[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Lizzie

It almost seems like people are just offended being associated with the word.

Possibly some people are because when one thinks of religion, generally worshiping something is associated with it and that's one of the things many atheists don't support. Some go as far as bashing such worshiping. The definition of religion that you gave is not what most consider to be a traditional one, myself included. Using your definition though, any single belief could be considered a religion, even if only the one person adheres to it so there is no uniformity.

Originally Posted by Darth Cara

I don't think it's a religion because a religion has faith. Athiests don't have faith there's no God really, they just don't believe there is.

Atheists do have faith and you just explained why: they don't BELIEVE there is no god. There is no proof they have against it (just as there is none for it) so faith must be involved. If there is no faith involved, then that means atheists have direct evidence supporting their claims. No such evidence exists, hence, it's faith-based. In fact, everything has some amount of faith, doesn't mean it's blind faith but there is some faith nonetheless. For example, suppose you go to a fast-food place and order a ham burger. You have faith that the burger isn't rotten and that the toppings aren't rotten. When you fill a prescription or even buy an over-the-counter (i.e. non-prescription) medication, you have faith that the pills inside the bottle are not the wrong ones and if they are the right ones, you have faith they'll work (assuming it's first-time usage).

Originally Posted by Invert

Just to put a spin on this.... atheism is like an umbrella term, like theism, ad underneth it fall quite large sects/dominations. Like the way they explain the universe, how they make their moral codes, how they should live their life. These are all things religion covers. And often, these rules are part of your ideological peer group. As in, a certain type of atheist will associate more with their own type, like with religion. For example you get scientific atheists, you get down right crazy (e.g. stuff about aliens making the world) atheistist, and so on. It'd be absurd admittedly to claim atheism is all one big consistant religion... But a religious denifition could probably be place on it in some way.

You have me a bit confused here because in a previous post you argued and provided a definition showing how atheism can be one big religion. You then provided an additional argument regarding its uniformity amongst people. So I'm a bit confused now as to what that definition and argument was for if it wasn't for atheism. From what I'm gathering, you're suggesting forms of atheism are likely to be religious but atheism in general is not religious. In other words, the sum isn't equal to its parts. I can live with that depending on the situations but your definition of religion comes back from my memory and it allows certain forms of atheism as well as atheism in general to be religious. I'm confused by this, can you please explain your position?

Originally Posted by Invert

You'd hope so, but even if a lot of them think they do, there's a good chance they still don't really get science and therefore arent really truely scietific at all?

True, it is a possibility however the scientific view isn't required to be adopted by atheists. It commonly is but even if it is without really understanding it, this same phenomenon of believing in something or adopting a certain mindset without fully understanding what it is occurs in other beliefs as well.

Originally Posted by Invert

For my last essay I read a lot of interesting stuff about reductionism and scientific objectivity. Don't get me wrong, they weren't religious, and they also weren't saying these were bad things. However it highlighted that the universe cannot be fully explained by simple objective study. As it breaks down everything into isolated parts, when its not. This is completely off topic, and I'll make a clearer thread about that. I just wanted to go off on one

Agreed, the universe cannot be explained by simple studies. If I recall, you're studying psychology. As a fellow psychology student, you're aware that psychology has many explanations for the same observed behavior. So if we cannot understand ourselves or "lower beings", then it's not likely we're going to understand an area that's all theory (i.e. theoretical physics).

Originally Posted by Invert

I don't think thats quite right, particularly among intelligent theists (yeah they exist). The approach is probably more linked with age and educational status then simply school of thought.

The ones that are more intelligent (only know a few, mostly through online forums) seem to adopt a view of being more scientific in a sense that they adhere to some reductionism by analyzing the individual parts of their belief (or other beliefs). But if one is to be entirely devoted to theism and no science, then even when they're older and more educated, they still take the theist approach Xujhan mentioned.

Originally Posted by Invert

I think the problem with the negative aspect, is, if you believe there is no God, thats the default of the world, thats not so much a belief, as just a way of life.

True but the same is said for beliefs in a god(s) so if there is a problem with it, then the belief in a god(s) shares that exact same problem. When things like this are essentially universal, then to me it's fairly useless to point them out as though they're unique to a certain group. If you can put a certain spin on it then by all means go ahead but stating a problem that's universal and a given as being unique is rather pointless.