In that case atheism also has origins. Yes there can be religions without deities but no religion without a belief(s).

You're so cute.

So then, if that's true. If there can be no religion without beliefs, what's it say about Atheism that has specific things it does not believe, that are diametrically opposed to what religions do believe in?

No such thing as a mutually exclusive opposite.

Also christianity and buddhism also has specific things in which it does not believe in. Well Hindusim is diametrically opposed to what some organized christian groups do and same with buddhism, they too are diametrically opposed to what many christian organizations do. Same as astheism is diametrically opposed to what some theist and anti-theist organizations believe in.

It is still all belief. It is all religion comparing itself with other religion.

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

Msn encarta.....Are you jsut bored Bravey LOL...

You have just confirmed it for me. Many atheists (though not all) have beliefs and opinions concerning existence and nature. They dont think it is divine but still have their own views on the big questions of life.

Such as what other than they don't have a diety......

everyone has a viewpoint on life ect but its not relgion....

So what are you saying Athiest is still a religion or not??? LOL

and what is the orgins story of atheism?

you can not call on any scientific theory that will cover such a broad classification.
you can not call on any religious theory that will cover such a broad classification.


Please do show.....

(just to show the difficulty you face, here is a quote from wikipedia on atheism)

Simple, atheism has its origin in the revelation of human reason. You saying atheism is exempt from origin???????? Or are you saying that atheism is eternal in which it has no beginning and no end? I can accept the latter because it makes more sense than the former.

All view points on life is a religion. Whether it be a supernatural one or not. A persons beliefs and disbeliefs all constitute their personal religion.

Actually atheism has it's origin in theist religion. Because atheism is more about not believing in God from theist religion.

Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument.

---Chuang Tzu

I guess we are all right here in this argument.

I am saying there is no origin story, sense there is no story to have an origin for!

other than to say its foundation is in humanity itself, as not believing in supernatural powers preceeded believing in any kind of them.

And are you saying that you cant have a religion that believes in a doctrine that has humanity as itself being the foundation?

athiesm according to Msn encarta "unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities.......

if one says I'm an athiest it just means they don't beleive in a diety..

But you still do have beliefs which constitute for a religion. Buddhism doesn't believe in deities yet are religious.

no, just saying not believing in supernatural powers preceeded any beliefs in supernatural powers.

ex) before the wheel was invented, nobody believed in the wheel

There is such a thing as mutually exclusive bipartition of elements.
You said: " Actually atheism has it's origin in theist religion. Because atheism is more about not believing in God from theist religion. " Then, by that definition of Atheism, implicit atheists negate your observation entirely.

There is no such thing as a mutually exclusive opposite. I dont think there was ever a time we didnt believe in the supernatural. No civilization has ever been founded on atheism. And as far as I know all tribal peoples around the world of different beliefs and unbeliefs always held a supernatural element in them.

Atheism is the same except minus the supernatural element. It still qualifies as a religion.

I don't consider buddhism religious in the sense you are inferring, its an idea that is shared but practiced according to the individual, i love the ideas of Buddhism some of them , but they are simply ideas that you apply see wher eit takes you.... ....Beleifs are personal truths i personally have few beleifs that I would not be willing to let go of... I jsut don't observe athiesm to be a religon nor did i practice it in that fashion.....


Wth is the point of this anyways lol

Not negate my observation entirely just the supernatural part. It still qualifies as a religion.Also with an element only exists because of it's opposite which is compound. Again there are no mutually exclusive opposites.

?????? You dont understand your own self. Buddhism is simply ideas? An idea can be said to be a belief as well. i.e. one's ideas on bringing up children. Buddhism is a religion. And in what way am I inferring buddhism as a religion? Explain that first.

Even so a mutually exclusive bipartition of elements isn't a mutually exlcusive opposite. If so explain.

lets take kids as the analogy, ideas are jsut that ideas i apply them, i have a core beleif or guidiing beleif or objective, guide in uncondtional love as I understand it with the awareness that this will grow as i do as i am always in a state of evolving.... 6 months ago i had a whole different core beleif idea...
6 months from now another....I just defined buddhism as i practice it, one thing is for sure I'm gonna change....thats a beleif a personal truth..... none of this is a relgion...why not..your post will show us how you are inferring buddhism as a religion...

Buddhism to me is an open minded religion that is open to change. The buddhist religion is about a practical philosophy that can help man overcome suffering. I have never said that buddhism is a rigid belief system. Though like all religion can be subject to that and there are some sects that are quite rigid. But buddhism in general is a beautiful religion also because no war has ever been fought in it's name.
Go back and look where i have inferred buddhism in general as a rigid belief system (it still is a belief system) and you'll find no evidence.

Brave i had an impression that maybe you may of thought that, so i used the word"inferrred' specifically as i wasnt' sure, thanks for clearing that up..

whcih brings me to another point you said "rigid beleif system" as in relgion, so how can athiesm be a relgion????? and why aren't you as open to athiesm as you are with buddhism as the other 'religion" you are alludiing too..... ...jsut curious??

advanced civilizations, no. that is because in order for there to be the time for such civilizations to be developed, there had to be long-running binding elements to provide stability (there is your religion).

before these civilizations rose, we had more primative beliefs,
before that, we had the primative of "creating order",
before that we had a lack of belief in such order,
and with that, we had no attributions to "higher orders".

higher orders are a primative.
explcit atheism is the product of the continual development of mankind.
an appeal to authority was needed to get us to where we are,
but we no longer need that appeal to proceed further.
this is why we are living in a period of change,
as society progresses from being controlled by these long-running elements,
to more rapidly changing paradigms,
under which, the surface will become more stable, but the roots of society will change far, far faster.
(day to day life will essentially remain the same, but the views that people hold will adapt to new knowledge with greater rapidity)

think of it this way,
we once did not have fire,
then we had fire, but we could not start fire readily ourselves.
then we discovered ways to start fire ourselves, but still relied on inefficient methods as we did not fully understand fire.
now we can start fire with greater efficiency through optimized fuel mixtures (rather than relying on fuels as naturally found).

Just as we no longer have to wait for fire to be ignited by nature to have it,
we no longer have to appeal to mystical authorities to hold our societies together.

(it is rather recent in man's history that we even developed the ability to realize the voice we hear in our heads is self-generated and not something external talking to us).

Excellent awareness Doc, you said that beautifully, Bravey this is a great teacher.... a wonderful articulater of concepts< i have learned so much from doc and have becoem richer for it......he really understands this stuff.....its a gift he's on the board... back on topic....

I call atheism a religion for the same reason I call any belief system a religion. And that reason being that it is a belief system. Not believing in a deity is an essential factor in the atheist ideaology. Hence why I put it under belief system and in turn a religion. Also The humanist manifesto is essentially atheist yet is an attempt to organize these beliefs, just like the organized ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA INC.
So we have witnessed that athesim too is subject to organized belief just as much as theism is.

and yet you keep invoking it in this war of words.

The difference in concepts and definitions...the source of much strife in the world.

Bravey what are the beleifs of this athiestic idealology? There is no diety what else ???


hey rev *waves*

I have a friend who doesn't believe in God or religion. In general I consider him to be atheist but he considers himself non-theist. He has some very interesting reasons for believing this way.

He calls himself non-theist because he feels that atheists have a fairly complex antigod and antireligion belief system. He feels that by calling himself a non-theist he is not acknowledging god nor religion, and therefore not declaring opposition to something that doesn't exist. To him, making a declaration of opposition against god would be admitting that god exists, even if only to other people. He also doesn't talk about it very often, preferring not to think about the idea of 'god' at all.

I suppose one could argue that god does exist to other people, so atheism would be an 'opposition of the beliefs held by other people of the existence of god'. Or that if you define what you believe based on what other people believe that is a form of religion in itself, but I really don't think so.

I believe that atheism is basically nontheism. Some atheists have a huge interest in talking about god because other people believe in god, and those beliefs in god can influence other people's lives in ways that they don't want to be influenced. So it's not a religion to me, it's a form of protection against other people's religion, especially when it interferes in politics, war, school and other places it doesn't belong.

And why is it that the long-binding elements were expressed through supernatural expressions? Why wasn;t it natural for us to be anti-theists? Again there is civilization advanced or no that was built on atheism.

We had no attribtutions to order in genral than what our instincts gave us and because of this lacked the intellectual discrimination between atheist and supernatural thought. And that is only if evolution is true.



And how do we know that if atheism was well established that changes would not come along that led to supernatrual beliefs again? Hinduism can be considered the same, as Gandhi points out religion too can be subject to a change of paradigm : Hinduism is a living organism liable to growth and decay subject to the laws of Nature. One and indivisible at the root, it has grown into a vast tree with innumerable branches. The changes in the season affect it. It has its autumn and its summer, its winter and its spring. It is, and is not, based on scriptures. It does not derive its authority from one book. Non violence has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism.



Mystical authorities were never coercive in their authority, hence one of the attractions to it. There is a big difference between mainstream religious dogma and mysticism. Buddha was never forecful with his beliefs, Ramana Maharshi is the same he was indifferent whether people came to see him or not. People more often than not seek the mystics out and not vice versa.

The taoist mytics were known for never trying to be in the limelight. Mystical authority is never forceful, infact it is indifferent to whether it is taken notice of or not.
I have never said people must appeal to mystics to hold our society together and neither do the mystics. It is often said by people who arn't mystics because of the powerful wisdom the mystic expresses.

From the atheist foundation of australia:

The Atheist Foundation of Australia recognises scientific method as the only rational means toward understanding reality. To question and critically examine all ideas, testing them in the light of experiment, leads to the discovery of facts.

As there is no scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena, atheists reject belief in 'God', gods and other supernatural beings. The universe, the world in which we live, and the evolution of life, are entirely natural occurrences.

No personality or mind can exist without the process of living matter to sustain it. We have only one life - here and now. All that remains after a person dies is the memory of their life and deeds in the minds of those who live.

Atheists reject superstition and prejudice along with the irrational fears they cause. We recognise the complexity and interdependence of life on this planet. As rational and ethical beings we accept the challenge of making a creative and responsible contribution to life.

Here are some more "what elses" for you

uhma, interesting , yea its getting to complicated , athiesm was never meant to be this serious its just a moment in the evolvement of a life few stay athiest, ito me it was a repose, a place to begin the journey inward, the door , a step in a direction possiblty the first moment of free thinking., of true questioning...IMO

You are right there rev. I give up.

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beautious mankind is!
O brave new world,
That has such people in't!"

I agree with you. That's why I said what I did in the very last paragraph of my last post. I start to feel like I'm in a maze when I think of it the way I described it in the first few paragraphs...

psychics don't force their methods on others either, yet even in the face of evidence proving them frauds people will follow them, support them, defend them.

why?

because there are always people that have a need to have belief in a stable world and forces that provide for that.

people going to something is not a measure of its validity.
actually, the fact that people flock to it should be the first warning of its falsehood!

Bravey this is not athiesm my freind.....this sounds like the theist understanding of athiesm..

welcome to UM by the way, it was a good post Uhma ..

There is no dishonor in this.

To me religion is a system designed to answer and understand the "big questions" and a way to live one's life by.

Is this an accurate depiction?

Atheism tries to answer the big questions by believing that God doesn't exist...think of it as "when you find all the wrong answers you'll be left with the right answer" kind of deal.

Now do Atheists live their lives by Atheism? It would depend on the individual Atheist and the individual view on what Atheism is. Not all theists live their lives by their religion either though.

Funny how you would leave out the heart of the definition to proclaim the validity of your own point.

Yes, I have beliefs ( coffee flavored ice cream is THE best); and opinions (it is insane that people get paid millions of dollars a year to PLAY A GAME), but does that have ANYTHING to do with the veneration of a deity or deities? I BELEIVE that we should assist one another whenever possible. Does that qualify as a religion? Or is it my desire that people will help me when I need it if I help them when they need it?

This entire arguement that a disbelief in "A" equals a religion devoted to the >>disbeleif in "A"<< is nuts, and appears to be an attempt to 'level the field" in that beleivers can say that atheists are in the same spiritual soup as themselves. Kind of the same way that pushers of "intelligent design" claim it is a "science".

So you say that people who believe in Santa Claus are part of a religion?


Ok now you are just playing games

I agree BNW is broadening the term to wide in my opinion. A religion has to have to at least be about answering the universe's and life's big questions.

Religion doesn't have have a deity to be considered a religion that much is concrete truth. Now whether some sort of spirituality is needed is debateable.

Belief system huh? but not believing in any kind of diety...so...those that BELIEVE in ie - World peace...in your eyes MUST be a religion??

How about lil kids..(true that mentioned this) ..BELIEF in Santa <--another religion in your eyes?

I have a huntch that you are just a religious person that has heard a lot over the past go on and on and on and on, about religious people and their beliefs, that you like a few others feel as though it is some kind of weird insult, and decided to say - Well if they can bang on about us being religious cuz we believe and follow God...well then lets say that they too are part of a religion...but we will say a God doesnt have to matter hmmm sounds about right to me

Atheism agrees with only a small amount of the definition of religion. I don't think that makes it a religion.



re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.


1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. (No.)

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. (No.)


2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. (No.)


3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. (No.)


4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (Varies from atheist to atheist.)

What atheists do not believe in is what differentiates them from those traits that allegedly qualify a religion. Saying Atheists were first theists, because they dis-believe in the the god of theism, is like calling satanists christians because they revere the adversary to the christians god. Wouldn't that be a sight, trying to convince a satanist that's true.

"No! But really, you have to accept the judeo-christian construct, to worship one of the adversaries to it! Really! It's true, here look at this Wiki link."

indeed GW, indeed.

Be careful though, you are treading dangerously close to that often deemed offensive language of some christians that goes "no matter what you believe in, you believe in the christian god, even if you don't know it".

Perhaps that has been the end-game Brave has been persuing all along.....

Yeah, I'm prone to making blanket statements and fooling myself I'm really just a child of yahweh.
Now if you'll excuse me I believe I'm going to have a devil dog, or two. Oops! Is that a sin?! Nahhh, probably not, as long as I don't enjoy it.

I think some religious people like that make such claims, is because they KNOW they are from a minority group..they don't like it, so heck even my dog Charlie, he looks as though he believes in chasing cats, he MUST be part of some weird religion...go figure...and as for the rest of us, yea sure we are all children of God whether we like it or not...before long each one of us, the sec we even utter the words - OMG <--that makes you religious!!