 requires religious attitudes, beliefs and practices. The 4 requires ardor and faith, as said before faith is blind belief thing that an atheist never does in a rational state, and is definetily excluded from the definition.

[Papewaio]

We doing the 'dictionary dance' again? ~D

Let's look at Websters online dictionary.

religion:

I'd say that 2 and 4 could easily fit Atheists.

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Well it ain't institutionalized. And I don't think it counts as a set, unless you mean a set of 1 "I don't believe in higher powers". Also there is not a consistent set of beliefs or practices because someone is an atheist. You have atheists who are philosophy based, scientific based, sci-fi based on and on.

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Atheists on the whole don't have a faith or a faith in no god.

These definitions do not easily fit Atheists, it takes a huge contortion of the definition of a religion and totally ignoring the definition of what an Atheist is as well.

[GoreBag]

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

I guess you missed the part before the 'or'?

Actually, yeah, I thought that was an "f".

[Del Arroyo]

religion

n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: faith, religious belief]
2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: faith]

Well honestly I will have to say that your definition is wrong. See the ones Xiahou posted-- I would say they are much more accurate.


atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]

Are you saying that this does not fit within any definition of religion? Any definitive statement on the existential status of a God is by definition religious--because the truth is we really don't know.

It takes a thinker to doubt God-- but he who claims exclusive knowledge of his non-existence has become emotionally involved.

DA

[Del Arroyo]

Hey amigo I'm an anarchist and an atheist. Do I seem ridiculous? ~;).

Yes but you're an Argentine so I never gave it a second thought ~D

DA

[Soulforged]

Are you saying that this does not fit within any definition of religion? Any definitive statement on the existential status of a God is by definition religious--because the truth is we really don't know.
DA No DA religion explicity requires the worship of a divinity, and not it's total negation, as atheist do. On the other side belief not equals faith, wich is an extreme form of belief.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No DA religion explicity requires the worship of a divinity

How so? I guess im not religous then. Bye the way is dieisim a religion?

[GoreBag]

No DA religion explicity requires the worship of a divinity, and not it's total negation, as atheist do. On the other side belief not equals faith, wich is an extreme form of belief.

Not true. Religions come in three forms - ones with Divinities, ones with Forces, and ones with Philosophies. Even in ones involving divine beings, worship is not always necessary. Buddhists don't worship Buddha, do they?

[Papewaio]

Well honestly I will have to say that your definition is wrong. See the ones Xiahou posted-- I would say they are much more accurate.

Are you saying that this does not fit within any definition of religion? Any definitive statement on the existential status of a God is by definition religious--because the truth is we really don't know.

It takes a thinker to doubt God-- but he who claims exclusive knowledge of his non-existence has become emotionally involved.

DA

So I can expect to see:

Atheists going to mass.
Having special holidays to mark significant events in their atheist religion.
Tax breaks.
For that matter I will have to find priests of atheism.
Also I will have to find a particular code of life for these atheistic religious believers.

How can someone be part of a religion when they have no faith nor belief in a divine power? And they do not act as a group?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your confusing organised religion with religous belief. Am I more religous simply because I believe in a higher power? I dont worship at any church. I have no idea what god or the gods are. I dont get taxbreaks because of what I believe. Their not calling atheisim an organized religion.

[Del Arroyo]

http://www.atheists.org/

~D ~D ~D

[Del Arroyo]

Your confusing organised religion with religous belief. Am I more religous simply because I believe in a higher power? I dont worship at any church. I have no idea what god or the gods are. I dont get taxbreaks because of what I believe. Their not calling atheisim an organized religion.

Yes I believe the distinction between religious belief and the organization thereof is an established concept, at least in Western thinking.

Oh, but I must post again--

http://www.atheists.org/

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D

DA

[GoreBag]

Only in America.

In any case, this is more like a group of like-minded individuals than an organized religious institution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In any case, this is more like a group of like-minded individuals than an organized religious institution.

Nor did they call it an organized religous institution.

[Papewaio]

So www.totalwar.org is a religious site too?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So www.totalwar.org is a religious site too?

Are we organised to promote or dispute the existance of god? The site http://www.atheists.org/ certainly is.

[Xiahou]

Are we organised to promote or dispute the existance of god? The site http://www.atheists.org/ certainly is.And what beliefs are we proselytizing?

[Papewaio]

Are we organised to promote or dispute the existance of god?

Short list of threads that talk about religion or god:

Catholic Church Says Even Celibate Gays Should Not Be Priests
Is Science real?
Are Public Schools Constitutional?
How to get reliable informations about God
Mr Blair's Muslim advisers
Abortion
Belief System Tolerance: Can it exist?
Religious hypocrisy
Pastafar-eye

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Short list of threads that talk about religion or god:

Catholic Church Says Even Celibate Gays Should Not Be Priests
Is Science real?
Are Public Schools Constitutional?
How to get reliable informations about God
Mr Blair's Muslim advisers
Abortion
Belief System Tolerance: Can it exist?
Religious hypocrisy
Pastafar-eye:

And your point? Does the org support any of these positions? Does the org have an agenda about god?

[Papewaio]

Well I think it is time we remake the Org a religion (that accepts other religions... so like being a dual citizen)... then we can get a tax break and plow our zero profit margin back into the Org.

Our religious names shall be Orgah!s and we await the day when the Lord shall reach down amongst our lives and allow Multiplayer Campaign to be played, cutscenes to be put back into our fundamentalist doctrine and patches to go above 3. :charge:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nice try at laughing your way out of it. ~D

[GoreBag]

Well I think it is time we remake the Org a religion (that accepts other religions... so like being a dual citizen)... then we can get a tax break and plow our zero profit margin back into the Org.

Our religious names shall be Orgah!s and we await the day when the Lord shall reach down amongst our lives and allow Multiplayer Campaign to be played, cutscenes to be put back into our fundamentalist doctrine and patches to go above 3. :charge:

We need a divine figure. I want to be able to yell "HAIL (someone)".

[Papewaio]

Well for divine figures you can check out the babe thread. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well since your already a god I nominate you.

[GoreBag]

How kind of you! Does anyone second this motion?

Where's BP when you need him...

[Papewaio]

BP would want to emulate his hero, kill god and then spend the rest of his life lamenting over the guilt.

[GoreBag]

BP would want to emulate his hero, kill god and then spend the rest of his life lamenting over the guilt.

I could take BP. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence


~:cheers: ~D

[Ja'chyra]

Lol, 3 pages on this crap.

Just because some judge in the US said it doesn't make it so.

[Byzantine Prince]

BP would want to emulate his hero, kill god and then spend the rest of his life lamenting over the guilt.
The 'killing' of god is a metaphor. It doesn't apply to people who were never religious. It's a symbol of struggle for the people that are christian and are trying to get out. I got out at a very similar age as Nietsche(and not by reading his books ~;) ). It was a time of great spiritual struggle.

Also I don't feel guilty about killing him, I just really hope my love didn't go nowhere for the time that I did.

As for NeonGod, I can't believe in a god that glows, so no need to kill him, for now.

[Del Arroyo]

Just because some judge in the US said it doesn't make it so.

I didn't need a judge to tell me for me to know it was true. ~D

DA

[khelvan]

Thankfully, while atheists have shot themselves in the foot pushing to get recognized as a religion for the protections and benefits that provides under the law (but not being farsighted about the consequences), we non-theists will still be around to revel in our non-religionness.

[bmolsson]

I can't really see why this is a big deal. Why are some people so afraid to be called "religious" ??

[Ronin]

I can't really see why this is a big deal. Why are some people so afraid to be called "religious" ??

i get a feeling religious people wouldn´t enjoy being called atheists.....

as for the entire discussion...who cares what some court in the US said?

[Steppe Merc]

No complex or ordered belief system is necessary for Atheism to be a religion. All that is required is that their belief in the non-existence of a god be accepted on faith-- which it most definitely is.

Someone who has reasonable doubts about the existence of a god may feel it likely that one does not exist, or that the typical depiction of God is innacurate-- if such people are anything, they are agnostics. But it takes a true fundamentalist to definitely declare-- "There is NO God."

Atheists are small-minded and deluded.

DA
Small minded and deluded? People who think there is a big powerful guy who controls everything, and yet still worship him when he allows such evil things to happen are either fools, or evil.
edit: Not saying that all relgious folks believe in a controlling god or gods, but many do. I'm refering to them, not all religous peoples.

as for the entire discussion...who cares what some court in the US said?
Well, I live there, and I don't want to be counted as belonging to a religon. Of course, I can just say my religion is Jedi, or Deadheadism anyway.

So what would someone put who doesn't belong to any religion? What is that person called? And don't tell me agnostic, because there is a big difference between questining if God exists and believing that he doesn't. Agnostics can still belong to religions.

In addition, no one answered my Dead head question. If someone believes that the Grateful Dead are the best band, are they part of the Dead head Religion? And if someone doesn't believe the Grateful Dead exist, are they also a religion?

No one is proving that aethism is religon. There is no organized system, no worship, no clear moral code that all religons have. Shamanistic societies all had clear moral and everyone knew how to worship, as well as having the people who tell everyone else how to worship. Monotheistic religions all have clear moral codes and organized systems. Where is that for aethists?

bmolssom, I don't want to be called religious because religon has caused countless of evils through out the ages, and I refuse to be considered part of an organized system that shares the same classifcation as any of those.

[Duke Malcolm]

Religions don't need an organised system, nor worship, nor moral code. They just require a belief.

[Steppe Merc]

Then how is it a religion? Someone believing something does not make a religon. A person could believe that Lord of the Rings is the best movie ever. That is on faith, because it can not be proven one way or another. Does that person automatically get his own religon?
And what about people who believe in aliens? Do they have a religon? Or people who don't believe in aliens?

[Del Arroyo]

Then how is it a religion? Someone believing something does not make a religon. A person could believe that Lord of the Rings is the best movie ever. That is on faith, because it can not be proven one way or another. Does that person automatically get his own religon?

Having an aesthetic opinion does not mean that you are religious. What is required is a firm, faith-based belief on an issue of emotional and existential import. As long as you hold LOTR to be just a movie, though you may feel it was the best one ever made, it does not fit this bill.

Of course, if you felt, really, really, really strongly about your aesthetic opinion on the LOTR one could say that you believe in it religiously. But I digress. What makes atheism just as much a religious belief as any theistic belief is that it takes an existential, emotionally important, final question, and claims exclusive right to a solid, definitive answer.

No one is claiming that Atheism is an organized religion-- though the folks at www.atheists.org certainly seem to be making a go at it. But Atheism must correctly be classified as a religious belief, in the same way as a belief in Jesus as the Savior.

DA

[Steppe Merc]

:hanged:
This is just foolish. Anyone who thinks aethism is a religon is just wierd, and I'm outta here.

[Big_John]

would it be fair to say that religions and spiritualities always recognize supernatural/metaphysical realities? if so, by definition, any belief system that does not recognize supernatural/metaphysical realities (e.g. atheism) would obviously be distinct from religions (or spiritualities). so the question is, is the recognition of supernatual/metaphysical reality necessary for a belief system to be called a "religion" in the vernacular? legally? logically?

edit: btw, khelvan.. what are you doing back here!? get back to work!! :furious3:

:love:

[khelvan]

What makes atheism just as much a religious belief as any theistic belief is that it takes an existential, emotionally important, final question, and claims exclusive right to a solid, definitive answer.One could make this argument only if one assumes that all atheists are "strong" atheists, that is that "atheism" states that there is, definitively, no god. Aside from this being a highly debatable assumption, even if we take it to be true, this argument falls short in that atheism does not share a "solid, definitive answer" to an existential question. The only thing atheists share is a lack of belief, not a final answer.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I would argue that Atheism is a conscience declaration that there is no God.

Just sitting there and never even thinking about God or the possibility that He exists would be more like Agnosticism.

[Del Arroyo]

One could make this argument only if one assumes that all atheists are "strong" atheists, that is that "atheism" states that there is, definitively, no god. Aside from this being a highly debatable assumption, even if we take it to be true, this argument falls short in that atheism does not share a "solid, definitive answer" to an existential question. The only thing atheists share is a lack of belief, not a final answer.

Lack of belief in a God does not imply belief in the absence of any God. The two are completely distinct.

Lack of belief is, if anything, agnostic. But it takes a true leap of faith to go the extra mile and make the omniscient assertion that there ARE no supernatural powers.

And we are not speaking of "Atheism" as an organized religion or even a standardized set of principles. All that is being addressed here is a personal religious belief in the clear absence of the existence of any supernatural power whatsoever.

Arguing that because "Atheism" is not organized no atheist can be religious is fallacious. I am not such a well-read student of Western philosophy that I could specify for you how many hundreds or thousands of years there has been a widely-recognized difference between religious belief and the organization thereof-- but I can tell you that the distinction between the two is well-established.

DA

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This was the thread where me and GC were debating Miller's experiment, right?

Hope so...

Gelatinous Cube, I haven't found what I was looking for yet, but from what I've read, the general opinion of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere was not the same as the composition in Miller's experiment. Making Miller's experiment irrelevant.

I will try to find that link (or whatever it was) that I saw some time ago.

:book:

[AntiochusIII]

Religions don't need an organised system, nor worship, nor moral code. They just require a belief.Sorry, that's a belief system. Not a religion. Atheism, thus, is NOT a religion. The most basic religious "thing" is to recognize that something is divine.

[khelvan]

Lack of belief in a God does not imply belief in the absence of any God. The two are completely distinct.Exactly; both of which are attributes of atheism. Only one of these would be considered a religious belief according to the definition you posted above.


Lack of belief is, if anything, agnostic. But it takes a true leap of faith to go the extra mile and make the omniscient assertion that there ARE no supernatural powers.Lack of belief is not agnostic. See here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html

Lack of belief is atheism. One could even term atheism as lack of religious belief, and that would certainly hold up to challenge if "atheism" includes both those who lack belief, and those who deny existence.

What term would you give to those people who know that they do not believe in any god, but do not deny that a deity could exist? Certainly not agnostic, either in the true sense of the word or the fallacious modern understanding of it. Some would say this is not an atheist, but then what is it?


And we are not speaking of "Atheism" as an organized religion or even a standardized set of principles. All that is being addressed here is a personal religious belief in the clear absence of the existence of any supernatural power whatsoever.No, what is being addressed here is the lack of any personal religious belief. Some atheists may hold a belief in the clear absence of any supernatural power, but others will not.


Arguing that because "Atheism" is not organized no atheist can be religious is fallacious. I am not such a well-read student of Western philosophy that I could specify for you how many hundreds or thousands of years there has been a widely-recognized difference between religious belief and the organization thereof-- but I can tell you that the distinction between the two is well-established.I agree with you, I certainly never meant to imply that because "atheism" is not organized that it cannot be religious. But to be religious, it must imply some shared set of religious beliefs.

Or were you responding to someone else?

Edit: Just so we aren't going to get bogged down in semantics, let me expand upon my hypothetical person, from above.

This person takes a dispassionate approach to the existence of a supernatural being. Since the existence of most deities, by the definition of their attributes, cannot be disproven, one must make a decision based on lack of evidence regarding one's disposition toward said defined deities.

So our hypothetical person, based on lack of any logical proof, empirical evidence, or personal experience to suggest the existence of any of said deities, decides that he or she will withold belief in any of said deities. He or she -knowingly- makes this choice, that the lack of evidence suggests that these defined deities do not exist. However, this person does not state definitively that any deity COULD NOT exist; merely that the existence of any currently defined/worshipped deities are not supported by the available evidence.

No active denial of existence, no religious statement of belief or disbelief, yet certainly not a theist. (Since agnosticism can be compatible with both theism and atheism we will ignore whether that attribute applies)

I would call our hypothetical person an atheist.

[Ianofsmeg16]

This is the old "Oh God i'm and Atheist" thing right?
I dont believe in a God but i blame him/her for all my troubles

Bloody Hippocrates


Tripe? Tripe is believing some dude named Christ popped out of a virgin, got killed, and then wound up being resurrected. Tripe is believing that you can cure diseases with a prayer. Religion is the tripe. FFS, I've tried to keep it politically correct here, but the Religious Right just goes on, and on, and on, for their outdated beliefs. Not because they actual believe in the values, but because they know a large part of their constituency is ignorant enough to follow it.

Tripe. Tripe indeed. And I think I'm going to be sick.

So you're sying religion is tripe, I find that incredibly offensive. Your also saying people dont beleive in the values?

A good friend of my family who lives in Utah (and is a mormon), his son went missing and they never found him. The mormon churches teaches that family is not just till death, but for eternity, and my friend new this, beleived this and that is how he got through something that, without religion, alot of people would have broken down and ended it all. So don't say people dont beleive in religion's values because that would be insulting a huge amount of people.
:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lack of belief is atheism.
Your arguing semantics here. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god. You cannot be an atheist unless you BELIEVE that. Some people believe in god and some do not. I will ask again is deism a religion?

This again is one definition of religion


A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Athiesm fits this definition. Someone made the ludicrous statement that a relgion had to meet all the definitions in the dictionary. Thats just silly.

[khelvan]

Your arguing semantics here. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god.In order to philosophize, we must share a definition for the words we use. If you include only those who believe that there is no god under "atheism," where do you put those who lack a belief in any of the currently defined gods but reserve judgement on the ultimate question of whether or not a god could exist?

Remember that agnosticism, to make a long story short, is basically saying that god's existence is ultimately unknowable by mankind. This does not mean someone doesn't know what to believe. One can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

[Soulforged]

Not true. Religions come in three forms - ones with Divinities, ones with Forces, and ones with Philosophies. Even in ones involving divine beings, worship is not always necessary. Buddhists don't worship Buddha, do they?
You're wrong, the religion only worships divinities, the definition does not tell you anything about what is considered a divinity (in response to Gawain), so the qualities of a divinity might been also the ones of God, that means: an idea, and you worship because you believe you own "him" your life. And NeonGod, Forces? How so? Oh I see for you a divinity is not considered a force, try to explain it, maybe you can convince me. Philosophies are simple and plain not religions, philosophies tries to discover the truth, from a metaphysical plane, and though i disagree with this conception, the religion is based on faith, wheter you call it a divinity or a force, but philosophy is out.

[Soulforged]

Your arguing semantics here. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god. You cannot be an atheist unless you BELIEVE that. Some people believe in god and some do not. I will ask again is deism a religion? Well let's do some logics then: If A (when A= belief in divinity and worship) then B (when B= religion). For instance if there is no A (wheter it be God or no God) then there's no B. No A -> No B (not the same if we inverte the premises, because it will be a fallacy). As you see even looking at it from your own logic you're wrong. From my logic I know that there is no God, i not simply believe in it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

From my logic I know that there is no God

There is no way you can claim to know that. You believe there is no god and thats all there is to it.

[Redleg]

Well let's do some logics then: If A (when A= belief in divinity and worship) then B (when B= religion). For instance if there is no A (wheter it be God or no God) then there's no B. No A -> No B (not the same if we inverte the premises, because it will be a fallacy). As you see even looking at it from your own logic you're wrong. From my logic I know that there is no God, i not simply believe in it.

(sarcasm on) Okay then smart guy and all knowing full of logic - explain in logical and proofable terms what caused the big bang and what was it? (sarcasm off)

Give you a hint there is no way to prove any theory concerning the big bang - only that it might of been what caused the Universe to be created - but its a believe.

[Divinus Arma]

I have never seen Khelvan post anywhere but EB! ~:eek:

I think this is hilarious because I simply do not care. This is bound to be fun.

It does make a little sense though. The denial of God as an expression of deistic or theistic perception.

Perhaps it it the use of the word "religion" that has everyone tied in knots, rather than specific religions.

Religion, as it has been traditionally interpreted, is a perception of creation/morality/existence/purpose, with a consequential interpretation of what that perception means for behavioral regulation, I.E. behavioral mandates and prohibition.

Christianity, as a "religion", is an interpretive perception of reality with a resultant regulation of human behavior.

Atheism, then, could be seen as a "religion" because, it to, is an interpretive perception of reality with a regulation of human behavior.

The difference between Atheism and Christianity is that in Atheism, the individual human is the ultimate authority for behavioral regulation. Alternatively in Christianity, God is the ultimate regulatory authority for human behavior.

So, in this sense, Atheism is most certainly a religion.


The accuracy of these perceptions and their consequental governances of individual choice is another matter entirely.

[bmolsson]

Religions don't need an organised system, nor worship, nor moral code. They just require a belief.

Religions are organised systems. A belief only is just that, a belief...... ~;)

[Divinus Arma]

See. Like I said:


Perhaps it it the use of the word "religion" that has everyone tied in knots, rather than specific religions.

Religion, as it has been traditionally interpreted, is a perception of creation/morality/existence/purpose, with a consequential interpretation of what that perception means for behavioral regulation, I.E. behavioral mandates and prohibition.

We can't even have an intelligent debate on whether Atheism is a "religion" until we can even reasonably define "religion".

Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[Divinus Arma]

MAybe we just stop calling religion "religion". Maybe we should call it "Existential Perspective".

You freakin politically correct hippies would like that, wouldn't you. :furious3:

~D

[bmolsson]

We can't even have an intelligent debate on whether Atheism is a "religion" until we can even reasonably define "religion".


Well, with your definition, if you have a system with a belief on the abscense of a good, then it's a religion.

I think that the actual crunch here is that there are lack of evidence for the existance as well as the abscense of a God. This makes Atheism a faith and possible a basis for a religion.

Just watched the movie "Hitchikers guide to the galaxy" and learned that actually Earth was created by some white mice that is using us to make experiment on..... ~D

[khelvan]

I liked the old days when religions were those systems of beliefs which included deities and mysticism were systems of beliefs without.

[Quietus]

Religion has got to be defined firmly first of all.

For example, does this site meant it is religious?:
www.infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org)

[Navaros]

Rubbish. This is going to be used a slippery slope for the Religious Right to equate logical science with unprovable ignorant religion. The Intelligent Design nutjobs must be jumping with joy about now.


what you refer to as "logical science" is in fact unprovable, ignorant speculation. a zealous religious belief that is held to so fervently out of a crazed fundamentalist clinging at all costs to the silly belief; "there must be no God"

no my friend, those in your camp are no better than the Intelligent Design advocates.

as for the topic of this thread: about time we start calling a spade a spade. atheism is most definitely a religion. now hopefully all the fundamentalist evolutionists will be rightfully called fundamentalists, as they should be ~D thumbs up!

[Navaros]

Please, do you think throwing out random crap like that constitutes an argument? The very idea of science is to separate what can be proven, and what cannot. And to seek the truth by means of a logical approach which can bring out all the facts in as concrete a manner as possible.

When you look at it objectively, belief in a christiain god (or Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever) is no less whacky or absurd than any Cult out there which believes the aliens will come taken them to Planet Utopia. The only reason Christianity is not seen for the lunacy that it is, is because it has been used as a control mechanism for the last couple thousand years, and has been pounded into mainstream society.


yet "science" cannot prove there is no God, but still is vehemently opposed to the possiblity that there is God. they have no facts to support that religious belief that there is no God, yet they zealously cling to it anyways. guess "science" is not so high and mighty after all, eh?

your other point is also incorrect. the belief in the Christian God is not comparable to bollocks beliefs like aliens by simple virtue of the fact that the Bible & Koran are chock full of truth whereas the other stuff you mentioned were just made up off the top of some guy's head ~D

[Ironside]

Give you a hint there is no way to prove any theory concerning the big bang - only that it might of been what caused the Universe to be created - but its a believe.

Well, technically it's the therory that matches current data most correctly. But yes, unless someone actually creates thier own universe in the laboratory it cannot be proven and thus requires a certain amount of belief.


now hopefully all the fundamentalist evolutionists will be rightfully called fundamentalists, as they should be thumbs up!

In correct wording, only strict Darwinists can be called fundamentalist evolutionists, the same way that only people who literarly interprets the Bible can be called Christian fundamentalists.


yet "science" cannot prove there is no God, but still is vehemently opposed to the possiblity that there is God. they have no facts to support that religious belief that there is no God, yet they zealously cling to it anyways. guess "science" is not so high and mighty after all, eh?

What does that make Einstein? Or other belivers (or different religions) that works with science? And uses science to understand for them self how God created the world, and how he influence it today?


your other point is also incorrect. the belief in the Christian God is not comparable to bollocks beliefs like aliens by simple virtue of the fact that the Bible & Koran are chock full of truth whereas the other stuff you mentioned were just made up off the top of some guy's head

What truth? Show it... unless it's showed how do we know that it isn't something made up off the top of some guy's head?

[Paul Peru]

As several people have said, it's just down to the definition of religion.
If we state that any position on divinity constitutes a religion, then logically atheism can be said to be a religion, even though it feels unfair for relatively rational people to be grouped with the delusional and the brainwashed. It's a result of the religious people making the rules. When the majority believes in some kind of mumbo-jumbo, it's natural that the discussion is based on mumbo-jumbo terms.

I will call myself an atheist most times, as it's easier for most people to understand, but my answer to whether there is a god is actually

"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Or, on a bad day, something like "What kind of silly question is that anyway? Why do people obsessed with such absurd and totally unfounded beliefs keep pestering me?"
This is clearly not religious by any standards, just a wee bit hostile.
I'm ever so sick and tired of religious people, really. Religion is a fascinating phenomenon, and I enjoy reading historical and scientific works on it, but it pisses me off that otherwise reasonable people have this short-circuit and insist on bothering the rest of us with it.

~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: :embarassed:

[Redleg]

This is clearly not religious by any standards, just a wee bit hostile.
I'm ever so sick and tired of religious people, really. Religion is a fascinating phenomenon, and I enjoy reading historical and scientific works on it, but it pisses me off that otherwise reasonable people have this short-circuit and insist on bothering the rest of us with it.

~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: :embarassed:

[rant on]
Well I am ever so sick and tired of hearing angry little people posulating that their is no God when they can not prove that he does not exist. They can only believe that he does not.
[rant off]


Well, technically it's the therory that matches current data most correctly. But yes, unless someone actually creates thier own universe in the laboratory it cannot be proven and thus requires a certain amount of belief.

Yep I know that - but can it be proven. Can it be shown what caused the Big Bang? All the Big Bang theories I have read present theories about how the big bang most likely caused the creation of the Universe - but haven't seen to many of them attempt to explain how it happened or what caused the big bang to happen. A theory is just a best guess until it can be proven through scientific experimentation. A theory does indeed require the scientist to believe that its the best possible logical answer.

[Erebus1101]

what you refer to as "logical science" is in fact unprovable, ignorant speculation. a zealous religious belief that is held to so fervently out of a crazed fundamentalist clinging at all costs to the silly belief; "there must be no God"

no my friend, those in your camp are no better than the Intelligent Design advocates.

as for the topic of this thread: about time we start calling a spade a spade. atheism is most definitely a religion. now hopefully all the fundamentalist evolutionists will be rightfully called fundamentalists, as they should be ~D thumbs up!

Greetings,
Here is an article I found interesting. It probably won't answer wether atheism is a religion or not but it might me useful for understanding what science is.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28525


Give you a hint there is no way to prove any theory concerning the big bang - only that it might of been what caused the Universe to be created - but its a believe.

However I it might be proved (or disproved) in the future, when more data or better instruments are available. With the data we have at our disposition nowadays the big bang seems the most probable. Aside from that many great discoveries started as equations on paper only to be proved with later experiments (the theory of relativity comes to my head now).

The point is that those theories many people regard as "crazed ignorant speculations" are the next best piece of information we can get from the limited data we have at our disposal. Those theories are also consistent with previous discoveries that we can be sure to be true, so I think its something quite different from a believe.

As for the topic, I don't think that denying god is a great leap of faith, at least not as great as affirming that there is one. The most correct would be stating that we don't know, but many of the people who follow science think in binary. That has more implications than one might think. For instance we would make the following short reasoning: Since we have no data regarding god nor we can make a theory that somehow introduces him and keep it consistent with the actual knowledge we have, we certainly cannot state that he exist, thus he must not exist.
If it cannot be 1 (true) it must be 0 (false). If we though in ternary aside from 1 (true) we would still have the value 0 (unknown) and -1 (false). So the statement ("god exists") would end up with a value 0.

[Meneldil]

All this arguing is a bit silly. How could someone believe in something/someone without proofs of its/his existence ?

The 'there's no proof that he doesn't exist' argument is pointless. This opens doors to all kind of silly religious theory. Ask the Rahelians to prove that Buddha, Jesus and Mahomet are frozen on Pluton, and they'll reply with the same kind of pre-made dumb arguing : 'you can't prove they aren't frozen on Pluton'. Geez. And the Bible is certainly not a proof, just as the Lord of the Ring is not a proof that Orcs and Elvens actually exist.

Now, on the other hand, we can see planet, we can see that the Earth isn't in the middle of the Universe, and we can even see some kind of evolution on some species. Of course, science might not always be exact (that's the point of theory), but the Bible has proven itslef to be almost always wrong, so I made my choice.

[Redleg]

so I made my choice.

That is really all it is now - a choice based upon what one wants to believe or not believe. Which goes into most likely why the court decided to rule it as a religion,



However I it might be proved (or disproved) in the future, when more data or better instruments are available. With the data we have at our disposition nowadays the big bang seems the most probable. Aside from that many great discoveries started as equations on paper only to be proved with later experiments (the theory of relativity comes to my head now).


When science can show how and what caused the Big Bang then science has provided all the answers to the creation of the Universe. What science has done so far is attempt to show that the Big Bang theory is the most likely cause of the creation - but again scientists have not been able to posulate what caused the Big Bang - or not from any readings I have ever seen on the subject.
This is the main point that is always addressed by scientists and even you.


The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

However the astrophysicists can not describe or theorize with any validity beyond their own personal belief what caused the Big Bang. The point is that [b]the cause how the Big Bang occured [b] can not be proven for the simple fact of its very nature - time and the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang occured.

[Erebus1101]

It is true, nowadays scientist cannot say anything about what happens inside a blackhole, which is similar to the "very tiny point in which all the energy of the universe was jammed into" (aka singularity). It is said that around a singularity physical laws no longer apply. Although I have read about some speculations about what might happen inside (such a a quantified one dimensional space ... and more stuff i didn't understood), the author in such cases clearly states that they are speculating.
No astrophysicists I know has said that he KNEW what happened around a singularity, they make no unfounded assumption and so I think is incorrect to say that believe has anything to do with their activities.


The point is that the cause how the Big Bang occured can not be proven for the simple fact of its very nature

Again I would like to stress that the fact that science cannot explain some things now, doesn't mean it won't be able in the future. As far as I know there is no mathematical proof that states that is impossible to obtain information from a singularity, otherwise it would be the end of the astrophysics as we know it, and I am sure we would have heard of it.

In fact black holes might be leaking information in the form of the so called hawking radiation. What we lack is also knowledge about elemental particles and a unified theory (a single theory that explains all forces). And so we might be able to "look" inside a singularity and find what caused that primary singularity, or we might find that no matter what we do we cannot know everything. But as I said none knows that answer yet.

[The_Doctor]

Who cares?

I don't. I don't even know what the "7th circuit court of appeals" is.

If Christians want to cover things in symbols of death, then fine.

As they say, "Let the baby have its bottle".

[Strike For The South]

Who cares?

I don't. I don't even know what the "7th circuit court of appeals" is.

If Christians want to cover things in symbols of death, then fine.

As they say, "Let the baby have its bottle".

Atheists are taking the same blind jump of faith religous people are they just think there better informed

[Redleg]

Again I would like to stress that the fact science cannot explain some things now, doesn't mean it won't be able in the future. As far as I know there is no mathematical proof that states that is impossible to obtain information from a singularity, otherwise it would be the end of the astrophysics as we know it, and I am sure we would have heard of it.



But as I said none knows that answer yet.

I just quoted the point I was going to respond to. And is not intended to counter every part of your post.

Because of this situation with science - there is absolutely no justification to attack any religion because of their belief. Science theories are only in essence a belief of what could be true based upon collected data and scientific thoughts. However until it is proven its really only a belief.

Science can not answer all things - nor does it address the desire of man to find a higher meaning to life.

Religion provides that for many. The foundations provided by science provides it for others. Religion and the concept in religion is not as ridiculous as some would claim because it does provide for the desire of man to find a higher meaning to life then just the mundane world we live in.

Some of my experiences in life give me faith in a higher being - other experiences make me question that faith. However I have rarely found that science holds all the answers to life. Sometimes its a wonderful thing to have faith in something other then yourself. Be it God, Family, Nation, or even science.

[The_Doctor]

Atheists are taking the same blind jump of faith religous people are they just think there better informed

Yes.

But I don't have to waste my time in church or follow some strange rules.

I am free(er) than religious people.

[Redleg]

Yes.

But I don't have to waste my time in church or follow some strange rules.

I am free(er) than religious people.

I am just as free or even more so then you. I dont follow any strange rules, I rarely go into an organized church - but I believe in God and that Jesus was sent to earth as my savior.

There is no constraint made on a person who believes in God - other then to believe in his existance. Jesus stated that treat others the way in which you wish to be treated - is that a strange rule to you. Charity is not a strange rule - in fact its better then state handouts because it shows that individual that others really care about them.

However it does seem you have time to waste to get on the internet and post in a discussion board on a topic about atheism and religion. ~:eek: :dizzy2:

[The_Doctor]

I am just as free or even more so then you.

How so?


I dont follow any strange rules.

How about the don't piss against the wall or "god" will kill you.


However it does seem you have time to waste to get on the internet and post in a discussion board on a topic about atheism and religion.

It is my choice.

[Strike For The South]

Martinus you follow rules also but instead of God you replace him with socitey
By your defintion we are both equally represed

[The_Doctor]

By your defintion we are both equally represed

What definition? What is happening? :dizzy2:


Martinus you follow rules also but instead of God you replace him with socitey

Where did I say that?

Society sucks. I try to live by my own rules.

[Redleg]

How so?

Because it seems I am not trapped in being hateful toward those who might not agree with my views about religion. You seem to have trapped yourself into your own negative belief.



How about the don't piss against the wall or "god" will kill you.


See the above statement. No such rule exists in my understanding of the religion I follow.



It is my choice.

You said you didn't have the time to waste. So that in essence is not true since you chose to post your views on religion in the .org on an internet forum.

However you did hit the nail on the head so to speak. Religion is a choice. You either chose to believe or you chose not to believe in a religion.

[Redleg]

What definition? What is happening? :dizzy2:

Your arguement was false.




Where did I say that?

Society sucks. I try to live by my own rules.

And when your own rules violate the rules of society - you will find yourself spending some time with others who believed they could violate the rules of society and not be punished for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont follow any strange rules.



How about the don't piss against the wall or "god" will kill you.




God has no such rule but the local governent will arrest you for doing that.


Society sucks. I try to live by my own rules.

Oh anarchy the best type of government ay. See you in jail one of these days.

[A.Saturnus]

Well, if atheism is a religion, then not praying in public must be illegal in the US :dizzy2:

So, I have no zeal, does that mean I can´t be an atheist? Bummer.

[Duke Malcolm]

Well, if atheism is a religion, then not praying in public must be illegal in the US :dizzy2:
how so?



So, I have no zeal, does that mean I can´t be an atheist? Bummer.
I have no zeal, but am still a christian

[A.Saturnus]

how so?

Well, I thought praying in public places is illegal in the US?


I have no zeal, but am still a christian

But Gawain said atheists have zeal.

[Redleg]

Well, if atheism is a religion, then not praying in public must be illegal in the US :dizzy2:
BS hyperbole - what a crackup you are. ~:eek: :dizzy2:



So, I have no zeal, does that mean I can´t be an atheist? Bummer.

Having zeal is not a trait required to be religious. Zealous is only a requirement for fanatics.

zeal is defined as eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something.

And yes I know your only trying to be sarcastic - but its a pathetic attempt deserving of ridicule and sharp-shooting.

~:eek: ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, if atheism is a religion, then not praying in public must be illegal in the US

And why would that be. It seems to me that many people ignore part of the first amendment. This part

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

According to this no one can be stopped from exercising their religous beliefs where ever and where ever they please. Thi would go for athiest as well. The thing is athiest want only their views allowed in government by claiming they are somehow being discriminated against or made to feel inferior. To accomlpsh this they would discriminate against religous people and constantly tell them they are fools and inferior. The first amendment was made tostop the very thing this judge is saying. There is no doubt that he willb b over ruled. Whatmany of you fail to see is that attacking Christianity is attacking the very basi of our government.

[A.Saturnus]

Does that mean religious people aren´t oppressed in America? How disillusionating :cry:
~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does that mean religious people aren´t oppressed in America? How disillusionating :(

Yes they have as some seem to ignore the constitution. I hope this clears up your disillusionment.

[A.Saturnus]

Yes they have as some seem to ignore the constitution. I hope this clears up your disillusionment.

Maybe, but it seems not so bad as I have been made to believe. D´oh, I said believe, does that put me into a religion again?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe, but it seems not so bad as I have been made to believe. D´oh, I said believe, does that put me into a religion again?

Yes. We all are religous. Athiest just deny their religion for political purposes. If you have a view on God either positve or negative you are expressing religious views. I doubt there are many here who are ambigous about their views on this matter.

[Duke Malcolm]

Agnostics seem to be the only people who have no religion, since they do not know what to believe or do not care.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Agnostics seem to be the only people who have no religion, since they do not know what to believe or do not care.

Yup. Some here then would claim that only they should be allowed to govern. What many seem to ignore is that the constitution says there can be no religous test for those seeking public office.

[The_Doctor]

I found the pissing against the wall stuff:


Samuel 1 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.


1 Kings 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.


1 Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.


1 Kings 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel


2 Kings 9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel

Also Mark Twain said:

"A person could piss against a tree, he could piss on his mother, he could piss on his own breeches, and get off, but he must not piss against the wall -- that would be going quite too far. The origin of the divine prejudice against this humble crime is not stated; but we know that the prejudice was very strong -- so strong that nothing but a wholesale massacre of the people inhabiting the region where the wall was defiled could satisfy the Deity."


You said you didn't have the time to waste. So that in essence is not true since you chose to post your views on religion in the .org on an internet forum.

I said church was a waste of my time, the .org is not.


Because it seems I am not trapped in being hateful toward those who might not agree with my views about religion. You seem to have trapped yourself into your own negative belief.

Seems write. I blame that hate on:
-Primary school where they maybe us pray and sing. I imagined that crosses shot out mind control beams.
-The crazy dinner lady who maybe us pray before we could eat.
-The scouts who made us go to church, just because they rented a the hall there.
-And finally those people who keep trying to convert me.

So sorry if I am bit angry, but people seem to keep forcing religion down my throat.

I did try to be nice by agreeing with Redleg.


And when your own rules violate the rules of society - you will find yourself spending some time with others who believed they could violate the rules of society and not be punished for it.


Oh anarchy the best type of government ay. See you in jail one of these days.

You guys may have taken that the wrong way. I not going to anything illegal, that would be breaking the rules of law.

I mean, I do not do what society expects me to do, which in a small way is breaking the rules of society eg, wear this because it is "cool", drink alcohol, learn to drive a car, try drugs, try smoking, listen to music, go out clubbing, etc. I am consider odd because I do not do these things.

And anarchy is a bad idea, unless you what to be a dictator.


I am sure I have said something stupid that you are going to pick up on.

[Erebus1101]

Because of this situation with science - there is absolutely no justification to attack any religion because of their belief.

I agree, but only as long as people realize that their faith is only that, a belief.


Science theories are only in essence a belief of what could be true based upon collected data and scientific thoughts. However until it is proven its really only a belief.

The scientific method has so far proved to be correct, as proof we have the advances humanity experience during the last couple of centuries. How can one state that is only a belief. The fact that my CD drive works is hardly a believe. Science theories are also a result from that method, since we are working with incomplete data, theories might be incorrect but scientist assume that possibility. A very important difference from faith.


Science can not answer all things - nor does it address the desire of man to find a higher meaning to life.

Religion provides that for many. The foundations provided by science provides it for others. Religion and the concept in religion is not as ridiculous as some would claim because it does provide for the desire of man to find a higher meaning to life then just the mundane world we live in.

Science is not done so as to provide a higher meaning to life. At least it doesn't for me. It is just about gathering information.

I think that Religion is just philosophy with a layer of mysticism. The philosophy part is what provides higher meaning to things.

About the mysticism part, well what can I say...
...people love to delude themselves... ~;)


Some of my experiences in life give me faith in a higher being - other experiences make me question that faith. However I have rarely found that science holds all the answers to life. Sometimes its a wonderful thing to have faith in something other then yourself. Be it God, Family, Nation, or even science.

Science provides information; information is needed to make our lives easier, we need information to make decision during our lives; and sometimes just knowing something feels quite good. However we might not always like the information we get this way, in particular science is not there to answer metaphysical questions. If you feel comfortable with religion providing those answers, thats fine, but back in the real world, one uses science to get reliable information not religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

one uses science to get reliable information not religion.

That depends on what your trying to get reliable information on.


Quote:
Samuel 1 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.




Quote:
1 Kings 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.




Quote:
1 Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.




Quote:
1 Kings 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel




Quote:
2 Kings 9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel


:

From reading this I guess we will now have to allow public pissing as we cant have laws based on the bible now can we? Lets add murder and stealing to the list of now acceptable behavior.

[Redleg]

I found the pissing against the wall stuff:

Yep your correct its in the bible - but your statment earlier and my response did not reference Old Testimate scripture.



Also Mark Twain said:


Yep and it all refers to the old testimate, again look at what you asked and what I responded with.




I said church was a waste of my time, the .org is not.


And the response was in context of your comment - its all a waste of time if your not doing something to earn a living, eat, and to rest. Typing in an internet forum about religion and your views on religion is the definition of a waste of time.



Seems write. I blame that hate on:
-Primary school where they maybe us pray and sing. I imagined that crosses shot out mind control beams.
-The crazy dinner lady who maybe us pray before we could eat.
-The scouts who made us go to church, just because they rented a the hall there.
-And finally those people who keep trying to convert me.


Well then you should contact a lawyer and have your school sued - well that is what you can do in the United States since religion can not be forced upon you in school - that is indeed unconstitutional. Being a member of the scouts is a choice - you should hold your parents responsible for that one for not picking a better troop. The Boy Scout Troop I was in meet at the Catholic Church - and we never went to church before, during, or after.

If someone trys to convert you - just tell them no thanks - no need to be hateful in doing so.



So sorry if I am bit angry, but people seem to keep forcing religion down my throat.


However it does not seem that anyone here is attempting to force religion down your throat. I explain my religious views - I care not if it convinces you to become religious or not.



I did try to be nice by agreeing with Redleg.

And I appreciate the effort.

[quote]
You guys may have taken that the wrong way. I not going to anything illegal, that would be breaking the rules of law.


Not at all - I made the statement that if your rules violated those of society - you would spend some time with others of liked mind.



I mean, I do not do what society expects me to do, which in a small way is breaking the rules of society eg, wear this because it is "cool", drink alcohol, learn to drive a car, try drugs, try smoking, listen to music, go out clubbing, etc. I am consider odd because I do not do these things.


Actually on a few of those are breaking the rules of society. Learning to drive a car is a choice offered by society. Driving a car without a license would be breaking a rule of society. Not Drinking achocal is not a rule of society - Drinking under the legal age is breaking the law. What you wear is not a rule of society its a fad or other - society law only states you must wear clothes in public.



And anarchy is a bad idea, unless you what to be a dictator.


Your statements of your own rules - implies anarchy.



I am sure I have said something stupid that you are going to pick up on.

Nothing stupid as of yet - only disortions based upon hate for all things religion because of past experiences. Some probably done by the desires of your family - and not religion in itself.

[Redleg]

I agree, but only as long as people realize that their faith is only that, a belief.

Correct.




The scientific method has so far proved to be correct, as proof we have the advances humanity experience during the last couple of centuries. How can one state that is only a belief. The fact that my CD drive works is hardly a believe. Science theories are also a result from that method, since we are working with incomplete data, theories might be incorrect but scientist assume that possibility. A very important difference from faith.


Nice try but I said theory not science fact. If I said science as a whole then you would be correct. The Big Bang is a theory - which in essence is a belief based upon evidence but not proven.



Science is not done so as to provide a higher meaning to life. At least it doesn't for me. It is just about gathering information.


Good



I think that Religion is just philosophy with a layer of mysticism. The philosophy part is what provides higher meaning to things.


Your getting close to my belief system regarding religion. Minus the mysticism since I believe only in God not the other parts of things that would quantify mysticism.



About the mysticism part, well what can I say...
...people love to delude themselves... ~;)


Sure they do



Science provides information; information is needed to make our lives easier, we need information to make decision during our lives; and sometimes just knowing something feels quite good. However we might not always like the information we get this way, in particular science is not there to answer metaphysical questions. If you feel comfortable with religion providing those answers, thats fine, but back in the real world, one uses science to get reliable information not religion.

Again one can often seperate what is in the physical world and what is needed there - from what is the world of the religion for one's soul. I don't use religion to explain the physical world - I use religion to help me understand my soul.

[The_Doctor]

Forget it.

[The_Doctor]

I am just going to walk away from this.

[Strike For The South]

Im gonna go with N/M

[Soulforged]

There is no way you can claim to know that. You believe there is no god and thats all there is to it. Yes I can, not from the perspective of science (except biological history maybe), but from the perspective of phylosophy wich treats with the complexity of the metaphysical "existince". In fact when i first said to you that God was an idea (thus exists only inside your head and appears after the man), you asked me proof, I asked you some questions and you avoided them stating my condesence. I'll not repeat the questions again, but I know from the answer of that simple questions that there's no God, just the idea of it. It serves the human purpose of giving mining to your existence and in desparate moments too, but I'll give you a hint don't expect any life after the one you're living... I think that explains my position.

[Erebus1101]

Nice try but I said theory not science fact. If I said science as a whole then you would be correct. The Big Bang is a theory - which in essence is a belief based upon evidence but not proven.

Maybe I didn't explained myself very well; my point was that scientific theories are result from a successful method of gaining knowledge, how can one compare a prediction based on a mathematical model with a religious believes?

A mathematical model is a language to describe reality, and theories are predictions consistent with it. You call it "belief based upon evidence", but none is believing anything.

I don't think they could even be considered believes because it is assumed that they might be incorrect to some extend (mostly due to faulty data or the lack of it), but well..., I will leave semantics to other people.


Your getting close to my belief system regarding religion. Minus the mysticism since I believe only in God not the other parts of things that would quantify mysticism.

The way I see it is that the concept of god is a mystical element. Without doubt the existence of a higher being bring more appeal to the final product (the religion).


Again one can often seperate what is in the physical world and what is needed there - from what is the world of the religion for one's soul. I don't use religion to explain the physical world - I use religion to help me understand my soul.
That is good. The problem comes when deciding what questions correspond to the physical world and which correspond to the metaphysical world.

For instance here we can find people arguing that the question about the beginning of life (or complex organic structures), belong to the world of religion; or the question of what caused the big bang, or the one about evolution, or.......

[Redleg]

Maybe I didn't explained myself very well; my point was that scientific theories are result from a successful method of gaining knowledge, how can one compare a prediction based on a mathematical model with a religious believes?

A mathematical model is a language to describe reality, and theories are predictions consistent with it. You call it "belief based upon evidence", but none is believing anything.

I don't think they could even be considered believes because it is assumed that they might be incorrect to some extend (mostly due to faulty data or the lack of it), but well..., I will leave semantics to other people.


Your entitled to your opinion about theories based upon how you percieve science to be - Now I am not necessarily saying that theories are not the way for science to progress - but some theories are indeed based more one the scientists beliefs verus reality. Much of the Big Bang scenerio's about the cause are just such a scenerio.



The way I see it is that the concept of god is a mystical element. Without doubt the existence of a higher being bring more appeal to the final product (the religion).


Religion does not exist without the appeal to a higher power. Ruling atheism as a religion was the incorrect ruling of the 7th COurt of Appeals in my opinion. One can safely call it an idealogue that has its fanatics who hate religion and attempt to erase all religion from society - but I wouldn't define it as religion since there is absolutely no appeal to a percieved higher power.



That is good. The problem comes when deciding what questions correspond to the physical world and which correspond to the metaphysical world.


ITs really rather easy for me - if it deals with my soul its falls under the catergory of religion.

If it deals with some aspect of law or physics - then its got to be the physical world. Or as the Jesus stated - Give onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, Give onto God what is God's.



For instance here we can find people arguing that the question about the beginning of life (or complex organic structures), belong to the world of religion; or the question of what caused the big bang, or the one about evolution, or.......

The answer for me is that God created the universe - and used what scientists call the Big Bang as his tool to create it. Now I can't prove it - but neither can scientists disprove it.

[GoreBag]

You're wrong, the religion only worships divinities, the definition does not tell you anything about what is considered a divinity (in response to Gawain), so the qualities of a divinity might been also the ones of God, that means: an idea, and you worship because you believe you own "him" your life. And NeonGod, Forces? How so? Oh I see for you a divinity is not considered a force, try to explain it, maybe you can convince me. Philosophies are simple and plain not religions, philosophies tries to discover the truth, from a metaphysical plane, and though i disagree with this conception, the religion is based on faith, wheter you call it a divinity or a force, but philosophy is out.

Well, about forces. Take Taoism for example. Taoism, as a religion, encourages people to "go with the flow", and teaches that there is "a way". There is no divine figure.

Nihilism, Satanism (depending on your viewpoint) and Bushido are example of religious philosophies without divinities or forces. I'm sure we could all compile a large list if everyone pitched in.

[Soulforged]

Well, about forces. Take Taoism for example. Taoism, as a religion, encourages people to "go with the flow", and teaches that there is "a way". There is no divine figure. I don't see any difference between this force and the christian God.

Nihilism, Satanism (depending on your viewpoint) and Bushido are example of religious philosophies without divinities or forces. I'm sure we could all compile a large list if everyone pitched in. You consider Nihilism religion?...Bushido is just phylosophy, i don't know where you see the religion on it. And satanism worships Satan.

[GoreBag]

I don't see any difference between this force and the christian God.
You consider Nihilism religion?...Bushido is just phylosophy, i don't know where you see the religion on it. And satanism worships Satan.

Well, Jehovah is a personifcation. "The way" is mindless.

Nihilism operates like any other philosophy taken to heart - there's a moral code and adherence/reverence to/for a certain ideal. The same goes for Bushido.

Not all Satanists worship Satan.

[Soulforged]

Well, Jehovah is a personifcation. "The way" is mindless.

Nihilism operates like any other philosophy taken to heart - there's a moral code and adherence/reverence to/for a certain ideal. The same goes for Bushido.

Not all Satanists worship Satan.

The first is still called religion because the force is divinizated, it's worshiped. Nihilism and bushido are still phylosophies, i don't know why you force them into religion...About the third i didn't know, but enghlight me. ~;)

[Lazul]

And satanism worships Satan.

Satanism is divided into two major groups, the Ocult Satanism are those that actually believes in Satan as a counterpart to the Christian/Muslim/jewish God. And they probably await the Anti-Christ and so on.

The philosofical satanism, founded sometime around the 18th century i think, by some french dudes, only called themselfs satanist to mock the christian church wich they were sick of.
Philosofical satanism I think is more of an agnostic beliefe system that doesnt really care for god or gods but for the human nature and natural instincts in humans, like sexual lust, natural beuty, good food. Its a rather ego-centrical beliefe system.

Thats what I learned when I a report on satanism in school atleast. :bow:

[A.Saturnus]

Satanism is divided into two major groups, the Ocult Satanism are those that actually believes in Satan as a counterpart to the Christian/Muslim/jewish God. And they probably await the Anti-Christ and so on.

The philosofical satanism, founded sometime around the 18th century i think, by some french dudes, only called themselfs satanist to mock the christian church wich they were sick of.
Philosofical satanism I think is more of an agnostic beliefe system that doesnt really care for god or gods but for the human nature and natural instincts in humans, like sexual lust, natural beuty, good food. Its a rather ego-centrical beliefe system.

Thats what I learned when I a report on satanism in school atleast. :bow:

That´s a simplification. In medieval times there were groups that actually prayed to Satan. Some of them may have survived, but not many. Those are in principle just groups of anti-social pseudo-intellectuals engaging in bizarre orgies.
Other groups didn´t call themselves Satanists, but where classified as such. Examples are the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Order of the Golden Dawn or Network Thelema. These are in essence occultist groups that believe that it is possible to gain godlike powers via occult practics. Most so called modern Satanists have a belief system in which the individual is god (but not in a pantheistic sense).

[Lazul]

"In medieval times there were groups that actually prayed to Satan"... yeah I did say that, that there are ocultists that pray to Satan. ~;)

"Most so called modern Satanists have a belief system in which the individual is god"

yes, thats what I ment with 'ego-centrical beliefesystem' :bow: