Religion and Atheism

[ecco]

OK, where do I get my tax benefits?

You start a church and keep all the money, without even reporting it much less paying any taxes.

The last I heard was that you had to hold services "regularly". That could be once on every solstice.


NOTE: The above is not intended as legal advice.

 

[ecco]

Anybody caring person/theistic deity who could prevent a child from getting raped, would indeed not allow a child to be raped. Therefore, there is no mighty caring theistic deity.

Think about this: Each human being is ca, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 percent the size of the observable universe. So then, there'd be little reason why any all encompassing powerful being should significantly care about any of us little ole' human beings.

Is that based on volume or weight?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For some of us, it is.

Yep, but to say that it is that without any qualifiers is the same sort of error as claiming that all Christians are Presbyterians.

 

[ecco]

I know God as being our genetic code's Creator. The numeric and semantic message of "037" that's been embedded in our genetic coding by our Creator gets conveyed to me who computes with a base 10 numeric system.

This is evident to me by how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us present day Earthling human beings with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_037_as_a_Base_of_Biological_CodingComputing

Oh well. I guess it was just a matter of time.

Out with Biblical numerology; In with DNA numerology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anybody caring person/theistic deity who could prevent a child from getting raped, would indeed not allow a child to be raped. Therefore, there is no mighty caring theistic deity.

Think about this: Each human being is ca, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 percent the size of the observable universe. So then, there'd be little reason why any all encompassing powerful being should significantly care about any of us little ole' human beings.

Your post appears to be fat shaming. What about those that are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 percent the size of the observable universe?

 

[ecco]

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinions..

No real need for the snark or indignation.

At this point, I thought there was.

 

[ecco]

atheism is not denying the existence of God.

For some of us, it is.

Yep, but to say that it is that without any qualifiers is the same sort of error as claiming that all Christians are Presbyterians.

The stated qualifier is "some". Just as in "Some Christians are Presbyterians.

 

[LuisDantas]

If legally, atheism is considered a 'religious belief', and it receives protection under the law, why change that perception in all other contexts?

If we list a set of 'religious beliefs', why should atheism be exempted?

If a theist, not a ritual following member of some institution, has 'religious beliefs', why are atheist's beliefs not religious? Are they not all an expression of an opinion about the universe?

It seems to me the only purpose of isolating atheistic beliefs from the 'religious!' descriptor is to use the term pejoratively.

Can you give me some examples of what you are talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The stated qualifier is "some". Just as in "Some Christians are Presbyterians.

I am not saying that you made an error. You had a qualifier. The OP on the other hand did not.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

By your definition, IF my lack of belief in any god or gods constitutes a religion THEN my lack of belief in magical fairies must ALSO constitute a religion. And your lack of belief in little green Martians is yet ANOTHER religion. By this definition every person alive has an infinite number of religions since there are an infinite number of things that everyone lacks a belief in. How is this in any way a reasonable definition of religion?

And I don't see why we would have to pretend that atheism is a religion in order to be protected under the constitution. Freedom to practice a religion must include freedom from having another religion imposed upon you.

 

[Sunstone]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

Atheists and theists both are usually intellectually arrogant. Not always though. But when they claim their unfounded beliefs are beliefs other people should embrace, they are being arrogant. It's not like either camp is asserting something they can prove.

There are days, I wish it were not human nature to be arrogant. This is one of those days. Most days, I think it's kind of cute that an ape thinks it knows anything.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is not believing in stamps, a belief?

Opinions and beliefs is the issue, not activities.

How is atheism NOT a religious/philosophical belief? Isn't denying the existence of God, just another belief about God?

Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Christianity
Wiccan
Atheism
Rastafarian

Are these not all beliefs about the nature of the universe? Should not atheism receive protection and acknowledgment as a 'religious' belief?

How is atheism NOT a religious/philosophical belief? Isn't denying the existence of God, just another belief about God?

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. It is NOT an assertion that no god or gods exist.

Atheism is a response to an theist claim. Since theists are not saying they think that MAYBE it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be a god, but rather that they think that there definitely IS a god, the atheist response isn't to the question: Do you think that MAYBE it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be a god. It's in response to the question: Do you think that a god DEFINITELY exists.

 

[syo]

Is atheism a religion?

Atheism is an abrahamic religion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheism is an abrahamic religion.

*blinks*

*blinks again*

 

[ecco]

*blinks*

*blinks again*

Can you blink and roll your eyes at the same time?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can you blink and roll your eyes at the same time?

I doubt it. If I could, that post would have done it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I prefer 'philosophical belief', as it loses the negative connotations of 'religion!'

And it seems to me that the term has become a pejorative, to demean the opposition.

What does it mean, to call someone, 'Religious!'? Do they bow to mecca 5 times a day? Go to mass? Believe in Wiccan ideas? Hold to a vegan diet? Practice yoga? Type daily on opinion forums?

I think theres a lot of overlap between religion and philosophy (even go as far as to say all religion concerns itself with philosophy but not all philosophy concerns itself with religion) but that the terms aren't interchangeable. Philosophy is about asking questions but it not necessarily about finding answers. Religion is a ritualized practice which concerns itself with finding answers, especially about human purpose and the afterlife, in front and center.

As for making religion a pejorative, I'm not interested in doing that nor agree when it's done by other irreligious atheists, just as some Christian theists don't appreciate it when other Christians say 'relationship, not religion.'

That said, I'm also not interested in the exchange where I say 'I'm an irreligious atheist' and someone else says 'you're an atheist, therefore religious.' It's a bad faith argument trying to turn percieved pejorative language back on people by relabeling them. That's not a good debate that will go anywhere good.

 

[Salvador]

Oh well. I guess it was just a matter of time.

Out with Biblical numerology; In with DNA numerology.

".Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that, From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user Andy Shepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined. Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities. In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most probalby resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases." - Maxim Makukov

Reference: Wikipedia Talk Panspermia Talkanspermia - Wikipedia

 

[KelseyR]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

 

[KelseyR]

I think theres a lot of overlap between religion and philosophy (even go as far as to say all religion concerns itself with philosophy but not all philosophy concerns itself with religion) but that the terms aren't interchangeable. Philosophy is about asking questions but it not necessarily about finding answers. Religion is a ritualized practice which concerns itself with finding answers, especially about human purpose and the afterlife, in front and center.

As for making religion a pejorative, I'm not interested in doing that nor agree when it's done by other irreligious atheists, just as some Christian theists don't appreciate it when other Christians say 'relationship, not religion.'

That said, I'm also not interested in the exchange where I say 'I'm an irreligious atheist' and someone else says 'you're an atheist, therefore religious.' It's a bad faith argument trying to turn percieved pejorative language back on people by relabeling them. That's not a good debate that will go anywhere good.

Atheism is definitely not a religion. And etymology be damned. A religion provides an explanation for how eternal life of a worthwhile nature is indeed possible. Atheism does not come close to doing this. However, an atheistic religion IS possible to construct along these lines.