mrstickball said:
The_vagabond7 said:
mrstickball said: SciFi -
Do you realize that the average atheist (and I'm talking the average of the millions that are self-declared atheist) give much less of their time to volunteerism and charitable giving? Just because you do it does not mean your the norm.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that you volunteer, because it's an awesome thing. But you must understand that what you do is well outside the norm of your religion.
|
Do not make me go get my stick.
|
Atheism is a religion. It still follows the definition of a theistic religion, although being opposed to theism.
Here's M-W.com's definition of religion:
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
What is being religious?
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
If you are a practicing atheist, your still holding onto a pattern of beliefs, having faith in something (science), and given to it's cause (arguing there is no god). If you look at the word religion, it's a dedication to a pattern of something. Although we perscribe it to a belief in God, that is not the prerequisite for the word.
The opposite of religion wouldn't be someone that is godless, but one that lacks a system of belief (regardless of what that system is), and puts their trust in nothing.
|
There are so many things wrong with that.
By your definition any lack of belief results in religion. I am an anti-santa-ist. I act daily in accordance with the belief that the number of presents I get on christmas is directly correlated to my good to bad deed ratio. That is not a religion.
There is no "dedication to a pattern of something" with atheism. Science is not a faith, it is the opposite of faith. I do not put "faith" in science to do anything, or save anyone, and I don't inherently believe it without evidence which is the opposite of faith.
The goal of science is not to argue there is no god, science could care less about god. In peer reviewed journals they are not talking about how such and such disproves the existence of god. God has nothing to do with science. My goal as a person has nothing to do with proving or disproving a god. I do not evangelize door to door about the lack of god.
Buddhism is an atheistic faith. There is no god in Buddhism. But not believing in a god doesn't make me buddhist. I would have to ascribe to certain rituals, traditions, and specific philosophies to call myself a "buddist". This is a dogma. Not believing in god doesn't have any dogma. If you take me and 10 other atheists in a topic there are not going to be any more ties in our beliefs than if you took 10 people that don't believe in santa, or ten people that don't believe in unicorns or and put them in a topic. There is no common string that binds atheists other than a lack of belief in something.
Nothing you said in that post makes sense.