atheism is a religion

[rtil]

you can be as sure as you want, being an atheist does not require that you "believe" in science. you can't attach extra meaning to atheism, it is simply the denial of the supernatural. "believing" in science doesn't make any sense, unless you're talking about believing that science will lead to something. science itself is not science unless it is fact. you don't have to believe in facts - they are true regardless of whether you believe in them or not.

[jebxz]

atheism is totally a religion because the african american race has been oppressed for years bro

[jebxz]

come on post some shitty paragraph that explains why my logic sucks and everyone will think i'm really stupid

[trent bortknob]

you can be as sure as you want, being an atheist does not require that you "believe" in science. you can\\\'t attach extra meaning to atheism, it is simply the denial of the supernatural. "believing" in science doesn\\\'t make any sense, unless you\\\'re talking about believing that science will lead to something. science itself is not science unless it is fact. you don\\\'t have to believe in facts - they are true regardless of whether you believe in them or not.

what i was saying was that atheism basically entails science unless you don\\\'t believe science is true. in order to hold that view you have to believe that truth doesn\\\'t exist, which is a really stupid view, which is why i said only an atheist who believes in science (because it\\\'s obviously true, so you don\\\'t really need to \\\'believe\\\' in it) would ever be taken seriously

IF YOU WANT, you can take the different sects of atheism (naturalism, nihilism, humanism) and call those atheistic religions. otherwise i don\\\'t see how you get around it without claiming that my definition is wrong and that yours is right (even though there are plenty of sources that use my definition (which i shouldn\\\'t refer to as MY definition since it\\\'s not like i came up with it or anything, it\\\'s just hte most widely accepted definition)

and jeb had a good point before he edited his posts that there are theories in science that can\\\'t be proven but have tons of evidence to support them. in that case you would still have to believe in science, though that is asking a lot less than believing in religion obviously. his point wasn\\\'t really on my side but i thought it was kind of cool

[Philip K Dick]

why would anyone take atheism seriously its a conceited way of thinking

[trent bortknob]

i don't see how it's conceited but even if it somehow is, that doesn't necessarily make it false

just looking at the world by itself, there is no actual proof for god other than religions. the only reason, then, that it seems like anyone would actually believe in a god is because they're faced with questions (what is the meaning of life, where did we come from) which they have no idea how to answer. well, we NEED to answer these because they're big issues that bug us. so, someone comes up with something that answers all of these questions. they're able to make one single answer to every question - god. this happened everywhere, not just one place, which is where the diversity comes from

the development science can explain and answer a lot of these questions that bugged us before (obviously not meaning of life but other things), so we're getting to the point where the answers that we can prove are objectively true can answer most of our questions. this gets rid of the necessity of god

it seems like the only religion survived is due to tradtion/denying of the truth of science. otherwise i think everyone would be atheist

[Philip K Dick]

religion doesnt prove the existence of god but atheism doesnt disprove the existence either.

[trent bortknob]

that's because you can't disprove a negative

we don't say "disprove to me that there are giant evil talking lobsters". i don't have to because nobody has ever seen or experienced one before, so i just assume it doesn't exist. you have to prove to me or at least show me some evidence tha tthere are giant evil lobsters before i start believing in them

[Jeinu]

there is no such thing as an atheistic religion so that also makes no sense

actually there technically are, but they are rarely referred to as atheistic religions. Some variations of hinduism, buddhism, and taoism are nontheistic, in that they worship no specific god, but do have belief in some other supernatural spirits or souls or afterlives.

yes

those are definitely religions

OK, let me get this straight, you're now saying philosophies are considered religions? Is this correct?

The main reason i think our differences in definition are so different is because you're hearing definitions from philosophers, and i've only learned from theologians. I'm starting to think that philosophers breeze over the specific definition because they don't really need to focus on it, as theologians do. for instance, in another field, a chemist would breeze over the definition of quantum mechanics because it's doesn't particularly pertain to their field, while a QM scientist would have a very specific definition.

[trent bortknob]

that might be a valid belief i guess

i'm not saying that religions are the same as philosophies, because philosophy is:

the application of reason to the construction and evaluation of answers to life's big questions

religion is:

a set of views which make up the way that you view the world; or a more simple definition - a set of answers to life's big questions (this makes up your view of the world)

there fore they're not the same thing

[rtil]

you can be as sure as you want, being an atheist does not require that you "believe" in science. you can't attach extra meaning to atheism, it is simply the denial of the supernatural. "believing" in science doesn't make any sense, unless you're talking about believing that science will lead to something. science itself is not science unless it is fact. you don't have to believe in facts - they are true regardless of whether you believe in them or not.

what i was saying was that atheism basically entails science unless you don't believe science is true. in order to hold that view you have to believe that truth doesn't exist, which is a really stupid view, which is why i said only an atheist who believes in science (because it's obviously true, so you don't really need to 'believe' in it) would ever be taken seriously

IF YOU WANT, you can take the different sects of atheism (naturalism, nihilism, humanism) and call those atheistic religions. otherwise i don't see how you get around it without claiming that my definition is wrong and that yours is right (even though there are plenty of sources that use my definition (which i shouldn't refer to as MY definition since it's not like i came up with it or anything, it's just hte most widely accepted definition)

and jeb had a good point before he edited his posts that there are theories in science that can't be proven but have tons of evidence to support them. in that case you would still have to believe in science, though that is asking a lot less than believing in religion obviously. his point wasn't really on my side but i thought it was kind of cool

you can't really be a humanist and an atheist at the same time. you can be a secular humanist and an atheist, though. anyway, i'm not attempting to get around anything, as i don't accept your definition of religion and i never will.

and science isn't about proving things for certain. nothing will ever be proved for certain. that is why every foundation of science is a theory. gravity is still a theory, and it always will be. there is more evidence to support evolution than there is to support gravity.

theories only stick around until they have been disproven. that's how science works. a thousand years from now everything we think we understand might be a complete falsehood. but for how we currently understand the universe, we have been able to make great leaps in technology, and everything around us is a testament to that.

and lastly, i don't know why you keep dragging this conversation on about how atheism or anything atheist related is a religion. the only people i hear this from are creationists on their last leg who try to tear down people who don't respect their ignorant, shattered worldview. i've never heard a respectable non-theist argue that atheism is a religion. i'm also afraid you're sadly mistaken if you believe that the 'widely accepted definition' of religion does not involve anything supernatural and faith-based. i can't think of anyone i know besides you who seriously considers atheism to be anything but the complete opposite of what one would define as religious beliefs.

[trent bortknob]

it certainly does seem like the definitions i was given here varied. some said that it was a higher power, some said it was anything supernatural, while others said there were qualifications that a religion has to meet in order to be classified as such

i kind of think that we're all just quoting whatever definition we learned in whatever class we took or something to an extent. the reason i still stand by my definition is because upon research i've seen it used in more than just my class

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

that has 5 different definitions and others would have. i do want to point out though that more than one of the definitions on there are non-theistic in nature

but yeah i mean there is no way to objectively prove the definition of a word really so this whole argument is basically semantics. i do agree that it's stupid for theists to group atheism as a religion for the sole purpose of using it as an attack, but i also dont understand atheists who lash out against the notion because they have such a hatred for religion that the mere use of the word to describe them makes them want to disregard any evidence to the contrary

and yes i know atheism isn't a rleigion but i stilll mantian that its sects are

i dont think this argument really has a conclusion unless you really have a point against why atheism should not be considered a religion due to how it would affect its reputation or whatever

[rtil]

whether it's a higher power, a god, or a flying spaghetti monster, these are all faith-based, supernatural prerequisites. atheism denies all of these equally.

even still, atheism doesn't fit into any of the definitions given on that website

[emanhattan]

there is no such thing as an atheistic religion so that also makes no sense

actually there technically are, but they are rarely referred to as atheistic religions. Some variations of hinduism, buddhism, and taoism are nontheistic, in that they worship no specific god, but do have belief in some other supernatural spirits or souls or afterlives.

I referr to these as "sectas" altough I dont know if there is a specific equivalent in english

[psi43]

i think atheism is a religion.

i think atheism is not a religion.

[jjjjjjjjjj]

i agree
but i also disagree

[trent bortknob]

triuth is whatever u want it 2 be lol

[DrRumack]

pee wees big adventure is the truest thing in the world

[Daveb0t]

[Necronomitr0n]

tht is one silly dog