[Parallax]

I do believe, though, that having mutually agreeable belief systems makes people get along better - a prime example of such unity is in marriage.

My wife and I certainly have a mutual belief system. She believes that if I don't do things her way I'm going to be in trouble, and I believe it too.

[normhead]

She believes that if I don't do things her way I'm going to be in trouble, and I believe it too.

It's a religion that worships the goddess (of the household). The first commandment is "Happy wife, happy life."

[Jonathan Mac]

having mutually agreeable belief systems makes people get along better - a prime example of such unity is in marriage.

They get along better amongst themselves, but they start wars with the next tribe that has different beliefs, even if the core of the belief system is the same.

[magkelly]

I've decided my religious affiliation is Pentaxian. From the number of Pentax cameras and lenses on my shelf I'd have to say my "tithe" always goes in that general direction. Though Priestess of Dolls might work too. :P

[lesmore49]

Who cares ? What's the point of this thread ?

[dankoBanana]

atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position

[JHD]

Atheism is an expression of faith. Anything that requires a leap of faith is religion. And atheists are just as devoted to their religion as anyone else in the faith community.

[kenafein]

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

[dankoBanana]

Atheism is an expression of faith. Anything that requires a leap of faith is religion. And atheists are just as devoted to their religion as anyone else in the faith community.

actually it is quite the opposite. I'll boil it down for you.
We both observe the world around us. Atheists say thats all there is to it, while religious people have faith that there is more to it. There is no leap of faith for the atheist. We are not two sides of the same coin.

You Tube

You Tube

great comic video on the topic, but has a lot of truth in it

[les3547]

When someone says "atheism is a religion," my take on it is that they are referring very specifically to the atheist who is every bit as fanatical, arrogant, superior-acting, close-minded and dogmatic as some theist fundamentalists (needless to say, lumping all atheists in with that sort is as wrong as lumping all religious sorts together). Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris immediately come to mind. They love to act as though their physicalistic dogma answers all questions; and it does as long one can accept pure theory in the key areas of mechanistic explanations needed to be certain physicalism is the "creator" of life and consciousness (e.g., the missing self-organization potential of matter/physicalness).

Of course, none of these "brights," as they so humbly like to call themselves, have a clue that 99.9% of their arguments against the existence of a conscious creator (as opposed to their unconscious creator) are based on their assessment of organized religion, not the experience of God. They just can't seem to grasp (or admit to the idea) that some people might have learned to feel something they haven't, something that cannot be known with the intellect, and that it is something vast to be part of, surrender to, and merge with rather than attempt to futilely squeeze into the minuscule confines of one's conceptual framework. In fact, they know absolutely nothing about it if their books, articles, lectures, and blogs are any indications (and I've read them extensively).

So yes, as someone who has never cared much for religion precisely because of the fanatical, arrogant, superior-acting, close-minded and dogmatic types, I find atheists who act the same absolutely no different.

[les3547]

actually it is quite the opposite. I'll boil it down for you.
We both observe the world around us. Atheists say thats all there is to it, while religious people have faith that there is more to it.

Not so (that what we can observe is all there is to it). All of us believe in a so-far unobservable creator of the world we observe (i.e., something brought the universe about). It's just that some say the creator is mechanics/physics, and others of us don't buy it that matter/physics can self-organize like that. No one yet has demonstrated that matter can self-organize past a relative few steps because thus far what self-organization we can observe turns repetitive or dead ends every time (e.g., crystal formation, PCR, star formation, etc.) LIkewise, while we know life gradually evolved over a long period of time (unless one believes in punctuated equilibrium, though it still took plenty of time), it is pure, 100% theory that mutation and natural selection can do anything more than stuff like alter bird beaks and darken moth colors -- hardly a reason to jump to the conclusion that mutation/NS have created entire organs and organisms (unless one is already committed to a physicalistic explanation, and hates religion, and then it behooves one to exaggerate the significance of whatever furthers one's theories or keeps despised religion at bay).

[eddie1960]

Not so. All of us believe in a creator of the world we observe (i.e., something brought it about). It's just that some say the creator is mechanics/physics, and others of us don't buy it that matter/physics can self-organize like that. No one yet has demonstrated that matter can self-organize past a relative few steps when it turns repetitive or dead ends (e.g., crystal formation, PCR, etc.) LIkewise, while we know life evolved, it is pure, 100% theory that mutation and natural selection can do anything more than stuff like alter bird beaks and darken moth colors -- hardly a reason to jump to the conclusion that mutation/NS have created entire organs and organisms (unless one is already committed to a physicalistic explanation, and hates religion, and then it behooves one to exaggerate the significance of whatever furthers one's theories or keeps despised religion at bay).

Hate to disagree but atheism specifically is the belief that there is/are no God/s.
Atheist believe in lots of other things and frequently disagree in their beliefs, but not believing in god(s) does not make atheism a religion of any sort (second thread this has come up on in a week)
in other words atheism means not a theist. simple and straight forward.
lot's of people believe in republicanism and are members of the part it doesn't mean republican is a religion (ok maybe that one is a bad example )

numerous studies have demonstrated evolution, heck new variants on things like swine flu and bird flu that now jump species are evidence of evolving. just because we don't have a time machine to go back an physically measure the impact over millions of years doesn't mean that it isn't related to what we can observe within our lifetimes (or even within a few years) BTW I don't hate religion, the bible is the source of much of modern literature and was the first widely read piece of literature

[les3547]

Hate to disagree but atheism specifically is the belief that there is/are no God/s.
Atheist believe in lots of other things and frequently disagree in their beliefs, but not believing in god(s) does not make atheism a religion of any sort (second thread this has come up on in a week)

You don't seem to have grokked my point. What I tried to give a theory for is why some people say atheism is a religion. Obviously everybody knows atheism doesn't involve God or gods, so I say it is because some atheists behave in the same ways that some religious do (just with different beliefs).

numerous studies have demonstrated evolution, heck new variants on things like swine flu and bird flu that now jump species are evidence of evolving. just because we don't have a time machine to go back an physically measure the impact over millions of years doesn't mean that it isn't related to what we can observe within our lifetimes (or even within a few years) BTW I don't hate religion, the bible is the source of much of modern literature and was the first widely read piece of literature

I also didn't say life hasn't evolved, I am quite sure it did in fact. I said mutation and natural selection are not proven to be the cause of evolution. But when a virus changes to better survive, that can only be called adaption, not evolution. Adaption is a very, very simple change in genetic structure that doesn't "create" anything, it changes an already functioning system. We don't know if adaption created the "functioning system" (e.g., an intact organ or organism) so that all we can accurately state is that we are observing simple adaption, not evolution.

IOW, how does anyone know what caused the gene changes that led to "functioning systems" like livers, brains, eyes, hearts, and bird beaks? Once the bird beak is in place, then statistics do support the theory that a random mutation could occur and be naturally "selected" to prevail over other types of bird beaks. But what's in question is if that same adaptive process created the bird beak "system" in the first place. No one knows, as all honest scientists admit, it's just they prefer that theory to a conscious universe theory.

Personally I don't buy that randomness and mechanics can create the organization of life, and I also don't believe consciousness can emerge from material processes (another key physicalistic theory). But that doesn't mean I then irrationally believe in some supernatural God either. I don't think either supernaturalism or physicalism can account for all we find here in the universe.

[JHD]

A leap of faith in any direction is still a leap of faith. When a leap of faith is disseminated to convert others, that is proselytizing. So call it what whatever makes you happy, but the reality is atheism is just another form of religion.

[LamyTax]

You don't seem to have grokked my point. What I tried to give a theory for is why some people say atheism is a religion. Obviously everybody knows atheism doesn't involve God or gods, so I say it is because they behave in the same ways that some religious do (just with different beliefs).

Religion is defined by belief in a supernatural entity, atheism is the lack of that. There are people who believe the earth is flat, but just because they think it is doesn't make their arguments valid.

I also didn't say life hasn't evolved, I am quite sure it did in fact. I said mutation and natural selection are not proven to be the cause of evolution. But when a virus changes to better survive, that can only be called adaption, not evolution. Adaption is a very, very simple change in genetic structure that doesn't "create" anything, it changes an already functioning system. We don't know if adaption created the "functioning system" (e.g., an intact organ or organism) so that all we can accurately state is that we are observing simple adaption, not evolution.

Micro- and macroevolution are the exact same thing, just with a different timeframe. What you describe as "adaption" is the exact same thing as evolution. Random genetic mutations cause better survivability of an organism, which means these mutated genes are more likely to be traded to the offspring. This has been shown with E. coli in a very long experiment, by the way. E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IOW, how does anyone know what caused the gene changes that led to "functioning systems" like livers, brains, eyes, hearts, and bird beaks? Once the bird beak is in place, then statistics do support the theory that a random mutation could occur and be naturally "selected" to prevail over other types of bird beaks. But what's in question is if that same adaptive process created the bird beak "system" in the first place. No one knows, as all honest scientists admit, it's just they prefer that theory to a conscious universe theory.

No, first of all, you mix up the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". "Conscious universe" isn't a scientific theory. Evolution theory, however, is the best model we have to explain reality.
These mutations have different causes, one is, as we've recently discovered, caused by viruses. Now, think about how we reproduce -- half of the genetic material of your mother and half of the genetic material of your father is combined in you. Yet each child has a different genome. Lots of room for variations!

Personally I don't buy that randomness and mechanics can create the organization of life, and I also don't believe consciousness can emerge from material processes (another key physicalistic theory). But that doesn't mean I then irrationally believe in some supernatural God either. I don't think either supernaturalism or physicalism can account for all we find here in the universe.

What's so striking about our current scientific models is -- they can explain the current facts pretty well. You may of course, believe in some supernatural being -- but -- think about it: how did such a complex thing come into place?