<p>^ You can’t be “against science” or “against religion”. You can be against a science or a religion.</p>
<p>Tolerance only goes so far. If I knew that a volcano was about to erupt underneath New York City, I would certainly not be expected to “keep it to myself”. Whether I would be justified in forcibly removing all the people from New York is doubtful.</p>
<p>MosbyMarion - no way. You can totally be against organized religion as a whole. Religion as a whole. I’m at least halfway against it.</p>
<p>^ You can be against organised religion as a whole. But you can’t be against religion as a whole, since even atheistic nihilism is a religion of its own.</p>
<p>^ You’re wrong. Atheism is NOT a religion. It’s the lack of belief. And as a side point, I think theistic nihilism is more common than atheistic nihilism since many acts throughout history were done in the name of religion. Thats indisputable. But name one instance where acts were committed because of the absence of religion. The statement that religion makes you moral is a total myth.</p>
<p>^ “Nihilism” is the belief the no standards for measuring value exist, that one state is not “better” than another. Nothing is ever justified by nihilism.</p>
<p>Atheism (or at least atheism in the sense it has been used in this thread, “naturalism” might be a better term), IS a religion. It is a belief about the “why” and “should” of existence, namely the belief than no “why” or “should” exists, and that all states of existence have the same intrinsic value of 0.</p>
<p>^ Depends on what you define religion as. Some define it as the belief in god/gods, and others define it as a way of life. The latter would probably be how you would define it, whereas the former describes atheism as not being a religion.</p>
<p>MM - your take on atheism is a complete strawman argument. NOWHERE is atheism describes as you make it. More of your dishonest drivel.</p>
<p>Read this: [Atheism</a> is Not a Religion - Skeptico](<a href=“http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html]Atheism”>http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html)</p>
<p>The basic message is that THE LACK OF BELIEF IN SOMETHING IS NOT A RELIGION. Like the article says, its like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Thats it. Defining it as anything more is just plain dishonesty.</p>
<p>
That depends on how actively you don’t collect stamps. If you just toss away the envelope, then okay, it’s not a hobby. But if you carefully cut out the bit of the envelope with the stamps (or soak the envelope in water to remove the stamps) and then destroy it by cutting it up (or with fire), then I’d say it’s a hobby.</p>
<p>Aw man I hate this argument lol. It makes me nervous when people bring up controversial topics like this or when people ask my religion. If I happen to have the same beliefs then everything’s A-OK but if i don’t it gets awkward and I feel like they won’t be my friend anymore or even worse, shoot me or something because we believe different things. Same with politics. Science is a little easier to discuss because you can’t really disagree as much unless it’s like “do you believe asteroids killed dinosaurs” or something, but it doesn’t usually turn into a heated debate.</p>
<p>
Hahaha, this is excellent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I define religion as “beliefs about the intrinsic value in things or states of existence”.</p>
<p>Religion is the means by which we say something is “good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”.</p>
<p>If Atheism is not a religion, then what is it? It is certainly not a science.</p>
<p>^Reducing religion to the morality of religion is a bit narrow IMO, but Kant would probs support you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Atheists don’t have to assign an intrinsic value of 0 to all states of existence…We’ve already discussed this, atheism != nihilism. Under an atheist’s assumption, morality could very well be an individual characteristic, and this individual’s morality determines the value of all moral acts or existent states.</p>
<p>The fact that individual moralities could conflict and result in chaos is the reason for society and it’s mesh of individual moralities into a societal moral code.</p>
<p>^ The problem is that IMO nobody truly believes that. If humans are intelligent enough to understand that “morality” is just an individual characteristic, why aren’t they intelligent enough to not expect others to follow their “individual” morality?</p>
<p>Atheism is a religion! Much like how not smoking is a habit.</p>
<p>^ Nice satire and analogy. </p>
<p>MM- I don’t agree with that definition because most of philosophy is religion too then. </p>
<p>Atheism isn’t religion, philosophy, science, or anything really. There is nothing about atheism that says that X is good or Y is bad. </p>
<p>Is not believing in Santa Clause a religion too?</p>
<p>Capitalism is the “belief” in the intrinsic value of a privately owned means of production. According to your definition capitalism is a religion as well. Your view is so overgeneralized that it takes ideas from other realms and labels them as religion.</p>
<p>^ In that case, Atheism is to Religion as Ignorance is to Science: it makes no claims about anything.</p>
<p>Except that it does make claims: It claims that Religion is “bad”.</p>
<p>Not believing in Santa Clause is Science: it is a statement about something that is, was, or will be.</p>
<p>Saying that is is wrong to believe in Santa would be Religion.</p>
<p>Capitalism is Science, it states that privately owned production leads to greater wealth and/or justice. The belief that wealth and justice are good things to have is Religion.</p>
<p>There are ignorant people who are also good at science.</p>
<p>Atheism in and of itself does not claim that religion is bad. </p>
<p>Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe</p>
<p>So “Saying that is is wrong to believe in Santa” is not a religion. Nor is “The belief that wealth and justice are good things to have”. Those are philosophies.</p>
<p>^ Well, use whatever terms you wish. “Religion” by your definition, isn’t something you can argue for or against.</p>
<p>Has anyone argued on the notion that only minor subsets of religion contradicts results yielded by pragmatic researches? Unless religion as a whole explicitly asserts that science is voodoo, there’s really no way to make any comparisons.</p>