Why I care about religion

[lazs2]

st santa... you have not read my posts apparently as I have explained why athiesm is a religion like all others.

It is entirely faith based...  it claims that no matter how one defines god.... that god does not exist.  It offers no explanation for the creation of the universe but still... out of faith...  claims that no way could it be the work of a god.

As you see...  most athiests who bother to identify themselves as such.... proclaim it loudly and proudly and put their faith above all others... they can't prove the others wrong but mock them just the same.

An agnostic is more complex...  he makes a more logiocal and scientific apporoch and is tollerant of both the theist and the athiest as well as the diest.

lazs

[68Hawk]

As an atheist who left the religion box blank on his Eagle Scout application for fear of losing the acknowlegement of his hard work and service I say this:

I don't need religion to be a good person.  It's too bad that some people just can't handle that....

I certainly wouldn't interfere with someone else's right to believe whatever they want.  Most atheists belive this and don't go preaching.  The message of the video (good stuff by the way) is exactly that.  

Funny how so many people who chose to post here missed that entirely.  The message was, for those who only saw god haters, that there are others who's oppinions matter in this country besides just christians.  There are muslims, buddhists, hindus and yes, atheists.  

My personal view, upon a close study of history, is that the major religions have evolved (ooo, that dirty word) into control systems to keep people mentally and phisically in check.  Despite this being my personal belief, I would never want to impose it upon anyone.  Everyone should have a right to evaluate belief systems for themselves.  Modern Civil society was founded on keeping religion in the private, not public sphere, which does not mean the destruction of it.

Remember:  When religion ruled government they called it the dark ages.

I AM an Eagle Scout, and if the BSA(a religious and nationalistic organization) wants to come and take my patch they can, but they can never take from me the knowlege and experience that I gained through my involvement with their organization.

[storch]

indy apparently you missed my allegorical reference to the big bang.

[68Hawk]

Other phrazes on money that would also be wrong in a secular society:

In gods we trust

In allah we trust

In david we trust

In the rastafari we trust

In king George the W we trust

In nothing we trust

In science we trust

In hell we fear

In buddha we contemplate

And lagz, atheism is not a religion.  It is not based on faith, it is an absence of faith in a diety or other religion.  Atheists generally allow science to explain the world for them, which is also not predicated on faith, but on empirical analysis.  

On faith:  "Often religious believers use the term "faith" in a different way, as the affirmation of belief without an ongoing test of evidence, and even despite evidence apparently to the contrary."
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/faith

among many other definitions.  

Again, I do not intend to tell anyone how to believe, but please don't tell me how to belive, and please don't allow ANY organized religion to worm its way into OUR government.

[wrag]

by 68Hawk

"And lagz, atheism is not a religion. It is not based on faith, it is an absence of faith in a diety or other religion. Atheists generally allow science to explain the world for them, which is also not predicated on faith, but on empirical analysis."

Sorry, but IMHO science has be wrong MANY times about MANY things.

Also there is a tremendous amount of things that science does NOT know.

Also there are many things that are only theory and unproven which will as often as not be proven later to be WRONG due to a lack of knowledge gained later.

Question: isn't believing an unproven theory to be correct a form of FAITH?

[68Hawk]

wrag

You do raise interesting questions.

"Sorry, but IMHO science has be wrong MANY times about MANY things."
"Also there are many things that are only theory and unproven which will as often as not be proven later to be WRONG due to a lack of knowledge gained later."

Science is a continuous quest for knowlege based on established fact.  This often changes, but it is still based on fact as it can be determined at the time.

Theory, in terms of science, has been tested, reevaluated and duplicated.  A scientific hypothesis is what comes before rigorous testing in the scientific method.

"Also there is a tremendous amount of things that science does NOT know."

There is much we humans do not know about the world.  Often we must wait for serious answers.

"Question: isn't believing an unproven theory to be correct a form of FAITH?"

Scientific theory is not unproven, as I stated above.  Believing in an unproven hypothesis is a form of faith, but is not the basis of science.  Science is only accepted by the scientific community upon rigorous testing and peer review.  

That being said, there are always problems with the system, and things that get reevaluated and later proven false.  Still, the reliance is on proof, not belief.  Science is not faith.

[Holden McGroin]

Science is a pathway, not a destination.

[StSanta]

Originally posted by lazs2
st santa... you have not read my posts apparently as I have explained why athiesm is a religion like all others.

It is entirely faith based...  it claims that no matter how one defines god.... that god does not exist.  It offers no explanation for the creation of the universe but still... out of faith...  claims that no way could it be the work of a god.

As you see...  most athiests who bother to identify themselves as such.... proclaim it loudly and proudly and put their faith above all others... they can't prove the others wrong but mock them just the same.

An agnostic is more complex...  he makes a more logiocal and scientific apporoch and is tollerant of both the theist and the athiest as well as the diest.

lazs

Well this is why I don't get your point I think. You' re at best using a very strict interpretation of the terms and at worst redefining them completely.

The atheists I know lack faith. They have as much faith in God or gods as you do in, say, the old Norse belief in the deity Thor. Sure it cannot be conclusively be proven that Thor not exist so one must be open to the possibility, but absence of evidence is neither evidence of absence or proof of existence.  Asatro, as a religion, is recognized as an official one in several countries (ask Nilsen where ) so the example is relevant.

Religion is belief in something supernatural, often with a doctrine and set of dogma attached to it. To say 'socceri is his religion' is a bit of a funny and a good indication of someone's obsession with the game, but a far cry from an accurate use of the word. If such use was accepted to equal say the way Seagoon feels about God, it would seriously dilute the word to the point of it being utterly meaningless and non descriptive

Agnostics are not smarter in any way than theists or atheists - agnosticism is not a statemnet as to whether or not God or gods exist - rather it is a statement that the existence of God(s) existence cannot be known. As such both atheists and theists can be agnostics.

Me, I don't know. There's no evidence supporting the existence of Thor, other than the biased writings/archaeological finds of the Viking era. Same thing with the Christian deity. This does in itself neither prove  or disprove the existence of either. Thor does however get a strike against him since he is the God of Thunder and we've kind of worked out where lightning and thunder come from nowadays.

To classify atheism as a religion you need to find the dogma, the prescribed life to lead, the shared belief, the supernatural, that is common to all atheists of faith. As the only necessary prerequisite to be an atheist is lack of belief in god or gods, that will prove to be exceedingly hard I think.

[Black Sheep]

Atheism is as much a religion as the all the others. Not as fervent, but it still requires some amount of belief - even if they BELIEVE in nothing.

[Chairboy]

Black sheep: Is there any difference in the belief in the non-existance of Santa Claus?

[Black Sheep]

Oh but he is real.

Right?

I think you can choose to believe or not to. Either way - it is your belief - and it takes a hefty amount of conviction either way you swing it. But the interesting question is - why do you believe the way you do? (in general)

Does the wind exist? I can't see it, but I can feel its effects. That's how I, personally, know there is a God.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by StSanta
To classify atheism as a religion you need to find the dogma, the prescribed life to lead, the shared belief, the supernatural, that is common to all atheists of faith. As the only necessary prerequisite to be an atheist is lack of belief in god or gods, that will prove to be exceedingly hard I think.

Here is what American Atheists, at atheist.org, the organization (dare I say church?) founded by Madelyn Murray O'Hair says...

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.  

Here is what O'Hair said in a speech:

The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.
   
We make a fundamental error, I think, as we tilt at the windmills of imagined gods. We need to review from where we have come, under what conditions, and to see the threshold upon which we stand now.  

O'Hair said, " The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism," -- sounds suspiciously like a dogma, a shared belief...  she also said, "that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units." ...a conclusion based upon no evidence... faith?

Wheras agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown or inherently unknowable.*

*Wikepedia

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Science is a pathway, not a destination.

Exactly.  That is why science itself is not a religion.  Some people may get religious about the pursuit, but I wouldn't reccomend that either.

I also wouldn't want someone speaking for me that claims to speak for all atheists.  That is contrary to the point.  I really don't care what some people what to make out of atheism.  If you want to evolve a dogma around atheism, its already been done, its called Satanism.  This is different from Satan worship mind you.  Satanism is a religion for unreligious people, or so it claims.  I think it's dumb, but some people need things like that in their lives.  

Atheism is the absence of religious belief.  Simple as that.  To say that it takes a leap of faith to get there assumes that religious belief is the standard for humanity, which atheists contend it is not, or at least not for them.

I don't sit around thinking about how to be an atheist, or define myself as an atheist, or how to be a better atheist.  Given what christians and people like this O'hair lady ascribe to it, atheist doesn't even really work for many of us any more.  Unreligious would be more appropriate.

Does it take water to not be wet?  Does it take a car to be a pedestrian?  Does it take a soul to be a politician?  (ha joking on the last one, kinda:t )

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
.... Unreligious would be more appropriate.

Hence the term agnostic:

Agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements.

To not believe is to be skeptical.

An atheist believes there is no God.

Chairboy and I have had this discussion before, and he will disagree, but it is my view that:

Polytheism means the belief in many gods, as in Hinduism.  

Monotheism means the belief in one God, as in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity

Atheism means the belief in no God.

The prefix refers to the number of Gods, not the belief or lack of belief.

[68Hawk]

Holden,

You still misunderstand, and if you want to belive that I or someone else believes there is not god, so be it.  Someone else might belive it.  I'm not going to speak for them.

I don't believe there is no god.  I simply have never seen any proof that there is.  This is not a matter of belief.  To rank atheism as per number of dieties believed in is a mischaracterization that a lot of people operate under.

Just because I don't believe that scientology isn't a load of crap, doesn't mean that I believe that scientology  is a load of crap.  It's not a matter of belief.  I know scientology is a load of crap because, A:  I have never seen any evidence to support it, and B:  I have seen credible evidence that contradicts it.  

Do you believe that trees are green, or do you know that trees are green?  Why is that?  I'm not trying to preach my views here, but only to enlighten you as to my mental view.  This is of course an overly simplistic answer, and many religious people will claim that they KNOW that their god or gods exist, because whatever proof is out there meets their standards of credibility.  Thats fine if that's what they want to call it, but these people are largely the ones who see jesus appear to them on a cheese sandwich.

Take the santa example.  Do I believe there is not santa clause?  NO.  I hold it as a truth that santa as conceptualized does not exist because, A:  deer don't fly (neither do pigs for that matter), B:  Elves don't live at the North Pole, and C:  Because santa couldn't make a sled fly with his fat prettythang in it any more than lockheed could.  (would be a great holiday special on AH though, give him cannons!)

Belief in something is based on faith, trust or downright superstition (like walking under a ladder will bring bad luck).  Knowlege is based on reason.  Reason is different from belief.  I have reasoned through examination of the facts that there is not a god in the sky, or other beings waiting in the center of the earth to eat me.   Faith, trust or superstition does not enter into the equation.  

But that's just me.  Don't let me tell you what to believe, or know or think.  That should be up to each of us individually and not some 'religious leader'.