Atheism a religion?

[fr0d0]

Yeah but what religion is saying when it says that God created the universe isn't anything to do with describing the physical process. Religion leaves the physical process completely alone and works with whatever discoveries are made.

[Tiberius]

I don't get where your objection is then. Religion makes certain claims about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yeah but what religion is saying when it says that God created the universe isn't anything to do with describing the physical process. Religion leaves the physical process completely alone and works with whatever discoveries are made.

As far as I can tell you're effectively endorsing NOMA.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I don't get where your objection is then. Religion makes certain claims about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

I don't think it does. Those claims are always mythical & not factual.

As far as I can tell you're effectively endorsing NOMA.

Yes.

[MetalVampire]

I would have thought that Atheism is the compleat opposite of a religion. When you think about it isnt religion a belief, like, i's beleiving that theres a god, or gods or anything, and its beleiving how things work and how things are done, and following the rules of a religion how whatever gods in that religion have said so,(in my mind it makes sense:S). Anyway, Atheism is like the compleat opposite of it, it's not beleiving in any religions, or following a certain way of life, its just being compleatly yourself, how you want to be and not beleiving any of it.... i may have just confused myself something rotton but i hope it makes sense. hehe x

I disagree. I think non-religion is the opposite of religion, but whilst most atheists are non-religious, some aren't. Atheism is a disbelief in gods, and some Buddhists have atheistic beliefs whilst subscribing to a specific religious doctrine, as with Scientology, which as far as I am aware does not hold theistic beliefs meaning an atheist could easily be a member.

Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. (Bolded words are key). A single belief cannot be a religion, but a collection of them can. Thus atheism and theism are not religions, since they are single beliefs/disbeliefs, although they can both be aspects of religions.

Now atheists do have certain beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. For me, the cause is the Big Bang, the nature is that of non-intelligent complexity, and the purpose is non existent. However this is not a set of beliefs. Each of these beliefs is singular and I don't count them together. For a theistic religion, the three beliefs would be combined (i.e God caused the universe, he created the nature, and it exists for his purpose). The set of beliefs is linked by the "God".

But when you sa about atheists being buddhists and scientologists it's not a religion, buddhism and scientology are cults, not necicerilly what everyone conciders a cult to be like, but still a cult. Scientology is basically brainwashing and buddhism is supposed to be more a way of life that anything else, so atheism can still be the opposite of religion because their not religions.
And, just because you beleive in something, dosnt neciserilly make it a religion.
sorry if none of that makes sense, im like only 14.sorry

[Tiberius]

Buddhism isn't a cult, it doesn't fulfill any of the requirements of a cult. Likewise, Scientology could be called a cult, but it also classifies as a religion. It doesn't matter that Scientology is brainwashing, or that Buddhism is a "way of life", if they fulfill the definition of a religion, they are so. Once could say most of Christianity is brainwashing, but that doesn't stop it from being a religion.

I agree, just because you believe something doesn't make it a religion, but the fact is that all these groups have certain beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, making them categorical religions. They all have additional rituals, which further supports their religious stand.

Dawkins, quoting Einstein, says in the God delusion that he is a "deeply religious non-believer". His religion could be considered the awe-inspiring nature that science has revealed. Atheism on its own isn't a religion, but it doesn't rule out religion either.

[fr0d0]

but the fact is that all these groups have certain beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, making them categorical religions.

Untrue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Some do yes, but that isn't a pre-requisite of 'religion'.

Dawkins, quoting Einstein, says in the God delusion that he is a "deeply religious non-believer". His religion could be considered the awe-inspiring nature that science has revealed. Atheism on its own isn't a religion, but it doesn't rule out religion either.

I often consider an Atheists religion to be science, as you've put it. Like I've said elsewhere I just find the parallels interesting. I certainly don't seek to label & limit.

I think of religion as a bad thing. The religious do things 'religiously'. It's a duty for the sake of it. I have a Jehovah's Witness friend who lives his life to strict religious observances based on an idea that his acts will lead to a goal when he's dead. He's an amazingly nice bloke and very well respected. If this was what faith was about for me then I wouldn't bother. I'd be out enjoying myself instead.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As far as I can tell you're effectively endorsing NOMA.

Yes.

Despite the fact that the "Science, Just Science" campaign (my campaign) endorses NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) which was done for purely strategic reasons (and I suspect Gould, who coined the term as far as I know, came up with it for much the same reason), I strongly dismiss the idea of NOMA for several reasons:

• First science has not been demonstrated to have any limits except technological and vacuous claims. Technology advances continuously and that is why, today, we are far more technologically sophisticated than any of our known ancestors (whether we are socially or not remains an open question ... I'm erring towards not, I've seen the way chavs behave) and something that is claimed but reveals no validatable phenomenon beyond the claim is impossible to distinguish from a lie or delusion.
  
• Second it is clear that is the divide were as fixed as some like to claim it is, science would not continually advance on matters previously held to be the domain of religion and religion would stay utterly clear of any area claimed by science and neither of these things are true.
  
• Third there are a number of claims that on first sight might appear to be spiritual but on closer inspection would actually be (quite clearly) physical such as the ascension of Mary to heaven, the claim that Jesus had no father, whether or not miracles have occurred (and continue to do so).

These kinds of issues represent problems for science but not for theists who relish in the idea that there is an area in which they can expand their fanciful nonsense without having resort to such tacky ideas as supporting evidence.

The presence of a deity in a universe is obviously a scientific hypothesis (Dawkins) since the action of such a being within it would be bound to leave trails of evidence and affect that universe in ways that would not accord with the usual explainable (potentially or otherwise) manner in which our universe is seen to operate. And even if a supposed god were to be able to act in such a fashion one is forced to ask the philosophical question why? Why hide? Why stay secret? Why deny us the evidence of his awesomeness and then punish us for being sceptical? Why not simply pop your awesome head over the virtual parapet and say, "Hi, I'm God and I'm here to rule over you and make sure you're all good little people"

If something is claimed and that something has measurable (or potentially measurable) parameters then science can assign a probability to it and, to quote Dawkins, "A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics; a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I'm covering this in our debate Kyu so I think it'd be innapropriate to discuss it here.

[Giff]

Those claims are always mythical & not factual.

Fantasies in other words right?