Discussions

"My question is, in the last 3400 years, reasearch has told me the world has only been at peace for 268 days, or 8% since being recorded, or at least from the research I've found."  
 
3400 x 365 = 1241000  
268 ÷ 1241000 = .0002%  
0002% is significantly less than 8%  
 
If the rest of your "research" is on par with your math then I would have to dismiss any conclusions out of hand.  
 
Just for giggles, I gotta ask how you concluded that the world has been at peace for 268 days precisely.

Religion is the benchmark of bias for our globalized existence. However, even in its absence, I suspect that humans would find something else to scrap over.  
 
Such seems to be our nature. The only thing we are better at than scientifically advancing ourselves is finding newer and more creative ways to segregate one another into groups.  
 
Likely yet another trait leftover from life in a hunter-gatherer culture that conflicts with modern-day life.  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2020-01-16 09:32:22

I am glad you are doing research, it shows you care about religion, and origins. We all have a desire to learn these things, although some people start too late in life and get sidetracked by things deemed more important throughout their lifetime. We first have to define the term religion. If religion is defined as a belief about the past that cannot be proven, then yes, everyone has a religion. Atheism fits into the category of religion as well. Agnosticism even is a religion.  
 
When talking about science, if you take a predisposition of naturalism, that the processes we see today are exactly how processes have worked for the entirety of the time the universe has been around, then you can extrapolate to atheism. So, start off with the assumption that no God has done anything ever in the universe, do some research, and you can conclude that no God has done anything ever in the universe. Pretty simple, right?  
 
I believe an honest look at the data without a predisposition of naturalism would lead away from Atheism. What would I expect to see if the world/universe was created by a God? I would expect to see God's signature in certain things:  
 
A universe that is fine tuned for life to be possible on earth. Maybe things like the size of the sun, the size of the earth, the amount of water on earth, the relationship of certain elements on earth, the rotation of the earth, the moon's specific orbit, Jupiter's size and location, the laws of physics being precisely set to allow for life on earth.  
 
Also I would expect life itself to be over-engineered to have a signature in it. The discovery of DNA has shown us that indeed, that is what we see. Also, there are many intricacies to the systems in the body that have no function unless they are complete. Look at any study of the human body (or any other living thing), whether it is how hearing works, how vision works, how the circulatory system works, muscle systems.. everything is so intricate, needing all of the parts to work together.. seemingly "designed". This is the tip of the iceberg on that topic, but to top it off, we then have sexual reproduction, so now with a naturalistic predisposition, you have to believe it started off with asexual reproduction and some strange mutation created a male and another mutation created a female at exactly the same time and the same place, so that they could find each other to reproduce.  
 
Then I might also expect to see a world with so many organisms relying on each other, like a circle of life. Taking one thing out of the food chain makes big impacts, and imagining one life form surviving on its own is tough to fathom.  
 
I would also expect to see proof that the universe has a beginning. This is what we find, and we have to ignore naturalism to explain that.  
The pursuit of science is important, and if you have a predisposition that there is no God, you will in fact come to the conclusion that there is no God. I have found, though, if you really look at the world surrounding you with an open mind, that is not where you are led to.

.... does not fit into the category of religion and your attempts at justifying your beliefs are uninspiring and border on ludicrous.  
 
An “honest” look at the data is unlikely if you are willing to accept anecdotes and feelings as evidence.  
 
It’s one thing to have an open mind, it’s another to have a mind so open that reason falls out.

Spaghetti Monster, atheism is in fact a religion. It is a *belief* that there is no gods/God. It has emotional & passionate, devoted adherents. It has physical schools of teaching, via its own preachers (professors & laymen) trying to convert others to their way of thought & philosophy (often through bullying and not being open to other ways of thought), in universities and through written & visual media. It is generally based on biased observations, and from what I observe, often a great deal of hate & close-mindedness toward others that don't agree. Most atheists only regurgitate what they have been taught (sometimes with cliche-like sayings), and don't really question them, but have never put their own beliefs to the test themselves.  
 
These are many of the same criteria that atheists use as ammunition against those who do believe differently. To say that it isn't a religion is not accurate when considering these points.  
 
Edited by Flutterby, 2020-01-16 12:51:34

..... is not a religion. It is not anything. It is a term that is actually not even needed. Just like we don’t need a term for those who don’t think there is enough evidence to support the existence of the boogie man. The aboogiemanists?  
 
My assertion is that the belief in any god is delusional as there is simply no good evidence to support the notion .  
 
By your standards, those who argue about the merits of Fords over Chevys also are a religion. As would be fans of sports teams, supporters of political parties,  
 
You are an atheist about all or almost all the possible gods that have been espoused. I assume you also don’t believe there is any good evidence for the existence of the flying pink unicorn, or Russell’s teapot, and leprechauns.  
 
I also assume that if there was sufficient good evidence proving the existence of any of them you would then be a believer.  
 
That’s where I am. I have not seen or been offered or directed to anything that represents good evidence for the existence of any supernatural thing or entity.

I do not believe the original post is really a question. I think it was worded as a question but more of a statement of his belief rather than really wanting an answer or they wanted to engage in a dialog to push his belief. I enjoyed the responses.  
the comment "how is that working out for you? " supports my comment. in reply to that part....perfect, loving life and living it to the fullest. no regrets, doing my thing because it is perfect for me. that is regardless if I believe or not, since that is such an individual choice.....

I have to cut in here, because the way in which many atheists defined atheism used to annoy me to no end. I'm long past that stage now, but I still feel a need to move some wind whenever I see it come up. As futile as the exercise almost always ends up being.  
 
First off, religion.  
 
On its face, atheism indeed does not constitute a religion in itself. Atheists are not inherently members of some ironic cult. Though they tend to behave (as a cohort) quite similarly yet identify irritatingly individually ("What do you mean, mainstream atheism?!"), the conclusion is not inherently religious.  
 
Can the term apply?  
If we are using the full definition of the term (including "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"), then yes. It CAN apply, but it is not automatically applicable.  
 
Atheism is often made out to be a religion by the believers projecting themselves onto their opponent. Hardly surprising (you use what you know). However, in most cases, it is just a belief. Nothing more, nothing less.  
 
It's too much of a stretch for me, at this point. Though I started my secular journey as an agnostic atheist, I've settled on the stance that is "I don't know".  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2020-01-16 14:25:21

At its most basic, a religion is simply a system of faith and ritual. A higher power of some variety may or may not be present depending on how one chooses to define a religion. For example, very few people would argue that Catholicism isn't a religion, whereas some people argue that Buddhism isn't a religion because there is no belief in a god.  
 
If one goes with this bare-bones des:cription of a religion, then yes, even radical religions are religions. If there is a belief in higher power and a set of rituals related to it, it is religion. If one has a belief in God, say, but doesn't participate in the rituals, I wouldn't consider them to be particularly religious, but they do have a belief.  
 
I personally don't think that religion is inherently good or bad. It is a neutral concept. What makes it "good" or "bad" is the people who participate in it and how they use their religion as a tool to justify their actions.  
 
As for everyone's points about atheism, it is not a religion because by nature it is the absence of belief. It is in the title, 'a-' meaning absence of, and '-theism' referring to a belief in a higher power. It simply cannot be a religion because belief itself does not make a religion. If that was the case than someone believing in ghosts would be considered religious. There must also be ritual/worship involved, which is also absent in atheism.  
 
Edited by Millenial, 2020-01-16 14:24:53

You are conflating 2 different words there.  
 
I also have to question your assertion of bias at the hand of academic atheists. The slant of the inquiry is indicative of bias of its own.  
 
Bias . . . easy to spot. Except in the mirror.  
 
I've learned that lesson many times over the years.

I consider it a good thing when people question their beliefs and always to continue to search. Not only is it good for individuals but for science as well.  
When it comes to science I’ve been one that has accepted the idea of the Big Bang explanation, but not without question. The reason I mention this is in a way we looked at it from a finite point of view, in other words the beginning of everything, but in the last year or so questions are being raised about light waves traveling at different speeds as well as different directions as originally proposed.  
What does this have to do with religion, it shows that it doesn’t matter which side you are on, one must continue to search. There are many things in life that we do not give much thought to until we experience something that does not fit.  
There are some things that have happened in my life, and some of them recently that would defy science, yet they have happened and do have witnesses.  
One thing that has always made me curious has to do with doctors, why do people who are professionally trained, and much of it having to do with science, belong to churches.

Yeah I go to my Atheist church every sunday.

On your last point, just because someone is trained to treat people using science, does not mean that they cannot have a belief in a higher power that makes it all possible. A scientific education and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive.  
 
Science seeks to explain how various parts of the universe work. That being said, nobody can really say with certainty that there isn't a higher power out there that make the gears turn.

The discussion as to whether Atheism can be labelled a religion is purely based on what definition of religion you choose to use. Some definitions of religion allow for the inclusion of atheism, some do not. Unless we reach a general consensus as to the definition we we all adhere to, the discussion as to whether Atheism can be included cannot be had.

It’s not. I couldn’t care less about any religion. I prefer to live my life and enjoy it rather than waste it away worshipping some fictional being who “works in mysterious ways” while causing mass suffering all across the planet.

When I mentioned doctors it was because over the years I have seen many discussions on this topic, not just on this site but other sites that are very large and have members from very large areas. What shuts many of these discussions down is when people resort to ad hominem attacks on peoples education.  
I enjoy discussions like this because people do share, and regardless of whether a person has beliefs and a religion, or do not believe, it gives anyone the chance to question their own beliefs. I hope that all people understand the importance of life, and how special it is. We are no different than any species on this planet, the continuation of any species is the ultimate goal of any species, but our species has the ability to change so many conditions that affect our species that should enable us continuance.  
By beliefs do not look at suffering as something cause by anyone other than ourselves, and anything that helps relieve suffering is seen as a good thing, be it science or religion.  
The comment that if we weren’t fighting about religion we would be fighting about something else is so true.

The claim atheism is not a religion is a reasonable claim. however, to suggest that it is not a belief just because it defines itself as a lack of belief is illogical. It is true that an atheist has a lack of belief in a deity, however, it is also true that an atheist does believe that deities don't exist. They do not know that definitely but believe so based on certain reasons. Those reasons could be backed up by evidence (note: evidence is not proof in itself), logic, feelings, groupthink, or the education and philosophy of the day.  
It is impossible for science, as conducted today to find proof for the existence of a God. God is described as a supernatural being. science attempt to explain everything in purely naturalistic terms. Therefore, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, because science does not attempt to look for or explain the supernatural. When science can not explain a phenomenon, they will come up with reasonable theories to explain those phenomena as placeholders until they can come up with a better explanation. Often the general public will not even be aware of the controversies happening in a specific field.  
For people of faith, science does not disprove God, but simply explain the Creation more fully. For example, Christians believe God created Adam and Eve as full-grown humans. According to Christianity, when Adam was 1 day old he was a full-grown human. The same concept is believed for the entire creation. Namely that the first trees, animals, rocks, stars, starlight ect. were created mature at creation. Yet every one of those entities has a life cycle that every future o:bject will have to go through to develop (babies being born, tectonic cycle, star formation ect). Because of this concept of mature creation, Christianity and Judaism, are both religions that science can do little to ultimately disprove. But science does not even attempt it since it strives to come up with naturalistic explanations for everything and by its very nature rejects the supernatural without consideration.

... does not reject the supernatural without consideration. Science simply seeks to discover how / why / if etc through peer reviewed experiments.

A) And then there's the agnostics, who are generally reviled by both the deists, the theists and the atheists.  
 
B) Calling atheism a religion, just because it's a system of belief or a position held by some, is much like calling climate change denial a religion. A system of belief is not a religion - although many efforts have been made by many to make various beliefs tax deductible.  
 
C) I'm just now re-reading "The God Hypothesis" by Dyson. You can tell by the title what his position might be, but the book provides an excellent overview of all of the issues. I recommend it, whatever your religious or secular beliefs might be.

I can agree with that. Definitions are very important. It is good to learn what other people think & why. Questioning, if searching for truth (I guess this needs a definition too), is always a good thing.  
 
Bias, if you consider that as has been mentioned, plays a huge part in which definition you choose...of course it does! All of us are influenced by bias of one sort or another, from whatever source or type, so full agreement between two opposing sides will never happen.  
 
Now, I have a question...what if what a person discovers is based on solid evidence backed by many sources, even not of their own belief system and it points to one seeming conclusion? How does a person deal with that if they run across it? Investigate further, believe it blindly, or ignore it? I would hope further questioning would be the way to go. Solid proof, if discovered evidence is pointing in one clear direction, should certainly be pursued. I have no argument with that either. Just taking someone's word for it? That is dangerous. I will say that the majority of religious people do not question & will emotionally defend without investigating their beliefs further. That is common.  
 
These types of debates (or fights, in some cases), whether religious, political or otherwise, do not generally end with any concrete conclusion being drawn. Generally, the people that participate have set ideas and nobody is "won over," as some try to direct a debate. In its basic form, a debate is to present evidence for opposing views, not necessarily to win. I have never cared to listen to debates (usually they are dull to me). I know some like them though, and all the power to them if they can bring up points of view and keep it civil and not have it de-escalate into personal insults & a fight.  
 
I hate fights. They are designed to have a winner and a loser, almost always at any cost. Emotions can get involved...& that is never good. They result in hurt & other damage, not in progress. There is nothing to gain.  
 
I'm not sure how this post might affect discussion here, but I am finding this discussion interesting so far. I will be looking forward to how everything develops.  
 
Thank you all for a discussion to this point and not pushing for a fight.

Can you explain your position on this further:  
"evidence is not proof in itself"  
 
Definition please!

I appreciate where you are going with this. Even the notion of an interaction is open to what definition of discussion you are using. I look at interactions as being discussions, debates, arguments and fights with each having a distinct set of rules and intentions. Two people discussing religion and using two different definitions of what the term means are bound to disagree and fight while those using the same definition are more apt to discuss and debate even if they disagree on general content.  
 
I also agree with you that it is important to keep an open mind and critical thinking when presented with something that appears to be solid and irrefutable. Meaning has always been bound by context while context is boundless.

Is that we need to be happy. Religious, atheist, it doesn't matter how much each group wants to argue against the other. People choose to believe what they want. Just don't violate anyone's personal space, don't hurt anyone, don't kill anyone, and do not harm. That's all that matters. It literally means nothing to have a "philosophical" debate (really, it's just a cop out because someone is offended and wants to argue with someone else). If you don't agree with the other person, guess what, that's your problem to deal with not theirs. If they don't agree with you, it's their problem, not yours. Quit arguing, move on, be happy. We all have a rough life, we all struggle, we hold our own hopes. We all die a miserable death. Just enjoy the day, eand don't be a jerk to each other. Like John Lennon said  
" whatever gets you through the night, man".  
 
Edited by brianathome99, 2020-01-16 17:35:16

Evidence is the material or facts used to support a position.  
let's say you saw your friend drinking from a Tim Hortons cup. You could assume he received it from Timmies after driving there and picking it up. That hypothesis could be based on the fact that he is holding a Timmies cup. That Tim Horton cup is evidence, but it isn't proof. Maybe he has Tim Horton cups at home and its homemade coffee. Maybe he got a friend to pick it up and he himself didn't drive to Tim Hortons. One could collect more evidence to support the hypothesis. Evidence such as seeing him climb out of a vehicle with the cup could support the hypothesis he drove there himself. If you saw someone hand him the cup it could be viewed as evidence against the assumption that he went to Tim Hortons.  
When the accumulation of evidence rules out any other explanation than you have proof. If the evidence does not rule out all other possible explanations, then you do not have proof, but you may have a strong/weak case depending on how plausible the explanations are given the evidence.

Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. CS Lewis

Thanks. That helped clarify your meaning.

..  
 
Edited by Hey!, 2020-01-17 13:00:06

It seems like some of you people weren't paying attention in school.Evolution has the science behind it it people.Believe what your teachers taught you.

If there was no NFL there might be less Atheists.Lets stop here before religion starts another war.

Science can answer many questions but science often gets updated or disproven at a later date. Sometimes a study or paper turns out to be plain wrong. But it’s the best that we have. Teachers tend to teach a narrow curriculum ( it's what they are told to do) often out of a text book. Kids need to learn that they can question a lot more than they are being led to believe. As long as people don’t believe every crack pot uncensored theory on social media.