Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndsee
Sometimes i think that atheism..because it's a belief in nothing.
But then again Athiests don't practice anything.
Definition:
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Athiests don't do devotionals, rituals.
So Idk. I'm kinda on the fence about this..
|
However, it is "
esp." and
"often" containing those things -- it is not EXCLUSIVE to those things. Certainly certain beliefs require more of a"practice" so to speak, however, a practice is not NEEDED to define religion. Religion is: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." That's it. If you contain a set of beliefs concerning to cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, you are religious. Perhaps some will disagree saying, "But certainly not everyone belongs to a religion." I disagree. Everyone, no matter who you are has a belief regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Even one who says, "I don't know my belief regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," has a belief regarding it. What is ones belief? It's that they don't know. It's a subcategory, yet even a lack of knowledge is a belief. Let me show you what I mean...
I hold up a picture of the color green. I ask one person, "What is the color of this picture?" They respond, "Green." I ask another and they respond, "I don't see a color to the picture." These two both disagree about the color of the picture. One says green, the other says he does not see a color. They have a belief concerning the paper, one believing it's green and the other believes there is no color and therefore it is a belief. I ask another, they respond, "I am uncertain about which paper you're holding and the color of it." This person has a belief. However, it's a belief of uncertainty. This is a belief that they don't know and is neutral, yet still a belief.
Another example:
I tell 3 people my name is Mike. The first person says, "I believe your name is Mike." The second says, "I don't believe your name is Mike." And the third says, "I am uncertain if your name is Mike." We will ignore the first 2 and talk about the third. This person says, "I am uncertain if your name is Mike." What is their belief? They believe they are uncertain. Uncertain about what? If my name is Mike. They have a belief of skepticism. Therefore, someone who does not know is still holding a belief, and in fact I would even lean more to saying one which does not know is more qualified to not believing. By this I mean many agnostics will say, I am agnostic/atheist. Meaning they do not know and since they do not know they don't believe. Therefore, not knowing is more qualified in a group of disbelief.
Regardless, every person has a belief concerning "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Therefore, this qualifies them into a religion, though they may not be practicing certain things within their religion. Yet simply exercising belief in something is in essence a practice.
Some may say, "Atheist base their beliefs off science and evidence." Yes, okay. I'll accept this. Yet you're assuming that data to be correct. Many scientists have been wrong in the past, certainly knowledge is growing you may say. I agree. But is knowledge full grown and if not how can you put your faith completely into "science." Another problem is you can have several people analyze a certain particular bit of evidence and come up with two completely different views of what that evidence truly portrays. By this I mean whoever you are, you have a particular set of "world lenses" so-to-speak. Therefore, when examining data you will see what you believe evidence tells that fits with your lenses, while another will see different data which fits with their lenses. One can interpret a fossil to be 6,000 years old, another can interpret it millions of years old... it all depends on your lenses. You may say you believe that evidence should be interpreted without biases yet in exercising a such belief you are holding a belief about how it is to be interpreted and therefore it is inevitable to hold a bias. Regardless, this philosophy is difficult to explain and does not serve much purpose to this thread.
The point is that you are exercising a belief in science and in doing so you create a belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the earth. A religion.
You may say, "I do not."
Well, in saying so you just admitted that you have a religion because you "do not exercise belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe," which is in fact saying you do hold belief in these in that your belief is you do not hold a belief in these, therefore you are a religion. Despite this might I ask, then what do you do? How do you think the universe got here? What is the purpose of the universe? What is the nature of the universe?
You may come up with your own answers for these or may say it's relative, or perhaps you may say you do not know. In each case you are answering the questions and therefore are qualified as a religion.
Lastly, according to world net daily a court in Wisconsin ruled atheism to be a religion. You can view that here:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_id=45874