Is atheism a religion?

[dogsgod]

Religions exist because people have a tendancy to form them. They get all high and mighty about their prescious superiority and so called 'truth' and form a institution around. People will begin to label themselves and create division. Religion does not mean belief in a god. It's something people create as part of self expression and identity development. It can easily happen in the scientific context. Heck, we've already been shown examples of it on this thread.

Some people have a tendency to distance themselves from religion, it is not for everyone. I thought we were way passed the notion that religion does not mean God. I'd like to know of a religion that can happen in a scientific context. Physics texts are sacred?

 

[Alceste]

Some people have a tendency to distance themselves from religion, it is not for everyone. I thought we were way passed the notion that religion does not mean God. I'd like to know of a religion that can happen in a scientific context. Physics texts are sacred?

Taoism can be an empirical practice. Yeah, there is a "folk religion" version of Taoism with Gods and rituals and fancy outfits, and bizarre customs, shrines, etc. but the serious practitioners - the hermits living in the mountains - are engaging in a fundamentally empirical pursuit of knowledge. The "religion" of Taoism is nothing to them. They practice tai chi, chi gong and meditation all day. Not to mention acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, philosophical study, calligraphy, and gods know what else.

You might find their form of empiricism un-scientific, or "supernatural", but it's drastically different from anything we would call "supernatural" in the West. For one, many of their practices have actual physiological and psychological effects that are measurable in the context of Western science. So, rather than being a "supernatural belief", Taoism is a method of empirically, subjectively, holistically investigating nature that is radically different from the Western, reductionist, materialist objectivist approach - but still compatible with it.

My two bits.

 

[dogsgod]

Taoism can be an empirical practice. Yeah, there is a "folk religion" version of Taoism with Gods and rituals and fancy outfits, and bizarre customs, shrines, etc. but the serious practitioners - the hermits living in the mountains - are engaging in a fundamentally empirical pursuit of knowledge. The "religion" of Taoism is nothing to them. They practice tai chi, chi gong and meditation all day. Not to mention acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, philosophical study, calligraphy, and gods know what else.

You might find their form of empiricism un-scientific, or "supernatural", but it's drastically different from anything we would call "supernatural" in the West. For one, many of their practices have actual physiological and psychological effects that are measurable in the context of Western science. So, rather than being a "supernatural belief", Taoism is a method of empirically, subjectively, holistically investigating nature that is radically different from the Western, reductionist, materialist objectivist approach - but still compatible with it.

My two bits.

Yes, I would describe it as un-scientific and yes, it does involve the supernatural and magical thinking. Belief in God has effects as well on the believer, nothing new here.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, I would describe it as un-scientific and yes, it does involve the supernatural and magical thinking. Belief in God has effects as well on the believer, nothing new here.

There is no belief in god for these Taoists. In fact, there's no belief in anything for many of them. Also, the effects of many taoist practices are measurable using the western scientific method.

Zhuang Zi said: "Right is not right. So is not so. If right were really right it would differ so greatly from not right there would be no need for argument. If so were really so it would differ so greatly from not so there would be no need for argument."

Does that sound like a "believer" to you?

If anything, you are much more of a "believer" than Zhuang Zi. You have faith your perspective is the correct perspective, and that all other perspectives are false. Zhuang Zi believed his own perspective was false, and so were all the others - probably.

 

[Madhuri]

Some people have a tendency to distance themselves from religion, it is not for everyone. I thought we were way passed the notion that religion does not mean God. I'd like to know of a religion that can happen in a scientific context. Physics texts are sacred?

What if some people begin a following around Darwin, like a Fellowship of some sort and make him a idol. They could make his works their 'scripture' so to speak and proclaim that Darwin is the Truth, Darwin is the Way! It could happen, hypothetically. As long as the people and society label it as a religion, then it is one.

 

[dogsgod]

What if some people begin a following around Darwin, like a Fellowship of some sort and make him a idol. They could make his works their 'scripture' so to speak and proclaim that Darwin is the Truth, Darwin is the Way! It could happen, hypothetically. As long as the people and society label it as a religion, then it is one.

If people became superstitious about Darwin, I suppose that could happen. That describes religion and nothing you describe has anything to do with science.

 

[Madhuri]

If people became superstitious about Darwin, I suppose that could happen. That describes religion and nothing you describe has anything to do with science.

Why not? Evolution is a scientific theory. If Darwin's writings are about evolution then his followers, in their 'fellowship', will follow a doctrine of evolution. These people would identify themselves as a a group like any other religion but claim 'truth' and have the typical religious 'us' and 'you' mentality.

 

[dogsgod]

There is no belief in god for these Taoists. In fact, there's no belief in anything for many of them. Also, the effects of many taoist practices are measurable using the western scientific method.

Zhuang Zi said: "Right is not right. So is not so. If right were really right it would differ so greatly from not right there would be no need for argument. If so were really so it would differ so greatly from not so there would be no need for argument."

Does that sound like a "believer" to you?

If anything, you are much more of a "believer" than Zhuang Zi. You have faith your perspective is the correct perspective, and that all other perspectives are false. Zhuang Zi believed his own perspective was false, and so were all the others - probably.

We're past the belief in God as a requirement for religion. The Taoism you describe requires magical thinking such as the practice of tai chi and chi gong.

 

[dogsgod]

Why not? Evolution is a scientific theory. If Darwin's writings are about evolution then his followers, in their 'fellowship', will follow a doctrine of evolution. These people would identify themselves as a a group like any other religion but claim 'truth' and have the typical religious 'us' and 'you' mentality.

OK, but if these wackos followed Darwin for whatever reason and developed a doctrine of evolution they would not be doing science, they would be doing religion.

 

[Alceste]

We're past the belief in God as a requirement for religion. The Taoism you describe requires magical thinking such as the practice of tai chi and chi gong.

There's no magical thinking in tai chi or chi gong. In fact, there's no thinking period. Only doing. And the doing has empirically measurable effects that happen to be the effects predicted by masters of the forms. Studies have been done. The results are in. Tai chi works as advertised.

What is it you think I think when I practice tai chi? What is it you think I believe?

You seem to have your heart set on maintaining the irrational and unsupportable belief that all spiritual practices involve a supernatural element, when so many of them (i.e. all natural religions, including certain apophatic sects of Taoism and Buddhism) clearly don't.

 

[Madhuri]

OK, but if these wackos followed Darwin for whatever reason and developed a doctrine of evolution they would not be doing science, they would be doing religion.

Exactly!!!
But they would not have belief in anything supernatural, see? It would just be a crazy cult around Darwin's discoveries. A weird community with new rules/laws and social norms based on their ideas of reality. They might see evolution as the end all and make their moral decisions based solely on ideas of evolution (ie/ survival of the fittest. Maybe they will set up interesting courting rituals including fights between men for example). Or anything else, I'm obviously just writing fro mthe top of my head.

But the point remains that a religion does not -necessarily- have to have a supernatural element even though traditionally it has but this would have a lot to do with the fact that scientific explanations were not available until recent history (or that the supernatural actually exists and was percieved but that isn't for this discussion).

 

[Magic Man]

Name one.

Well, we could go for the obvious in Buddhism. If you'd like I could give you some more, but I'll assume that'll be good enough.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, we could go for the obvious in Buddhism. If you'd like I could give you some more, but I'll assume that'll be good enough.

Karma involves the supernatural and so does becoming enlightened by sitting under a tree, not to mention rebirth.

 

[dogsgod]

Exactly!!!
But they would not have belief in anything supernatural, see? It would just be a crazy cult around Darwin's discoveries. A weird community with new rules/laws and social norms based on their ideas of reality. They might see evolution as the end all and make their moral decisions based solely on ideas of evolution (ie/ survival of the fittest. Maybe they will set up interesting courting rituals including fights between men for example). Or anything else, I'm obviously just writing fro mthe top of my head.

But the point remains that a religion does not -necessarily- have to have a supernatural element even though traditionally it has but this would have a lot to do with the fact that scientific explanations were not available until recent history (or that the supernatural actually exists and was percieved but that isn't for this discussion).

This is a straw man argument.

 

[Willamena]

This is a straw man argument.

That's the point.

 

[Smoke]

If you go by the broadest definition of the word religion, the answer is in fact, yes. Here are some of the definitions i got after looking it up in several places.

Wikipedia - Religion, a set of beliefs generally about life, meaning the ultimate purpose in the universe.

allaboutreligion - The sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe.

thefreedictionary - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Despite the fact that these definitions were obviously cherry-picked, none of them describes my atheism. None of them describes atheism in general, either.

Frankly, it's just plain absurd to assert that atheism is a religion. Nobody would make such an obvious mistake about theism. Christianity is a religion. Islam is a religion. Asatru is a religion. Theism is not a religion. People get that. It ought to be just as obvious to anyone with any sense at all that atheism is not a religion, either. The question would not even be raised by informed and intelligent people.

Now, i'm fully aware that atheists tend to have different beliefs, and yes i know i didn't put in all the other definitions of religion in there as well. i just didn't think that was necessary. So of course, we would have different sects, right?

Maybe we would, if atheism were a religion. In fact, we do have atheists who belong to religious sects -- Buddhists, Unitarian-Universalists, Jains, and others. As a Buddhist and an atheist, I consider it both dishonest and insulting to be told that atheism is my religion.

 

[Smoke]

All religions do not believe in a god or the supernatural.

Some religions don't require you to believe in anything at all. Christianity and Islam are so hung up on telling people what they must believe that people who are surrounded by Christians and Muslims sometimes forget you can have religion without dogma, and religious beliefs that are not considered either mandatory or certain.

 

[Smoke]

Yes, I would describe it as un-scientific

So what? There are many worthwhile things that are unscientific. Art, literature, sports, and participation in RF, for example. It is not necessary for our every endeavor to be scientific. It's enough to be open to science, and free of dogma that precludes such openness.

 

[dogsgod]

So what? There are many worthwhile things that are unscientific. Art, literature, sports, and participation in RF, for example. It is not necessary for our every endeavor to be scientific. It's enough to be open to science, and free of dogma that precludes such openness.

True, but that wasn't the point. Some were claiming that some religions are science based, I was saying that they were un-scientific.

 

[richardlowellt]

i can tell when i've been beaten. and when i look, i pretty much agree with your assessments. though, rojse, coming in and calling my thread a joke, when i am not treating it as such is neither pertinent, nor productive. i was told by someone that atheism is a religion, so i started actually looking at definitions, and i started reading too much into it, i guess. either way, i concede to all of your overwhelming logic. I can't argue with you guys when i find myself agreeing with you. I was just trying to play devil's advocate. You know, figure out the truth?

Hey look, an open minded Atheists, good for you, maybe some of you close minded religious fanatics can take a lesson on how productive an open mind can be.