
This isn't anything to do with that wacky tax-exempt status for religions, is it?
Moderator: All Things Mods
DavidH wrote:You can't prove an unrestricted negative - e.g. that there is no god.
Tigger_the_Wing wrote: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?
DavidH wrote: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.
Roy Hunter wrote: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?
wikipedia wrote: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.
Ubi Dubius wrote:Roy Hunter wrote: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?wikipedia wrote: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.
Tigger_the_Wing wrote: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?
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'
Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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?
wikipedia wrote: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.
daftbeaker wrote:Under that definition science is a religion. Also, Ubi Dubius, are you religious?
Ubi Dubius wrote:daftbeaker wrote:Under that definition science is a religion.
No, it isn't.
daftbeaker wrote: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
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'
Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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."
Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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?
Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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?
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:daftbeaker wrote: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.
Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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.
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:You are probably already aware of this, but perhaps it's worth mentioning that Religious Studies isn't a science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests