lol at religous people, I mean really.

[Firus]

No wars are ever waged over religion or ideology. Wars are waged over territory and natural resources. Religion and ideology are methods of indoctrination used to train and control the foot soldiers.

Not recently, no, but there have been quite a few religious wars started at times in history, and that's to what I was referring.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

BTW, you know how Intelligent Design is being taught in public schools in some states? You know, schools using taxpayer money? You think I wouldn't be upset by that?

Btw, you know how intelligent design is being taught as a minor section in some high school science classes? You know that at a certain school in california not to far from my own a certain teacher used a text book written from a christian perspective, but one that still covered natural selection and other such theories? Well they were rejected by most colleges, or at least the good, and halfway decent ones. You think I wouldn't be upset by that?

Not to be super argumentative or anything, just a counter point.

 

[TP]

Btw, you know how intelligent design is being taught as a minor section in some high school science classes? You know that at a certain school in california not to far from my own a certain teacher used a text book written from a christian perspective, but one that still covered natural selection and other such theories? Well they were rejected by most colleges, or at least the good, and halfway decent ones. You think I wouldn't be upset by that?

Not to be super argumentative or anything, just a counter point.

I can't really understand your point. The rhetorical question approach doesn't work with a post that long.

 

[El Nino]

Not recently, no, but there have been quite a few religious wars started at times in history, and that's to what I was referring.

You got me thinking on something, but I don't want to derail the thread.

Btw, you know how intelligent design is being taught as a minor section in some high school science classes? You know that at a certain school in california not to far from my own a certain teacher used a text book written from a christian perspective, but one that still covered natural selection and other such theories? Well they were rejected by most colleges, or at least the good, and halfway decent ones. You think I wouldn't be upset by that?

Not to be super argumentative or anything, just a counter point.

I don't mind the concept of intelligent design being taught in schools, but it is NOT a scientific concept and really has no place in science classes. Perhaps in another area of study, it would be appropriate. Perhaps as a humanities or a philosophy topic, it would be appropriate. But I think the reason it is rejected by most colleges is because it is categorized incorrectly. It would be like taking a course in psychology and trying to apply those credits toward a math requirement.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

I can't really understand your point. The rhetorical question approach doesn't work with a post that long.

1. Science taught from a conservative christian stand point.
2. Pupils not accepted by many colleges.
3.

 

[§witch]

This thread is full of ******** bias and blanket statements.

I can say that Theists hate anything that challenges their system of beliefs (and are ignorant for that) but not all of them are.

I can also say that all Atheists are bitter because of a Catholic upbringing, and some of them are, but I'd say that most aren't.

ITT: I'm 14 and know everything about the world.

 

[TP]

1. Science taught from a conservative christian stand point.
2. Pupils not accepted by many colleges.
3.

Wait, public or private school?

 

[Man of Popsicle]

Wait, public or private school?

Pretty sure it was public, like 99% sure.
It was awhile ago though so it's a little cloudy in my memory.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Gj Man of Popsicle. I was pleasantly surprised by the contents of this blog. There definitely is a major incongruity between political "equality" and what actually is.

Personally I think we'd all be better off if everyone ditched the whole Sensitivity and Diversity celebration and became thick-skinned. It's hard to be offended when you don't really care, if you know what I mean.

 

[Oracle]

Catholics preach just as much (and as condescendingly) as atheists do. Quit whining.
If you're strong in your beliefs, then atheists trying to prove their religion shouldn't bother you much.

 

[_Keno_]

then atheists trying to prove their religion...

I really hate it when people refer to atheism as religion, or even an organized group.

Anyways, on topic with schools and religion. Where I live, it is EXTREMELY hard to find a school that teaches evolution or anything that might undermine religion. Many of my teachers even talk about God and Jesus in the classroom (under the assumption that everyone is Christian, since almost everyone is).

Spoiler

Public school btw, and everyone there is an *******.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Although this blog had a high probability of turning into a complete flame war, it has not, marvelous job, Man of Popsicle.
However it is still bound for some ignorant/stupid/bias posts that anger other people, what else would one expect in a blog about Religion?

Atheists seem to be too strong in their belief of no higher being(s) at all, and also agitated by Christians all over the United States and Britain preaching that there is a God and that he is the creator of reality.
Atheists, in essence, are exactly like Christians, they preach and, to a certain extent, whine about Christians being wrong. Like typical human nature, Christians fight back for their beliefs.

To become Agnostic, at least one cannot prove their real opinion on a higher being/beings. I might or might not say that there is God/Allah/Gods/Goddesses, thus a person belonging to any Religion cannot fully argue with me, because I have not yet decided, and I plan not to.

Life will go on, and throughout time Atheists will continue to argue with the other Religions, it cannot be stopped, so sad!

 

[Firus]

I really hate it when people refer to atheism as religion

Technically, it is...

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Note the underlined "belief" in both. Atheism is a belief in a LACK of a God. If it's a belief, that technically makes it a religion.

It isn't like other religions in that there is no sort of church or practices associated with it, it's a very loose religion, but it's still a religion.

 

[_Keno_]

The only thing those two definitions have in common is the word "belief." Other than that, I don't recall anyone setting forth a fundamental set of beliefs for atheism, nor any practices, nor any official conference to "generally agree upon" this unknown set of beliefs and practices. The only belief I know of that all atheists share is "there is no God."

And if you want to go into science as the fundamental set of beliefs for atheists, than you might as well argue Science as a religion too. Its my belief that science is right, and it is the belief of many others too, therefore science is a religion?

Maybe since we can not agree, it can simply be an opinion whether atheism is a religion, since neither of have documented evidence of whether or not it is, nor can either of us declare it so.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Technically, it is...

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

Yes, because obviously one belief=religion. Right.

=/

 

[SuSa]

Technically, it is...





Note the underlined "belief" in both. Atheism is a belief in a LACK of a God. If it's a belief, that technically makes it a religion.

It isn't like other religions in that there is no sort of church or practices associated with it, it's a very loose religion, but it's still a religion.

"Belief" and "set of beliefs" are two majorly different things.

 

[Darkslash]

Funny I go to a catholic school and science is a highly regarded and prized subject. Hell my Bio class took I dunno....IIRC 3 months on the theory of evolution on plants and animals. Test time, I screwed up, because I'm a lazy ****.

I have to say my school has a equal balance of science and religion in it. So no qualms for me

 

[Firus]

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

Yes, because obviously one belief=religion. Right.

=/

-_-

One belief = A religion.

Bah, I don't really care. I consider Atheism a religion, just as I would consider Agnosticism a religion.

If it isn't, feel free to lynch me, I don't particularly care. There's really no reason it matters if it's considered religion or not, it's a belief that people can get upset easily enough over.

Spoiler

Why do I come into religious topics again? >_>

 

[aeghrur]

You obviously have never been to Idaho.

Your second question: I'm sorry if the gov't. offends you but that's how they roll. It really depends on the person if they believe what they are taught.

Wait, WHAT?
The gov't does NOT roll like that.
In fact, courts have CONSTANTLY stated that Intelligent Design is more of a religious ideal than a scientific concept and have thus stated ID has no place in the science classes.
It's not the government's fault, it's the teachers fault, which is probably because either they themselves were taught poorly or simply overly religious where they can't separate their private life of religion and their job, which is to teach science.

 

[Teran]

If you keep up this good attitude I might ship you all cookies by Fed Ex.

No not really, but you get the point.

 

[El Nino]

-_-

One belief = A religion.

Bah, I don't really care. I consider Atheism a religion, just as I would consider Agnosticism a religion.

If it isn't, feel free to lynch me, I don't particularly care. There's really no reason it matters if it's considered religion or not, it's a belief that people can get upset easily enough over.

Well, okay.

A religion is an organized belief system. It has a code of morals and acceptable behaviors and rituals that form its backbone, and it also cultivates an entire culture around it. Because of this, it can become a person's most basic moral code, something that all other behaviors are gauged by.

Atheism is nowhere near as organized. A single belief does not equate to an entire religion because religion is a system of beliefs. Atheism lacks an underlying code of ethics and a cohesive system of principles. If I asked for an atheist's opinion on something like underage drinking, I'm going to get an answer based on a personal code of ethics, not an established doctrine. If I ask another atheist the same question, I'll get another answer, for different reasons. Atheists tend to defer to personal reasoning when making moral judgment calls; religious individuals tend to defer to a religious doctrine.

Similarly, someone who believes that smoking is bad is not, because of holding that one belief, taking part in an "anti-smoking" religion. Religion is a much more highly complex social organization. It extends beyond the individual level, whereas atheism seems to exist, more or less, only on the individual level.

 

[cookieM0Nster]

Well, okay.

A religion is an organized belief system. It has a code of morals and acceptable behaviors and rituals that form its backbone, and it also cultivates an entire culture around it. Because of this, it can become a person's most basic moral code, something that all other behaviors are gauged by.

Atheism is nowhere near as organized. A single belief does not equate to an entire religion because religion is a system of beliefs. Atheism lacks an underlying code of ethics and a cohesive system of principles. If I asked for an atheist's opinion on something like underage drinking, I'm going to get an answer based on a personal code of ethics, not an established doctrine. If I ask another atheist the same question, I'll get another answer, for different reasons. Atheists tend to defer to personal reasoning when making moral judgment calls; religious individuals tend to defer to a religious doctrine.

Similarly, someone who believes that smoking is bad is not, because of holding that one belief, taking part in an "anti-smoking" religion. Religion is a much more highly complex social organization. It extends beyond the individual level, whereas atheism seems to exist, more or less, only on the individual level.

Well there are cults, but we'll leave them out of here

And I personally so not think of Atheism a religion, I consider it a philosophy, or a belief. Mainly because Atheism is the belief of no God, and because the belief of God is in (mostly) all religions, Atheism could be considered the belief that religion is not the truth. And please don't flame me for this, although I really don't think that I typed anything wrong.

 

[Merce]

I'm sorry, but athiesm is a religion. It is a reaction to religion that offers an alternative life style and theology. Christians have the New Testament, Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita, and Athiests have science.

At Penn State there is a very active society called the atheist club. They preach their beliefs outside of the science buildings. Once a week, they run a table called "Ask an Atheist" offering scientific explainations for religious texts.

They are beginning to develop their own dogmatic ceremonies such as "de-baptisms." It doesn't matter if it's intention is to mock Christian dogma, it's a ceremony for the sake of the belief of not believing. And guess what, they are beginning to create atheist churches.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-21-atheists-debaptism_N.htm
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html

Personally I get a kick out of the irony.

 

[2.72]

I'm sorry, but athiesm is a religion. It is a reaction to religion that offers an alternative life style and theology. Christians have the New Testament, Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita, and Athiests have science.

No. Science is a tool; and a very useful one. It's given us vaccines for diseases, electronics, essentially every form of modern communication and so on. It's not a life style. It's not going to touch on subjects like spirituality, the core belief in God, etc. Some people take it too far, but most atheists? No.

At Penn State there is a very active society called the atheist club. They preach their beliefs outside of the science buildings. Once a week, they run a table called "Ask an Atheist" offering scientific explainations for religious texts.

I know a lot of atheists, including my entire immediate family and most of my aunts/uncles. Guess how many are in a club like that? Zero.

They are beginning to develop their own dogmatic ceremonies such as "de-baptisms." It doesn't matter if it's intention is to mock Christian dogma, it's a ceremony for the sake of the belief of not believing. And guess what, they are beginning to create atheist churches.

Here you go again with the use of "they." There are no atheist ceremonies. Yes, some atheists take part in ceremonies but not nearly all do, and the ceremonies that do exist vary widely from person to person.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-21-atheists-debaptism_N.htm
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html

This is an invalid generalization. You're generalizing the activities from a small subset to the entire group.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

One belief =/= a set of beliefs.
No practices "generally agreed upon."
You could debate that the one belief is not even specific. Here, I'll give you a number of beliefs from people I know who call themselves atheists.

1. There is no god and the entire concept is logically incoherent.
2. There is no god and I can prove it (but the concept is logically sound).
3. There is no god and I can't prove it.
4. There is no god, but there are immortal souls and hence an afterlife.
5. There is no god, but I am spiritual.
6. There is no god, and I am not spiritual.

 

[Merce]

No. Science is a tool; and a very useful one. It's given us vaccines for diseases, electronics, essentially every form of modern communication and so on. It's not a life style. It's not going to touch on subjects like spirituality, the core belief in God, etc. Some people take it too far, but most atheists? No.

Science could become an ideology if science were theoretically accepted as fundamentally true and inherently good. Though this is an extreme statement, this concept isn't a polar one. The more one associates science with truth and benefit, the more one's world view will be influenced by science, as if it were a belief system.

Just from your given examples: I believe vaccines have had unintended and harmful consequences for the neurological health of developing minds (thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines) and that there are inherent risks to the development of electronics and communication devices (the unknown effects of wireless data transmission and the ever increasing surveillance network in the UK).

We are no longer in "the Year of our Lord", but the "Year of our Ford."

I know a lot of atheists, including my entire immediate family and most of my aunts/uncles. Guess how many are in a club like that? Zero.

Cool, and I said I know a lot of people who are. The point is moot. Some people do, some don't. I was simply suggesting that there is a large population of atheists at Penn State who appreciate being around like-minded people, encourage others to understand their point of view, and want to convince others to share their world view.

This behavior seems like the behavior of a minor religious faction to me.



Here you go again with the use of "they." There are no atheist ceremonies. Yes, some atheists take part in ceremonies but not nearly all do, and the ceremonies that do exist vary widely from person to person.

I'll admit, my use of the word "they" sounds a bit accusatory, but don't try to twist my words into some anti-semitic hogwash. I was using the word "they" as a pronoun for a group of people. And yes, individual behavior varies inherently. But I don't see how it takes any credence from my point.

Some ISKCON Hindus become devotees to a spiritual master, while others own houses and merely live according to the theology. Some Catholics don't go to confession. Some muslim's eat during daylight within Ramadan. That doesn't mean that disciplic succession, confession, and spiritual holidays aren't inherently related to their culture of origin, simply because some members of said culture are nonpracticing.

De-baptism is an atheist ceremony. It has it's foundations in atheist theology.



This is an invalid generalization. You're generalizing the activities from a small subset to the entire group.

I apologize, but in my opinion Atheism is a fledgling religion and it will continue to take on more and more characteristics of religion as time goes on, under the guise of satire.


One belief =/= a set of beliefs.
No practices "generally agreed upon."
You could debate that the one belief is not even specific. Here, I'll give you a number of beliefs from people I know who call themselves atheists.

1. There is no god and the entire concept is logically incoherent.
2. There is no god and I can prove it (but the concept is logically sound).
3. There is no god and I can't prove it.
4. There is no god, but there are immortal souls and hence an afterlife.
5. There is no god, but I am spiritual.
6. There is no god, and I am not spiritual.

Yup and some theists are fundamentalists whose beliefs strictly adhere to the religious scripture, while others can take more general and open minded approaches to the faith. Nothing new.

I am simply under the impression that I'm seeing a lot of old behaviors under a different name.

 

[Scidadle]

Im atheist.

Do you guise hate me nao

And to me an atheist is basically one who has no religion.

We do not worship anything therefor it's not a religion.


I suggest you guys watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkALWBx66R8&feature=channel_page it's quite interesting.

 

[TP]

"Science can be an ideology if you accept science as a fundamentally truthful and inherently beneficial, which many atheists do."

No smart person thinks that. Please don't let the stupid atheists mar your opinion of atheists as a whole. Science is NOT fundamentally truthful. In fact, the most important aspect of science is that NOTHING is certain. Take Cell Theory for example. I think it is pretty safe to assume that all life is made of cells, which is what Cell Theory states. However, science will never consider it proven, so it is "only" a theory. So how can that be fundamentally truthful?

No smart person would call science inherently beneficial either. Nukes.

 

[Merce]

Fair enough. I'll edit my post for accuracy.

 

[Fuelbi]

Im sorry but what is agnosticism. Ive never heard of that. I read this and I dont get what agnosticism means or is

 

[Deleted member]

Just a note, saying that atheism isn't a religion because of them not believing in a god is incorrect. Buddhism also does not have a god.

 

[El Nino]

@roacherman: Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in divinity, God(s) and other forms of spirituality. It's kind of a neutral stance on the matter of religion.

@godsmith2: It's kind of a Western bias that atheism is always defined in terms of the major religions active in Western societies. But you have a point. There are different sects in Buddhism. Some treat the figure of Buddha similar to how Catholics would the Virgin Mary, or how other Christians would Christ. It may appear to be worship (or it may in fact be worship), but from what I've read, Buddha is typically regarded as a human being who attained enlightenment rather than a being of divine origins to begin with.

@Merce: The reason atheism isn't a religion is because its beliefs and practices are not systematic. There are, actually, no practices. My guess is that those examples you gave are examples of reactionary activity. They are an attempt to develop a counter-culture to the dominance of religious attitudes in those regions. But even such counter-actions don't immediately form religions. In the absence of the overbearing religious bodies that they are reacting to, such activities, I'd guess, would cease.

Science could become an ideology if science were theoretically accepted as fundamentally true and inherently good. Though this is an extreme statement, this concept isn't a polar one. The more one associates science with truth and benefit, the more one's world view will be influenced by science, as if it were a belief system.

Science is a methodology. That's all it is. It's not a belief system. Some people may view it as such, but that's almost always a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what it is.

Just from your given examples: I believe vaccines have had unintended and harmful consequences for the neurological health of developing minds (thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines) and that there are inherent risks to the development of electronics and communication devices (the unknown effects of wireless data transmission and the ever increasing surveillance network in the UK).

Compared to the inherent risk that all of life normally faces on this planet against the elements, the environment and nature itself, those examples don't stand out.

 

[cookieM0Nster]

Just a note, saying that atheism isn't a religion because of them not believing in a god is incorrect. Buddhism also does not have a god.

Um, Buddhists believe in many gods. Get your facts straight :/

 

[M.K]

religion (re-lij-un)

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism Belief - No God.

Therefore, Atheism is a religion.

Just a note, saying that atheism isn't a religion because of them not believing in a god is incorrect. Buddhism also does not have a god.

Um, Buddhists believe in many gods. Get your facts straight :/

And this is why you can't trust just anything on teh intrawebz.
cookiem0Nster, I believe you are thinking of Hinduism. They believe in many Gods.
Buddhists lack the belief in one almighty God, but believe in personal Gods.

Where ma Buddhists at? Set us up, bruhz.

 

[cookieM0Nster]

cookiem0Nster, I believe you are thinking of Hinduism. They believe in many Gods.
Buddhists lack the belief in one almighty God, but believe in personal Gods.

Where ma Buddhists at? Set us up, bruhz.

Youre right. my bad. Well there are still Gods, so that guy was wrong

 

[TP]

religion (re-lij-un)

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism Belief - No God.

Therefore, Atheism is a religion.

So first, you ignore the "especially" clause of the definition, the "usually" clause, AND the "often" clause, seeing as atheism meets none of those criteria. That only leaves the first part, in which you are wrong. Religion is, according to your definition, a "set of beliefs." One belief does not equal to a set of beliefs. In fact, it isn't even one belief. It is a disbelief. It is a refusal to have a belief. How can you call that a religion? It does not meet the definition at all.

 

[El Nino]

religion (re-lij-un)

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism Belief - No God.

Therefore, Atheism is a religion.

There's a difference between an IDEA and an IDEOLOGY.

And that's the difference between a SINGLE belief and a SET of beliefs.

Buddhists lack the belief in one almighty God, but believe in personal Gods.

Really? I'm curious because no Buddhist I've ever met has ever phrased it that way. They seem to acknowledge that Buddha was an ordinary human being who attained spiritual enlightenment, not an entity of divine birth. But then, I'm only (vaguely) familiar with Buddhism that's practiced in Southeast Asia, China and Tibet.

 

[2.72]

religion (re-lij-un)

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism Belief - No God.

Therefore, Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a statement about the cause, nature or purpose of the universe, while this definition demands all three.

Cause - before you say "big bang," I should point out that this is not universally accepted, including among atheists. It's the simplest explanation for what we observe today, but not everyone concludes that it's correct.

Nature - "No God" is a negative statement; it tells us what the nature of the universe is not, but leaves a lot of possibilities about what it is. Although it's somewhat rare, I've met some highly spiritual atheists.

Purpose - Once again, it's a negative statement. The purpose is not to follow God's plan or anything of the sort, but what it is (if there even is one) is left open.

Science could become an ideology if science were theoretically accepted as fundamentally true and inherently good.

There are counter-culture atheists who have very nasty, scathing things to say about science, and religious scientists. While the tendency is for atheists to put more emphasis on science, it is a tendency and not a strong one at that.

Some ISKCON Hindus become devotees to a spiritual master, while others own houses and merely live according to the theology. Some Catholics don't go to confession. Some muslim's eat during daylight within Ramadan. That doesn't mean that disciplic succession, confession, and spiritual holidays aren't inherently related to their culture of origin, simply because some members of said culture are nonpracticing.

De-baptism is an atheist ceremony. It has it's foundations in atheist theology.

Yes, but by saying that some members are non-practicing you are acknowledging that there is a normal practice. De-baptism is not a normal practice; it is very obscure. The clubs are not normal practices either.

Theology (dictionary.com): the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

Even if we were to accept that atheism is a religion, theology is the wrong term.

This behavior seems like the behavior of a minor religious faction to me.

True. However, "some atheists behave similarly to a minor religious faction" does not imply that they are a minor religious faction, and certainly not that atheism in general is.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I m blown away by some beliefs people hold about atheists, what part of 'normal person minus involvement with religion' do you not get.

How exactly is a disbelief in religious beliefs a religion? Seriously, I don't get how that works at all.

Side question, I don't associate myself with any group, I am a firm believer in God and I lol at all religions and slightly less so at atheism, but that's just a personal "that's no fun" belief for me. I think since that makes me a theist, I'm not agnostic, right? Does that mean I belong to a religion even though NONE of my beliefs about how like anything works relates to God?

=/

 

[Noobicidal]

Religions can be theistic, but being a theist doesn't necessarily mean one has a religion.

I'd say you qualify as the latter.

 

[ook]

It's like how "Monotheism" isn't a religion. Stuff like christianity and judaism are monotheistic religions.


so "atheism" itself isn't a religion. There are probably atheistic religions out there though. Like one of those hippie spiritual earth religions or something.