Di Agnostic (love the name BTW), Atheism is the absence of belief in a god. Not the assertion that there is no god. I don’t believe such a god exists, either. Therefore, I stick dogmatically to atheism.

I find your statement:

“can atheism provide the same comfort and support that religion does?”

rather irrelevant and perverse. Why should athiesm provide comfort and support? Athiesm isn’t a belief, it’s a LACK of belief (in a supernatural diety). Hence there is nothing that could provide support.

That’s not to say that Atheists can’t believe in themselves of course. But that’s not a religion, that’s just common sense.

Frankly I’m a little offended that you call athiests a ‘movement’. It seems you are trying to lump us in with a religion. If you count the people in the world, I’m sure the majority are actually athiest (most people in China are for example). However, just because we don’t rant and rave about it like religious people do, people forget about us.

Again: Athiesm is a *lack* of belief in a diety. Remember that and you can’t go far wrong.

simplified i believe God created the universe with a history and all the creatures in it, however that does not stop the creatures from changing over time tho i believe the process of evolution to be much much slower than most people believe taking trillions of years not billions. i don’t believe the big bang theory for many reasons most simply are the facts that the gravitational pull of the staging area for the big bang would be so grate that there is no way any thing would escape its grip and would kill all life up until that point however it was created if there was life at all, then explode creating a new universe, and life simply does not regrow out of molten rock especially after being compress with equal or greater force than that of a black hole it just does not happen, that and the fact that matter it pulled in would have to come from some ware and one of the basic laws of science is that matter cannot be created or destroyed( except of coarse though fusion in which case it is destroyed) and then there is the reason Steven Hawkins believes there is a God since the laws that govern the universe just don’t pop out of nothing.

NOTE: when i refer to evolution i mean macro not micro(tho in a more complex way than what radical atheists try to jumble into one big evolutionary pile to keep them selves from rebuke by others)

Case closed.

Atheism is indeed a religious position (I.E. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods) but it is not a religion in of itself.

Agnostics the knowledge that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

so from a theological point of view and put simply:

Atheists should hate god and agnostics don’t care - oh, and a good atheist? by who’s definition?

Theism is a religion, atheism is a lack of belief in ALL theistic/deistic religions.

interesting article though.

Theists dont have a particular Dogma except that they believe in the existance god(s) and have faith to support such beliefs

Atheists dont have a particular dogma except that they believe in the non existance of god(s) and support such with reason/logic(science?)

Dogmas come from the subsets of the two

Theism is more institutionalized therefore having seperate sects (Christians, Muslims..)
Atheism is mor individualistic so each individual makes their own rules

But overall..
Both concern religious Ideas and are of equal catagorical status so if you call one a religion the other must be as well.
but if you only consider the subsets as religion then those under Atheism could be considered as individual religions

You’ve forgetting some of the most important ways we can know things: evidence and the weight of probability. You’re saying that if you place a ball on the table, leave it in a sealed room, and come back to find it on the floor, you’re a member of the :”religion” of Gravity. Both the things you mentioned are evident from processes which are observable and ongoing today.

Even if there WAS no observable evidence to support them, were you around to see God create the universe in 6 days? Why don’t you apply the same standards of evidence (that you have to personally be around to see things for them to have happened) to that? Even without the massive supporting evidence theories like evolution and the Big Bang have, these theories would still be on par with any religious explanation, save they were far more likely to have happened.

“simplified i believe God created the universe…”
Good for you. Do you have ANY evidence to back it up? No? Well, I believe *I* created the universe, last week, on a Tuesday after tea. Any crap I can make up without evidence is just as legitimate as whatever crap you believe without evidence.

“i don’t believe the big bang theory for many reasons most simply are the facts that the gravitational pull of the staging area for the big bang would be so grate…”
Oh, wow! You’re right! Cosmologists forgot about GRAVITY! Duh, why didn’t they think of that? Oh wait, they did, and you need to go read more about the Big Bang theory, and how it already takes into account any scientific or pseudoscientific arguments you’ll manage to come up with. It’s a robust theory, and if you *did* manage to disprove it somehow, you’d earn a place in the history books, so good luck with that.

“Steven Hawkins believes there is a God…”
Stephen Hawkings doesn’t believe in a God the way you believe in a God. The God physicists use as a rhetorical device is an analogy FOR those immutable laws of the universe, not for some big guy with a beard who watches you when you masturbate.

On the topic of a creator, deist god, he says things like

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”

“One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics.”

or

“It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.”

Hawking is clearly quite ambivalent about God - he’s not generally willing to stir up controversy by going into it directly. He clearly seems to think that the question of whether there is a God in the *deist* is entirely unanswerable - he’s agnostic in that regard, though obviously an atheist in the theist one. (I.e. he says he doesn’t know if there’s a God that created the universe and buggered off, but he’s fairly certain there’s no God in the theist sense, in other words a big bearded man who answers prayers and can violate the laws of nature.)

On the agnostic/atheist divide, “agnosticism” is a relatively new term. Atheism doesn’t mean that you’re 100% certain there’s no God, it means you’re convinced enough in the unlikelihood of God that you can live your life as if there is no God. Agnosticism is when you’re truly on the fence - Agnostics believe there is no way of knowing (thus the name “agnostic”) either way, and consider the balance of probabilities to be equal. I can’t be 100% CERTAIN that there’s no Toothfairy, but if I lose a tooth, I’m not going to bother putting it under my pillow in the hopes for the magical manifestation of money. That doesn’t make me “toohfairy agnostic,” it makes me a “toothfairy atheist” - this is the historical definition. Do you really think that people went from 100% believers to 100% disbelievers before Huxley coined a new term in the 19th century? There are very few people who would claim to be 100% certain there is no God, because unlike people who are 100% certain of God’s existence, Atheists tend to be people who examine and weigh things like evidence, proof, and probability in forming beliefs. If God got off His Holy Heiny, and provided some evidence of his existence that isn’t obviously the manifestation of some naturalistic process, most Atheists would be happy to admit he exists (assuming the evidence is proportional to the claim.) People tend to gravitate towards “agnosticism” because they misunderstand the meaning of the term to be that which many of the people here think it is - an active *disbelief* in God rather than a position that the evidence does not legitimately support a belief in God. There is also less of a social stigma to the term “Agnostic.” Agnostics never got burned as heretics because the term hadn’t been invented yet the last time the followers of the One, True Faith (All 10,000 of them - faiths I mean, not followers.) did things like that regularly.

Let’s examine two statements.

“There’s an invisible gorilla behind you.”

“There is an invisible gorilla behind you, and that gorilla is God.”

Why is the first statement open to investigation (and prompt dismissal) while the second is not? The core of the issue is that investigating the second will OFFEND those who cling to belief that there really is an invisible God-gorilla behind them, because they know that any investigation will promptly show that there isn’t one there no matter what powers they invent for the invisible Gorilla in order for it to be able to escape detection. (We know the Gorilla has those powers, because if he didn’t have them, he would have been detected by the tests, and since no tests can detect him, and we know he IS there, he must have all sorts of fantastic powers.) If you make statements about the nature of the universe, we are entitled to investigate those claims. PERIOD.

I hate to burst the collective bubble of so many, (well, not really, I actually love it dearly) but the measure of truth is in evidence, not in how much you want something to be true, or how much of a hissy-fit you’ll throw when people show it isn’t. If we didn’t violate peoples’ sense of offense in the pursuit of truth, then most of you armchair theologians would be dead right now, because most of the advancements we’ve made that have kept you alive have offended someone at some time or another. (Most especially in the field of medicine, where superstition and magical thinking has resulted in the deaths, or at the least prevented the prevention of the early deaths of BILLIONS of people.)

You could absolutely mount a challenge to evolution without being labeled a religious nut. However, you would have to mount that challenge without being a religious nut, which is a situation that has not been forthcoming.

The fact is that evolution is such a robust, elegant theory which has been confirmed again and again experimentally and observationally, that the only people who *want* to challenge it right now *are* religious nuts.

Science is full of instances where we’ve had to fundamentally rethink ways we think the universe works. That’s what separates science from religious dogma: science goes where the evidence is in pursuit of truth. People point out these reverses - things like the abandoning of the Ptolemaic model of the universe, for instance - as circumstances where science has been wrong and they say “gee, well maybe science is wrong this time.” And they’re right, maybe science is wrong this time - but it’s by far the best we have. Their problem is that they immediately go on to say “well, since there’s a slim chance they’re wrong despite all this observable evidence, maybe this thing I made up is right, despite it bring contrary to all this observable evidence.” That’s just dishonest, and that’s the religious nuttery that has been behind every major attack on evolution in recent memory.

The foolish thing about Agnosticism is that they say “because you can’t know X for certain, for absolutely certain, then we can’t know anything, and all beliefs are equally probably to be true,” That’s simply wrong. We can’t know ANYTHING AT ALL for absolutely certain, and if Agnosticism wasn’t just an intellectual cop-out to avoid the tough questions, a true Agnostic could happily do things like step off the edge of a 20 story building, because they of course can’t know for CERTAIN, absolutely CERTAIN that they’ll fall to their deaths, and therefore the probability of them falling or magically growing wings is equal.

And creationism is already taught in schools. It’s studied in various literary and bible-study courses, and in classes on ancient myths, etc. The problem is that they want it to be taught in science class, whose job is to teach people what’s real, and what can be proven. Public schools teaching kids that magic exists, and if they really want something to be true it is is tantamount to child abuse. If you want to study religion, go ahead, but call it religion, and teach it as “this group of people believe X.” Bold-faced lies to people in an environment where they expect to be taught truth to the best of human knowledge is disgusting, irresponsible, and runs contrary to the fundamental purposes of both science and the public school system.

Atheism isn’t a belief system. It’s a belief: just one. Guys like Dawkins have their own, and quite well developed belief systems based around Atheism, but Atheism is no more a “belief system” than “polytheism” is a belief system: you can form a belief system around it, but its definition is too simple and too broad to make a system out of.

Take Buddhists, for example. They’re atheists, but you’d be hard pressed to say they subscribe to the same belief system as Richard Dawkins.

“I believe being agnostic is a cop out only to the extent that it lets one get on with science without having to worry about constantly having to defend oneself from religious types or for that matter when one dares to question the sacredness of evolution or any other scientific theory from atheists.”

The strong showing of Atheism right now from people like Richard Dawkins is largely a response to the threat from religious nutters, be it the ID/Creationism people trying to push that nonsense into science class, or the extreme religious right doing what they always do. Being quiet about defending empirical truth from superstition and magical thinking doesn’t make you less vulnerable, it just means western civilization will fall without a fight. Dawkins can be tactless: I think on an individual basis, it’s unwise to attack peoples beliefs openly, it just makes them cling more stubbornly to them. The nice part about science is because its beliefs are self-evident, logical and repeatable, it stands on its own. Someone willing to give it consideration will end up there eventually, and those who aren’t willing to consider things like reason and evidence are so far gone that there’s no use in talking to them anyway. However, picking apart such belief systems in a public forum does more good than harm, I think: the individual you’re savaging with your fancy reasoning and logic and observable phenomenon may become more entrenched, but it gives an opportunity to tear open the lies-masquerading-as-science the fundamentalists throw around to trick people who just haven’t heard better into thinking there’s basis for their beliefs, or at least evidence against the ones the fundamentalists find offensive. I want as many people to know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has precisely ZILCH to do with the evolution of complex organisms, for example. These things need to be out there and accessible, and put in front of the people who don’t know about them.

“I do however, reserve the right to challenge even the most sacred of cows if new evidence came to light not because it throws doubt into the whole atheism thing or gives hope to the faithful because I don’t care what either side makes of the truth.”

As you should. The problem is that in some cases, such as with the ID crowd, they keep trying to come up with problems, each of which needs to be individually addressed. I mean, how many “irreducably complex” systems have they come up with to “disprove” evolution, ALL of which have been shown not to actually be reducible? The eye, the wing, the flagellal motor, blood chemistry, etc etc etc. They bring up the nonsense, it’s bashed by someone who know what they’re talking about, and they come up with something else. That’s not debate and discussion, that’s intellectual whack-a-mole, and eventually you just have to ignore the asshats and get back to discovering NEW things rather than explaining old discovering to people who don’t WANT to listen to them. These guys make theories like evolution unapproachable precisely because they associate attacks on it with idiots like them.

“I mean if a question is unanswerable what is the point of studying it. ”

How do you know if a question is unanswerable unless you study it? Every time there’s been some great mystery which has supposedly been unanswerable: from the origins of the universe to how Egyptians managed to get blocks up the pyramid, given enough time and enough smart people examining it and reexamining it, we’ve pretty much always been able to answer the unanswerable questions. There have always been people who have said “no, you can’t look at this, it’s sacred and secret and a mystery,” and thankfully, we’ve always ignored them (eventually, and when they stop killing you for trying) and have always discovered something far more amazing, beautiful and awesome than the fables and fabrications that used to be told about it. These things are all the more incredible because they’re REAL.

It would be a horrible irony if there really was a supremely wise, eminently powerful being in the universe, but we didn’t find it because of religious nutters, wouldn’t it? If you’re RIGHT, then science will only variate your beliefs. It’s only if you’re wrong that you have cause to fear reason and investigation.

So the 3 components are there: 1)a supernatural belief system to explain the natural world and human suffering; 2) a community to create the social order and to control behavior;
and 3) the sacred or “spiritual” and emotional level which explains the range of religious faith within individuals (from weak to strong…sorta like coffee).

Atheists (or secular humanists, like me) do not belong in the religious box…and I would argue that atheism is not a “social movement” in isolation but instead an outcome of modernization, secularization, and liberal, Progressive economic and political philosophies.

I would like to think of us as a community of freethinkers but we certainly don’t have aspects of “sacred objects, beliefs, and rituals” which define religion and the religiously faithful. Therefore, atheism is not a religion. (Though I have heard disparaging terms like “evolutionists” and “Darwinists” and the like from religious opponents over the years. As if Charles Darwin is our Jesus….ha. )

Karl Marx considered religion a “false pursuit”. In Marxist terms, religion functions to keep the powerful in power and to keep the powerless oppressed. It makes promises of a better life in the afterlife. But Marx failed to take into account how religions can also promote universal brotherhood and human rights….he underestimated the strength of populism combined with humanitarian values. Like when Catholic bishops in Latin America fight against political repression or Latino Churches in the U.S. provide a legitimate path for citizenship and a better life for new arrivals to our cities and towns. The only welcoming face in a strange and hostile town becomes the priest! The comfort of the ritual kicks in. The sense of belonging.
And the civil rights movement in America depended on faith-based activism….walking the walk, not just talking the talk of conservative and moderate Christians.

As for the criticism I’ve heard toward Richard Dawkins, I have to disagree with Di Agnostic…love that screen name, by the way….I think Dawkin has legitimized atheism. Taken it out of the closet, so to speak. I really admire him and his efforts to show that atheists are not immoral, unethical, or hateful. He is a great spokesperson…not an embarrassment, in my opinion. Why shouldn’t we debate and discuss the existence of religion? Why can’t we criticize it openly?

re•li•gion
–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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one’s errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

OK, let’s look at the definitions above… (pulled from Dictionary.com)
#1 - The “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” could certainly apply to atheism, except that atheism doesn’t deal with the purpose per se, and it isn’t especially concerned with supernatural being… so I’d say by the primary definition of religion atheism wouldn’t qualify.

#2 & 3 are actually more suited to atheism, as they both speak to a set of beliefs and practices (belief in evolution and scientific method of testing would be considered belief and practices would they not? just because you have evidence for something doesn’t mean it isn’t belief).

#4,5,7,8, & 9 are all not applicable to atheism

#6 however, “something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience” describes an awful lot of atheists (*cough*Dawkins*cough*). Which is where I think my conclusion is going to come from.

Atheism isn’t a religion, but neither of theism, they’re just a belief. But, the groups of people which comprise those who hold both beliefs (in an existence or non-existence of a god) contain religions. Listening to Dawkins speak annoys me nearly as much as Falwell and his ilk because he comes across an evangelizing preacher for evolution and athiesm (complete with the same smug self-righteous “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude, no matter how well or ill founded that attitude might be). I find the “we’re just fighting to not be snuffed out by” arguements interesting, because as AnnoyedOne points out when he used it, the Dawkins crowd feels the religious “nutters” are trying to snuff out science, and the religious “nutters” use it because they feel science is trying to snuff them out. And to be fair, there are a few recent books that basically say “religion is evil, athiesm is good, we should do away with all religion”… just like there have been religious books for ages saying that science was trying to kill god and their religions.

For my part, I think what TheGoodAthiest concludes with is the salient point. Humans have a sociological need for community (and CS Lewis would say it comes from God, and evolution would say it comes from those people who worked well in communal groups having a better chance at surviving over the mellinia). Because of that need there will almost certainly be religions for a long time to come. There is no church of athiesm per se, and because there isn’t some ritual (we’re all a little OCD in that we like ritual) and community involved within the “athiest movement” it’s going to primarily draw people who don’t have as high a dose of that socializing gene. So if you’ve got people who need people going to church in higher numbers than not… I think there’s a pretty good chance those people are going to breed (and breed more) than those who are discussing man-sized scorpion claws being discovered over the internet.