(March 19, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Is bald a hair color?

Is bald a hair style?

Their relationship is a religion,
my belief system is truly a relationship.

(March 19, 2013 at 6:28 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: According to anthropology, atheism is a religion. Anthropology defines religion as a system of belief that organizes the universe and informs the worldview of a person. I actually personally don't agree that atheism itself is such a system; I think actually something like materialism, physicalism, or naturalism is.

It sounds to me like you have refuted the idea that atheism is anthropologically a religion (or a worldview).

However, for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropolog...f_religion

(March 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Sorry, I missed you before. I don't check in on every thread I've ever commented on

Keep an eye on your 'My Posts' listings. Anything in bold has been had a response

Quote:It's what I've been taught in anthropology classes since 101.

But what I don't understand is, if you've been taught that religions are 'systems of belief that organize the universe and inform the worldview of a person' then how can you suggest that the anthropological definition can apply to atheism when, by definition, it is not a system but an absence of a system?

It seems that anthropology isn't making that claim but you are.

[modhat on]There is also the possibility of subscribing the threads you are interested in[modhat off]

(March 20, 2013 at 10:10 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Sorry, I missed you before. I don't check in on every thread I've ever commented on

Keep an eye on your 'My Posts' listings. Anything in bold has been had a response

Quote:It's what I've been taught in anthropology classes since 101.

But what I don't understand is, if you've been taught that religions are 'systems of belief that organize the universe and inform the worldview of a person' then how can you suggest that the anthropological definition can apply to atheism when, by definition, it is not a system but an absence of a system?

It seems that anthropology isn't making that claim but you are.

Because I was specifically told that atheism under anthropology is categorized as a religion.

There are many different definitions of religion and many of these definitions can include things that are not stereotypically thought of as religions. William Cavanaugh a professor at DePaul university (I think) outlines this exact conundrum that many things can be considered religion. One of the best examples would be nationalism and nationalistic pride along with many political belief sets. Feel free to read up on these as many people define religion too strictly.

I define myself as a religious atheist for this reason, I consider it a religion in and of it self. We must learn to separate theism from religion as they are quite distinct. Examples of this would be Daoism (Taoism) and how there is no theistic figure but it is still a religion.

I have to say that I agree strongly with many of the points Apophenia has been making on this thread and that she is well academically backed (which should mean a lot given that most of us here are atheists of one variety or another).

(March 21, 2013 at 1:32 am)barbend Wrote: There are many different definitions of religion and many of these definitions can include things that are not stereotypically thought of as religions. William Cavanaugh a professor at DePaul university (I think) outlines this exact conundrum that many things can be considered religion. One of the best examples would be nationalism and nationalistic pride along with many political belief sets. Feel free to read up on these as many people define religion too strictly.

I refer to that as tribalism, where people create social bonds around a specific criteria. Atheists don't have to be religious, as they follow no particular deity or deities. But like any other person, we prefer to associate with people who have similar views and ideas.

I think that some theists will refer to atheism as a religion as a way to counter the criticisms against organized religion, or the criticism of those who follow a religion. If they can categorize atheism as a religion, then they can cry "glass houses" when religion is criticized. It's a substitute for any argument of actual substance, so I tend not to care whether people consider it to be a religion or not. Most of the time, they believe in far greater (and more harmful) myths, and I'd rather address those.

(March 21, 2013 at 5:53 am)Tonus Wrote: I think that some theists will refer to atheism as a religion as a way to counter the criticisms against organized religion, or the criticism of those who follow a religion. If they can categorize atheism as a religion, then they can cry "glass houses" when religion is criticized. It's a substitute for any argument of actual substance, so I tend not to care whether people consider it to be a religion or not. Most of the time, they believe in far greater (and more harmful) myths, and I'd rather address those.

It's the same with that old "atheists have faith too!" chestnut you occasionally see. My response to that is generally confusion: I thought christians hold faith up as a virtue, why is it suddenly a dirty word when applied to someone else?

(Before anyone answers, I do know why: faith in their organization is a virtue. Faith anywhere else is foolishness.)

local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

Faith? To claim "...there is no god..." is blind faith. Which is completely different than "Your type of god does not exist".

(March 21, 2013 at 7:19 am)archangle Wrote: local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

Nor do we atheists, usually. But we do make judgments about other people's claims regarding god. All you'd have to do, if you wanted to make me personally believe- I can't speak for anyone else, obviously- is to provide some real evidence. Why is it that theists never can?

If someone claims to you that they've been abducted by aliens and you answer "I don't believe you," are you making a claim about the existence of aliens? Or just one about the veracity of someone else's claim?

Quote:Faith? To claim "...there is no god..." is blind faith. Which is completely different than "Your type of god does not exist".

Maybe you should, I dunno, spend some time actually talking to atheists before you start making blanket statements about them, hmm? If you did, you'd find that each of us has our own personal stance on the existence of gods, rather than the one size fits all system you seem to believe it is. Some of us are gnostic atheists who believe in no god, that's true, but most of us are just waiting for better evidence before they believe in something. Why would you start believing in magical things without evidence for them, after all?