The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Aug 15, 2005 19:46:27 GMT -5
If we define religion as a group of people who hold a common faith and belief in ideal; could Atheism be defined as a religion?
Faith is going to be defined as a belief in something as completely true.
Atheism could be defined as faith in nothing if you think about it. I am not saying I believe this, it was a random thought I had and wanted to know what you all think about it?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Aug 15, 2005 23:05:22 GMT -5
One problem is that definition is not utilized by everyone. Therefore, I would be inclined to utilized the definition that anthropologists use which was the definition put forth by Anthony F. C. Wallace: Source - Wallace, A.F.C. quoted in Haviland, W. (1999). Cultural Anthropology (9th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace. This wikipedia article explains some more about defining religion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaches_to_distinguishing_religion_from_non-religionThe key to even discussing the topic is to agree upon the definition of what constitutes "religion" in the first place. This would also keep both sides from the fallacy of equivocation regarding the term. In my opinion, atheism cannot be a religion. The only item in atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)...that's it. Here's an article from Atheism.about.com: atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htmAnd an article from the other side of the fence on the issue: patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.html
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 16, 2005 0:34:34 GMT -5
I supposed you could. That would be changing definitions though.
Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Lack of belief is not belief. Strong atheism is knowledge that (functionally) no god exists. Knowledge is not belief. I used to be willing to explain this last definition, but nobody cared to listen when I tried, so I am not willing anymore. Work it out for yourself.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Aug 16, 2005 11:29:45 GMT -5
Once again I would like to reiterate it was simply an idle thought not something I believe. I already know what I feel on this issue; I was simply wondering what everyone else thought.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxymoron on Aug 17, 2005 0:09:02 GMT -5
This is an interesting point, and something I have thought about before. I don't think Atheism could be considered a religion simply on the grounds that it is a group of people who share a common belief. If those are your only defining standards for a religion, couldn't you then argue that "Democrat-ism", "Republican-ism", and "I-Like-Cookies-Ism" are all religions as well? I think it is necessary to add a clause about "belief in a greater power" to the definition of religion, although I won't be so bold as to try to write one myself. The obvious follow-up to this issue is this: If Atheism is not a religion, why does it deserve the same rights as a religion? How can you apply "freedom of practice" to something that is not considered a practice? I think I'll leave that one open and come back to it after I hear some responses.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 17, 2005 2:46:42 GMT -5
You're looking at it from the wrong side. Religion should not grant you more rights. The choice of religion should be something completely arbitrary. The government should be unbiased to your religion/lack of religion.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxymoron on Aug 17, 2005 12:37:28 GMT -5
I agree with you 100%. But unfortunately, the government doesn't. You can't deny that we tend to grant too many privledges to religions in the interest of freedom. So how can I, as an atheist, convince others that I deserve the same rights and privledges?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 17, 2005 14:17:26 GMT -5
I definitely can deny that, quite simply because it is not in the interest of freedom. Those things take freedom away, like the freedom not to have to pledge as 'one nation under God' if they don't believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Aug 19, 2005 23:31:46 GMT -5
I, personally, think that this isn't a real argument.
The issue at hand is what your definition of "religion" happens to be. If you're just saying "my definition is better", you're going nowhere.
I don't think government should take a stand on religion. The government shouldn't deny or accept a god.
A government that doesn't spend money on religion is not one that favors atheism. A government that favors atheism would be one that spends money to convince people that there is no god (which is clearly wrong).
A lack of dabbling in religion does not indicate favoritism of atheism.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxymoron on Aug 20, 2005 1:50:32 GMT -5
By your logic, PieIsGood, no arguement is a real arguement. It is just a bunch of people saying "my opinion is better" and getting nowhere. The goals here are a) Find a good definition of religion and b) Decide if Atheism would be considered a religion under that definition. Sounds like a valid discussion to me.
I think we (or at least, the atheists here) can all agree that the government should be God-neutral. But the fact is, it isn't. No need for me to list the ways; we all know them. So I say again, if we don't define Atheism as a religion, how can we convince the world that we deserve the same rights (e.g. the right NOT to have "under God" in the pledge) as God-Fearing Folk?
And vertigo, to clarify: I said "in the interest of freedom", meaning the intention is to be fair. Sometimes, as in the case of religion and the gov't, it backfires.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 20, 2005 4:14:42 GMT -5
Well, perhaps in some instances an argument is about who's opinion is better, but I like to think that I argue to eventually reach consensus. Arguments are not static, when you argue and the opponent makes a valid point, you incorporate that, changing your view to suit. It evolves and you shouldn't resist that.
If you argue for Brownie points then obviously you won't accept if your point of view has been disproved, or you won't accept valid points made by the opposition. The argument won't go anywhere and it will be as Pleisgood describes. However, I argue to win and to lose.
Who's intention is it to be fair? I promise you, it isn't the Christians. They have no interest in fairness. The muslims are even more rigid.
You have to fight on the basis that freedom of religion doesn't mean enforced religion. The 'under God' phrase is not 'under Allah', 'under Krishna', 'under Buddha', etc. The fair way is not to specify such.
The way to win is to get them to appreciate the need for society to be fair, irrespective of religion. The problem is they don't want it to be fair, that's my point. With that mindset you will never win, even if Atheism is a religion it would make no difference whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Aug 20, 2005 22:47:43 GMT -5
By your logic, PieIsGood, no arguement is a real arguement. It is just a bunch of people saying "my opinion is better" and getting nowhere. The goals here are a) Find a good definition of religion and b) Decide if Atheism would be considered a religion under that definition. Sounds like a valid discussion to me. (emphasis mine) I disagree. How are you getting to the conclusion that no argument is a real argument? I'm saying that debates over a definition are worthless. There's no evidence for what constitutes a "good" definition. However, other debates that use a predefined definition are fine. For example, a debate over the existance of a god doesn't require a definition. It uses the predefined definition of "god" as "an omnipotent being that created the universe and still rules over us today" (well, the definition is more in depth, but you get the idea). I will agree that some definitions are better than others in a practical sense. Giving "cookie" the same definition as "computer" clearly isn't right. But given that there's already a discrepancy and either side could be right, the issue at hand isn't who has a "better" definition. It's what definition will be most widely accepted. If you can convince me of any kind of argument for a "better" definition of religion, I will concede the point. I'll also echo necroshine about the debating. I don't think anybody would be coming to intellectual boards in order to win every debate thrown at them.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Sept 4, 2005 21:34:22 GMT -5
There in lies the problem that I ran into, religion can be defined in so many different ways and the defenition of faith and religion are so highly debatable. Thank you for your input.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Sept 8, 2005 12:15:41 GMT -5
I think we all agree that to have a good argument for religion, it is best to all be talking about the same definition for said religion. So then would it not be best to stop focusing on the problem and start thinking about the solution. There for can any one come up with an idea to simplify the ordeal.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 8, 2005 12:45:04 GMT -5
I can make it extremely simple. Let's all come together and condemn religion unconditionally, in any of its forms. Let us allow there to be no misconception, there is no good form of religion.
|
|