Opt in or opt out?

[Roy Hunter]

I am still struggling with the concept of a God-free religion. If it's not got a God, why is it a religion? Why is it not a philosophical society, or a social club?

This isn't anything to do with that wacky tax-exempt status for religions, is it?

[MakkaPakka]

You can't prove an unrestricted negative - e.g. that there is no god.

So you'd be happy to say that you believe there is no god? I take the position that without proof you can only say that you believe something to be true (or false) but the previous poster made the assumption that you cannot prove a negative so that must be the default position. To me atheism is a belief because we cannot prove we are right. Christians are happy to admit that they cannot prove they are right but will continue with their behaviour even without proof. This is, of course, helped by threats of eternal hell if you do not believe.

[DavidH]

I think I answered that before somewhere. You cannot prove that there is no god, but it's clear to me that in practical terms there is nothing you need take account of in everyday living.

My usual comparison is between god and the headless horseman who is said to live by our village bridge and suck out the souls of passers-by. That's not a frivolous comparison; I can't formally disprove the existence of either but I take no account of either whilst walking by the river.

By any sensible, practical standard I'm absolutely certain there is no god.

[MakkaPakka]

I'm interested; you keep asserting your atheism, but all your arguments are similar to those put forward by some fundamentalist Christians. They don't require themselves to prove the non-existence of all the gods that they don't believe in, so isn't it hubris for them to expect atheists to prove the non-existence of their god before being allowed not to worship it? Are you puting forward arguments you have heard them make, in the hope that you will get some good answers here to use against them? Or are you actually not an atheist at all, but are just not sure?

I am absolutely an atheist. I find the position of many God believers to be intolerant and illogical. However the reason I cannot prove that the Christian God does not exist is simply that they have deliberately set the rules so that their god cannot be detected or measured in any way. So logically they cannot say he does 100% exist and we cannot say 100% that he does not exist.

So yes to some extent I am using their own arguments against them. If we are believers (albeit believers in the absence of something) then we should be given equal treatment as those who claim their religion is special.

However I would say that Christians tend not to be the people that require the proof. It is atheists themselves that are in search of the truth while Christians simply read a book and feel they know enough.

I would ask Christians at what point they suspended belief in the tooth fairy, father Christmas, and the idea that dead pets go to heaven. Further I'd ask why if they stopped believing in these things they could not make the next leap to realise that actually their whole religion is based on fairy stories.

[MakkaPakka]

I think I answered that before somewhere. You cannot prove that there is no god, but it's clear to me that in practical terms there is nothing you need take account of in everyday living.

My usual comparison is between god and the headless horseman who is said to live by our village bridge and suck out the souls of passers-by. That's not a frivolous comparison; I can't formally disprove the existence of either but I take no account of either whilst walking by the river.

I think we are more or less in agreement. To me god is about as likely as your headless horseman. But remember that this is only because for us it seems clear that god cannot possibly exist. Most scientists will tell you that the universe is in steady decay, everything is gradually smearing itself out and getting colder. So why is life so special? Why are molecules getting together to make life? This is the question on the lips of Christians. For them the obvious, I mean blindingly obvious, answer is that there must be a creator. They do not need to explain that, it's just so obviously true.

[Ubi Dubius]

I am still struggling with the concept of a God-free religion. If it's not got a God, why is it a religion? Why is it not a philosophical society, or a social club?

This isn't anything to do with that wacky tax-exempt status for religions, is it?

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places, and/or scriptures.

Not an authoritative source, but does that help? I think of religion not as belief in god or even the supernatural, but a group of people with common beliefs, values, and rituals that are meant to reflect the members' purpose in life and relationship with the universe. Some sects of Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism are examples of religions without belief in god.

[daftbeaker]

I am still struggling with the concept of a God-free religion. If it's not got a God, why is it a religion? Why is it not a philosophical society, or a social club?

This isn't anything to do with that wacky tax-exempt status for religions, is it?

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places, and/or scriptures.

Not an authoritative source, but does that help? I think of religion not as belief in god or even the supernatural, but a group of people with common beliefs, values, and rituals that are meant to reflect the members' purpose in life and relationship with the universe. Some sects of Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism are examples of religions without belief in god.

Dangnabbit, I said I wasn't going to continue this circular argument

Under that definition science is a religion. Also, Ubi Dubius, are you religious?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Christians do not believe in the existence of any of the thousands of gods except one; why is that OK, but for atheists to believe in one fewer god 'arrogant'?

I'm interested; you keep asserting your atheism, but all your arguments are similar to those put forward by some fundamentalist Christians. They don't require themselves to prove the non-existence of all the gods that they don't believe in, so isn't it hubris for them to expect atheists to prove the non-existence of their god before being allowed not to worship it? Are you puting forward arguments you have heard them make, in the hope that you will get some good answers here to use against them? Or are you actually not an atheist at all, but are just not sure?

Just because I'm not sure this has been made clear, and MP is free to correct me, but I don't think he's saying that there's anything wrong with 'practicing' atheism, or that you must prove atheism before doing so. It's not that it's arrogant to believe in one fewer god, it's arrogant to assume that that's the default position. Or at least, it sounds awfully similar to fundamental theists. "My belief is the default position, you must prove your position or you're wrong."

We love it when Christians come in here and say "I believe this, but I might be wrong," but I see few atheists doing this themselves.

EDIT: db, does science say anything about anyone's "purpose in life and relationship with the universe?" And unless by common beliefs, values, and rituals, you mean the scientific method, I don't see how science has any of these. Science is a process, not a belief system. Science doesn't have any values, it's supposed to be unbiased, right?

[daftbeaker]

EDIT: db, does science say anything about anyone's "purpose in life and relationship with the universe?" And unless by common beliefs, values, and rituals, you mean the scientific method, I don't see how science has any of these. Science is a process, not a belief system. Science doesn't have any values, it's supposed to be unbiased, right?

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause Big Bang, nature homeostatic environment, and purpose of life to survive and reproduce and the universe current theory as I understand it suggests it arose through the non-zero energy of a vacuum, the posiitve energy of matter being balanced by the expansion and consequent negative energy of work against gravity. The Universe must expand for life to exist, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine this bit doesn't matter for the discussion of 'religions without gods'. Many religions have narratives evolution, solar system formation, the triple alpha process, symbols the microscope, DNA's double helix, the panda for wildlife conservation, the nuclear, biohazard and chemical warfare signs, traditions peer review, academic squabbling and sacred histories Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Dalton that are intended to give meaning to life an explanation of who we are, how we work and how we got here. They tend to derive morality altruism, kin selection, survival of a society benefiting all, ethics see morality, religious laws thou shalt not falsify experimental data or a preferred lifestyle try to understand reality from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature it's better to do experiments and find the truth than make crap up.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect conferences, debates, lectures. Most religions have organized behaviors experimental procedure, double blinding etc., including congregations for prayer lectures, priestly hierarchies student, postgrad, postdoc, lecturer, professor, tenured professor, holy places Newton's gravestone, Cape Canaveral, most major research universities, and/or scriptures umpty books.

I'll add that you seem so desperate to class atheism as a religion that you're constructing a definition to that end. Generally you start with the hypothesis and do an experiment to see if it works, not define the result you want and construct a theory around it. That's creationist science

[Ubi Dubius]

Under that definition science is a religion. Also, Ubi Dubius, are you religious?

No, it isn't. Yes.

[daftbeaker]

Under that definition science is a religion.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is

[Ubi Dubius]

I'll add that you seem so desperate to class atheism as a religion that you're constructing a definition to that end. Generally you start with the hypothesis and do an experiment to see if it works, not define the result you want and construct a theory around it. That's creationist science

For what it's worth, I do not believe that atheism is a religion.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

No, no, no, no. First of all, are you really claiming that these are all things that science says? And not merely conclusions some people have come to and some other people have agreed on based on using the scientific process?

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause Big Bang, nature homeostatic environment, and purpose of life to survive and reproduce Science says that's the purpose of life? Or is that simply what life does/how it operates? and the universe current theory as I understand it suggests it arose through the non-zero energy of a vacuum, the posiitve energy of matter being balanced by the expansion and consequent negative energy of work against gravity. The Universe must expand for life to exist, You make life sound exceedingly important. It sounds like the universe is expanding such that life will exist, rather than life happens to be able to exist because the universe is expanding, which is simply a statement of facts rather than a statement about why the universe exists especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine this bit doesn't matter for the discussion of 'religions without gods'. Hey, we're discussing wikipedia's definition here, not mine. Ubi brought this one up this time, not me. Besides, things can be sacred, holy, or spiritual without involving any deities. Many religions have narratives evolution, solar system formation, the triple alpha process, symbols the microscope, DNA's double helix, the panda for wildlife conservation, the nuclear, biohazard and chemical warfare signs, traditions peer review, academic squabbling and sacred histories Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Dalton that are intended to give meaning to life an explanation of who we are, how we work and how we got here.That's an explanatino of what we are, how we work, and how we got here. Doesn't give any meaning. Do all people of the "science" religion treat the lives of Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Dalton similar to how Christians treat the lives of Jesus, and the saints? Also, on the subject of symbols, those all have practical meanings, they don't give any meaning. Seeing a radioactive symbol makes me worried about the radiation, it doesn't make inspire any sort of religious feeling. They tend to derive morality altruism, kin selection, survival of a society benefiting all, ethics see morality, religious laws thou shalt not falsify experimental data or a preferred lifestyle try to understand reality from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature it's better to do experiments and find the truth than make crap up. [b]Is that really an idea about the entire cosmos and human nature, or just an idea on a better way of figuring out what's true and what isn't?

[quote="daftbeaker"I'll add that you seem so desperate to class atheism as a religion that you're constructing a definition to that end. Generally you start with the hypothesis and do an experiment to see if it works, not define the result you want and construct a theory around it. That's creationist science [/quote]

First of all, since you haven't seem to have picked up on this, I'm not longer playing with that idea. Also, your sentences seems to indicate that atheism and science are somehow interchangeable, which is interesting. You can probably clear up what you were trying to say, though.

And if you think about it, I was working in the proper order. Instead of coming up with a definition of religion and trying to fit everything into it that I wanted, I was looking at what I thought might be considered religions, and thought to see what they all had in common making them religions. I knew atheism was a tricky one, which is why I focused on it, because that's the only one I had any question about. Believe me, if this were a creationist forum, I would've been on the other side of the debate, so as to create discussion.

You are probably already aware of this, but perhaps it's worth mentioning that Religious Studies isn't exactly a hard science, anyway.

[MakkaPakka]

Just because I'm not sure this has been made clear, and MP is free to correct me, but I don't think he's saying that there's anything wrong with 'practicing' atheism, or that you must prove atheism before doing so. It's not that it's arrogant to believe in one fewer god, it's arrogant to assume that that's the default position. Or at least, it sounds awfully similar to fundamental theists. "My belief is the default position, you must prove your position or you're wrong."

Exactly. I happen to believe that I am right in saying there are no gods. But it would be wrong to say that us atheists have proof or the right to claim we are right given the lack of evidence to support other beliefs positions.

EDIT: db, does science say anything about anyone's "purpose in life and relationship with the universe?" And unless by common beliefs, values, and rituals, you mean the scientific method, I don't see how science has any of these. Science is a process, not a belief system. Science doesn't have any values, it's supposed to be unbiased, right?

Well "science" has lots of different things to say about our purpose. I think we can probably say that we do not actually have a purpose other than spreading our DNA. The best matched DNA to the environment does the best job of this and so passing the DNA on to the next generation. Agreed this is not as romantic as we are here to serve Gods will until our time ends and we pass on to his eternal love but frankly if his love was so eternal he might like to show a bit of it while we exist here.

[daftbeaker]

No, no, no, no. First of all, are you really claiming that these are all things that science says? And not merely conclusions some people have come to and some other people have agreed on based on using the scientific process?

They're things that science is. I was trying to point out that that definition is open to interpretation. Showing that using that science is defined as a religion should hopefully show you that that definition is not particularly good.

purpose of life to survive and reproduce Science says that's the purpose of life? Or is that simply what life does/how it operates?
That is the purpose of life, to survive and reproduce. How it does it is a lot of rather complicated biochemistry and biology.

and the universe current theory as I understand it suggests it arose through the non-zero energy of a vacuum, the posiitve energy of matter being balanced by the expansion and consequent negative energy of work against gravity. The Universe must expand for life to exist, You make life sound exceedingly important. It sounds like the universe is expanding such that life will exist, rather than life happens to be able to exist because the universe is expanding, which is simply a statement of facts rather than a statement about why the universe exists
If the Universe was not expanding, life would not exist to observe it. The Universe must expand for life to exist.

especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine this bit doesn't matter for the discussion of 'religions without gods'. Hey, we're discussing wikipedia's definition here, not mine. Ubi brought this one up this time, not me. Besides, things can be sacred, holy, or spiritual without involving any deities.
Ubi posted it in response to Roy asking about religions without gods. I assumed that we were using it when discussing religions without gods.

Many religions have narratives evolution, solar system formation, the triple alpha process, symbols the microscope, DNA's double helix, the panda for wildlife conservation, the nuclear, biohazard and chemical warfare signs, traditions peer review, academic squabbling and sacred histories Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Dalton that are intended to give meaning to life an explanation of who we are, how we work and how we got here.That's an explanatino of what we are, how we work, and how we got here. Doesn't give any meaning. Do all people of the "science" religion treat the lives of Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Dalton similar to how Christians treat the lives of Jesus, and the saints? Also, on the subject of symbols, those all have practical meanings, they don't give any meaning. Seeing a radioactive symbol makes me worried about the radiation, it doesn't make inspire any sort of religious feeling.
I get a lot of meaning from understanding our place in the Universe. Just because it's not 'true' for you doesn't mean it's not 'true' for everyone I think if you take saints as people that believed strongly in their religion, did things to further their religion in their life and are looked upon as excellent examples of the way to behave then yes, it fits. Also, I don't get any religious feeling inspired by a crucifix but it makes me worried there might be a group of Jehovah's Witnesses around.

They tend to derive morality altruism, kin selection, survival of a society benefiting all, ethics see morality, religious laws thou shalt not falsify experimental data or a preferred lifestyle try to understand reality from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature it's better to do experiments and find the truth than make crap up. Is that really an idea about the entire cosmos and human nature, or just an idea on a better way of figuring out what's true and what isn't?
Same thing

I'll add that you seem so desperate to class atheism as a religion that you're constructing a definition to that end. Generally you start with the hypothesis and do an experiment to see if it works, not define the result you want and construct a theory around it. That's creationist science

First of all, since you haven't seem to have picked up on this, I'm not longer playing with that idea. Also, your sentences seems to indicate that atheism and science are somehow interchangeable, which is interesting. You can probably clear up what you were trying to say, though.

First, well done for not trying to call atheism a religion Secondly, I was referring back to the earlier points when I was trying to explain the difference between atheism and science. They're not interchangeable in the slightest. I am currently being a bit obnoxious and trying to show the Wiki definition is so broad that you can claim science is a religion. Can't do it with atheism unless you expand the definition to be 'some sort of thought about whether gods exist or not'

And if you think about it, I was working in the proper order. Instead of coming up with a definition of religion and trying to fit everything into it that I wanted, I was looking at what I thought might be considered religions, and thought to see what they all had in common making them religions. I knew atheism was a tricky one, which is why I focused on it, because that's the only one I had any question about.

Didn't look like it from here but I'll leave that one.

You are probably already aware of this, but perhaps it's worth mentioning that Religious Studies isn't a science

Fixed

Edit - Another bit on the symbols. When I see something like a radiation sign, merely by looking at that sign I know that nearby uncountable numbers of atoms are disintegrating and rearranging their structure, converting mass to energy and creating new elements. That sense of wonder that something I cannot possibly see I can still comprehend thanks to science? There's your 'religious feeling' right there

Edit again - If I follow the Makka Pakka view then I'm going to belong to more religions than I can count For a start, I am an arabbitorbitingMercury, arabbitorbitingVenus, arabbitorbitingMars, arabbitorbitingJupiter, arabbitorbitingSaturn, arabbitorbitingNeptune, arabbitorbitingUranus and an arabbitorbitingPluto. That's just rabbits and our solar system and I haven't even started on the Kuiper Belt Objects yet