Quote of the day.

[theweaselking]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, and baldness is a hair color."

Comments

[harald387.livejournal.com]

Atheism and Religion are both belief structures.
Collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both lifestyle choices.
Baldness and hair are both genetically determined.

That doesn't make atheism a religion, but it can lump them in the same category.

-K

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"Belief structure", sure, maybe, but it's not a religion. It's the lack of a religion.

The bit about "not collecting stamps" is what cracked me up.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

If religion is a way of life related to beliefs in the divine or supernatural, how is atheism not a religion? They believe as adamantly that there are no gods as others believe in them. There is no way to prove either. To say that scientific method cannot prove that god exists, therefore god doesn't exist -- it is like saying that since the Bible proves that god exists then god exists. It is the same way of thinking. Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in dogma.

Whether one is grounded in reality and the other a deluded masochist is a matter of personal opinion ;) Which is which?

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

Stating one's lack of belief in any sort of deity due to lack of even the slightest bit of evidence is a religious belief now?

Excuse while I spend some time not collecting stamps.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure on situations where you have to write down distinguishing features about someone "hair colour: bald" is a valid option.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you can call atheism a way of life, though. Personally I make a distinction between having a belief and engaging in a set of practices, rituals, or observances based on that belief. Then there's the purpose of a practice: just because I meditate doesn't make me a Buddhist. Conversely, you'll find a huge range of beliefs among the Wicca, but you aren't one of them unless you engage in specifically Wiccan practices.

Sure, I've met some atheists who seem to approach what they believe in a religious way, but I don't think that's my problem.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

So, how's your religion based on there being no Tooth Fairy doing for you? Or your religion based on there being no Santa Claus?

Lacking belief is not a religion.

> To say that scientific method cannot prove that god exists, therefore god
> doesn't exist

You're arguing a strawman. The correct position is that "there is no evidence that god(s) exist, therefore there is no reason to believe that god(s) exist, therefore I believe in no god(s)."

A lack of belief is not a belief, nor does it require faith, any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

> Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in
> dogma.

There is no faith involved in science. The entire point, in fact, is to remove faith and get strictly to fact

The fact that you confuse the two just means you haven't the slightest clue what faith is and how science works. A hint: They're not opposites. They're orthogonals.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

And if you have to express a religious preference, "atheist" or "none" are probably good answers even though they don't *actually* match the question.

That's not the point.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Not true. You have faith in the scientific method. Not all people do. You also have faith that gamers can do very stupid things, and that George Bush is an idiot. Just because there's evidence for this doesn't mean there isn't also a leap of faith. It's just a smaller leap than some.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

When does it matter outside of filling in those boxes?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Uh, no. Nice try, but that's not correct. Jimmy, tell the man about our consolation prizes!

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. I *believe* that gamers and the King Shrub are stupid. I believe that science finds us practical, useful things that are essentially true[1]. Because I have evidence for this belief, it is not faith.

[1]: And by "true", I mean "close enough to being true that they can be treated as such for most purposes, until they find something that is MORE true and more useful."

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

People trying to explain that science is wrong or evil or just another religious belief without evidence, mostly.

They're not just wrong, they're wrong *at the definition level*, from their first premises, and they're trying to inflict that wrongness of everyone else.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, your definition isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Neither is the definition of "faith" that you are using, so you might want to rethink your argument; it's hardly fair to hold him to the OED and not yourself.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The dictionary definition of all kinds of technical terms is wrong, (take a look at "theory") and make no mistake, I AM using the technical, not colloquial, definition. As long as we're appealing to dictionaries, though, the American Heritage Dictionary gets Faith in this context right - "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> They believe as adamantly that there are no gods as others believe
> in them.

Not true. You're assuming that an atheist is actively holding a belief, rather than concluding that there is nothing to believe in.

Yes, you may have met some which behave like that. It is no more a core element of atheism that homophobia is of Christianity, or worshipping victimhood is of atheism.

theweaselking's question about your there-is-no-Tooth-Fairy religion sums it up fairly well. Anotehr parallel might be your non-fifth-arm-using exercise routine.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

From the OED (first definition actualy): I. Belief, trust, confidence. 1. a.
Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).

[zenten.livejournal.com]

What discpline are we discussing then?

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Anyway, this is irrelevent, since I agree athiesm (at least for most people) isn't a religion.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying monotheism is a religion. Neither are. Both are catagories that can include religions, but being an athiest (or a monotheist) does not mean that you have to belong to a religion.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It's difficult for atheism to contain a religion, since atheism is DEFINED as the lack of a religion.

One can have beliefs not grounded in fact and still be an atheist. That doesn't make you religious, it just means that your faith-based beliefs don't happen to be in culturally postulated supernatural beings.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, not the lack of a religion.

[paoconnell.livejournal.com]

The scientific method is a process based on logic and the need for reproduceable results before a finding can be acepted.

Theism and atheism are about positing or not positing the existence of a divinity/divinities ouside our existence/universe.

Since no one apparently can test for the existence (or not) of a divinity, making an assumption either way is faith. Agnostics consider the question unanswerable, and therefore moot. Yeah, I'm agnostic.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Find me a religion without a culturally postulated supernatural being.

(And yes, Buddha counts, if only on the technicality that he was much more enlightened than everyone else and the ultimate state of perfection would be to be like him, even if you couldn't necessarily get there by imitating him)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

A definition which adequately summarizes it in the colloquial sense, as opposed to the religious sense, which is what is under discussion here.