Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

Except atheism is a lack of beliefs. So, not really. It's quite the opposite. Or rather, in fear I'll be misinterpreted myself, it's the lack of belief in a deity.

I thought is was more the belief in the lack of a deity....XP

Atheism can still be preached, though. o: I think anything that involves some sort of dogma can be a religion.

I don't preach it. No self respecting atheist should preach it, or shove it down other people's throats. If they do that's their problem.

NeuzaKC: Actually I would characterize it more as a belief that there is no deity. You believe there is no God. An agnostic generally has no beliefs either way. Agnosticim might be considered a lack of religion. Atheism, is a religion.

There is no god to worship, there is no faith. The common link in all religions is faith. Atheists have none.

Originally Posted by Faulkner

I thought is was more the belief in the lack of a deity....XP

Let me try and explain.

Theism is the term for belief, yes? The letter "a" before it has a negative conotation to it, so the correct definition is actually "lack of belief".

As found in the dictionary: Athiest someone who denies the existence of god

That can still be interpreted as a belief, they believe that there are no deities,

Theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Those to terms pertain specifically to how one feels about deities.

As to the faith statement. Atheists have faith in their belief that there is no God. Theists have faith in their belief that there is a God. As there is not real proof that either is truly right or wrong both view require faith.

1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.
2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.
4. An ideological and traditional heritage.

Okay, I'm literally laughing right now. Do people really think you can define what a religion is by only a dictionary definition? Religion is much too complicated, not to mention cults, philosophy, etc, that easily fall under those definitions. I mean, it's a good first step... but by those definitions /all/ beliefs could be a religion. I mean, to me, school would fit under three - perhaps three and a half - of those definitions, but it is not my religion or a religion at all.
1. I have a set order of things to do to go to school, while at school, and things to do afterward. I follow these procedures based one what I've been taught and I hold them at a very high value. They're a routine set into me (from my parents and other elders) based on beliefs surrounding school itself.
2. I'm seriously devoted to school, just like many of my classmates.
3. Not spiritual, but it is there to shape me... so doesn't fully apply.
4. School is very much a part of my ideological and traditional heritage. My parents, and my parents parents (at least on my moms side), and etc etc, have /always/ stressed the importance of school and what it can teach me.

There is a checklist for this. I think it's mostly to figure out whether a religion is actually a cult or not... I must search it up.
Oh, but before that atheism is not a religion. There is only one thing all atheists share and that is a lack of belief in a deity of any sort. That doesn't even fall under any of the four above definitions. It is not a practice, it is not spiritual... okay, I guess it could be ideological... oh, wait, no, defiantly not an ideology (I could see someone arguing that though). I suppose it could be tradition... but not all traditions are religious.

ideology
1. a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc and underlies political action
2. philosophy, sociol the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible
3. speculation that is imaginary or visionary
4. the study of the nature and origin of ideas

From dictionary.com

Anyway, checklist...

* Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
* A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
* Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
* A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
* Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
* Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
* A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
* A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
* A social group bound together by the above.

I got it from here. Perhaps not the best source, but I would argue the list is a much more narrow, but accurate definition of what a religion is. If you give a bit of leeway with it (as in, to be a religion the religion has to fit into seven or eight out of the nine things on the list) it most certainly does seem to work.

Thoughts?



I'm a bit tired right now so this is probably a bit rambly. I edited out some parts I wasn't so sure why I even put in... but yeah. Please excuse that. I'm going to have a nap now... or read.

I would not really claim it's an organized religion, but I would say it's a belief as I understand the term

Rawcookiedough - For one, there is absolutely no reason to be rude.

Second:
A religion is a set of beliefs, to put it simply. And yes, it should be that simple.
Atheists commonly believe in 'science' and the lack of a deity.
Just because it's not an organized religion, does not mean it's not a religion at all.
There are many types of atheists, and do you need to wait for them to have churches or some doctrine for them to be considered religions?
I think that is very narrow-minded.
Atheism is a type of faith. They tend to believe in science over all else.
That is what other groups would call their "higher power" only, you know, not because they (or at least I do, as an Atheist, I'm sure others have different/stronger feelings on the matter, I just don't get it) think that shit is silly.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics either. It's a religion to me, and just like every other person who has a right to practice their religion, I have mine. Should I not be allowed to practice my Atheist beliefs, because it's not a religion by your narrow standards?

I fully intend on teaching my kids about what I believe.
From science and the big bang, to the fact that I don't believe there's a man in the sky that gives a shit what happens here on earth.

Part of the problem, is that this thread is trying to address the issue of faith, and imposing faith onto others, using the word religion...It's not inaccurate, just a bit too shallow for the umbrella of the issue anyway. And I still hold onto atheism being a religion, too.

I'd also like to go on record and saying Atheism isn't a LACK OF BELIEFS...this is what most people get wrong.
It's a belief in the lack the of a deity/higher power/god(s/ess/es).

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

I would probably lean more towards looking at the role that scientism plays in it.

I'm sory, but what exactly is scientism? That sounds an awful lot like Scientology, which from all I've seen is just a rich crazy people's club. If you're talking about the dogmatic "religious" stance of science, it's called reductionism or empiricism, not scientism.

Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

There is no god to worship, there is no faith. The common link in all religions is faith. Atheists have none.

That is nonsense. Many atheists, not ALL, but many, still have faith in something. It's just not some higher power.

I have faith in science and in what I see, feel, and can prove to some degree using my senses. That is my faith.

Originally Posted by Taviren

My roommates (who are married) are having a terrible time deciding what to do about religion if they have kids. The husband wants to expose their kids to all religions (an impossible feat) so that they can choose which one, if any, they like. The wife is more conflicted about whether to raise them Catholic or without any religion at all. Both of them were raised Catholic and her family is majorly Catholic. However, he is atheist and she's agnostic, so while part of her wants to raise her kids Catholic, she's concerned about raising them to beliefs that neither she nor her husband believe in.

My boyfriend and I are much less concerned. I'm what he describes as a "deist," though quite open-minded, thank you. (To clarify, I was raised Christian, sorta. No church or anything. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I'm incredibly torn on whether or not to believe in Jesus.) He's Jewish, very very liberal Jewish. He wants to raise our kids Jewish and since I don't really care one way or the other, I'm cool with that. The only thing I insist on is that we still celebrate Christmas (which, since I don't do the church thing, he's also cool with); his only sticking point about Christmas is that we not let our kids believe their gifts came from a fictional character (Santa), the gifts came from Mom and Dad.

I've always been a fan of the deistic set, but primarily because I find it hard to believe that whatever Divinity exists has much concern or control over the goings on of the physical universe. Generally speaking I like to believe that whatever Divinity there is (I choose not to try to name it or give it a single form, gender, or any other limiting capacity because that would remove it's position as true divinity) created the universe and what we call "natural order" which is both observable and measurable in most senses. It's called the 'Divine Clockmaker' aspect of deism.

----------

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

I envision the class talking about ALL religions in a religion class probably around 5th-6th grade. What they are, their traditions, what they believe, etc. Then in high school offer a more in-depth study of religions broken down into several classes kids can choose from. The high school ones would be electives. All these classes should be neutral.

I took a religions class in college. The description made it sound like it would cover so much, but then we stayed on Catholicism all semester. It was soooo boring. I waiting to learn all of this stuff but all that was said was that "x religion is a cult, etc. Ok, we're out of time". It sucked.

I will give you an example of what I mean. Let's look at the big six religions:

Christianity: There are easily a dozen different denominations of this religion. Catholocism, Baptism, Free Will Baptism, Southern Baptism, Methodism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Holiness, Non-denominational Christianity, Pentecostalism, Messianic christianity (which is technically a form of Judaism which says Christ was the Jewish messiah) Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, and those are just the ones I can name.

Judaism: Hassidic, Orthodox, Qabbalistic, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist.

Islam: Sunni, Shia

Buddhism: Theravada, Maitreya, Zen, Pure land, T'ien Tai, Mahayana, Nichiren, Siddharta (keep in mind the number of Boddhisatva[people who have achieved enlightment and therefore the status of buddha) number in the THOUSANDS in Chinese history alone, enough that when Buddhism moved to Japan, the Shinto priests were able to convert EVERY of the thousands of Shinto gods into a separate Buddha.) For that matter, Christ is considered an aspect of the Maitreya or future buddha.

Hindu: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Smartism, Shaktism

Jainism: I will be honest, I didn't even know this was number six. I thought it was something else, but since this seems to be a major religion...there are 14 different sects of this religion, I'll list four: Bispanthi, Digambar, Svetambara, and Taran Panth

Now let's move away from those into the other "religions," many of which aren't religions in the full sense of the world but are philosophical schools of thought which act as religious schools.

Shinto: Shinto is the indiginous religion of Japan. During periods of major Buddhist immigration (and or the Chinese occupation of Japan) the Shinto gods were merged with the buddhist Boddhisatva in the same way that the West Indian slaves conformed the gods of:

Voudoun (voodoo) into the saints of catholicism to preserve their religious institutions.

Taoism/Daoism: There are generally considered two approaches to Taoism: Religious and Philosophical (Daojiao and Daojia, respectively)

And that's just to name a few. Many of these religions are THOUSANDS of years old, some predating even the Monotheistic split (in the beginning, there were the Jews. They split into the Christians and Muslims due to disagreements about correctness and divinity of prophets)

I will provide the following link:

Religion, World Religions, Comparative Religion - Just the facts on the world's religions.

Just to provide you with a perspective of the sheer volume of data you suggest children age 11-13 are to be given and expected to be able to process critically enough to be able to make a major life choice. Many people make it well past middle age without even beginning to actually understand a religion they've been a member of their entire lives.

It is absolutely a terrific idea to increase awareness and knowledge of other religions besides the most popular one, but the time-frame you're suggesting is right at the beginning of the developmental stage wherein the youth starts to form their own identity separate from their family, and to try to load a young, impressionable mind down with THAT MUCH information (when they're also supposed to be learning more complex science and mathematics, developing more sophisticated forms of social interactions, developing language and secondary language skills, as well as the onset of the hormonal nightmare known as puberty...is like trying to carry a 2-ton steel girder in a wheelbarrow.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

It is absolutely a terrific idea to increase awareness and knowledge of other religions besides the most popular one, but the time-frame you're suggesting is right at the beginning of the developmental stage wherein the youth starts to form their own identity separate from their family, and to try to load a young, impressionable mind down with THAT MUCH information (when they're also supposed to be learning more complex science and mathematics, developing more sophisticated forms of social interactions, developing language and secondary language skills, as well as the onset of the hormonal nightmare known as puberty...is like trying to carry a 2-ton steel girder in a wheelbarrow.

This I can agree with as well. Quasi and I were talking about it last night, and while I'd love to see it implemented, there's no way to implement it completely or fairly, information will get excluded. And that will lead to people misunderstanding anyway...>___< which brings us back to square one.

If it was possible--I would love it--but since it's not, it's hard to have to go, "okay, well teach this and this and this, but leave out this, because it's "not important" enough." you know?

:(

I would say start with the aberhamic religions. make that about a year. Just basics. Fundamental beliefs. Encourage the kids to learn more on their own, if they want to. Then move on to Buddhism and Hinduism. Then on to less common religions like paganism, and wikka. Things like Egyptian, greek, and Norse beliefs already come up in mythology, and history classes.

While there is no way to teach the kids to fully understand every religion in only four years, I would say it would be a good thing to teach the basics. For instance, Not all Muslims want to blow you up. Not all Christians hate gay people. Etc.

These are common misconceptions which in our free thinking, and fast learning society, shouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

I would think that a lot of teachers would see it as pointless to teach any religion that is not a "major" religion. Perhaps instead of describing only those religions, they could talk about the basic qualities of religions. Like, belief systems that multiple religions branch out from instead of discussing "Well, Christianity has Jesus. Islam has Allah." Stuff that ties multiple religions together so that they don't have to be individually covered.

I think learning the basic structures of religions would be a great way for a highschooler to pick which basic foundation they lean towards and then they can branch out to religions that contain that foundation.

I'm from the rural southeast, most teachers think it's pointless to teach evolution or any religious idea other than Christianity (and not just Christianity, usually it's Baptism or Methodism) period. There are about a hundred reasons why trying to teach religions other than christianity, even from an intellectual standpoint, will be met with just short of violent retaliation...A great number of white christian parents resent the idea that some other religious institution might be considered valid, which would invalidate the idea that Christianity is the ONLY RIGHT ANSWER, and will accuse school systems of trying to do anything from "subversion of our way of life" to "trying to convert my child from the Lord, Jesus Christ to the ways of the Devil." People REALLY ARE this stupid about religion, and many don't even want to acknowledge the concept that there are other religions out there. Where I come from if you aren't a Christian, you're an atheist. The moment you say you don't go to church, people literally say "Oh, so you're an atheist then, okay."

Nooo...not necessarily. I just don't think Jesus was the result of some Zeusian romp in the sheets with some woman on the basis she was "a virgin." I'd like to see her gynecologist's report from her last physical before she got pregnant with Jesus...oh wait...there weren't OB/GYNs or medical records..the whole reason they were in Bethlehem when the little miracle was born was because the Romans were instituting a census, which is why the whole thing is a leap of faith.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all derived from the same religion. Jesus was a Jew. That's why he's called the "King of the Jews." The GOD who allegedly impregnated the virgin Mary (a Jewess married to a Jewish carpenter named Joseph) was the "God with 72 names" of Judaism (Yhwh.) Now, only the Christians bother to name their deity "God," apart from the Jehovah's witnesses. Now, speaking of which, take the names Iahovah (Jehovah,) Allah, and Yhwh(Yahweh). The reason I am insisting on spelling it YHWH is that the original tetragrammaton (the four letter name for god) possesses NO vowels. If you look at it from the perspective of linguistic transliteration...

As an example let's take some english words and look at their non-english roots.

Book. This word is derived from the German "buch" It can't be based on the latin aspect of English, because the latin term for book is liber.
Library. This word takes the romantic root "libr" (French: livre, spanish/italian: libro) and that "ary" is a linguistic device which denotes a place to form "a place for books"

now...French and Spanish are both romantic languages which means they are derived from latin, which I think linguistically shares at least common roots with ancient greek. However, while the spanish and italian words are the same (and these countries are geographically isolated historically) the much closer geographically french language has a different spelling with a slightly different pronunciation.

I use this as an example.

let's break down these three names for god phonetically.

Yah-weh. Y-ah-w-ay.
Allah - Ah-lah (it actually probably pronounces more like it was written Al' Ah, as the "al' " structure is found in the middle-eastern regions.)

Jehovah (Juh-hoh-vah or Je-ho-vah) the h's at the end are a phonetic marker for a breathy kind of 'h' at the end of the word, like in Channukah. It's called a "glottal" stop.

Jehovah is originall spelled with an I, which makes one wonder if that's a greek thing, or if it's simply that it's originally pronounced "Iah-hovah" and the soft g sound got added in later by someone who heard it or pronounced it a little off

For an example of this linguistically, look at pronunciation differences between the spanish from spain, the spanish from mexico, and the spanish from argentina.
)z=th in spanish spanish, double l= zh in argentine spanish instead of the z and y sounds respectively in mexican spanish.)

It is not at all a far stretch that yahweh can transliterate into Allah based on the linguistic norms of the region in general. Keep in mind that the Jews have never had a traditional home throughout the vast majority of written history, it wasn't until after WW2 that the United Nations carved out a chunk of Palestine and gave it to the Jews, calling it Medinat Yisrael: the State of Isreal (after the prophet Jacob, who became known as Israel.)

Iah-hovah
Yahweh
Allah

Okay let's break it down again

Iah (ya) hov ah
Ya weh

say "yahova" quickly and it comes out: yaova. Soften the way you pronounce the v and it becomes yaowa.

Now, from all I've managed to hear and see transliteration from arabic languages to English, hebrew uses a lot more open vowel sounds than the arabics do, and the arabic languages tend to favor a lot of throaty sounds and ululations.

If we go back to
Allah
Yhwh
alter the pronunciation of the last syllable so that instead of "weh" it's "wah"
"Yah-wah" which considered there are no vowels in the word, there's actually MORE reason to believe this is an accurate prounciation for reasons of phonetic consistency. English is one of the few languages where most of our letters have at least 2 or 3 different sounds (because our language is just a bastardized derivative of the other European languages, with the addition of words encompassing a more global field of play due to our status as a melting pot)

Soften the initial Y sound, iawah, muddy up the pronunciation a little and you get "ialha, because the softening of the w leads to a breathy l"

And poof, Yahweh becomes Allah.

These three religions believe in ONE god, who is immutable, omniscient, and omnipotent. While the specific practical tenets of these relationships are different, they share roots geographically, spiritually, and linguistically.

The point being that people would be better served spending less time trying to decide what separates these three sister-religions with each other and more time on what they have in common, delineating later on the differences in the practical manifestation of faith, and then spending a little MORE time delineating the differences between these religions and the other popular religions of the world (buddhism, jainism, and hinduism are considered to be "major religions," but as they are eastern in origin and as kind of a rule Eastern culture is both incredibly foreign (honor and family reputation mean something there what?) and historically kept secret from the westerners (these round-eyes destroy or subvert everything they touch, don't tell them ANYTHING about what we believe or they'll send their witch-hunters to intimidate us into following their mysteriously WHITE saviour[there weren't white people in the middle east two thousand years ago, sorry all you people but those pictures of Jesus are just another example of Eurocentrism, Jesus was a brown man.])

But more importantly...if Jesus taught a religion class, he would probably say:

Why are you all getting so caught up on names and procedures? God loves you all, so love each other, treat each other with kindness and respect, and try to leave people a little better than when you found them, that's all the religion you need.

----------

Originally Posted by sarofset

NeuzaKC: Actually I would characterize it more as a belief that there is no deity. You believe there is no God. An agnostic generally has no beliefs either way. Agnosticim might be considered a lack of religion. Atheism, is a religion.

An agnostic refuses, either by nature of inquisitiveness or simply by choice, to either believe or disbelieve in the existence of a deity. Many go through periods of agnosticism, while some remain agnostic throughout their lives because they want the one thing God cannot provide: proof. God's existence is sustained by faith, if you buy into the whole idea...proof is counter to belief. You can't actually believe or disbelieve a proven fact, it simply is. 2+2 will equal 4 whether you believe it will or not. Gravity will continue to keep us planted to the surface of the earth so long as we are actively within it's gravitational field whether we believe in gravity or not (I wish this weren't the case, I want to possess autonomous flight capabilities by the power of my will alone.)

I do, however, completely agree with your breakdown apart from that minor semantic adjustment. Agnosticism is the only real "non-religion" because it refuses to take any standpoint

Even nihilism is a religion.

And by the way, all you people who keep saying Atheism is a belief in nothing...see above mentions. Atheism means the refusal to believe in God. Not a higher power, a God or deity, which is to say an anthropomorphized, sentient BEING which controls the universe.

Belief in nothing is called NIHILISM.

Often portrayed as the original skeptic, and perhaps also the original nihilist, was Gorgias (483-378 BCE) who is famous for having said: "Nothing exists. If anything did exist it could not be known. If it was known, the knowledge of it would be incommunicable."

This ties in with the Descartian philosophy, which states: the only thing that I can truly prove is that I, myself, exist, because by questioning my own existence I prove it. Anything else, which must be examined and determined through external observation, could be a dream, a hallucination, or the machination of some external force of which I can also not prove the existence."

----------

Originally Posted by sarofset

I would say start with the aberhamic religions. make that about a year. Just basics. Fundamental beliefs. Encourage the kids to learn more on their own, if they want to. Then move on to Buddhism and Hinduism. Then on to less common religions like paganism, and wikka. Things like Egyptian, greek, and Norse beliefs already come up in mythology, and history classes.

While there is no way to teach the kids to fully understand every religion in only four years, I would say it would be a good thing to teach the basics. For instance, Not all Muslims want to blow you up. Not all Christians hate gay people. Etc.

These are common misconceptions which in our free thinking, and fast learning society, shouldn't exist.

Unfortunately a disproportionate amount of mythology classes deal exclusively with Greek mythology because it falls under the "Classical Studies" department. I WISH my college had offered Egyptian, Norse, or Baltic religions and mythologies. I would much rather have learned about Baba Yaga and other Eastern European legends than have to sit through Hesiod and the Odyssey for the thirtieth time since I started studying mythology when I was like 5. That said, most of what I know about the way that Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Shinto become interrelated are through an Ancient Asian History class I took in college.

Neo-paganism (most celto-wiccan, nordic, egyptian, and other derived forms of contemporary religious structures fall under this umbrella) saw a huge uprise in following during the new age craze in the 90s, and their numbers have surely dwindled recently but there are still adequate enough people, the thing that will keep these out of schools is that many forms believe in the capacity for 'supernatural human intercession' otherwise known as 'magick' or whatever term it is an individual uses, which is basically a really pretty way of enacting what has in modern times been called the "power of intent." By forcing your conscious mind and body to focus on a series of rituals or incantations, and because of your belief in your abilities to perform them, you are doing nothing more than just unlocking a subconscious potential your conscious mind didn't let you know you had. If you perform a ritual that's intended to bring more financial prosperity into your life, and an opportunity presents itself, you might be more likely to acknowledge the reward aspect of the opportunity over the risk aspect because in your conscious mind, you've already taken care of the hard part which is viewing the situation as an opportunity instead of a risk because you put into your own mind that financial prosperity is coming your way. It will also make you more likely to find ways to make the opportunity a successful one. It's the same basic premise as that whole "this is a magic (insert object name here) with this YOU CAN'T LOSE!!!!" And then later "Oh by the way, it wasn't really a magic (insert object here) you had the ability all along, you just needed to have faith in yourself and your abilities."

I do agree that at least making efforts to debunk the popular misconceptions about religions would be an amazing step in the right direction, and would be easier to teach than trying to accurately teach world religions and try to do them all justice.

I'm going to try in a very simplistic manner to show why atheism isn't a religion, and then I'll be on my merry way.

All religions have a few things in common (if not all, then the majority, I find it safe to assume): a higher power, an after-life, and faith (by faith, I clarify: believing in something without any [or very little] proof to support said belief). I won't go beyond those three, but I hope I can get some agreement on this, which will make the rest of the post a lot easier.

• The higher power;

I know of no religion that can be called that without the belief of a higher power. I may be outdated when it comes to religions, I can't keep track of them all, but frankly, it seems accurate. Well, atheism lacks this belief. Atheists don't believe in a higher power of any kind.

• The after-life;

Every religion I am aware of has some kind of "after-life" promise for those who follow it; whether it's paradise, heaven, the soul ascending, or any other kind of approximation to the according god. Again, there is no after-life in atheism. We die, we rot.

• Faith;

By faith, I'm trying to get the religious side of it, "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (thefreedictionary helped me). Religious people have this "faith", this specific type of it. Almost like a feeling, something you can't explain, but it's there. Well, I can't really put it in words as I never experienced it, but hopefully you get what I mean. This doesn't happen with atheists; atheists try to find the logic, the explanation, the reasoning.

A whale lives under water, has a blowhole, and makes those (incredibly calming!) whale sounds.
A dog lives on land, has four paws and barks. It doesn't live under water, it doesn't have a blowhole, and it doesn't make whale sounds.
So, by logic, a dog is not a whale.
Same rules apply.

And the whole "religion is a set of beliefs" or whatever it was, I think we're confusing religion with cults. I can't make a religion out of my belief that pasta is fantastic and the moon is made of cheese, but that's a set of beliefs too. If we list everything starting with "I believe" as a religion, then we're not using the correct term.

Now, I had more things to say but I don't feel like arguing with anyone any more, so I'm gonna leave this topic to go back to the original point.

If you insist upon the use of a higher power, than my higher power is science. In regards to a god or deity, if it cannot be proven by my beloved Science, then I do not believe in. I have faith in the power of science and my afterlife is rotting in a hole in the ground, giving food and life to the most basic creatures, which will then work it's way back up through the system. I will "live again" in substance through my 'energy' and nutrients being moved through the system.

Just because they are different than yours or the majority, does not mean they are "wrong" ways of looking at it.

See below:

Originally Posted by wikipedia: Faith

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

And your view on cults is completely incorrect.

Originally Posted by wikipedia: Cults

The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective. It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

cult
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

In regards to

If we list everything starting with "I believe" as a religion, then we're not using the correct term.

While that is true, "I believe" in certain things, and that is how I would describe my personal beliefs to others.
I would like to rephrase my thoughts, because you missed it, obviously, on what religion is ("A religion is a set of beliefs." - me, several posts ago) as a "belief structure" that some people share. That is what a religion is, and a "cult" is no less a valid religion, than any other. It's just different and unpopular. It doesn't mean it's not a religion.

Also, its not arguing, it's a debate, if you think it's an argument, perhaps you should step back from it. :/

Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

I'm going to try in a very simplistic manner to show why atheism isn't a religion, and then I'll be on my merry way.

All religions have a few things in common (if not all, then the majority, I find it safe to assume): a higher power, an after-life, and faith (by faith, I clarify: believing in something without any [or very little] proof to support said belief). I won't go beyond those three, but I hope I can get some agreement on this, which will make the rest of the post a lot easier.

• The higher power;

I know of no religion that can be called that without the belief of a higher power. I may be outdated when it comes to religions, I can't keep track of them all, but frankly, it seems accurate. Well, atheism lacks this belief. Atheists don't believe in a higher power of any kind.

• The after-life;

Every religion I am aware of has some kind of "after-life" promise for those who follow it; whether it's paradise, heaven, the soul ascending, or any other kind of approximation to the according god. Again, there is no after-life in atheism. We die, we rot.

• Faith;

By faith, I'm trying to get the religious side of it, "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (thefreedictionary helped me). Religious people have this "faith", this specific type of it. Almost like a feeling, something you can't explain, but it's there. Well, I can't really put it in words as I never experienced it, but hopefully you get what I mean. This doesn't happen with atheists; atheists try to find the logic, the explanation, the reasoning.

A whale lives under water, has a blowhole, and makes those (incredibly calming!) whale sounds.
A dog lives on land, has four paws and barks. It doesn't live under water, it doesn't have a blowhole, and it doesn't make whale sounds.
So, by logic, a dog is not a whale.
Same rules apply.

And the whole "religion is a set of beliefs" or whatever it was, I think we're confusing religion with cults. I can't make a religion out of my belief that pasta is fantastic and the moon is made of cheese, but that's a set of beliefs too. If we list everything starting with "I believe" as a religion, then we're not using the correct term.

Now, I had more things to say but I don't feel like arguing with anyone any more, so I'm gonna leave this topic to go back to the original point.

A cult is defined as:

a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers

the object of such devotion.

a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

By these definitions...every religion in the world is just a cult. Which means atheism is a religion.

You're also being incredibly narrow in your description of atheism. While you are correct where SOME atheists are concerned (especially those ascribing to nihilistic or fatalistic philosophies) not all atheists refuse to believe in ALL preternatural phenomena...many atheists believe in ghosts and spirit energy and karma, all of which are spiritual in nature, but do not require belief in the existence of a deity, which is the sole defining feature of atheism. The refusal to believe in a God, a sentient being who controls the universe.

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning God. Not religion, not spirit, not higher power. GOD.

A theism. the opposite of the belief in God. You can call this no belief in god, or belief in no god.

(I constantly pick on Monstahh` and give her crap about what "non-god" says to do or not do.)

The word "God" is defined as:

1: the supreme or ultimate reality: as

the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

Therefore it it an incredibly narrow definition to insist that atheism is not a religion because SOME atheists are nihilists and believe in nothing. It's exactly the same thing as saying "all muslims are fanatical suicide bombers," "all christians are bigoted hate-mongers who hate anyone who isn't a heterosexual white male," "all jews are cheap, lying, suspicious, unscrupulous, greedy thieves" or "all buddhists starve themselves, shave their heads, and spend their lives in monasteries." Every one of these statements is a universal blanket held to these groups. This blanket "atheism isn't a religion because they don't have faith in the intangible" is short-sighted, because the idea of tangibility and provability differ from person to person and phenomena to phenomena?

Have you ever witnessed the variation in gravity between the Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter? No, you take it on FAITH that science isn't lying to you. Have you ever actually SEEN a DNA strand? Doubtful, because it requires incredibly powerful electron microscopes to even begin to get to that level of tangible observability. For that matter, have you ever seen the inner workings of the human body in regards to its biological functions of food digestion, respiration, or the oxygen cycles of blood in the human body, I mean really SEEN them? No, but you accept them as true because science says they are, and science claims to have the proof. For that matter can you even prove that people have walked on the moon? No, but you accept it on faith because there's video evidence of it, and it's taught in history class.

All of these things require a degree of faith to believe. If we were limited to belief only in what we ourselves can prove, then we are able to believe in NOTHING apart from our own personal existence, because nothing else CAN be proven. Your senses can be tricked, your brain, for all its complexity, can be tricked (that's how painkillers work, by tricking your brain into releasing dopamine.)

Originally Posted by monstahh`

If you insist upon the use of a higher power, than my higher power is science.

On this point you seem to be confusing scientism for atheism. While the two can coexist within a person's system of knowledge, this does not need to be so.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

On this point you seem to be confusing scientism for atheism. While the two can coexist within a person's system of knowledge, this does not need to be so.

They can coexist, but they are not mutually exclusive, and many atheists believe in science as the "last word" on things, as well as the adamant belief that there is NO god. My brand of atheism happens to be one of them. It doesn't make it wrong or not a religion. It's just not organized or mass marketed.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

Have you ever witnessed the variation in gravity between the Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter? No, you take it on FAITH that science isn't lying to you. Have you ever actually SEEN a DNA strand? Doubtful, because it requires incredibly powerful electron microscopes to even begin to get to that level of tangible observability. For that matter, have you ever seen the inner workings of the human body in regards to its biological functions of food digestion, respiration, or the oxygen cycles of blood in the human body, I mean really SEEN them? No, but you accept them as true because science says they are, and science claims to have the proof. For that matter can you even prove that people have walked on the moon? No, but you accept it on faith because there's video evidence of it, and it's taught in history class.

All of these things require a degree of faith to believe. If we were limited to belief only in what we ourselves can prove, then we are able to believe in NOTHING apart from our own personal existence, because nothing else CAN be proven. Your senses can be tricked, your brain, for all its complexity, can be tricked (that's how painkillers work, by tricking your brain into releasing dopamine.)

^ If his post hadn't come after my previous one, I would have edited in there, but basically this. This is faith. A different kind of faith, but faith nonetheless.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

They can coexist, but they are not mutually exclusive, and many atheists believe in science as the "last word" on things, as well as the adamant belief that there is NO god. My brand of atheism happens to be one of them. It doesn't make it wrong or not a religion. It's just not organized or mass marketed.

My point was more that it is not a requirement of one to believe in scientism in order for one to also believe in atheism. For instance one could be a social constructionist atheist holding that there is no such thing as objective reality.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

My point was more that it is not a requirement of one to believe in scientism in order for one to also believe in atheism. For instance one could be a social constructionist atheist holding that there is no such thing as objective reality.

That's true, but there are also different types of Christianity, some that believe more heavily in some things than others, like science for example. Does that make any of them valid?

If you're simply arguing semantics...I know the semantics of it, but many atheists do resort to scientism or similar beliefs to explain the world around them, while remaining atheists. There are many kinds of atheism.
I was simply arguing that there are kinds that are definitely religions, and dismissing all atheism as not a religion, is narrow minded.

Edit: Just to note, the girl who I was talking to insisted upon three "parts" that make a religion, so I was trying to demonstrate how atheism could fit those 'demands'.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

That's true, but there are also different types of Christianity, some that believe more heavily in some things than others, like science for example. Does that make any of them valid?

As I am in opposition to scientism, I would not argue that science is the only means through which a system of knowledge acquires validation. Indeed when it comes to religion, I find the term itself to be disagreeable on the grounds that it imposes an artificial and politically charged distinction between differing systems of knowledge. One of the telling points where this can be observed is where Indigenous peoples are concerned. As it was through such a distinction that colonialism of the mind was performed. It is also where much of neo-colonialism of today is still performed.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

If you're simply arguing semantics...I know the semantics of it, but many atheists do resort to scientism or similar beliefs to explain the world around them, while remaining atheists. There are many kinds of atheism.I was simply arguing that there are kinds that are definitely religions, and dismissing all atheism as not a religion, is narrow minded.

On this point, I had misunderstood the angle of your post. In which case, I withdraw and apologize.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

As I am in opposition to scientism, I would not argue that science is the only means through which a system of knowledge acquires validation. Indeed when it comes to religion, I find the term itself to be disagreeable on the grounds that it imposes an artificial and politically charged distinction between differing systems of knowledge. One of the telling points where this can be observed is where Indigenous peoples are concerned. As it was through such a distinction that colonialism of the mind was performed. It is also where much of neo-colonialism of today is still performed.



On this point, I had misunderstood the angle of your post. In which case, I withdraw and apologize.

I meant to say "less valid." If that changed your reply at all, I wasn't trying to imply science was the only way, simply that it was another valid way.
I do agree that religion as it is defined by some, is narrow and shallow, considering the variety and multitude of "belief structures" today. Especially considering the rise of spiritually based "religions" that take bits and pieces of other religions and beliefs, like someone who believes in a christian-like god, but also believes in karma and ghosts. There's a lot of mixing and matching with beliefs in today's world, because people are more exposed to more and different ideals.

I apologize for my mistake as well, and any confusion it may have caused.

One thing my kids aren't force to believe and its not a religion we have. Its a realationship . My kids look forward to going to church. When they are older they can choose to follow God on their own. Hoping we taught them right and too love others.

@quasievilgenius - Science is indeed about statistical probability; there will be instances when 100% of the data aligns (yes, everyone who jumps will fall back to Earth), especially when considering basic physics and chemistry. It is relatively easy to control for confounding variables when you're working with inanimate compounds.

But there are many other cases when experiments show a causal effect because of the statistical improbability that the data is the result of chance.

Does smoking cause lung cancer?

Well, yes, medical science has definitely supported that conclusion. But it's definitely not the case that 100% of smokers develop cancer - it's just statistically improbable that researchers would have gotten the data that they did by chance.

When dealing with areas of science that inherently include confounds that are difficult or impossible to control for, considering statistical probability becomes a necessity.


@monstahh` - I don't believe in unicorns - does that qualify as a religion? ;)

I don't have much to say on the whole topic of what makes a religion that seems to have emerged here in regarding Atheism, expect that while I'm not atheist, I do also consider it a religion in theory. Not always in practice, because some people see it differently than others, and some people see if as simply not believing in a god.

And here's also the thing. A lot of the "explanation" of what makes a religion is a bit silly. Atheism isn't the only 'religion' that doesn't have a deity. Buddhist beliefs are agnostic on the subject, and do not have a "God" (No, Buddha is not a god, just a very smart man), and, if anything is to be considered a "higher power" it is yourself.
Taoism also has no designated Deity, as yin and yang are ideas and the Tao is The Way, or a way to live life.

Mind you, many practitioners call it a philosophy, and there are sects of both that are more 'religious'. These are just the two I've studied.

Religion has become something a bit more broad than it used to, and I don't see why Atheists are arguing with Atheists about whether or not it's a religion. Why does it matter? Let someone believe whatever they believe and deal with it. If they want to call it a religion, let them. If they don't want to call it such, oh well.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

@monstahh` - I don't believe in unicorns - does that qualify as a religion? ;)

No, that just qualifies as a rude snarky statement.
See: 'Belief STRUCTURE' you share with other people.

:roll:


----------

Originally Posted by serafim_azriel

I don't have much to say on the whole topic of what makes a religion that seems to have emerged here in regarding Atheism, expect that while I'm not atheist, I do also consider it a religion in theory. Not always in practice, because some people see it differently than others, and some people see if as simply not believing in a god.

And here's also the thing. A lot of the "explanation" of what makes a religion is a bit silly. Atheism isn't the only 'religion' that doesn't have a deity. Buddhist beliefs are agnostic on the subject, and do not have a "God" (No, Buddha is not a god, just a very smart man), and, if anything is to be considered a "higher power" it is yourself.
Taoism also has no designated Deity, as yin and yang are ideas and the Tao is The Way, or a way to live life.

Mind you, many practitioners call it a philosophy, and there are sects of both that are more 'religious'. These are just the two I've studied.

Religion has become something a bit more broad than it used to, and I don't see why Atheists are arguing with Atheists about whether or not it's a religion. Why does it matter? Let someone believe whatever they believe and deal with it. If they want to call it a religion, let them. If they don't want to call it such, oh well.

Some of the users here were insisting they are going to raise their kids secular and atheist (by way of not knowing what god/higher powers is/are, so they can't even have the option of believing in a higher power or god aka implicit atheism), and how secularism and atheism aren't religion, so it's okay to do so.

Forcing a lifestyle and beliefs onto a child, no matter what kind, is the same damn thing.