The Religion of Atheism

religion (n.)
c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).


atheist (n.) 1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.)

theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.



Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary]

That is religion/atheism/theism. Nothing else. . For all the modern ideas in twisting words, their meanings still stand. Religion does, and always has meant the worship of 'god' - supreme being etc. When the idea of 'god/s' finally vanishes from the human intellect then the word religion will also be meaningless and vanish.

 

And how is this going to happen?

 

I believe that eventually science will be able to solve most of the mysteries of the Universe and dispense with the need for a 'god' creator. After all, when Artificial intelligence takes over the world they can create their own 'creator'. Of course, they might worship mankind who created ....... Never mind

 

Time and knowledge (science) are slowly doing it already....God probably has another couple hundred years at best.

 

It would be interesting to know what a religious experience would be like for a logic circuit. Reminds me of the medieval debate about how many angels you could fit on the head of a pin. Yes, they did seriously discuss it.

Maybe though the task ahead it to bring into existence again a new creator to replace the one who committed suicide through absolute bordom at the Big Bang?

 

Personally, I think the Big Bang was the creator destroying a previous 'universe' experiment that went wrong, and accidentally created this one. But I might be wrong.

 

Drop the "Creator" garbage and something gone wrong and you may be right...a bouncing Universe makes a certain sense.

 

Well that gave me a giggle but I immediatly wondered if you implied the God of the Bible for whom perfection is claimed. Experiments that go wrong? Accidental creation of our little corner? Although frightening I somehow like the idea of a muddle headed deity especially in the light of Genesis Ch1:V 27.

 

I was thinking more of the god of Kokomojojo

 

Actually your convoluted attempts are much more entertaining than the tiny groups of idiots you try to use to prove your silly claim that athiesm is a religion. But at least you have given up making up your own definitions of words.

 

You need more proof than the state of the world? Assuming of course acceptance that god was responsible.

 

I believe that poster is agnostic.. that is what he has said, iirc..

 

There is no conflict between faith and science. ..never has been. ..never will. The conflict that is evident in the public discourse is old fashioned religio/ideological bigotry. It is 'faith vs faith', not science.

Scientific endeavors have been going on for the entire history of humanity. People from all ideological beliefs can practice scientific, empirical research. ..even atheists. ..and even Christians, who were instrumental in the scientific revolution.

So the phony narrative of, 'Christians have religion, atheists have science!' Is nothing but an absurd propaganda meme, and is just religious bigotry on display.

Atheism is a philosophical construct, aka, a religion. It is not 'settled science!' or any such absurd claim of Absolute Truth.

Modern atheism is rife with religious bigotry. THAT is what is expressed in these phony 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame wars. At times it is returned, by butthurt Christians who are tired of being whipping boys for the Militant Attack Dog Atheists, but it is still just a promotion of the false narrative, and is still just plain old human bigotry.

 

One really cannot penetrate such an obviously false and strident statement. All you can do is shake your head.

 

I know. As an agnostic his 'god' is the god of the doubtful - 'indecision'

 

That makes no sense on any level.

 

The only justifiable conflict between science and religion comes when:
- science methodology is used to make statements about the supernatural and/or why we are here.
or
- religious methodology is used to make statements about how our physical universe works.

So, there very definitely are places where conflict can occur.

There are those who use religious methodology to declare science wrong about speciation, for example.

There are those who want to use science to "prove" there is no god, for example.

These are just mistakes - using the wrong tools, poorly defining the question, etc.

 

It wasn't meant to. It was a lighthearted comment.

 

I have noted most conflict or discussion come from two primary fronts and both involve the same players in general.

Debate instigated and involving the topic by Christians declaring Biblical stories to be reality based.
Debate or discussion due to a Christian debasing Atheism or calling it religion.

These situations almost force a scientific or rational response.

 

Those things are only used by the status quo, controlling manipulators, and religious zealots, from whatever ideology they come from.. INCLUDING ATHEISM.

They are the biggest offenders, imo, ..at least on the forums.. they are dogmatically intolerant, bigoted, ridiculing and mocking those they cast as 'evil enemies!' of their worldview.

Science is not the issue. Religious bigotry is.

But i agree that real scientific methodology is often misused, mostly by the controlling status quo, to exclude outliers.

 

You're sounding sadder by the day.

It's really not that bad.

But, I'll have to add that your claim that I said something about a "controlling status quo" is nonsense. That's ALL on you. I don't detect any of that. And, what is excluded by science is what is proven to be false.

 

I thought that was what you meant.. i added 'controlling status quo' to differentiate between actual scientific methodology, and mandated belief.

But perhaps you think it is fine for the elite to mandate belief in their 'scientific' decrees?

Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous ad hom in the previous post.. i might mistake you for a rational debater, otherwise!

 

No goofball, that sort of behavior is for religion, not science. You magical thinkers always think it is some sort of valid defense for your authoritarian methods and nonsense to accuse others of doing what you do, whether there is any truth to the accusation or not.

 

Unfortunately, this particular individual considers "The Elite" to be the enemy and by elite he means scientists and people who spend the time and effort to research in order to understand. Basically, everyone who does not agree with what he considers fact or science (which is clearly not scientific) is an elite snob that is unworthy of consideration by one of such superior intellect.

 

Well,he has no other tools in his toolbox, now does he? He is left with no choice but to use these charlatan's tactics, as reason and evidence fail him.